Your 2008 Vice Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/the_line_on_runningmates.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/27/DI2008012702667.html
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002887.php

My speculation included in the last one

http://celebquiz.com/admin/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/barack_obama00001.jpghttp://cache.viewimages.com/xc/74942236.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193FE27433493C03A104A7A0D2C67DC67B3284831B75F48EF45

VEEP! VEEP! VEEP! VEEP!

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2007032901

http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/Obama%20Sebelius.jpg

i dont think obama will pick a woman - tho they do look kinda great together

http://www.history.navy.mil/pics/vietnam_lbj.jpg

CLOONEY

http://originaldo.com/richard-nixon-scarface.jpg

surprised to see chaffee on some people's lists for obama

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3281161.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=4F84C7EF07395AB6AD08B35C28672F49A55A1E4F32AD3138

what can i do to make sure dodd gets this?

Dodd isn't such a bad idea in a vacuum - he probably does no harm - but other than his Spanish, he would do nothing more than help (somewhat) to lock in the base, and while Lamont might well win a special election, that doesn't seem good enough that it's worth risking a Jodi Rell appointment thru '10.

dodd dated carrie fisher & said 'the jury's still out' on whether god exists

oh, this thread

Let's all be sure to put Morbs on our short lists

vp of stfuistan

No, I will not serve under you, babylamb.

http://www.historyplace.com/specials/calendar/docs-pix/coolidge.jpg

http://www.publiusrendezvous.com/sherman.gif

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/10/16/t1home.cheneyobama.gi.jpg

I'm telling you, though:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/57468785.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939847EC77F5F8D1CE07D4E5AB9BCD458EA40A659CEC4C8CB6

Would Richardson go for a VP slot?

probably with hillary more than obama

richardson would be omg so f'n psyched to be vp

i like richardson but hes kinda... moderate

as far as chubby avuncular types he beats the hell outta mike huck

Terrible idea

gabb who are your vp picks? assuming obama get the nom

Sebelius is an interesting choice but I dunno if she would be all that helpful on the campaign trail

Richardson is a great bet.

Foreign Policy + Bridge to the Clinton Camp + Latin Vote + Mean Centrist Streak

Biden or Webb are the ones to watch, I think.

More on Richardson:

Writer + Scrapping NCLB + Minimum Wage for Teachers + Energy Ties + Ambassador

http://www.photohome.com/pictures/celebrity-pictures/nba-pictures/charles-barkley-1a.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/10/16/t1home.cheneyobama.gi.jpg
Another black celeb making his cousin part of his entourage.

Richardson is a chronic foot-in-mouth-er who would further energize the demoralized nativist right while potentially doing little to energize the latino vote or lock in older and blue collar Dems that Obama needs a little help with; he might hurt in the latter regard. His name has been raised here by Southern New Engalnders. Well duh, he's basically from Massachusetts, ie old news regionally. He would certainly help in New Mexico, a smaller swing state, but how much against McCain from next door?

gabb who are your vp picks? assuming obama get the nom

See the washington note link above and search for gab

plus, the sex rumors

Richardson has sex?

I'm not gonna do remedial blogosphere here

you should certainly do remedial something

Guyz, I just don't like Bill Richardson. He seems like a buffoon.

he's like the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man

okay now I'm having unpleasant visions of Richardson and Bubba Clinton goin on groping expeditions together

on each other?

obama will pick a white man

last i heard Ted Strickland was a solid bet for either one of em

http://content.yieldmanager.edgesuite.net/atoms/ea/fb/eafb087547a357d33ec4b3bd51b6e770.jpg

The polls say voters want optimism, not analysis. Well, I really want to be your vice president, so I'm more than willing to avoid all that intellectual mumbo-jumbo. My fellow Americans, you want to see some fucking optimism? Let's go! By the time I'm through here, you'll be shitting candy canes! Chim chim cheree!

Haven't hit those links, so I don't know if he's mentioned, but what about Gephart?

older white guy
Washington experience without seeming tarnished by it
swing state
a fairly sunny, optimistic personality
helps with the white, working-class Dems

doesn't really have strong foreign policy/military credentials, but seems to have everything else.

Like Webb as a bold, "attack dog" choice to mitigate McCain's military background.

Biden seems more likely for Sec of State, no?

It's Matt Gonzalez, ladies & gents.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/29/BAO5VAQFG.DTL

SFans?

Sabato weighs back in on the R side - http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2008022801

Bottom line - Out of our various finalists, the preliminary top picks for McCain's VP nominee would appear to be (in alphabetical order): Haley Barbour, Charlie Crist, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Tim Pawlenty, and Condi Rice, with wild cards reserved for Joe Lieberman, David Petraeus, and Tom Ridge.

meanwhile, Novak claims Rove and others are pushing Romney - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/bailing_out_barack.html

i would like to join the group of those pushing for romney

SurveyUSA polls veep prospects' approval ratings in their home states:

Sebelius - 67-29
Lugar - 65-27
Sanford - 61-33 (49-40 would not be a good veep)
Bayh - 58-32
Richardson - 60-37
Kaine - 58-35
Feingold - 54-39
Webb - 51-37
Strickland - 51-40
L. Graham - 51-40 (55-30 would not be a good veep)
Pawlenty - 52-46 (43-43 on veep question)
Brownback - 48-41
Voinovich - 48-42

Last numbers from 11/06
John Lynch - 79-17
Huntsman - 77-18
Brad Henry - 77-20
Manchin - 74-23
Bredesen - 73-24
Schweitzer (D-MT) - 70-24
Biden - 63-33
Thune - 61-36
Rendell - 61-36
Hutchison - 59-35
Hagel - 59-35
Barbour - 59-37
Salazar - 56-36
Vilsack - 58-39
Bill Nelson - 55-36

Sebelius has Tuomas' vote, surely

Collins 73-23
Lieberman 52-44

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece

powell talk - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080305/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_vicepresident_dc

clinton/coulter?
hillary/el rushbo?

Would it be possible for people in this thread to suggest we further strip-mine the Senate? Remember, we’re trying to pick up five or six seats this year.

Thanks

Thanks, we know. I don't favor picking a Senator who can't be easily replaced with a Dem, and wouldn't expect a candidate to do so, but this is a speculation thread, so we're not gonna hold back from talking about Hillary/Elmo '08.

haha, Kay Bailey

at least no one would have to worry about her being President in 2012/16.

I say this as a long time supporter of Senator Biden: the Senator would be a terrible Secretary of State. The office should be considerably distanced from politics and because of that I can predict with near-certainty he will never be asked. Also, he’s a terrific Senator, why would we want to lose his voice?

McCain/Bloomberg?

So what did Richardson get for his endorsement? I tend to think he's a political liability, but he does fit the twin bills of new and experienced that I laid out, and O obviously has a hispanic problem that Richardson can help with. He'd help lock in New Mexico, make Colorado even friendlier, and could help in Massachusetts if it's actually a problem (v McCain-Romney?), and despite his thinking you can like the yankees and the red sox. Would he hurt somewhere? If we have to worry about the Carolinas, we don't have to worry. Maybe the upper midwest?

Oh yeah, that state with all the gambling and aliens too.

Not to be all pessimistic, but I don't think a black & brown ticket has a shot at winning. Richardson would make a good veep, but I'm thinking he's more likely to be Secretary of State.

How much would he hurt with the womenfolk?

Do I remember right that they're both 'biracial' or is that only O?

xp You mean because he's touchy-feely? Didn't hurt Bill Clinton, did it?

I wonder how much Obama's race hurts him with women too

Do I remember right that they're both 'biracial' or is that only O?

The dude's name is Richardson, so I think you might be onto something there.

What does their being biracial have to do with anything?

It's symbolic.

is sebelius still a serious consideration

but I'm thinking he's more likely to be Secretary of State.

While there is a lot of nonsense that annoys me in ILE political threads, this is probably my biggest pet peeve. You do not select a politician for Secretary of State (unless your name is Jimmy Carter, and we all know how well that worked)!

I really wish everyone would stop trying to reward failing presidential candidates with this position, or while we are at it, the Secretary of Defense or Treasury.

Anyways, Governor Richardson does not guarantee a win in New Mexico, nor does it put Arizona or Colorado in play. However, if you want a guaranteed win, Senator Domenici’s seat would be easily winnable for Richardson and will go a long way in making a Democratic presidency a much more manageable endeavor.

well SORRY for spectulating in a speculative thread

is sebelius still a serious consideration

One would assume so.

Bill Clinton was white the kind of guy you want to date

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/04/28/PH2006042800593.jpg

^^dream ticket

could obama-clooney would win lady-votes by making them girls feel all slippy inside?

Exactly.

Dr. Drew for Surgeon General.

richardson's dad is a white mexican citizen

dreamboat ticket

obama's neckties are always so perfectly tied and dimpled <3

I mean, here's the idea from a campaign standpoint. Both of these guys represent a particular form of contemporary masculinity: they're not Bush/Cheney/Nixon, and they're not Kerry/Edwards/Richardson. They've got a confident handsomeness; they own up to their freaky sides; they're passionate without distorting the opposition; they show strength and power through detached empathy. Boom -- let's go.

