I'm leaning more and more to Joe Biden for VP, but I do think it will be Hillary in the end.

[David Zephyr]

I can't help but believe that Joe Biden would be a great Vice President and an asset to Barack Obama in the Executive Branch.

I'm not sure how it helps him win an election in November, but I have really grown to like Senator Biden, as many of you know.

[jgraz]

1. It will never be Hillary. Never.

Biden would be a good choice, except for the fact that he's another Senator. I think Obama will feel a lot of pressure to select a governor.

[thoughtcrime1984]

4. I'm think Sebelius, maybe Schweitzer.

He SHOULD have someone with governing experience. I do not believe he will go with a military person, because he would be admitting weakness in matters regarding our military. I do not believe he will choose another Senator, because that never seems to work.

[BeyondGeography]

24. I agree; the other two contenders (Richardson and Kaine) are governors as well

[Qutzupalotl]

68. I have to disagree.

Obama, for all his good and wise ideas, does not have a military background. That *is* a weakness when comparing with McCain. The public's perception of McCain is of a war hero, and the Republicans are likely to make national security (and the attendant fear) the main issues of the campaign -- if they detect weakness. A Biden, Webb or Clark as VP would deflect much of that criticism. Clark has the advantage of not being a sitting senator, and has what amounts to governing experience -- providing healthcare for refugees, etc.

[roguevalley]

80. I saw Clark sitting next to Obama at a meeting the other day and

it sure looked purty. :) I do love those two men.

[PoliticalAmazon]

84. Clark carries too much baggage, especially when the opponent is...

someone who is considered to be a bona fide "war hero."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/PoliticalAmazon/17
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/PoliticalAmazon/18

[roseBudd]

123. Clark is a 4 star General, McCain is a West Point Legacy admission, whose fame is derived

from being a POW. McSame was in the bottom of his class. Like Bush.

[jgraz]

127. One correction: McCain went to Annapolis (Navy)

But you're dead-on about how much he sucks. ;)

[roseBudd]

138. Thanks! I wish I had his class placement stat handy, bottom 5 or something like that

reminds me of Bush. Legacy admission, low performing

[jgraz]

141. Yep, 5th from the bottom.

And I think those other four guys got screwed.

[Radio_Lady]

142. What? He wasn't a stellar student? Fifth from the bottom... out of how many Navy grads?

Thanks for the info.

Cordially,

Radio Lady Ellen Kimball

[jgraz]

154. I believe that was out of 819. I don't care enough about him to look it up.

[Radio_Lady]

162. Thanks for sharing what you know. I'll be voting Democratic and could care less myself.

[jgraz]

173. OK, I looked it up: 894th out of 899

And this guy got a plum job as a carrier pilot, and kept it after crashing *3* planes. It's good to be the Admiral's son.

[Radio_Lady]

175. Thanks for your research. No brains, no feelings. I'll remember that.

In his case, no brains ARE no brains.

[Clintonista2]

17. Is this your first campaign?

[jgraz]

18. Oh yay. It must be the children's hour.

:eyes:

[Beacool]

35. No, it's just his animosity toward Hillary.

As he well stated on another thread when he insisted that Hillary will "NEVER" be president.

I guess that he has a crystal ball.......

[jgraz]

37. No, it's called common sense. You should look into it.

[Beacool]

45. That's just your opinion.

Not necessarily common sense.

[jgraz]

48. An opinion founded in common sense. Not in your so-called "Hillary hate"

Seriously, it's time you guys gave that tired meme a rest.

[Shae]

54. Actually,

she said "animosity toward Hillary."

I call that PROGRESS!!!!;)

[jgraz]

55. You do have a point.

I guess at this point, we should take what we can get. ;)

[JoFerret]

168. What "meme" are you on

now?

Is it near Pluto?

[Clintonista2]

67. Common sense says a candidate who earned over 18 million votes in the primary

Would be a fine choice for VP.

[jgraz]

77. No, that's called "silliness". You've always had a problem keeping those two straight

My common sense would say that a person whose ideology and campaign tactics were soundly rejected by the voters would be a TERRIBLE choice for VP.

Of course, the common sense that I'm talking about is not whether Hillary would be a "fine" choice, but whether she will actually BE the choice. Can you really see Obama selecting a candidate who 1) represents establishment politics in the minds of most voters 2) is viewed as dishonest by most voters 3) openly questioned his fitness as CinC and 4) is now despised by the vast majority of the Democrats' African American base?

[Clintonista2]

81. Soundly rejected by the voters? Sorry hun, she took the popular vote

All of your questions can be answered simply by looking at Obama's VP shortlist. Go take a look at it and tell me which name is right at the top.

[jgraz]

94. Let's leave the primary delusions behind, shall we?

If you want to have a serious discussion on VP choices, fine. If you want to propagate bullshit to try and make Obama's nomination look less than legitimate, you'll have to bother someone else. On a different board.

[Patchuli]

104. How much of that so-called "popular vote"

came out of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" would be an interesting question.

Could you please rejoin the Dem party and help us win instead of going over and over tired old ground? We have a lot of work to do!

[jgraz]

105. The "popular vote" meme is a lie intent on attacking Obama's legitimacy as the nominee

I hope DU's housecleaning is over soon.

[roseBudd]

124. In Ohio alone over 200,000 Rs switched to D for the primary, many bragged about it to poll workers

[Patchuli]

143. So Hillary certainly wasn't going to get those same votes

in November if she had won the nomination. Don't the die-hard Hillary supporters understand it was bogus?

[roseBudd]

148. Not only do they lay claim to every Operation Chaos vote they don't mind counting racist's votes

[Patchuli]

151. I wish they'd put We the People

ahead of She.

[Flying Dream Blues]

108. Sorry, have to correct you...she didn't take the popular vote. nt

[jgraz]

110. He knows that. This is about attacking Obama, not supporting Hillary.

[roguevalley]

137. popular vote if you leave out at least four states and such. if you

truly admire her allegiance to counting every vote, you will drop that talking point. it would require disenfranchising four states to make her the popular vote winner. but then, that doesn't seem to bother people fixated on making her first. I don't get it. and don't tell me caucus states don't count everyone's vote. that is the rules, joolz. until they change, everyone needs to suck it up and accept that she didn't.

[StevieM]

90. You have no basis for speaking on behalf of all those voters. I have seen polls indicating

that many AA's want Hillary to be the running mate. She may represent the establishment to you, but not to all voters--that was just a campaign talking point.

You might want Obama to pick someone else--but he already has your vote. It's oter voters he needs to win over/lock up. He'll have to use his own judgement about the best way of doing that.

Steve

[jgraz]

96. Really?? "You've seen polls"??? Man, I'm convinced.

Well, not really. Howzabout you find a link to those polls you've "seen"?


For myself, here's my "basis" for speaking on behalf of voters:

Is Hillary Clinton dishonest? A lot of Americans think so

Clinton Losing Support Among African-Americans

Exit polls: Clinton viewed as attacking unfairly

And finally, here are two of many exit polls (North Carolina, Indiana) showing that "change" voters go overwhelmingly for Obama.


But of course, unless you'd spent the last 6 months in a coma, you already knew all this.



OK, I've shown you mine, now you show me yours. I'll be over here listening to the cricket noises.

[StevieM]

113. Yeah, I guess you have me beat when it comes to saving articles and linking them. But here are a

few things to consider:

1) Obama supporters have been shouting from the rooftops that losing a group in the primaries doesn't mean you will lose them in a GE. I think Clinton would have done very well in the GE amongst AAs if nominated.

2) The FML story was shot down. The Republicans were trying to attach an amendment about Gays in the Military and Hillary lobied to keep the issues seperate.

BTW, it's funny how all those stories came out at exactly the same time. That seems improbable.

3) No argument that Obama and the media succesfully delivered a narrative that Clinton attacked unfairly--all the while he ripped her apart, often on personal terms, saying that she will "Say or do anything to win," and calling her "the status quo."

But you know what....none of this stopped her from receiving 18 million votes. And she got more votes then him starting with the TX and OH primaries, when her "bad behavior" had begun.

Anyway, this is pointless. This whole thing started not because BO was being attacked, but because I asked you to stop belittling Hillary. If you want to bring the party together then it doesn't help to be making blanket statements about how she can never win the White House. We don't know what the future holds, and it is pointless to mock Clinton supporters who love her and who believe in her.

Steve

[jgraz]

121. That's ok. You have me beat when it comes to making shit up.

[roseBudd]

125. Really? Obama said those things you typed in quotes? Links please.

[StevieM]

145. Here are some links

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/obama_memo_hillary_pulling_out_all_the_stops_to_win_south_carolina.php

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-hillary-w.html

There are others, but it gets a bit redundant. He has called her the status quo (or some variant of those words) many times. Don't you remember that ad that he ran in Indiana where he called her "the same old Washington politicians?"

Steve

[roseBudd]

147. OMG! Status Quo! That is such a sexist thing to say. She is the status quo

[StevieM]

149. How is she the status quo? Hillary, Edwards and Obama all want to reverse the policies of the

Bush Administration. There is no basis for calling her that except that she is married to a former president.

My point was that Obama went on the attack plenty of times.

Steve

[roseBudd]

169. To quote her husband, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"

[roguevalley]

139. cough. amazing.

[Beacool]

150. I don't personally know any AAs who hate Hillary.

They may prefer Obama and some may even be disappointed with certain things that occurred during the primary, but they don't revile her (nor Bill either for that matter). BTW, I also know AAs who were Hillary supporters and even campaigned for her. Speaking in absolutes is always a sure way to be wrong.

[jgraz]

155. Well, your personal experience certainly trumps those professional exit pollsters.

:eyes:

[Beacool]

156. Your Hillary hate is duly noted.

:crazy:

[jgraz]

157. Your inability to converse as an adult is a bit more obvious.

Seriously, don't you get tired of being this passive-aggressive hate-monger all the time? Do you do this with the people in your personal life? God, I hope not.

[Beacool]

159. You have expressed your dislike for Hillary throughout this thread

and you have the nerve to make a snide remark about me??? Too funny!!!

End of conversation, you are now boring me.

[jgraz]

160. You're mistaking my dislike for disingenuous posers as hate for Hillary.

Of course, I'd expect nothing less from you.

[PoliticalAmazon]

87. ITA. I would hope Obama would avoid candidates with a lot of baggage....

They would detract from the ticket, not add to it.

In the end, only Obama knows what he anticipates needing in a VP once he is in office. His decisions have been very good to date, and it seems logical to assume that he will continue in the same pattern of behavior.

[StevieM]

86. Yep, that was in response to my post. Ironically, it was a post appealing to another poster to

show a little less hatred and condescension for the sake of party unity.

No such luck. He is just filled with animosity. And you know something? This is the kind of arrogant attitude that historically has characterized losing GE campaigns.

Steve

[jgraz]

97. What I have animosity for is people on this board who still push Hillary's 2012 strategy.

When you talk about Hillary being the nominee in 2012, you are de facto rooting against Obama. There are plenty of boards where you can spew that bile, but here we're trying to help win an election.

[StevieM]

111. The 2012 strategy doesn't exist and it never did. That was just a smear designed to influence the

results in 2008. Hillary has been very helpful to Obama and will continue to be so.

Your post was not in response to a mention of 2012--I also mentioned 2016, which obviously implies an Obama victory. Your post was about taking the opportunity to put Hillary down.

Steve

[jgraz]

112. You do realize we can just go back and look at what you wrote, don't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6383188&mesg_id=6383776

THEY can't get over their hatred? You just took the opportunity to smugly proclaim that

Hillary will NEVER be the nominee. You don't know that. We have no way of knowing what will happen in 2012 or 2016. Why don't you show a little decency and respect to people who you are trying to bring on board instead of using the occasion of your victory to make nasty declarations as if they are somehow validated because your candidate won.

Quit trying to hid behind "meaning of is" parsing. You know exactly what you are suggesting with posts like this.

[StevieM]

114. LOL, now I know how Hillary felt. Having your every word scrutinized and its meaning twisted around

beyond any fair recognition.

Steve

[jgraz]

118. Please don't play innocent. This has been a trademark of your posts during the primary.

For example:

"Voting against Obama in the 2012 Primaries is the only thing getting him my vote this time (eom)"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6318188#6320679

"McCain will be the next president, Hillary will be the next Senate Majority leader and Obama will be the next McGovern."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6083113&mesg_id=6084512

"I will vote for Obama in the 2008 GE. If he wins then I will vote against him in the 2012 Democratic Primaries."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6083113&mesg_id=6084672

"I think we'll survive four years of McCain, especially since we will know from the get-go that he is only serving one term. Then Clinton or O'Malley can come out in 2012 and destroy Mitt Romney.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6083113&mesg_id=6085836

"Hillary will be one of the nation's most prominent senators, campaigning for Dems around the country. Obama will be one of the Democratic senators desperately in need of her support, as he tries to win a close re-election while living down his humiliating defeat."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6306608&mesg_id=6308661

"it was a national disgrace what was done by Obama. If he wins I look forward to voting against him in the 2012 primaries. I can't imagine that he won't be such a terrible president that he doesn't draw a primary challenger."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6296588&mesg_id=6299007

"just the same type of hatred that typifies the arrogant Obama movement. You know....he doesn't really need my vote. He is probably going to lose 48 states no matter what I do."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6296588&mesg_id=6297264

"Let's just hope that whatever Democrat defeats him in the 2012 primaries is able to defeat Mitt Romney."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6296588&mesg_id=6297758

"I hope you will give the Democrat who defeats Obama in 2012 a chance (eom)"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6296588&mesg_id=6298471

"eagerly await voting against him in the 2012 Democratic Primaries. I can't imagine that he won't be such a terrible president that he doesn't draw an opponent."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6293955&mesg_id=6296380

"McCain will only serve one term. If Obama doesn't learn some decency then maybe I can wait until 2012."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6216954&mesg_id=6217899

"I don't know who our nominee will be in 2012, but you have no evidence that it cannot be Hillary."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6276428&mesg_id=6277347

"I will actively oppose his renomination in 2012"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6282057&mesg_id=6292100

"you should expect to be disappointed in 2012 "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6288602&mesg_id=6298970

"you can also expect to be disappointed with the outcome of this election."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6300591

"I am already looking forward to the 2012 Democratic Primaries."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6300821&mesg_id=6305266

"I will vote against him in the 2012 Democratic Primaries."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6300591&mesg_id=6305341

"We can pick a different Democrat in 2012 who hopefully won't be dragged down too much by the fact that our party has elected one of the worst presidents in American history."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6298513&mesg_id=6298730

"I'll just have to hope that the party unites behind which ever Democrat defeats Obama in the 2012 Primaries."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6308062&mesg_id=6308806

"I've already resigned myself to the fact that he will be one of the worst presidents in American history."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6308477&mesg_id=6309024





Quite the record you've established here. And that's just during our so-called "cooling off" period, after Obama had already clinched the nomination.