Clinton shrugged off Richardson's endorsement of her rival, saying "both of us have many great endorsers, and the voters, not endorsers, will decide this election."

lol fuck you superdelegate whoar

I agree that Richardson would be sufficient to win Domenici's seat, and lean toward the notion that it's the most helpful spot for him, but I don't believe he's necessary for that purpose - I don't know Wilson's statewide strength, and don't we have a Udall there? As for NM, no one guarantees it, but we lead there and Richardson comes closer than anyone else, I'd imagine. Colorado and Nevada are already in play, at least with an O ticket, and R is only one of 2 guys I can think of who help make an hispanic appeal there.

I'm often annoyed by the Cabinet selection parlor game, but more by the popular choices of the players (Wes Clark! John Edwards!) than the game itself. Someone (Steve Clemons?) Said that Holbrooke would be SoS no matter who won.

Open Q: Why hasn't McCain declared a VP yet? / When do you think he will?

Does anyone have a really evil quote from Hil about superdels?

Richard Holbrooke does seem likely, and I’m sure he’s on a very short list, but I could see situations in which he would turn down both Senator Obama and Clinton. I will say, if Mr. Holbrooke is chosen, Senator Clinton’s 1:1 plan for Iraq could potentially work since the FSO/FSS base would be extremely energized by his selection (as most went into the field because of his work).

Also, I would suspect Senator Clinton would be more likely to win Colorado but neither her or Senator Obama will win there (nor Nevada).

Open Q: Why hasn't McCain declared a VP yet? / When do you think he will?

When its needed. It could be argued that is now due to lackluster RNC fundraising but I suspect it will be near the end of summer.

what are the chances of McCain choosing Obama as his running mate?

minus infinity percent?

Also, I would suspect Senator Clinton would be more likely to win Colorado but neither her or Senator Obama will win there (nor Nevada).

-- Mr. Goodman, Friday, March 21, 2008 8:17 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

What would lead you to believe this? Nevada was pretty close in 2004 (3%) and I would think the Democrats would be in a very strong position to win it this year. And why would Clinton fare better in Colorado against McCain?

yes, tell us why the polls that show O doing better in CO than C are wrong, Mr. Goodman

from the onion:

McCain's Running Mate

All but assured the Republican presidential nomination, John McCain has begun discussing possible running mates. Who is on his short list?

Condoleezza Rice: Petulant-terrier look always plays well at foreign state funerals.

Tom Hanks: Just such a huge, huge fan.

(No nomination): As nobody has done nothing for McCain, McCain likewise intends to do nothing for nobody.

Hip, young blogger: To attract hip, young blogger voters.
Mccain

Mitt Romney: McCain hates him with the burning hatred of a thousand exploding suns, which is always a good aspect of any president/VP relationship.

McCain's grandson: Doesn't really think he's qualified, but would you look at that face? How can you say no to that face?

Hillary Clinton: Just because it would be amazing to see the look on everyone's faces when they say "No way!" followed by "Well, it kind of makes sense."

Mike Huckabee: Bass player needed.

what are the chances of McCain choosing Obama as his running mate?

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, March 21, 2008 8:24 PM

lolol

is Nelson Rockefeller dead?

I assume the idea is that Clinton would do better in Colorado because of its huge Mexican population, but that's purely speculative and not borne out by polls or anything.

you mean Mexican-American population? I would assume O does better there because he appeals more to independent libertarian types, as he does throughout the interior West.

It helps to soundtrack this to Wordy Rappinghood as you read along:

To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: March 21, 2008
RE: Obama Campaign: Just Words

At this point, it's no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water given the news stories of the last few weeks and is desperate to change the subject.

The ground is shifting away from them and their response?

First, disenfranchise voters - Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.

Second, peddle photos of President Clinton shaking hands with Reverend Wright less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race. Well, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president. Stop the presses.

Third, accuse our campaign of having something to do with Senator Obama's passport file being breached, a reckless charge that has zero merit.

Fourth, continue attacks on Senator Clinton's character in an effort to implement what the Chicago Tribune called a full assault on her ethics.

Fifth, stonewall the press: no tax returns, no state records, no answers about the inconsistencies in the Rezko story.

So it's not a pretty sight - it's all part of a pattern of just words.

Senator Obama talks about voter participation while actively disenfranchising millions.

He calls for high minded debates while practicing lowdown politics.

He promises a different kind of campaign while attacking Hillary's character.

He promises transparency while hiding basic info and stonewalling the press.

It's no wonder that Americans are coming to see that for all of his lofty rhetoric, Senator Obama's candidacy is really just words.

It's no surprise that Americans are expressing serious doubts about his ability to answer the 3am call.

It's no wonder that top journalists are calling the Obama campaign desperate, saying that it's amateur hour in Chicago.

Our favourite 3AM girl speaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXmYVRIpu2w

argh wrong thread, time for bed!

this memo is strong.

not that i see it being picked up.

i keep sounding like a concern troll here but i'm really not. i'm good old fashioned pessimistic. and passionate.

Veep Veep Poll Poll Manna Manna

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/26/portman_seen_as_likely_mccain_veep.html

McCain-Portman?

http://uglyrepublicans.com/republicans/United-States/John-McCain/john-mccain-pirate.jpghttp://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/star_wars__episode_iii___revenge_of_the_sith/natalie_portman/sith3.jpg

Condi's interested

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/28/rice-vice-president/

Open Q: Why hasn't McCain declared a VP yet? / When do you think he will?

-- elmo argonaut, Friday, 21 March 2008 19:50 (1 week ago) Link

I think it's a precarious situtaion. A lot of his GOP support is of the reluctant 'tow the party line' variety (unlike, say Obama, whose fans seem determined to make this election the second coming of Beatlemania). So, on the one hand, he'd be wise to choose someone who represents a more traditionally conservative ideology. Huckabee or Romney would be the obvious (ie WRONG) choices in this regard.

However, he stands to lose the moderates and independents he's been courting since day one if he brings in some hardliner. I think he's acutrely aware of all this.

If he wants my vote he'll have to choose smart, sexy libertarian Sarah Palin.

Her kids are called...
Moose burgers!
Smoked pot, but didn't like it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

McCain will sit on his veep nomination until the convention.

By the time August rolls around his campaign will almost certainly be in a doldrums, pushed there by the fact that it is summer and therefore a difficult time to gain attention, and by not being able to compete with the Dems for political drama. By pulling out his veep nomination he'll be playing his one ace for creating a bit of excitement going into the fall campaign season. It would be stupid to waste that card now.

anybody mentioned 3-month gov of La. Bobby Jindal? I joked about 6 weeks ago to a friend that McCain shd choose him, and presto, I see a NYT column mention him as a name conservatives are bandying about. lol?

he's been on most peoples' longer lists. my first and second and maybe third instincts dismiss him out of hand - he doesn't pass the ready-to-take-office test, if nothing else. he's definitely got big prospects, tho.

Casey of Pennsylvania is this week's buzz band for Obama.

I agree that Richardson would be sufficient to win Domenici's seat, and lean toward the notion that it's the most helpful spot for him, but I don't believe he's necessary for that purpose - I don't know Wilson's statewide strength, and don't we have a Udall there?

like i was saying

Biden?

ambinder put pawlenty at the top of his mccain veep list. doesn't seem right to me but it's not like i know one way or another

Matthews picks Thune

People are paranoid about Pawlenty on that list because MN might vote GOP and create OMG Hell just froze over moment on election day if he's the VP. My straw poll of bitter working people who intend to vote for McCain say they are doing so because Obama is too young (sister) or they're racist (her husband, twatson of militia guy). My sister is perfectly aware McCain looks just like Dr Evil.

I don't like Pawlenty; besides his policies, he used to live next door or quite near to my dad and some weird shit went down there.

Mike Murphy picks Pawlenty, Ridge or Romney, and Bob Shrum picks Pawlenty, Romney or Portman

for Obama, Murphy, Shrum and Carville all raise the possibility of an anti-war general, with Shrum mentioning Clark and Carville mentioning James Jones (with Marine bias caveat) and Zinni. Shrum also raises the possibility of a figure of bipartisan gravitas, mentioning Bloomberg and Kean.

I guess Sebelius is too much estrogen for pundits

http://www.olyc.com/images/ObamaWebb.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/05QS9wy32K0b9/610x.jpg

Obama came through Durham the other day and I got a good good feeling he's gonna call on me for veep

http://reporter.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/070131hollywood_2.jpg

fuck that, I am polling way stronger than HRC not only on my block but all the way through Wake County

I'm still bombin' threads with:
http://blogplatoon.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/clooney_obama.jpg

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/Obama-Surf.jpg http://riversmeeting.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/bateman_-_sheer_drop-mountain_goats1.jpg

What about that husky Montana dude?

he's certainly got positives, but probably not enough experience even of the non-Washington kind and too off-the-reservation in a number of ways. while he's a Catholic who likes his guns, he's not a rust belt guy.