Still want to pretend I'm twisting your words?

[StevieM]

144. LOL, I can't believe you've taken such an interest in me. Look...I said I would vote for him. That

is a lot better then some Hillary-haters who said that they wouldn't have voted for her.

My point is that I wasn't looking to fight. I didn't see why your post about Hillary's future hypothetical electability was neccesary. Had you not said that then there would have been no exchange.

I am really trying here, jgraz. Will you bear with me while I try very hard to learn to like this guy? I've toned down my posts somewhat, I've made some substantive analyses, and I haven't been banned like some others have.

Steve

[jgraz]

153. It's actually hard to find a post of yours that *doesn't* talk about Obama losing in 2012

In honesty, I think your use of the "2012" reference was a red cape in front of a bull. I see this as someone basically saying that the best candidate we've had in a long time (not perfect, just very good) will lose -- either this year or in 2012.

The reason I jumped on it was a) it pissed me off (always my favorite reason) and b) I honestly think that Hillary's presidential ambitions are over. My hope is that she'll feel freed up by this loss and turn into the next Ted Kennedy of the Senate. I've always thought that she was naturally far more progressive than her husband, but she always had to compromise to win the next election.

[roguevalley]

136. he always steps on clark. My boy is alive because clark was his

co in Bosnia. I admire him for his 'skill set' as he always calls it -- pure army that man-- and his compassion, his smarts, his guts and his love and dedication to our country, our party, his family and the truth. I would vote for him with a smile, something that i would not do for any of the names that have been put out lately, especially sibelius who is bilderberg. this person needs to read more.

[PoliticalAmazon]

82. ITA. I don't think it will be Clark, either....

Both of them carry so much baggage that they would detract from the Obama ticket, not add to it.

I'm ambivalent about the rest. Webb intrigues me.

But only Obama knows what he foresees as being needed from a VP once he is president.

I still think he will surprise us all. He seems to very much like to play his cards from close to his vest, and he seems to like to surprise folks, as well.

Interesting times....

[jgraz]

99. Curious: aside from supporting Hillary, what is Clark's baggage?

He really seems to be going to bat for Obama, and he has plenty of things to recommend him as a VP choice. I'm not really pulling for him, I'm just wondering about the "baggage".

[PoliticalAmazon]

101. I think his negatives overwhelm his positives, especially when...

Obama's opponent is, rightfully or wrongfully, perceived by most as a bonafide "war hero."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/PoliticalAmazon/17

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/PoliticalAmazon/17

[jgraz]

102. Hmmm... someone really needs to go after McSame's bogus "war hero" status

The guy was a crap pilot who endangered (and likely killed) his shipmates, got shot down and started collaborating with the enemy four days after being captured. His torture story is also suspect, as many of his fellow POWs reported no torture at that same camp.

[PoliticalAmazon]

106. ITA, but during a GE, it doesn't work. It will take a more long-term effort....

with lots of planning.

In a GE, it's just not enough time to do the gradual education process necessary to overturn such a huge myth about a war hero. It would take a great deal of finesse and using non-campaign-politician-related sources.

I think Obama is handling it the best way possible: honoring McCain for his service to our country, and then criticizing McCain for his lack of support for soldiers/veterans when he himself has reaped many, many benefits related to his service to our country.

[jgraz]

109. Look what they did to Kerry. And he had truth on his side.

In this case, we're dealing with a self-described war hero with almost no corroborating evidence. Most of his fellow POWs will not back his story, and there is plenty of documentation available that indicate McCain's version of events is exaggerated, to say the least.

The fact that this guy is lying about his military record should be enough to disqualify him as President. Of course, that didn't work out so well for us with the Shrub...

[PoliticalAmazon]

119. They did it to Kerry because Kerry laid down and took it.....

I don't expect for a nanosecond that McCain and the GOP would remain mute in the face of an attack on McCain's war-hero status.

Many of us were frustrated and furious with Kerry for not having learned from watching the Bushes tear down Al Gore that he must immediately and aggressively fire back on the GOP when they launch attacks on character, positions, whatever. By remaining passive and not firing back, Kerry allowed lies about him and his policies become the truth for many voters.

Thank heavens, Obama seems to have been paying attention to current events, and has learned the importance of dealing aggressively with the GOP and their BS allegations.

[karynnj]

165. Kerry is trying to help Obama with dealing with the attacks on him - and has been very good

In 2004, the norm until then when addressing lies was to give the media enough information to see that the weight of the evidence is on your side. After the batted away attacks in the spring, the media had more than enough to reject as lies the attacks on Kerry's service.

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean. That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The Then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

The media had all of this in April. The SBVT were NEVER asked for any proof and they had none - not even a cable sent saying Kerry was a problem, a photo, nothing. In addition, the Kerry people within a week or so of the August attack gave the media 36 pages documenting inconsistencies and provable lies in the SBVT book. How many lies did they have to prove before it was ruled out. (The Rather story was rejected when documents couldn't be authenticated, though their content could)

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses just gave the media content for "on the other hand, Clinton says ......" In both of those cases early Clinton responses were lies, replaced by more lies until partially admitting the truth.

In Kerry's case, his comments before the firefighters was a clean, clear, concise statement that the truth was what the NAVY SAID 3o years before. While the media took Clinton's half truths and didn't call him on them, they opted not to give coverage to Kerry's response. Imagine that the MSM wouldn't have covered Obama's speech on Wright and instead had various blacks, who may or not have even been to Chicago, on saying they went to that church and Obama was always enthusiastically cheering Wright ... and they had argued with him that someone needed to get Wright to cool some of this and Obama disagreed saying that he agreed with all of this. That IS in effect what they did to Kerry - and it was a media character assassination. It is to Kerry's credit that he has continued fighting for what he believes in, continuing to speak in the same reasonable way without letting them make him embittered.





They also proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out.

[roseBudd]

126. A 4 Star General trumps a POW that crashesjets any day.

[jgraz]

128. Especially one who rolled over on his country 4 days after he was captured.

[StevieM]

85. This is the second post in which you smugly proclaimed "never, never". You do realize that you

don't get much of a say. One vote in the primaries and no vote over Obama's running mate.

In response to your earlier post...I am sorry that you are so hateful. And I am doing just fine, regardless of who wins the 2012 or 2016 primaries. But you still don't know what will happen in the future. You expressed your hatred of Hillary this time, but that didn't stop her from getting half the vote.

Steve

[PoliticalAmazon]

89. Voicing an opinion about Hillary's suitability as VP is not "hatred"...

and it is disingeuous to spin it as "hatred."