Politico picks

Con: Very liberal on social issues. Paired with Obama, he creates the Archie Bunker nightmare ticket: African American and Jew.

man im tired of the 'im just predicting voters predjudices!' card

im sure you could find a million pundits saying the same thing about o being the nominee - 'voters arent ready for a black guy!'

i hate the language of "voters arent ready for a x", good christ its not like theyre debating giving it up on prom night, theyre just racist

I finally realized why Webb seems so familiar to me. That guy (well, one that looks just like him) was my Drivers Ed teacher in high school!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Jim_Webb_official_110th_Congress_photo.jpghttp://www.bonggat.com/beavis%5B1%5D%20(Small).jpg

I think "millionaire New York businessman" would turn voters off more quickly than "Jew," anyway.

more than "black Muslim"?

grumpy tiny jewish millionaire new york businessman

no politico pick for sebelius?

that article sucks in a number of ways. one of their picks for hillary is obama? in what universe

more than "black Muslim"?

No, I'm just saying there are better reasons to avoid putting Bloomberg on a ticket than because of the anti-Semitic voting bloc.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Kennedy_No_veep_slot_for_Clinton.html

Sabato publishes another dude's argument for Webb

he's not a rust belt guy and he's not a Catholic, but I'm starting to think he really may be the best choice. we're not gonna lose the Senate, and VA has a Democratic Governor. I can think of a drawback that the GOP could hit on, but I don't think it's major and I'm not gonna mention it.

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/sebeliusobamaendorse3.jpg

xp Drawback = Webb's racy novels?

not gonna answer. btw, that ticket is v v pretty, but not everyone is as estrogen-oriented as me.

and like the dude says, our problem may be men more than women

Yeah, I think that's probably true.

not gonna answer.

Why, for fear of giving it traction?

yes, mr. literal

?

Remember Drudge linking to the "racy" passages from Webb's Vietnam book? (If I remember right, they were racy in the same way that naked people in Schindler's List were racy.) I'll bet even money that he'll do the same thing with audiobook MP3s from Obama's two books before Electrion Day. But I'm sure Obama's people know this is a possibility as well.

What's the dirt on Tim Kaine?

he's still governor, i think

the more I learn about sebilius the better I like her

Yeah, what's his deal, though? I like the idea of a VP from Virginia. Webb has far more foreign-policy experience, obviously, but isn't as "clean" as perhaps Kaine would be.

Kaine won't be the VP - he has less experience across the board and while Obama doesn't need Mr. Washington or anything, you don't want to reinforce that narrative. Also he's funny-looking.

All I know about Kaine is he was mayor of Richmond when I lived there, seemed pretty cool, and also went to my alma mater. i realize that none of the information is helpful at all. he's done a good job getting dulles a metro extension. also i think he's governor through the end of the year?

What does it matter that he's still governor? You mean because his lieutenant governor is a Republican?

As long as we're still posting photos of Obama with potential veeps:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/73461298.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1930F65A344AAC8D070306AE2B8A2EFB3AD284831B75F48EF45

Webb votes like an asshole

I think Kaine's in through the end of '09. He is Catholic and from the midwest.

I really like Claire McCaskill a lot, but she's even more of a n00b than Obama. Don't see that happening in 2008.

http://graphics.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/03/21/1206153132_6475/539w.jpg

http://blog.mlive.com/elections_source/2008/02/large_080226-obama-biden.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x280/icebergslim1047/barackandgovnapoiltanoinlasvegas.jpg

https://i3.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/CCAN/images/Barack%20Obama%20is%20not%20superman.jpg

Talking Points Memo had a thread about what Obama's cabinet might look like, including intriguing suggestions like Patrick Fitzgerald as AG.

Sherrod Brown?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0e1kalz0tI3x6/610x.jpg

why would he want to be veep when he can be governor of an awesome state is what i am saying?

Yglesias is horrified by an Obama-Clinton ticket, and quite right: for the pundits and the parties, "credibility" means "hawkishness":

This reflects, I believe, an incredibly damaging mindset that's been crippling the Democratic Party for years and the prospect of excising this mindset is the single most appealing thing about the prospect of Obama being the nominee. Clinton's "street cred" on national security consists, of course, of being massively wrong on the most important national security issue of her career. Paradoxically, a lot of folks find her massive wrongness on this hugely important issue reassuring because they and their friends were also wrong and they view having made the right call to be a suspicious quality. After all, the Iraq War may have led to thousands of U.S. deaths, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and millions of Iraqi refugees all at a cost of over $1 trillion and in ways that's damaged the strategic position of the United States, but war opponents were all a bunch of hippies.

I say good riddance to that. I got the war wrong, and I think that gives me less "cred" than I would have had had I gotten the war right and I think that, politically speaking, it makes sense to put people forward who aren't tainted by the war. But most of all we need to ditch the mindset that says "cred" on national security is composed of being hawkish even when that means being wrong.

there will be no Obama-Clinton ticket

I don't know how well Webb's affect would play with older voters. while he's older than Sebelius, I think she would play better.

but Yglesias is totally wrong about the source of her national security cred

I would like to register my prediction for Sebelius based on her presence at the last Bilderberg meeting.

http://www.bilderberg.org/bilderberg2007.pdf

Also, bilderberg.org = tuns o' laffs

Nominate the wife: Obama-Obama.

HuffPo rundown

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/obama-vice-president-pick_n_100869.html

the more I learn about sebilius the better I like her

-- J0hn D., Friday, May 9, 2008 1:34 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

otm

Novak says Hillary's not on the list, talks up Strickland. He's got support in the Obama camp.

on that Huffington Post link, they call Bill Richardson "a lock with Hispanic voters". Where do they get this from? I'm a Latino who's been involved in Latino grassroots work for over a decade (with a decently long stretch in DC), and I've never heard his name come up in a conversation. Is his being a "lock" something he tells the media, who don't know any better? Or am I just out of the loop?

Strickland makes sense. But I hope Obama chooses Webb. The only downside to Webb, (n.1) and it's only a potential downside, is rumors that he might be a reluctant campaigner. But he would be such a good "attack dog" if he chose to be. He basically told Pres. Bush to piss off in a face-to-face meeting where Bush was trying to be friendly.

_____________________________
(n.1) Aside from, I suppose, opportunity costs if you think someone else could deliver crucial voting blocks that Webb can't (e.g., Strickland delivers Penn., Richardson to deliver some Hispanic voters, if you think a Gov. is just better-suited than a Sen. to be on the ticket).

I don't really rely on HuffPo, which produces lots of content by paying people who don't really have much experience as journalists or pundits; I just included it as an additional data point. I do think it's fair to assume, though, that Richardson would do at least a little to help move the needle with hispanic voters (or keep it in place) after he had been introduced to them.

Richardson isn't tough enough. Mark my words.

I've said many times, I think he's a bad pick

the pick isn't made in a vacuum, of course. you have to consider who the opposing candidates are.

I suspect Obama will pick someone that surprises us, maybe someone who hasn't had much of a national profile. But I also suspect this depends on what kind of backroom stuff he gets pressured into in the next month.

Bah. I watched Richardson get eaten alive by Laura Ingrahm on a cable talk show. She made him look passive and weak and ineffectual, all of which is exactly what you don't want in a VP nominee.

(not her show, by the way; she was just a conservative counterpoint to him on the panel).

I think the media has gotten to the point of political obsession that a super-surprising pick (to those who follow the race closely, as opposed to the public at large) isn't that likely. The kind of people who might be really surprising, like Joe Manchin, say, are also really improbable.

here's where my naivety comes in, but wtf it's ILX: he knows a bunch of savvy academics, and he could go with one of them, rather than a pure politician-type. I reckon gender politics will play more of a role for him than race politics will, and I suspect the same for McCain: in fact I'll be surprised if we don't have two female VP candidates this time (my money is still on Rice for McCain). So maybe Obama will go with Samantha Power!

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Wayne1590/crack_is_wack.jpg

lol

Obama "outlined three qualifications for hiring – or appointing – people: Competence, integrity, independence."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/obama-offers-veep-talk/

I still think Sam Nunn's gotta be pretty high on the list

"Chicago Dem insiders" predicted Sebelius a month ago - http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/894517,CST-NWS-SNEED15.article

Why isn't Edwards a possibility?

Cilizza updates his picks - http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/the_friday_line_veepstakes_1.html

he doesn't want it

among many other reasons

Sibelius looking better and better; note Ohio link from Governor dad.

Pawlenty as VP candidate scaring hell outta me. It would be storybook but ultimately Romney took MN in the caucus with TP chairing McCain's state campaign so that might be a DQ?

Sebelius would be great. She stared down the Republicans on education funding and won, which won me over (she's technically my boss).

Sibelius looking better and better

somehow I doubt that

just for future reference

Sebelius

http://www.kshs.org/people/graphics/sebelius_kathleen.jpg

Sibelius

http://myhero.com/images/guest/g5277/hero5229/g5277_u2743_BERIT._SIBELIUS.JPG

Catholic dude says no communion for Sebelius

The trad approach to veep picking is to "balance the ticket", which would definitely mean some old, white man - possibly an upper Midwest Catholic or border South/Sun Belt moderate.

The contrarian approach would be to pick someone no older than 55, with some progressive credibility - possibly a woman - in order to emphasize the dynamism and optimism of a younger, more progressive ticket. It would be a pizzazz ticket, designed to be dazzling.

Picking a woman would certainly mend fences with some of the Hillary crowd, but would not reinforce the ticket at Obama's weakest point. A stronger ticket would reach out to the working class voters, someone whose natural voter base includes a rural component. Probably a white man with bona fide working class roots.

I've got no idea how Obama and his advisors will play this. It is his first chance to hit a home run in the GE. But hitting a single is easier and much, much safer than swinging for the fence.

Sebelius, of course, falls in between and combines these approaches in some respects.

It is his first chance to hit a home run in the GE

he has already hit at least three and hillary is staring down the barrel of a fourth

Sebelius seems like a strong choice, but only if Obama starts to channel his inner Edwards for the GE.

Srsly, I think he needs to pick out a strong, easy-to-punch-across policy position for 'economic justice' that leverages the common needs of the working poor and the debt-ridden middle class - a line which cuts across whites, blacks and latinos. Then he has to pound away at the economy and the war for the next six months.

The 'change issue' is already his. It can still be the finisher for the stump speech, the feel-good send off. But 'change' has got to morph into a concept that emphasizes economic change, with political change just being the engine that brings economic change.

At least that's my $0.02.

if Obama picks Richardson I'll know that O is not only a dynamic speaker and forward-thinking leader, but also an ace comedian

Why is Kathleen_Sebelius considered such a strong VP candidate? I know she's a popular Democratic Governor in a heartland state who is also pro-choice and anti-capital punishment. Is that combination of assets the strongest basis for her on the ticket?

She believes in sending babies to the electric chair.

Oh she does not!

. . . Really?

can't choose webb - gotta have at least a 2 syllable name (preferably 3) to round out the ticket, phonetically.

Sebelius is a strong choice because:

- she has red-state heartland appeal without turning off anyone on the left
- she'll appeal to older (and often female) voters in the Clinton camp that Obama needs without seeming like the kid overcompensated by picking an old white guy
- she is an executive who fought on one of the most basic Dem issues (health care) and won
- she is a woman and a Washington outsider, ie kinda exciting
- she is Catholic
- she is a popular 2-term governor named one of the 5 best in America and formerly chair of the Democratic Governors Association
- she governs a state adjacent to two swing states (Colorado, Missouri), culturally similar to a third (Iowa), and that also happens to be where Obama was born
- she was born and raised in Ohio (which was once governed by her Dad), and has vacationed throughout her life in Michigan
- she seems really nice and hard to dislike
- they look marvelous together

the drawbacks are:
- she's not working-class
- she doesn't have foreign-policy experience
- she's not an attack dog (maybe not a drawback)

Okay. I get it. Not being an attack dog is a drawback, I think, but so be it. I also think that it might be a problem for some (many?) voters to have both a black American and a woman on a single Presidential ticket. But, as someone said upthread, f--k that. Can't run from people's prejudices, especially if you're supposed to be a gutsy forward-thinker like Obama. Is her being Catholic an advantage or a drawback? I like how she is connected or closely-positioned to a number of key swing states.

Anyway, I've always liked the idea of an Obama/Webb ticket. But I see Sebelius' appeal.

Is her being Catholic an advantage or a drawback?

The sorts of people who wouldn't ever vote for a Catholic vice president are very unlikely to be Obama supporters (or particularly enthusiastic McCain supporters, either).

She believes in sending babies to the electric chair.

she's just saying out loud how most Americans really feel

its webb isnt it guys right - its auspicious its destiny its synergy true love and all of that - got to be i dont see any other way

o. wasn't born in kansas

Veep-relevant passages from the NYT GE strategy article...

Hispanic voters could find themselves drawing more attention from presidential candidates than ever before. Their votes could prove critical in determining whether Democrats capture states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico and whether Republicans have any chance of being competitive in California.

Mr. McCain’s identification with legislation that would have permitted some illegal immigrants to attain citizenship, a position he moved away from in the primaries but never renounced, gives him an opportunity to compete for those voters, who except for Cubans in Florida appear to have largely settled into the Democratic camp in recent years.

Mr. Obama also supported measures that would have allowed immigrants to attain citizenship but struggled to win over Hispanic voters in his primary fight, signaling a potential problem for him in the fall campaign. Mr. Obama’s aides said the endorsement by Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, one of the nation’s most prominent Hispanic leaders, could prove more critical in the general election than in the primary.

so hispanic voters are a/the key, and Richardson is named as an entree to the community, but in a fashion indicating that he doesn't have to be on the ticket to campaign heavily in the right places.

Advisers to Mr. Obama said their research suggested that Mr. McCain, notwithstanding his high profile in American politics for more than a decade, was not well known to many voters. In particular, Mr. Obama’s aides said they would highlight Mr. McCain’s opposition to abortion rights to try to stem the flow of disaffected women who backed Mrs. Clinton in the primaries and whom Mr. McCain’s aides said they would aggressively court.

running on abortion makes clear that pro-life Tim Kaine is off the list (but doesn't impact pro-choice Jim Webb and might not impact Sam Nunn, who moved in a pro-choice direction in 1992). the effort to hold onto women might suggest a Sebelius pick, but the focus on abortion suggests that the effort may be issue- rather than candidate-based.

Jim Jones' name turned up again on another Sunday talk show this AM. here's his SACEUR bio. here's a transcript of him on Larry King in 12/01 w/ McCain and Clark - it would be the Navy vs the Marines. he's currently serving as Special envoy for Middle East security. while I like the idea of putting a "jones" on the ticket, the general thing is just way too facile for me.

I suggested Dick Gephart upthread. Today, Bill Kristol, of all people, echoed that.

Still haven't seen it written anywhere, so it seems like an ideal Obama pick to me.

"BUT" is seems like an ideal Obama pick to me.

Unlike Webb or Sebelius, Gephart's got zero 'pizzaz' or whatever we want to call it, which I think would be a mistake. O should pick someone who's got it, either by virtue of their own personality (good at zinging Republicans on Meet the Press Webb) or position (sticks-to-her-guns lefty woman governor of a midwestern red state Sebelius).

Plus, I and I think a fair amount of other Democrats still have resentment issues with Gephart seemingly rolling over for the Republican congress.

gephardt is like al gore without the personality. plus i saw him at the airport once ALONE. no entourage == not vice presidential at all

gephardt is like al gore without the any personality

Fixed. There is no way Obama should choose Gephardt as his VP.

Unlike Webb or Sebelius, Gephart's got zero 'pizzaz' or whatever we want to call it, which I think would be a mistake. O should pick someone who's got it, either by virtue of their own personality (good at zinging Republicans on Meet the Press Webb) or position (sticks-to-her-guns lefty woman governor of a midwestern red state Sebelius).

Most VP's ARE colorless! Cheney's colorless! They're supposed to be. I'm no Gephardt fan, but Obama's plenty witty on his own, so he doesn't need a VP upstaging him. All I want from a VP is someone ready to be president should POTUS not be able to.

Maybe, but VP selections are supposed to bring some quality to the ticket, or deliver/shore up some key constituency. What does Gephardt bring that can't be brought as well -- or better -- by another VP candidate?

anyone talking about Gephardt here is wasting their time

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_2008_veepstakes

Presumably Gephardt brings blue-collar cred.

but the dude burns real easy when he's out in the sun too long.

Presumably Gephardt brings blue-collar cred.

Until he starts speaking. Then blue and white-collar alike, in unison, start to . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

there will be no Obama-Clinton ticket

I take this back

While the O's might not want her, Hil is going to push for it now, perhaps because she thinks she's needed ftw. My mom makes the latter argument, and I'm not sure she's wrong.

it would make for amazing bait, because the wingers hate HRC so much they'd be running against her instead of Obama, which would make for plenty of lulzy "my opponent seems reluctant to actually run against me" from Obama

Why is she needed? She's the unique key to Obama getting the blue-collar vote? Women's votes? Hispanic votes?

I don't see any of that. She's just Obama's current primary opponant, and -- like any top-tier nat'l politician -- she has a constituency. But those constituencies aren't unique to her. What is unique to her, however, is the crippling baggage that's simmering underneath her, and which Obama hasn't tried to unearth against her. But McCain surely would. I so hope this ticket doesn't come to pass. If it does, I can see James Pinkerton's prediction possibly coming true (I mentioned it on another thread, but the gist of it is that Obama will lose in a landslide (losing 40 states)).