She carries a lot of baggage now. There is no reason for Obama to bring on someone as VP who will simply cause more problems for him as president.

Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[StevieM]

93. I agree. But he didn't just say that she shouldn't be VP. In the earlier thread he

belittled Hillary supporters, telling us that she would NEVER be the nominee and NEVER be president and mocked the notion that we think such a thing is possible. He wasn't on the defensive at the time--there was no heated exchange. He simply piped in so that he could put us down.

Steve

[PoliticalAmazon]

95. Ahh-hah! Makes sense now. There was no reference to a previous thread or post...

post or thread, which can be confusing to the reader.

Perhaps a link might make it easier for peeps like me to keep up with y'all.

[jgraz]

98. Yes I did -- in response to your rooting for Hillary in 2012

If you want to push that divisive crap, there are plenty of dead-ender boards that allow it.

And saying that Hillary will NEVER be president is simply stating a widely held and easily supportable belief. Consider it a public service to bring you back to the reality-based community.

[jgraz]

100. More "Hillary Hate" (a.k.a hard data) for you

Indies not warm to Obama-Clinton ticket

So in your book, unless we push a VP nominee who will hurt us in the fall, we're guilty of "hatred". Wow, you've really moved on in the spirit of unity. :eyes:

[StevieM]

146. I wasn't pushing a joint-ticket. I'm not sure if it's a good idea (for totally different reasons

then the ones you are arguing).

I think those poll numbers are less impressive then a standard poll in which you ask people about McCain vs. Obama and ask people about McCain/Romney vs. Obama/Clinton and see how the numbers change.

But it's all theoretical. There are a thousand factors to consider and in the end Obama will make a choice that has both upsides and downsides (they all do).

I said you were guilty of hatred for taking the time to gleefully proclaim that Hillary will never be president. That's all. And I would be happy to drop it.

Steve

[Beacool]

152. Stevie, you are wasting your time.

The guy hates Hillary and that's that. Why bother with him? It's not worth it.

:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

2. Alternately, we could break our trend of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

...and go with Schweitzer.

Nothing against Biden. I mostly like him. He still doesn't have the rural America appeal (Obama's only real weak spot) that Schweitzer has.

Yes, we'd be open to the "experience" critics, but I think people would rather see change and somebody they can relate to than "experience".

...plus, Schweitzer would do wonders with the "Democrats want to take our guns away" crowd...

[David Zephyr]

7. MercutioATC, my OP confesses I don't know how Biden would help in an election, but...

I'm leaning to Biden only on what he would bring to Obama in the White House.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. He's better as Sec. of State. He's a better diplomat than his legislative policies

dictate. Plus, he does nothing for Obama in terms of generating support among blue collar, working class Americans. Joe Biden is "Mr. MBNA" and a DLC-Corporate Democrat. But he is a fantastic diplomat and is much better on foreign policy. I can never forget how he and the Senate Judiciary Committee mistreated Anita Hill.

[Skwmom]

20. I think Schweitzer has a huge likability factor.

Which would help keep the delegates at the convention on board.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. I like him, too! He'll be good for the Northwestern and Midwestern states.

Richardson would be good for the Southwestern and perhaps can generate support among other Latinos in the South (sans older Cubans in FL) and the Northeast.

[JI7]

3. why do you think it will be Hillary ?

i'm not counting her out. but from the things i have been reading it looks like it wont be her.

[David Zephyr]

8. Thank you for asking. Because she will have nearly 50% of all the delegates in Denver.

I have been an elected delegate to two national conventions and the VP position is voted on by all the delegates in a state by state roll call.

Having been in that environment, having real experience with that dynamic, I can tell you that her delegates will be wanting her to be on the ticket. Only Hillary alone can stop it.

Try to picture how loyal her supporters here at the DU have been, how tenacious even in the very face of defeat and then magnify that loyalty, that passion, that devotion by 1,000 and you will be able to imagine the make-up of an actual, real-life, flesh and blood, bonefide Hillary Clinton delegate that will be attending that convention.

Obama knows this, too.

I have a 180 degree different spin on the Patti Solis Doyle appointment as head of the VP staff for Obama: It's Obama's way to to tell Mark Penn to go and walk off a short pier. Penn is the one that should have been let go by the Clintons, but the very unmanly Mark Penn let Patti be the sacrificial lamb. Having Patti assures that Mark Penn will never, ever be part of any Obama Administration, doesn't it?

There will be thousands of screaming Hillary Clinton delegates in that convention hall in Denver. They will rock the building and raise the ceiling for her.

Obama and his team know it.

It will probably be Hillary.

[NYC_SKP]

11. The primaries preceding your last two conventions were nothing like this one.

So I'm not sure how applicable your experiences are, in this case.

Are you suggesting something other than this?:

1. Obama names his running mate.

2. Obama's majority of the delegates vote in support of his VP choice, that vote is higher than to vote for HRC.

3. Hillary supporters scream a lot, but there is not an overturning of majority support for his choice.

I mean, don't you think Obama is aware of all of this plan (if it exists) and has a strategy for successfully countering it, or do you think he's OK with naming her his running-mate?

[David Zephyr]

13. I'm saying that only Hillary can stop it.

You are right in this point: this convention will not be like anything before it because both Hillary and Obama will have almost the identical number of delegates inside that drum of a structure. The Democratic Party has not seen a convention so closely matched in delegates in a very, very long time.

As I mentioned above, take the average Hillary supporter here at the DU and then magnify that passion and loyalty by 1,000 times and you will have an appropriate estimation as to the make-up of a real live Hillary Clinton supporter in Denver. Her supporters here are tepid compared to these individuals. We are talking loyal and very politically active people.

And don't believe that it's not just Hillary's near 50% of those delegates inside that echo chamber in Denver, there are Obama delegates who also want her to be VP. Maybe not a lot, but enough to chalk up more than 50%. Both Obama and Axelrod know this.

I actually think that he is OK with naming her and the so-called "vetting" will not matter.

And while you are free to dismiss my "experience" in that environment, it is never the less more than idle speculation on my part.

In 1992, as a Brown delegate a very small number of us caused havoc at the convention and poor Ron Brown could not even be heard during his speech as he was drowned out. Let me tell you this, this Obama supporter knows full well that 50% of truly die-hard Hillary supporters are not going to sit on their hands in that convention hall. They are connected every day in caucuses, in their hotels, at their breakfasts, lunches and dinners the entire week.

She has nearly 50% of all the delegates. That's nothing to sneeze at.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Thanks, and by the way

I wasn't bashing your experience, my statement, "So I'm not sure how applicable your experiences are, in this case." was qualified by the title of my post, "The primaries preceding your last two conventions were nothing like this one."

I tried to word it carefully to avoid any sense that I was dismissing your experience, which is greater than mine and is valuable, I'm certain.

Assuming you're right about what might happen, I suppose it won't actually come down to a showdown at the convention and they will reach a concord before then to avoid the drama. What do you think?

[David Zephyr]

16. I agree.

If Hillary wants the position, it will be hard -- read that next to impossible for the reasons above --- for Obama not to offer it to her. He wants an upbeat convention and he deserves it.