I don't get why she's needed for the win, unless the Clintons say they're gonna work against Obama if they don't get their way. Barring that, there's the Clinton brand appeal, which comes along with high dislike for many others, so that seems like a wash. If what's needed is a woman, there are lots of others who would be great.

I bet the Clintons are aching to get on the Obama bandwagon, though, despite whatever they say in public.

the arguments for her are 1) the obvious complementary angle, but perhaps more importantly, 2) the notion that O, as a new and not necessarily trusted face, needs a known quantity/name much more than he needs someone to echo his theme/brand. I'd counter that lesser-known Bill Clinton got away with picking a somewhat new face in '92, but the rejoiner would be that Bill didn't need a complement the way O does.

J0hn, it's "amazing bait" because HRC is like a huge bucket of chumb thrown in the ocean. I think she would cripple Obama's chances. Even if I'm wrong about her baggage being so heavy, the combined weight of her baggage plus the baggage the GOP will try to saddle on Obama will be too much for voters to bear, I think.

She's the unique key to Obama getting the blue-collar vote? Women's votes? Hispanic votes?

she's the unique key to getting all 3 at once

not that you necessarily need a veep for all 3, but it would help

what is the scenario in which putting her on the ticket would cause O to lose?

the arguments for her are 1) the obvious complementary angle, but perhaps more importantly, 2) the notion that O, as a new and not necessarily trusted face, needs a known quantity/name much more than he needs someone to echo his theme/brand. I'd counter that lesser-known Bill Clinton got away with picking a somewhat new face in '92, but the rejoiner would be that Bill didn't need a complement the way O does.

-- gabbneb, Monday, May 12, 2008 12:26 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

from reading ny review of books and 92 era doonesbury strips it seems most ppl thought gore was chosen as a familiar legacy politician to counter clinton's new skool backwoods unknowns

also you are RONG homie o's support evaporates if you put this unpleasant, deeply hated woman on the ticket

the arguments for her are . . . that O, as a new and not necessarily trusted face, needs a known quantity/name much more than he needs someone to echo his theme/brand.

Bah. He can get this with a dozen other qualified candidates that don't have the huge negatives that HRC does.

what is the scenario in which putting her on the ticket would cause O to lose?

Bright young star that needs "a known quantity/name" for credibility chooses the most divisive, negatively-perceived nat'l politician available, which -- combined with the whisper campaign against the young star -- sinks his chances in the GE. Don't underestimate how much negative feeling there is about HRC in the country. And all of this undercuts one of Obama's biggest selling points. How can he "turn the page on the old partisan wars" if his VP is HRC?

well sure, gore was comforting to official Washington, but despite his previous run, I don't think he was a widely known/trusted name the way Clinton is.

she's the unique key to getting all 3 at once

I don't see why we should believe this. Unique? Really?

what is the scenario in which putting her on the ticket would cause O to lose?

The scenario where people in states Obama w/o Clinton would put in play and would give him the win.

But I think it matters how Obama wins the election, not just that he wins. I want to be an optimist about our political future, and the Clintons have been very hard on that optimism since 1993.

xposts

I'd counter that lesser-known Bill Clinton got away with picking a somewhat new face in '92, but the rejoiner would be that Bill didn't need a complement the way O does.

He got away with picking someone who was under 50 and from the same geographic region, but Gore wasn't exactly unknown, since he ran for prez in 1988 and was already in the news earlier that summer for his book Earth in the Balance.

also you are RONG homie o's support evaporates if you put this unpleasant, deeply hated woman on the ticket

like I said above, what is the scenario in which putting her on the ticket would cause O to lose? which states would he win without her and lose with her? are there states he would lose without her and win with her?

Gabb, what jay said, plus everyone lo-info knew who Gore was thanks to Tipper at least.

which states would he win without her and lose with her?

There's no crystal ball available, but the Mountain West and Great Plains states are the ones I'm thinking of.

are there states he would lose without her and win with her?

You tell me. I don't see why we should think so in May.

I think the main argt in favor is "party unity" - bunches of irritating Clinton voters who insist they'll stay home or vote McCain when O gets the nom would thereby be coerced into voting the Obama/Clinton ticket. Ethan overstates the case drastically (O's support "evaporates," what hyperbolic planet are you living on in which his strengths are so easily diminished) but has a point anyhow - people who hate Hilary Clinton. Still, the party unity argument isn't without some merit. Would prefer Sebelius strongly tho

Bah. He can get this with a dozen other qualified candidates that don't have the huge negatives that HRC does.

like who? the only other candidates with a public profile in the same league as Hillary's are Kennedy, Gephardt, and Edwards.

..."people who hate Hilary Clinton really hate Hilary Clinton" is what I meant to write

I don't see why we should believe this. Unique? Really?

who else did you have in mind?

the only other candidates with a public profile in the same league as Hillary's are Kennedy, Gephardt, and Edwards.

oh and Gore and Kerry

in 2004 there was a bunch of bush voters who wouldnt ever vote for kerry and a bunch of kerry voters who wouldnt ever vote for bush so clearly the strongest ticket to get all these voters wouldve been kerry/bush!

nobody wouldve stayed home for that one, no sir!

gabbneb why does o need someone with a "profile" - surely he has a profile of his own now?

haha i can't believe there's actually anyone taking the hillary veep thing seriously - the big o has been saying for months that clinton represents the old, washington way of doing things, so he both shoots this message in the foot and looks a little LIE-EY if he turns around and puts her on the ticket!

everyone lo-info knew who Gore was thanks to Tipper at least.

no

obama should get ron paul on his ticket then he'd be unstoppable

the supertickets strongest suit would be starpower - it may well be the best configuration for winning - but id be a disaster in office. can anyone imagine hillary being the team player a vice president needs to be? the thought of having her (AND BILL1) in the whitehouse pushing their agenda 24/7 must give obama nightmares.

i still say no way in hell.

Obama should pick Barbara Bush.

gabbneb, you write as though blue-collar, women, and Latino voters aren't going to think about who the candidate is, so the only, unique solution is to find someone already known. I don't think that's true.

Results 1 - 10 of about 98,000 for obama/paul. (0.08 seconds)

http://www.politicalfury.com/blog/election-2008/barack-obama-ron-paul-the-real-dream-ticket

gabbneb why does o need someone with a "profile" - surely he has a profile of his own now?

yes, he's a black muslim with a crazy preacher who hates the flag. he has a name, but he doesn't have a trust level yet with a lot of people who might vote Dem. he may well be able to establish that on his own, and he might be able to help establish it by the kind of non-Clinton veep he picks, but picking a name that is known and trusted (at least by Democrats) could go even further in that regard.

gabbneb why does o need someone with a "profile" - surely he has a profile of his own now?

^^^ this

why are ppl still caught up with o's supposed lack of name recognition?

xp o i c

Besides their thoughts on bringing the military home from Iraq, Obama and Paul probably don’t agree on a ton of issues. But, Ron Paul is a champion of the constitution who, when it all comes down to it, just wants to make America a better place for Americans.

just a dude who wants america to be a-ok.

nothing gay, just two straight guys making america great

gabbneb, you write as though blue-collar, women, and Latino voters aren't going to think about who the candidate is, so the only, unique solution is to find someone already known. I don't think that's true.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think all three of those groups can be one on the merits, or through other candidates. But Hillary, in part because she signifies Bill, uniquely garners the loyalty of all 3 groups.

There's no crystal ball available, but the Mountain West and Great Plains states are the ones I'm thinking of.

The only ones that realistically would have a role in tipping the balance have large hispanic populations. Yes, some people might vote for him but not her, or some people might turn out against her that otherwise might not vote (or might be more inclined to vote McCain rather than third party), but I think it's possible that the numbers she would pull in by being on but not at the top of the ticket might exceed those numbers.

wait you guys i have a great idea

BARNEY FRANK

can be one on the merits

uh, won

that would be the most hilare prez ticket of all time

he's white, he's from a rural state!

hey guys i think a lot of the white voters who support hillary are doing so because theyre democrats but dont think a black guy should be president not because they love hillary clinton so much so putting hillary as obama's vp doesnt really fix anything

id be a disaster in office. can anyone imagine hillary being the team player a vice president needs to be? the thought of having her (AND BILL1) in the whitehouse pushing their agenda 24/7 must give obama nightmares.

very possible. my mom argues Bill would take over Hil's Senate seat, so she would essentially be the Congressional liaison, a super-majority leader

they don't love Hillary, they love her husband

I'm just making the argument here. I'd much rather have Sebelius or Webb or Nunn, etc., but if it takes her to maximize the win potential, so be it.

hey guys i think a lot of the white voters who support hillary are doing so because theyre democrats but dont think a black guy should be president

you really think this? not asking in an insulting way, I just kinda don't think it's true

yes, i really think this. they may dress it up with 'he's inexperienced' or 'i dont like his pastor' (both things older white folks have told me) but, not to get all psychic-racist-detector on shit, i think theyre saying 'he's a black guy'

i don't remember these objections about kerry or gore or edwards from these same people

you really think this? not asking in an insulting way, I just kinda don't think it's true

I really think that. But I also think a lot of them voted for Bush too.