I agree with you that there shouldn't be a shakedown at the convention because Hillary pretty much can prevent it either way, but she has a lot more clout than many of us in Obama's camp (count me as one) would like her to have. But there it is: 50%.

I truly believe that she will be the VP choice. It's not the one I would want Obama to make, but that's what I believe and won't believe otherwise until we all hear her say that she doesn't want it and that she endorses someone that Obama has chosen. 50%.

[Stephanie]

44. She negates his entire argument of CHANGE

It will never happen. A) Her dirty campaign was unforgiveable; B) She loses us independents/undecideds/Republicans; C) She's a Senator - he needs a governor on the ticket; D) Her IWR vote and her lifetime in Washington negate the CHANGE message.

[David Zephyr]

59. Your point is a strong one as far as the GE goes, Stephanie, but...

My OP isn't suggesting that Hillary be his VP, but that because she will have nearly 50 of the delegates in Denver --- who all will be more (if you can believe it) passionate about her than even her supporters at the DU are --- she will more than likely be the VP pick.

Your point about his message or as, John Q. Citizen calls it his "narrative" is a strong point, but that goes to the general election and even to governing. Barack still has to make it through Denver and she has nearly 50% of all the delegates their for the VP roll call on that fateful Wednesday night...and there will be percentage of Obama delegates who will want her as his VP, too.

My choice for Barack to actually be his vice-president to be there and assist him as a loyal partner who brings a lot to him in governing (leaving aside the campaign) is narrowing down to a few people who I think would really be swinging 100% for Barack and the American people and one of those is Senator Biden.

I don't disagree with you about Hillary clouding Barack's message, but there still stands the fact that nearly 50% of all those in Denver are going to want her on the ticket. I think it is inevitable and that Obama already knows it.

[my3boyz]

25. You truly are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. Obama

will not choose Hillary. He won't allow himself to be pressured to choose her.

[Inuca]

39. He did not say that

that's what he wants, just that that's what he thinks is going to happen.

[David Zephyr]

60. Why would I be disappointed?

I don't want her to be the VP. Read the OP.

The convention chooses the VP and there will be more than 50% there in Denver who will want her on the ticket. That's just the stark reality of the status quo.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. The delegates are smarter than you give them credit for, and I know you are, too!

Whomever Obama picks, the delegates would be loathed to overturn his choice if that choice is not Hillary. The delegates will not go against the wishes of their nominee, especially when he is doing well. If he continues to do well, they will have no standing to choose Hillary. He doesn't need her to win. He's doing just fine without her. It won't be Hillary if Obama doesn't want her. And if the Democrats really want to win, they will back whatever choice *he* makes.

[Inuca]

38. Very interesting

I hope you are wrong. I agree though that probably Hillary alone can stop it, and I hope she will, either willingly or she can be convinced to, as being in everyone's long term interest, including hers.

[David Zephyr]

62. It's really up to Hillary.

And thanks for your comments.

Some read my OP as an endorsement for Hillary as VP and immediately comes the knee-jerk responses of attack.

I don't want her as VP, but I am pointing out that she will have a screaming, passionate 50% of the delegates in Denver who are even more passionate about her than her supporters at the DU and you are one of the few here who understood what I was trying to say. For that, I thank you.

[paulk]

42. interesting

I too think that if Hillary wants to be VP she gets it, for the reasons you state.

The Hillary delegates are not going to go into the night quietly. The Democratic Convention isn't the Comintern, and you don't make people's anger over this nomination go away by tombstoning them, like is happening in the brave new world of "unity" we're seeing at DU.

[karynnj]

51. Do you really think that if Obama before the convention

selects XXXXXX that more than half the delegates would overrule his choice? I have never been a delegate - I ask this just because it astonishes me.

I can't imagine - say in 2000, after the hoopla of the Leiberman announcement, that the delegates would get together and pass the word - "we don't like him - he is a disaster" or in 2004, for the delegates - mostly far to the left of version 2004 Edwards - saying this sends the wrong message and picking say, Durbin, who was a closer ally of Kerry's anyway.

I really don't think it will be HRC, but there will be major concessions to her. Why no HRC, the ticket would be too bottom heavy because of WJC and if HRC couldn't keep him on message, Obama doesn't have a prayer of a chance. In addition, it anchors the change message. It may be that HRC is the only VP choice who could be a negative. I do think it has to be someone new, though experienced.

[David Zephyr]

64. I don't know the answer to that question, because only Barack and Hillary do.

Obama will not arbitrarily choose someone for VP before the convention and make an announcement about it and thereby slap Hillary in the face. It would be stupid to do so and I don't believe that Barack even operates that way or that it is in his nature. He will have to consult with her on this position at the very, very minimum and if she has told him that she wants it, then he will offer it to her and it will be a card kept held tightly until the last moment. I think that the real reason that Patti Solis Doyle was picked to be the VP Chief of Staff was not as a "non-welcome mat" to Hillary, but precisely one to let Mark Penn and his ilk know that they will never be part of anything remotely involved with Barack. Penn sacrificed Doyle to save his own greedy neck and it is Penn, not Doyle who the Obama people really dislike.

[Inuca]

69. Do you see Doyle's firing

as Penn's decision (and if so, why?), or am I reading you incorrectly?

[karynnj]

122. Interesting

I know that long ago, the VP was often not announced until the convention - but Gore, Leiberman and Edwards all were. My memory before that on the timing is foggier. (I think Eagleton was selected at the convention.

[Inuca]

71. "but there will be major concessions to her"

I keep hearing that, and I am not sure what it actually means. Policy-wise, there were no major differences, right? hence not much of a concession. And things like a prominent role at the convention, etc., that's window dressing. Then what does "major concession" actually mean?

[karynnj]

120. Prominent roles in the convention mean a lot

Consider that Obama may not win. Assume that Bill and HRC manage to give very good speeches that reach people's hearts and change any negative opinions. THey might also want to push many of their people for positions in the Obama administration.

These are people who have spent the last 7 years in think tanks and lobbying firms as a "government in excile. Enough of these people and Bill and HRC remain very powerful. Remember people here and in the media speaking of the end of the Clinton era - in a tacit admission that neither Gore or Kerry was ever really given the reins of the Democratic party - and both were pushed aside when Bush took and stayed in office. They want to remain the top players otr at least among the top.

(PS - I'd love to hear David Z.'s ideas on this - as from earlier posts he knows more than me.

[Inuca]

133. Thanks

Pushing their people in positions of power makes sense. As to the role at the convention: it definitely was very important for Obama, but he was a complete unknown at the time, I am not sure that good speeches from either of the Clintons (or both) would make too much of a difference + I think that a prominent role for them is a given, bargaining or not. But what do I know... :-).

[karynnj]

164. I agree that Obama's speech catapaulted him to a differerent level

but it was Kerry's recognition of his quality and potential that gave him the opportunity - and he did an excellent job!

As to the Clinton's getting prominent roles, there are questions of what they would have. No nominee had Carter give a speech after he lost until Kerry gave him a slot. I can't imagine either Clinton not getting a slot. But, in 2004, there were only 3 hours that got broadcast network coverage - Clinton's, Edwards' and Kerry's. (Given the quality of speeches - it would have been better for Obama, not Clinton to have been covered - though I don't know if it was Kerry or the media who decided.