Kerry and Gore both lost West Virginia

i mean its not 100% kkk shit but i think hillary is playing a nixonian silent majority campaign here, like a southern strategy tapping into resentment about everything obama represents, and a large part of that is his race

and what mostly right but I think many of the old semi-racist Dems like my kin in the GA will come around to Obama, and the others aren't super-likely to go Repub, but it'll depend on the campaign.

it's not just that Obama's black, tho that's a big part of it, but that he's urbane

the few hillary supporters i've spoken to (mid- to late-twenties, new yorkers) usually trotted out "experience," "electability," and "responsible retreat from iraq" as pros. i think only the middle one might MIGHT be freighted with some fear of a black president.

xp

No, it's ALL their anxieties rolled into one: black, educated, "entitled," terrible bowler.

(xxpost)

xps: there's plenty of anecdotal shit in the press supporting that, plus some numbers (i forget where from) that democrats with strong dislike toward obama are much more likely to also think "civil rights have gone too far" etc

I have all kinds of stuff I want to ask about whether people feel that Hillary-hate might also be informed by sexism but don't wanna look like I'm just ridin' my hobby-horse into town

you know im not saying white democrats who support hillary just straight up hate the coloreds but you cant really deny that a lot of them are suspicious of the fact that while theyre working some shitty job this hotshot black guy comes out of nowhere and captures the nom

xp yeah i think the fact that hes unapologetically an educated and thoughtful and i think pretty secular guy plays into it as well, but the fact that hes black puts this uppity-negro spin on it that people wouldnt have if it was a white guy with the same story

john i'd agree with you on that too

i don't think there's any out and out racism involved, but it's like the tyranny of low expectations writ large. "OTHER, nasty people are racist and won't vote for him, so i don't feel comfortable supporting him if he's just gonna lose."

xps

I think O's problem is in Appalachia more than the lowland South. He could conceivably win VA, NC or even GA, but Appalachia plays a role in whether he wins PA and OH, which are more important. It's entirely possible that Webb would do more to help there than Hillary would, and his gun orientation would also help in the Southwest, but he's not gonna help with hispanics and might turn off women even more.

i don't think there's any out and out racism involved

i do. how many "it's not a racial thing, but i'm just not comfortable with the guy" quotes do we need?

I think O's problem is in Appalachia more than the lowland South. He could conceivably win VA, NC or even GA, but Appalachia plays a role in whether he wins PA and OH, which are more important. It's entirely possible that Webb would do more to help there than Hillary would, and his gun orientation would also help in the Southwest, but he's not gonna help with hispanics and might turn off women even more.

-- gabbneb, Monday, May 12, 2008 12:59 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

women are turned off by webb so they... vote for mccain? dont buy it

obama/webb is a 100000000000x more appealing ticket for chick voters that mccain and whatever festering fundie anti-choice corpse he digs up for his vp

by the rejection of hillary by dismissive obama+webb. believe it. not that the numbers would necessarily be large enough to matter.

obv much of the hillary/obama hate is fueled by racism/sexism - but its a lot of other things too - and many of those racist/sexist people arent so irredeemably prejudiced that they couldnt be convinced to vote for obama or hillary - itll just take a little extra convincing.

how many anti-hillary feminists do we need to convince people she's annoying?

hillary being a manifestly unpleasant person doesn't mean that a large portion of the hillaryhate isnt sexism

gabbneb women are kind of used to having to vote for a man instead of a woman, they've been doing it since 1920, I don't think they're going to vote for Insane in the McCain over Obama-Webb just 'cause they're pissed

and yeah I don't deny that Clinton is kind of a monster, but that doesn't mean the misogynist crap all these manly manly dem dudes have trotted out is any less disgusting

srsly, the idea that an obama ticket is somehow sexist and would drive women to vote republican is bananas

the speculation around bobby jindal (and counter-speculation that he shouldn't or wouldn't take the spot) makes me wonder: is mccain going to have trouble finding someone? is that even a possibility? were i a successful young-ish gop pol i wouldn't be enthusiastic about it.

what if it's McCain-Rice? or McCain-Hutchison? or McCain-Pawlenty?

gabbneb women are kind of used to having to vote for a man instead of a woman, they've been doing it since 1920, I don't think they're going to vote for Insane in the McCain over Obama-Webb just 'cause they're pissed

-- J0hn D., Monday, May 12, 2008 1:04 PM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

what if theyre on the rag tho

yeah gabbs you never can tell what those CRAZY WOMEN are gonna do, right?

joe correctly restates gabbneb's position

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'

me cracking wise about hillary a year ago = my mom calling me sexist

me cracking wise about hillary yesterday = mom gives me a high-five

I'm pretty sure McCain's gonna pick Romney (the attack dog/$$$ strategy) or Pawlenty (the out-MOR the other side strategy)

Is Harry Reid an option for O?

i don't think you can run a successful election campaign and actually have any morals; you have to play the hand you're dealt. for hillary the math only works out a certain couple of ways and she has to go hard for those people. it's kind of fucked up. i don't think she's actually made any racist appeals or "dog whistle" appeals, although many of you here appear to have remarkably keen senses of perception about these things so i will defer to your superior judgement on them. but she is certainly in the position to pick up the votes of democrats who don't want to vote for a black guy. are there people like this? i guess probably. how many? who knows? there are also people that don't want to vote for a woman, and obama's obviously the beneficiary of democrats who feel this way. how many? no idea.

yeah gabbs you never can tell what those CRAZY WOMEN are gonna do, right

yeah, I'm not the expert there

well like with all demographics it's not just preference it's turnout. i think there are very very few people who are 100% likely to vote, but give each candidate an exact 50/50 shot. turning people off is not the same thing as making them vote for your opponent in anger (wtf)

i don't think you can run a successful election campaign and actually have any morals; you have to play the hand you're dealt. for mccain the math only works out a certain couple of ways and he has to go hard for those people. it's kind of fucked up. i don't think he's actually made any racist appeals or "dog whistle" appeals, although many of you here appear to have remarkably keen senses of perception about these things so i will defer to your superior judgement on them. but he is certainly in the position to pick up the votes of people who don't want to vote for a black guy. are there people like this? i guess probably. how many? who knows? there are also people that don't want to vote for a old guy, and mccain's obviously the beneficiary of voters who feel this way. how many? no idea.

-- Tracer Hand, Monday, May 12, 2008 1:08 PM (32 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

enlightening political opinions 2008

don't think she's actually made any racist appeals or "dog whistle" appeals, although many of you here appear to have remarkably keen senses of perception about these things so i will defer to your superior judgement on them.

guys did you hear obama has two black love children

yeah, I guess I'm underestimating the capacity of over-60 white women, a core democratic constituency, to fall in love with Obama/Webb. I'm sure they'll come around if Obama talks enough about the right to choose.

I think leaving her off is a risk worth taking.

A shit-ton of the women who hate HRC are her contemporaries in age who all voted for Reagan and thought cojones = divorcing Bill and not acting so damned entitled/owed. I think there are more of these women in THIS group than in the Hilzfan group. These people could be persuaded that Obama's better than McCain now it's like they have official permission to get over Wright stuff*, but the thing that makes him attractive to them - beating Clintons with a principled campaign - bars inclusion of HRC. They wouldn't elect her as dog catcher. They'd all probably say they were bigger feminists than Hillary Clinton.

*or any other dodgy talking point Gab is internalizing today...

Like Ethan, I've noticed the goalposts moving as mainstream white people get alerted as to what constitutes racism; they change their terms accordingly. Whether or not they're thinking this through in layers I don't know, but a lot of people are moving from 'weird church' to 'youth/inexperience' but that one's the easiest to nail with the WHO YOU CALLING BOY thing, since that's what they're doing reaching for that meme...

The tyranny of low expectations is hella ironic when you hear it from the parent who told you not to jump off the bridge because your friends were. TEACHABLE MOMENT.

Is Harry Reid an option for O?

no

good post, suzy

heads dont understand that just cuz racists learned to not say racist stuff doesn't mean theyre not actually making racist decisions

here are two things white people like:

1) being popular & well-loved

2) being outright racist

as their chances for accomplishing both diverge, they learn codes

I'm pretty sure McCain's gonna pick Romney (the attack dog/$$$ strategy) or Pawlenty (the out-MOR the other side strategy)

or Portman, as a compromise between the two

thanks for teaching us about racism, ethan

gender has absolutely not been as big an issue in this campaign as much as race has. i can't think of anything outright, sub-rosa, surrogate, or amateur, pushing it. i'm also inclined to believe the democrats who are weird about women leadership are the same ones who are weird about black ppl.

i hope and pray for the return of mittens because a) lolz and b) kind of fear pawlenty.

portman's already endorsed a candidate
http://fitsnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/hillary-clinton-and-natalie-portman.jpg

thanks for teaching us about women, gabbneb

as go nipples so goes portman

her torso looks like a skull

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:fDvNflbZs6xVMM:http://kprojekt.net/wp-content/gallery/digital/manny.jpg

i'm not particularly afraid of pawlenty, but i am urbane, new york, metropolitan, yuppie, elitist. it's possible that McCain's picking him might play like the reverse of Obama's picking Nunn, ie it just makes him look even older.