In 2004, every opponent got a slot - even Sharpton. Assunimg HRC is not the VP, what might be at stake is deciding whether to have one of Kennedy/Kerry/Gore splitting a covered hour with Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton - or the Clintons again getting an hour. If the Clintons had no power, they could be given non-prime time speeches and the prime time could be split between Kennedy (if he regains enough strength or if not maybe Caroline representing him and herself), Kerry and Gore. This would be defining them as the elder statesmen. Both Kennedy and Kerry gave brilliant speeches making a case for Obama when they endorsed him. With Clinton, even his advocacy for HRC quickly switched to speaking of Bill's accomplishments. Putting them in non-prime positions, signals a power shift in the party. (Not doing it signals that they are still in the background and in control and that perception may be important to the Clintons. )

An interesting question is what if HRC is the VP - how would Bill Clinton, day 1; Hillary, day 3. and Obama, day 4 look if that were the coverage picked. What happens to change? and What does that do to making Obama look Presidential? Then consider that that is a preview for EVERY joint appearance.

[Inuca]

166. You just made my convention watching much more interesting :-)

By the way, I THINK I heard that there will be more network coverage, but I am not sure.

[musicblind]

107. Beautiful post. Thank you.

I still support Hillary as a person and would love to see her as VP. If I were at the convention live I would probably be moved to tears if she were the VP. She is such a wonderful person and I honestly believe she would guarantee a win in Nov. That being said, I also agree with you on the point you made about Biden. I think Biden would make an excellent choice as well. If it couldn't be Hillary and Obama chose Biden I would be satisfied. I would still prefer Hillary but... come on... it's Biden! He's a great guy too.

My choices would be in this order:

1.) Hillary
2.) Edwards
3.) Biden

I think all three of those are great choices and would work well with Obama.

Ultimately it is Obama's choice. I support him completely as the nominee so I will have to accept his choice, but it doesn't mean I can't have my own opinion about which politicians I feel would best suit the role.

I appreciate your kind and positive post.

:hug:

[ORDem]

161. So? She is not the nominee, Obama doesn't need her delegates. It doesn't matter

if they knock the rafters out, it's the GE electorate that matters, Obama knows it, and thus it WON'T be Hillary. But if it makes you feel better to hold out for the impossible, go for it.

:dem:

[Fleshdancer]

5. Biden would balance out the perceived weaknesses of Obama....

overall experience and foreign policy - two things that could make a big difference in the swing states. Plus he would kick serious ass in the VP debates.

I assumed it was going to be Clinton but after reading about the demands of her supporters, I'm no longer sure.

[David Zephyr]

10. I hadn't thought about the debates. You make a very good point.

GloriaSmith, while my OP was more about who I'd like to actually be VP and not so much as to what BIden would bring to the ticket in an election, I have to tell you that I had not considered the debate factor. Joe Biden won nearly all those early debates. You are right, he'd "kick some serious ass in the VP debates."

[Fleshdancer]

12. wouldn't that be fun to watch?

If he gets picked for VP, I only have one request and that's to come up with something just as funny and clever as his "verb, noun and 9/11" remark. He demolished Guiliani with that one so I can't wait to see what he comes up with next. ;)

[TheDonkey]

14. Biden would be Obama's Cheney

except minus the evil.

[Skwmom]

26. Biden displayed terrible judgment in voting for the war. That should automatically

exclude him from consideration. With that experience and foreign policy Biden voted for the worst debacle in U.S. history. That would be like the Bush administration rewarding incompetence and stupidity.

[jillan]

176. And he has admitted it over and over again.

He always says that he never dreamed anyone could be as incompetent as this administration.

Biden has been speaking out against this f-ed up war for years.

That's why he voted against the Kyl/Lieberman bill, saying that never, ever again would he trust this administration.

[mahina]

6. I prefer Sebellius, but I'll tell you what,

I'll be just fine with whoever he picks, and support them 100% of the way to the White House. Clinton, Richardson, Biden, whoever.

I think Kathleen S. has the smarts and skills to be a huge asset in the 08 race, and the winner in '16.

[David Zephyr]

65. 100% with you.

I'll support Barack if he picks a Martian to be his VP and like you 100%.

[Eurobabe]

9. Biden maybe, but won't be Clinton

no way.

[Skwmom]

19. Why would you put someone on the ticket who voted for the biggest debacle in U.S. History?

Obama says that he would make a better CIC b/c he had the good judgment to vote against the war. McCain, while honorably serving his country, does NOT HAVE THE JUDGMENT to be CIC. So he'd nullify this argument by picking someone who voted for the war?

Anyone who voted for the war, or supported it, should not be considered.

Biden, like McCain, with all of their experience did not have the JUDGMENT to vote against the war. This country can't afford any more mistakes like that.

[loyalsister]

21. He needs someone who has stronger appeal to feminists

It matters a lot for the VP pick for reasons cited throughout this thread.

[David Zephyr]

66. Agree.

I like Biden, but your point is a real one. And add that to the nearly 50% of all the delegates in Denver being Hillary enthusiasts and you see where I am coming from. She's not my choice, but I think it will be her...unless she declines it.

[loyalsister]

79. It could also be a man

or other woman. Just someone who has a strong relationship with feminists. It also may be Hillary. Her most loyal constituency just needs to be respected and courted somehow. They would be disrespected with someone with a history of sexism on the ticket.

Similarly, if Hillary had been the nominnee, she would have absolutely had to had had VP who had a strong relationship with African Americans. She could certainly not have anyone who had the slightest hint of racism in their background.

[4themind]

22. I guess the question is, does Hillay wants V.P. that badly

She isn't willing to take the presidency (a far bigger prize) to the convention, and she may not risk political capital (and future ambitions) by going against Obama for a lesser prize at the convention(even with a perhaps greater chance of obtaining it) if she thinks she'll shoulder too much of the blame if Obama loses (and again risk the shot at her big prize). On the other hand if Obama loses he very well may not get another chance either, so it may come down to a game of "who blinks first". But if he names someone I don't think she'll go against it for the reasons I've mentioned, and if Obama names someone and then renegs he may jeopardize his chances among independents (as being seen as a decisive decision maker) and lose even greater among this crowd than the support that hillary may give him (based on the supposition that those independents are more likely to vote for McCain instead, then to stay home.) so I don't think it's immediately clear what decision either of them make. They'll have to weigh the perceived risks and let reality(which I don't think we know a priori here) play it's course.

Just speculation on my part,(and based upon reports that I've read) but my thinking is that she still believes that Obama will lose, and it's far better for her to be seen as helping him, then shouldering her way onto the ticket (if Obama names someone else), and risk taking on some blame of him losing. If Obama loses he's probably done for the future in terms of presidential shots anyway, but if she goes down with him, she may be greatly reducing her chances of getting another shot. This may especially be true if she perceives an "Edwards" effect in being associated with a "losing ticket"

All that being said, It's not my intention to cast doubt on your sense of political intuition and experience (I think you've been on this planet at least twice as long as me heh) but we'll just have to see what happens and remember that speculation as to motives for actions are just that, speculation. Btw Biden's my favorite pick too =)

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David Zephyr]

70. Biden would be a great choice.

I have a number of favorites and Biden is right at the top of my list along with Jim Webb. I'm glad to see that Biden has support here.

By the way, I am not suggesting that Hillary would create a fight at the convention. That's over. But the reality is that there will be essentially half of all the delegates screaming and cheering and pumped up there and for Hillary. Barack and Axelrod both understand that and respect that. And, there are millions of women who did vote for her (and men, too) who still want her to be VP. Only Hillary can tell Barack that she's cool with not being VP or not. But if she wants it, it's hers. And I see the Patti Solis Doyle pick completely different from everyone else: I see it as a way to prevent Mark Penn and his ilk from having any expectation that they would be part of an Obama/Clinton ticket.

I don't want Barack to announce a VP before McCain does.

[polichick]

23. Don't worry - it won't be Hillary.

[lojasmo]

27. It will not be Clinton.

She brings the ticket down in OH, PA, and FL.

Go figure.

[RNdaSilva]

41. Independents?

[lojasmo]

43. Yes.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[high density]

30. The swarm for Hillary has already disbanded it seems

All of the chants against caucuses, delegates, etc are already a distant memory only two weeks later. All of the "polls" showing that Clinton was the only one to win PA, OH, etc were complete bunk as expected.

[Zachstar]

63. Bingo!

There is not as many Clinton die hards as some wanted us to think. And the ones that were more than likely had another reason for refusing to vote Obama. (Which chiefly among those is race or sexism)

No Clinton is more than likely going to stay in congress and continue to gain political power.

[saltpoint]

32. Biden is an establishmentarian liberal east coast Democratic icon with

significant and long-standing loyalties to most Democratic platform issues. He's one of the Great Democrats.

He's Catholic.

He knows how to read a map.

He's Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He's not skeered of a dust-up with hard-ass Pukes like John Bolton.

There are few if any Republican veep noms who could match him in international chops and tenacity on the veep debate stage.

He's a high-threshold-interest politician.

He can mobilize support for a legislative and executive agenda.

His line on Rudy Giulini ("...a noun, a verb, and 9/11") was one of the best political dismissals ever.

Not least, he rides Amtrak to and from work.

[tigereye]

50. great assessment, as usual OC

what about Richardson though?


Note, I think Biden is cool, I always have.


Who would be an optimal female VP choice here, in your opinion? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.


:hi:

[saltpoint]

158. Hi, tigereye. I'm going to honor whoever Obama chooses, but to

answer your question, I'd personally prefer Boxer and absent that long-shot, I think Sebelius would be a provocative choice.

Richardson? Love 'im. He brings a HELL of a lot not only to the campaign in drawing voters our way, but also to governing AFTER Obama is in office.

It's an embarrassment of riches, actually. I think the Republicans know that if Obama chooses Richardson, they can kiss New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado goodbye, and with those 3 states, the 2008 election.

Howdy right back, and good to see ya!

[tigereye]

171. I can't believe McCain was the best they could come up with, although

he looked like a more interesting choice than typical Rep. fodder, given his "maverick" history.


Boxer is very cool. I would love to see a woman on the ticket.


The Reps were touting that scary Governor from Alaska - the fundy soccer mom. Creepy.

[saltpoint]

172. Agree -- the Alaska Gov. -- Palin -- is a far-right type. She has just this

spring given birth to a new baby who suffers from Down Syndrome, so I'm guessing she would not leave the child to campaign for McCain.

Of course, she's a Republican, so who knows WHAT she'd do!?

[faithfulcitizen]

58. Plus, isn't his son in Iraq now?

[saltpoint]

167. Yep -- here a link from the campaign trail in Iowa last summertime --

-- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20316309/

I read articles now and then about how few of the sitting Senators' children serve in combat, then come across the exceptions like Biden and Webb, etc.

[David Zephyr]

72. Now that's a post!

And I agree with you and I think that Biden would actually make a very good VP after the election.

[Clark2008]

34. I think we saw the ticket yesterday

Or at least the Secretary of State...

[faithfulcitizen]

57. I think they called each other to coordinate. Hmm, except I notice someone isn't wearing a FLAG PIN!...

CLARK MUST BE A TERRORIST! lol. :o

[David Zephyr]

74. That did not escape my eye, Clark2008.

And that might be the deal Hillary would support.

In any event, that is one striking photograph that stuck inside my noodle when I saw it. Captivating image.

[RNdaSilva]

40. WILL NOT be Hillary...

but, don't have the foggiest.

Wont be Wes Clark, I like Richardson and Biden but no. Al Gore? Not interested. John Edwards, Mark Warner, Dennis Kucinich?

Let's see, because none of us really has the foggiest idea how 'bout a few off the wall choices? Bill Clinton? Ed Rendell? Montana's Governor? Nah!

So far, I'm quite certain I've not yet named the Veep. No guarantee though.

One of these guys? Jim Webb, James Jones, Tony McPeak, Scott Gration or Hugh Shelton?

Not likely to be a woman...would be an insult to Hillary.

Jon Stewart would get very nervous if...

Haven't checked with InTrade yet and my psychic is on vacation.

[book_worm]

46. It probably won't be Hillary because polls show independent voters oppose her

and Bill will have to release all of his records for his foundation.

[roseBudd]

140. Independents do decide elections

[Adelante]

47. I don't see him picking Hillary

For many reasons. We need independents in order for Obama to win and we would bring in far fewer of them with that ticket. I also don't think Obama can pick anyone who voted for the IWR. The war and the impact of the war on the economy and on homeland security, i.e. Katrina - this is how he beats McCain. Republicans are BAD on national security and foreign policy. Why? Because of the war. Good judgment on the war vs. bad judgment on the war: Obama wins that argument, but it's an argument significantly weakened if the Repukes can turn around and say, so did your VP.

[tigereye]

49. I think it will be someone with a lot of military and foreign policy experience

and Biden would fit the bill, but I would like to Richardson, myself. I think Biden would be of more use in the Senate or as a cabinet member.


Or, how about Barb Mikulski? That would be pretty cool.


I don't think he will pick Hillary, though. I just don't think it will happen.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

73. Barbara Mikulski? Absolutely NOT!! She has been a horrible senator for MD

And many people here would like to see her go. She's too fiesty and mean-spirited.

[tigereye]

103. is she that bad? She used to be well thought of...

aren't women politicians allowed to be feisty? ;)



I don't know much about her voting record...since i live in Pennsylvania. There was a time when she was one of the few women Senators...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

115. she supported Bush on the wiretaps

[knixphan]

52. Smokin' Joe!!

He's got your back!

[blm]

53. Fortunately, you're wrong about HRC - Biden is far closer than HRC could ever be. You forget

that Clintons already failed the vetting - they know it, and have known it since long before she dropped out, and THAT is why she stayed in hoping Obama would implode spectacularly.

It was either Pres or nothing and Clintons knew it. Bill's business dealings have only gotten much worse since the last time they failed a vetting.

[David Zephyr]

75. I respect your opinion and don't disregard it.

And you know that she is not my choice for VP (even though a few here did misread it in their enthusiasm for Barack which is cool because I'm an Obama-nut myself).