When I say 'alerted' I don't mean they get a memo and suddenly ratchet down, I mean that they go through a whole five stages of Kubler-Ross about their statement being crypto-racist, figure out why what they said was indeed racist, feel bad and move on to the next layer. Most (white) people are horrified at being thought racist by anyone. Repeat until Obama vote, we've got over five months.

McCain/Pawlenty scares me because it's the best happy finish McCain could hope for at a GOP convention in fucking St. Paul and gives them a great run at my state because lo-info people love hometownage voting and GOP would really love to win MN.

ehh, dude barely won your State as Governor, and did so by basically not campaigning. Kerry won by 100,000 votes there. sure, it's possible, and $ certainly would be spent there, but I think O still wins without a great deal of trouble.

that schumer is now endorsing the superticket points strongly to hillary actually wanting it to happen

http://origin.observer.com/2008/schumer-makes-case-obama-clinton-08

per the last SUSA, O's winning MN by 6 points despite losing Pawlenty's age cohort and independents

lo-info people

This is the second time you've used this term: I think I get what you mean by it, but can you explain?

he "barely won" in a year when everyone one else ended up with their heads on sticks? looks serious enough to me. our candidate (hatch) was kind of erratic and notoriously bad tempered, true; t-paw kind of just had to lay in the cut and wait. pawlenty is a cool performer, knows how to tell a joek and hit is mark over and over. plus the doctrinaire right-bloggy types like him.

xp hm ok.

she means tuomas

he "barely won" in a year when everyone one else ended up with their heads on sticks?

at the national level. guvs are different.

A shit-ton of the women who hate HRC are her contemporaries in age who all voted for Reagan and thought cojones = divorcing Bill and not acting so damned entitled/owed.

i.e. my mom.

No, that's MY mom. When you send her back, she's not allowed to talk about Vince Foster.

lo-info is shorthand for 'low information voter'

Pawlenty is incredibly popular with the swing vote/exurban voter - please remember he won without campaigning against DFL in a state Kerry won like Gore before him, which is otherwise one of the bluest states historically. Your gov as VP candidate *better* win the state or why the fuck are you putting him/her in? I'm glad gff backs me on this, as he actually lives there.

Obama should just say he's looking at governors to balance the ticket THAT way. Otherwise he's just caving in to Veruca Salt on some level, ergo GOP = look, he caved!

please remember he won without campaigning against DFL

why do you think he didn't campaign?

McCain would pick him not as much for MN as for WI and IA as well as evangelicals wherever they may be found

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/3/2008/05/hillaryWV1.jpg

lol

why shouldnt obama just call his veep now? what are the consequences? Doesnt that just make hilz case even more difficult?

Might want to see if McCain goes first?

1. it's rude, 2. looks cocky, 3. now she just looks like she's wasting everyone's money.

he's a black muslim with a crazy preacher who hates the flag

OMG, is this really true? Our party is doomed.

Seriously, other VP candidates don't need to have the same high-profile that HRC does. If that's the standard, then yeah, obv. she'll be the VP choice. But that's not the only standard. I want someone who will make Obama seem more experienced, touch the right nerves with moderates and independents, someone to bolster Obama's foreign-policy bona fides. Webb does all that. I see strong arguments for other candidates, too. HRC would be a disasterous choice. Not because she's a woman, mind you (I like what I hear about Kathleen Sebelius), but because she's HRC, with all the negative baggage that entails.

http://www.startribune.com/local/18863479.html

Politico does the arguments against and for

The Clinton veepstakes is an ideal subject for pontificating because so few people have any hard information to know what they are talking about. That makes it easy to bluster on both sides of the question with equal conviction.

^^^^ Truth.

I think the bottom line is that Clinton's negatives are too high - why would anyone want to add such a polarizing figure to their ticket?

for fun?

TO FORCE HER TO SAY, OVER AND OVER, "SEN. OBAMA WILL MAKE A WONDERFUL PRESIDENT."

Huffington Post speculates on Obama's VP choices. What the author (Will Thomas) sees as a drawback for Webb -- he "can be a little out-of-control as attack dogs go" -- I see as a plus, so long as Webb can restrain himself just a bit.

ethan sorry i just can't get into the minds of those "other" voters the way i guess you can although i have to admit it is amazingly tempting to put words in the mouths of working class white people

sorry tracer we don't have to do that.

just for instance - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24588813/

gabby my dad got the n-word hurled at him several times in the space of like an hour and a half, just because he was holding up an obama sign in knoxville - i'm not saying racists don't exist, just that the way they get worked into the electoral math in every article i've read is 100% speculation

take me home, country roads

xp

with WV and KY coming up, it's racist week here in the campaign

when i got a pair of black reeboks in 5th grade they were instantly dubbed "n1gg3r shoes" by my classmates - these people now have children - no doubt it's all hillary's influence

Second, my supporters are racist. If and when I am the nominee, Senator Obama's African-American supporters will be disappointed, perhaps. But they will still rally to me. If, however, Senator Obama is the nominee, my supporters will refuse to vote for him. Partly because I will secretly tell them not to, but mainly because they are racially biased and would never vote for any African-American candidate . . . I'm not bragging. It's just a fact.

(j/k Tracer).

Gneb not really doing much to explode the Obama supporters are elitist myth.

not liking racists = elitist

I don't know if/when it's updated, but James Kumarasamy reports from WV on a nice spot 'o racism around the halfway point of the Beeb's world service broadcast here

I remember the era in the campaign a few weeks/months ago when the reporters simply recorded that kind of stuff without noting what it was

Calling all of appalachia and all of the clinton campaign racist is what I am calling you out on.

shhhh england s'ok

my teacher that year though, mr horne - neck and neck with my 11th grade history teacher for favorite teacher ever - actually said to my classmates, unforgettably, that they'd all be wearing black shoes in a couple of years - he was right

which reeboks were those?

i think they were actually girls' shoes! they were hi-tops with two slim velcro straps that went over the laces near the top of the shoe. this was pre the air-jordan strappy techno-craziness that has dominated ever since.

this!! but in black -

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vtg-80s-Classic-Reebok-Freestyle-Gray-Shoes-6-5_W0QQitemZ120260469035QQihZ002QQcategoryZ74982QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

wau it even has a wikipedia entry -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reebok_Freestyle

lol @ those shoes provoking racist outpouring

Calling all of appalachia and all of the clinton campaign racist is what I am calling you out on.

-- Ed, Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:17 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

with WV and KY coming up, it's racist week here in the campaign

-- gabbneb

"all" of appalachia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Appalachian_region_of_United_States.gi

http://www.umich.edu/~econdev/arc/appalachia.jpeg

Caught me playing the nebbish's game.

i did not know aerobics was a black thing!

as a fifth grader i can testify that i was impressed with its styling, comfort and support

jhøshea the SHOES were black..... geddit

i was also called a "n1gg3r lover" for saying that the female harlem globetrotter was hot

reebok was pushing hard for a resurgence of those last year - many stores filled w/full candy colors - did not fly

ha wait was it really because the shoes were black?

these horrible shits were de rigeur in my 5th grade

http://i27.tinypic.com/2w4wrki.jpg

Ha, yeah, I assumed it was because they were identified with black kids at your school, or were sponsored by an African American celebrity or something. (Like a clue in last week's AV Club crossword: "Shoes once associated with MC Hammer and Public Enemy, briefly" = BKS.)

And by "sponsored," I obv. mean "endorsed."

o gross british knights

no that's the whole point of the story - then my teacher leapt in heroically and presciently

uh i kind of love those sneakers...

i'm just a big fan of big white sneakers.

(i came here looking for thoughts on our next VP and i find i just keep talking about footware like on the WDYSLL thread...)

when i got a pair of black reeboks in 5th grade they were instantly dubbed "n1gg3r shoes" by my classmates - these people now have children - no doubt it's all hillary's influence

-- Tracer Hand, Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:03 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link

man stfu tracer hand way to put your fingers in your ears and pretend what i said was 'hillary is the cause of racism' instead of 'race is one of many factors in hillarys support and a larger one than you seem to be willing to admit'

im sorry dont you live in like london or paris or some shit anyway??

'people seem butthurtedly tenacious in their support of a generally unpopular white candidate who has no chance of getting the nom over a generally popular black candidate who is essentially already running in the GE - no way race has anything to do with this!'