Still, there is the untidy reality that she has nearly half of all the delegates that will be in Denver. Don't ignore the obvious. I know that Barack and Axelrod are keenly aware of that and they want a blowout of unity in Denver. Hillary holds the key to that unity in Denver, blm. If she wants to be VP, she will be VP and I think the Patti Solis Doyle pick signals that it will be her because it shuts out Mark Penn, not Hillary.

[blm]

88. It's already past, DZ. This concern of 'unity' is EXAGGERATED by Clinton loyalists - an overplayed

hand by them. The polls are already with Obama and his numbers are increasing.

Don't buy into the spin.

[Higher Standard]

56. Hillary now seems less likely

A couple of weeks ago, I might've said that Hillary was Obama's best chance for a solid victory in November. However, the past couple of weeks have shown that the Democratic base is coming together, Obama is polling very well against McCain even before choosing a running mate, and even the media has backed off what was once a constant refrain of "Obama must choose Hillary". It seems pretty certain to me now that Obama can obtain a solid general election victory without having to select Clinton as a running mate.

Early on, my choice for his running mate was solidly Bill Richardson. Lately, however, I find myself leaning more towards Joe Biden, who is proving to be an effective attack dog on foreign policy issues.

[Zachstar]

61. Its going going to be Clinton. No disrespect but that is too much of a risk.

With him forgoing public financing he is going to have to fight much harder to win because the repubs will throw a TON of money at McCain now.

He needs a VP that is going to be able to shut down that "weak on military matters crap" and that means more than likely Clark.

I like Richardson myself but this is not going to be an easy election.

[kentuck]

76. I don't know about that DZ?

Right now, Barack is doing pretty good in the polls without Hillary, even in OH and PA. And Biden is rather an independent cuss who sometimes says things that he regrets later. He is excellent on foreign policy, however.

But I would expect Obama to take someone that he could personally get along with and who would be less of a high profile person like Hillary or Joe. Perhaps someone like a Jack Reed of RI or the Governor of Montana or perhaps the Governor of Arizona?

[David Zephyr]

91. And you may be right.

First, I completly agree with you that "take someone that he could personally get along with" and that would be a help to his administration. I do think that Biden falls into that catagory, but I grant you that he is "high profile".

Barack is doing well in the polls without Hillary. That is also a fact.

But how does he face thousands of enthusiastic and raving fans of Hillary in Denver, nearly half of the entire convention hall itself and keep all of that enthusiasm and cheer without Hillary? That is the donkey in the living room (can't say elephant. LOL.)

[Prophet 451]

78. I really doubt it will be Hillary

For two reasons: Firstly, IIRC, the Obama campaign just hired a VP chief of staff who is someone the Clinton campaign fired. Secondly, Hillary has half the electorate saying they would NEVER vote for her before she'd even started campaigning (and in fairness, the majority of that was not her fault).

Biden would be a good choice, especially in light of balancing Obama's major weakness, his lack of experiance. Something tells me it's going to be Richardson though. Nothing I can put my finger on, just a hunch.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. hillary would be a bad pick. i love her but she and obama are just a bad fit

biden or edwards would be better.

[David Zephyr]

132. Wow.

That is class. :hi:

[jgraz]

174. Thank you for getting to the core of the issue.

We can beat John McCain running an Obama-style campaign.

We could have beat John McCain running a Clinton-style campaign.

I don't know that we would beat him running a half-Obama, half-Clinton campaign.

[CakeGrrl]

92. I wouldn't pick a VP whom the GOP is featuring in ads dissing my qualifications

amongst the many other reasons that have been in effect forever and have not changed just because Hillary conceded.

Didn't Al Gore just praise Obama for speaking out against the Iraq War? Why add a VP who voted for it? Why would Obama hamstring one of his strongest points against McCain?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

116. why can't it be Howard Dean?

he is doing a great job as chair of Dem Party but....

I wish al gore would do the VP again. After all he knows the ropes too.

[jgraz]

129. Exactly why it can't be Dean -- he's too good at what he's doing now.

Obama needs him in that slot, helping to run the 50-state strategy.

[ms liberty]

117. I like Joe, and he's on my preferred short list as well...

I would have been happy with Joe as our nominee, and preferred him at one point - until he dropped out, lol. I'm very happy with our nominee though...he has certainly exceeded my expectations.

My short list for veep has Biden and Webb at the top, I think they both bring different areas of expertise that could be very helpfful in winning in November. They both share an outspokenness and blunt, no-nonsense manner of speaking that balances Obama's more rhetorical oratory quite well. Biden's foreign policy experience is a huge plus; Webb has military credibility.

mr liberty and I were talking about Biden last night after KO brought up Rudy. mr liberty commented that Biden's line about Rudy ("a noun, a verb, and 9/11") was one of the best political lines ever, and I couldn't disagree with him. I know I loved it!

[Liberal Gramma]

130. I don't know why he's not on Obama's new foreign policy team

I'm hoping that it's because he's being considered for a more prominent position. VP or SOS, he'd be great in either.

[jillan]

177. I was wondering the same thing as well.

[dansolo]

131. It won't be either one of them

I would be astonished if he picked a VP that voted for the IWR.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

134. thats my feeling too and part of why i think hillary (whom i love) woudl be a bad fit for obama

the message he is trying to get out there would get diluted.

[Blondiegrrl]

135. No way will he tap Hillary. She'll throw the election for him.

Obama would lose ALL the independent voters to McCain.

[Dems to Win]

163. Clinton can't force herself onto the ticket

I don't think that Clinton can force her way onto the ticket against Obama's will.

Hillary won't have 50% of the delegates at the convention -- she'll have her pledged delegates, only (about 1700). Virtually no superdelegates will go along with an effort to nominate Clinton as VP against Obama's wishes. As an example, Senator Boxer stated on June 4 that she would not be part of a convention fight, then switched her presidential endorsement to Obama from Clinton.

Sure, the Clinton delegates can be disruptive and drown out speeches. But they won't have the numbers to nominate a VP.

Obama would like to have a peaceful convention, I'm sure. But his goal is to win the election in November, which requires Obama to get about 65 million votes. Simply adding Clinton's primary votes to his own won't be enough, he needs to get lots of independents and some Republicans. Clinton would hurt that effort, in my view.

If Obama and his advisers decide that he will likely lose with Clinton on the ticket, they will fight as necessary to keep her off. Even if that means a messy convention (which I hope it does not).

[loyalkydem]

170. No

Just no. Hilliary has done to much damage to the party. She can still have a great career in the Senate, but she has to go out and help Obama win first. Then after she's repaired some of the damage, I think she can bounce back and be an even better leader fighting for her causes where she can do the most good.

I just hope she doesn't wind up like that idiot from CT.

[TheKentuckian]

178. All truth loyalkydem

a lot of us feel that way. Very disappointed.

Biden would be a solid choice but Webb I think would be the greatest GE asset and would lend some of the best national security experience you can get.

He may bother the base a bit but the base needs to focus on governing versus being the opposition.

[Beacool]

179. Hillary has not done any damage to the party!!!

When are some of you people going to get over the fact that Obama was her opponent, not her brother. It was the primary season and they both attacked each other. All these cries on how mean she was to Obama are laughable.

Please........