I think maybe only a fraction of those people are vocal racists or knowingly speak in code. The rest are people who are meeting a layer of racism they either weren't aware of or hadn't worked through or haven't had this kind of 'opportunity' to challenge their own certainties. Being uneasy in being led by someone darker than you is just one manifestation of white guilt which is unacceptable in our generation and kind of unchallenged in our parents'. Now this behaviour, which is a purge involving a lot of verbal vomit.

I think maybe only a fraction of those people are vocal racists or knowingly speak in code

and?

rural and/or working-class white democrats (this isn't the same thing as "poor", you know) have been the invisible plank in the democratic coalition for along time -- mostly because republicans have been telling people for years that they don't exist. the democratic party, in their portrayal, IS the "obama coalition": gays, college professors, black people, and kids, the many varieties of snooty, uppity, and clueless. (i'll conveniently leave ballbreaking and schoolmarmish out of my analysis...) reg'lar working folk vote for real men, of course

but suddenly, here they are! a contested and testy demographic w/in the party. what's really freaky is how quickly and completely HRC has come to identify herself with these voters. even freakier is the complete mutual abandonment of "the clintons" and african americans. it was a short time ago when obama's major weakness was next to zero black support. black democrats sick to death of bill and hillary clinton?? this is amazing. w/o getting too characterological, she seems to have taken it in stride...

fuck we have the same conversation with the same people going on like three threads now

no, that's not quite right. rural and/or 'working-class' white democrats and independents are fine with Obama if they live in the upper midwest, plains states, intermountain west and pacific northwest. part of that is libertarianism. part of it is sexism. part of it is plain-spokenness/pragmatism. but a significant part of it is that they aren't racist appalachians or urban white ethnics.

gabbneb really doesn't like the look of all those people in appalachia makin' less than 25k/year

yeah what is black dudes problem with uneducated rural whites anyway... SHEESH

pre-empting suzyethan class haet joeks actual factz i'ma poor h.s. dropout from SC town w/ less than 1000 ppl grew up on food stampz blah blah blah im not sitting in my loft in paris dispensing truisms about hillbilly dems never being racist ever no sir

j-hn, my hatred of stupidity is well-established. i'm sure they'd 'like the looks' of me too.

I think I don't know what's going on here

whether these folks are racist or not, we're gonna want their support in November. So we gotta figure out how to get their support. I don't think the VP choice is gonna be the main answer to this.

Plus, racism isn't the only problem with getting them to go Dem in November.

uh we're talking about hillary supporters

no, Veep isn't the only issue, but these people are voting in part on identity, and Veep is 1/2 the ticket's identity, so the choice will play a significant role

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/hagel-flirts-wi.html

You're all missing something i.e. these uneducated poor white folk.

My grandfather was an eighth-grade dropout and never enjoyed the rich life. He was also quite the racist.

After one of his last elections that he voted in (before he died), I asked him which congressional candidate he had voted for.

"I had to vote for a nigger this time!" he said, incredulously.
I rolled my eyes. "Why did you have to vote for him?"
"Because the other guy was a Republican!"

I thought about that conversation from Memphis to Forrest City after I left his house. There's not a damn way any pollster in this world could put his finger on that.

things are different now

haha good reportin ethan

is race a "larger" factor than i'm willing to admit? i have no idea how large a factor it is. you don't either. xpost

but is hillary, or her people, sitting around trying to figure out how to measure that factor? so that they can reach these racist democrats with particular propaganda or policy promises? i just haven't seen any evidence for it!

i think she's been landed on like a mountain every time she doesn't have her moustache on straight from a brainless political press that likes to type novels instead of report on the next king of the world and yeah it hurts my butt to see people parroting it.

when the Republican alternative is a warmonger, like this time, I think what Pleasant Plains is reporting will be pretty common in November.

Okay, this is probably a totally inappropriate reaction but I kind of <3 your grandfather for that.

The rest of this conversation looks like it can fuck a bucket.

there's as much evidence for your head-in-the-sand 'we can never know!' bullshit about whether or not lots of rednecks prefer hilz to obama cuz they hate the blacks as there would be for a republican defense of the same - wheres the "evidence" that republicans exploit race? is there more of that than the evidence that hillary has? how do you "measure" that factor? basically stfu

i cant imagine you sitting around saying the same shit if john mccain had bragged that while obama is winning polls he has the support of 'hard-working white voters'

PP, when did that conversation take place?

^im sayin! was this like pre-reagan or some shit

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/02/mccain/index.html

The Arizona Republican said he would like to have his running mate picked by the national convention in September.

"I'd love to do it earlier in the run than later, but it depends on the process," he said. "We just really haven't gotten far enough along in the whole thing to really be able to even predict what we're doing,

like I said a long time ago, I think this thing's gonna be a game of chicken, and the disadvantage of the Dems snagging the earlier convention spot is that the GOP can go second if it really wants

it also seems like another piece of evidence that McCain basically doesn't really know what he's doing when he's working on anything other than instinct

there are still lots of Southerners who identify as Dems but don't actually vote for Dems. the effect is less pronounced in the House, tho.

I'm not sure politicians exploit their constituents' racism so much as dither/refuse to call bullshit on it when the issue comes up. Which is basically ignoring the problem to pick up a few extra votes. Which is gross and we're all a bit poorer for it.

Ed Kilgore on the Unity Ticket (with four more arguments, pro or con, linked at hte end)

I'm certain some politicians exploit their constituents' racism in order to get re-elected.

My grandfather's voting - 1996 maybe? He was talking about the Ford Family.

Norwegian-Americans (Walter Mondale, John Thune, Phil Bredesen)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Norwegian1346.gif

Italian-Americans (Geraldine Ferraro, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Zinni)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Italian1346.gif

Greek Americans (Michael Dukakis, Charlie Crist in part)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Greek1346.gif

Polish Americans (Tim Pawlenty, Chuck Hagel in part, Tom Ridge in part (he is a "Rusyn American"))

French Americans ("John Kerry")

Czech Americans (John Kerry, in part)

Scottish Americans (John Kerry, in part, Hillary Clinton, in part, Mitt Romney in part)

English Americans (the Bushes in part, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton in part, John McCain in part, Ted Strickland, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney in part, Sam Nunn?, Mark Sanford, Mike Huckabee, Jim Jones, Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, Liddy Dole in part)

Irish Americans (Ronald Reagan, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, Chris Dodd, Tom Ridge in part, Liddy Dole in part)

German Americans (the Bushes in part, Mitt Romney in part, Brian Schweitzer, Chuck Hagel in part)

Scotch-Irish Americans (Bill Clinton, John McCain in part, Jim Webb, Charlie Crist in part)

"Americans" (Kay Bailey Hutchison, Haley Barbour, Lindsey Graham?)

Polish Americans (Tim Pawlenty, Chuck Hagel in part, Tom Ridge in part (he is a "Rusyn American"))

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Polish1346.gif

French Americans ("John Kerry")

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/French1346.gif

Czech Americans (John Kerry, in part)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Czech1346.gif

Scottish Americans (John Kerry, in part, Hillary Clinton, in part, Mitt Romney in part)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Scottish1346.gif

English Americans (the Bushes in part, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton in part, John McCain in part, Ted Strickland, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney in part, Sam Nunn?, Mark Sanford, Mike Huckabee, Jim Jones, Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, Liddy Dole in part)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/English1346.gif

Irish Americans (Ronald Reagan, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, Chris Dodd, Tom Ridge in part, Liddy Dole in part)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Irish1346.gif

German Americans (the Bushes in part, Mitt Romney in part, Brian Schweitzer, Chuck Hagel in part)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/German1346.gif

Scotch-Irish Americans (Bill Clinton, John McCain in part, Jim Webb, Charlie Crist in part)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Scotch_irish1346.gif

"Americans" (many of whom are Scotch-Irish; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Haley Barbour, Lindsey Graham)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/American1346.gif

not to be cynical or anything

gabbneb, I knew you were useful!

French Americans ("John Kerry")

lol

Cheney is German and Scotch-Irish

im sorry dont you live in like london or paris or some shit anyway??
-- and what, Tuesday, 13 May 2008

amazing attack on Hand!

I bet he wishes he was in Paris. I do!

I mean I wish I was, not that he was.

Capt. Save-a-Bro

pinefox, yeah, that would be nice. in a loft, while we're at it!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/shortlist.jpg

like I said, HuffPo produces content by paying people without much qualification

can i get in on that?

Interesting maps. My French heritage is directly traceable to that lone red county in Illinois; my great-grandfather migrated there from Quebec.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/James_Webb%2C_Assistant_Secretary_of_Defense%2C_official_photo.JPEG/484px-James_Webb%2C_Assistant_Secretary_of_Defense%2C_official_photo.JPEG

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/16_johnc_lgl.jpg

Sens. laugh off, ponder, downplay veep chances

Of note:

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.)
“I’m not really interested. That’s all I want to say.”

Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who at 90 is the chamber’s oldest member, noted that his job as president pro tempore already allows him to preside over the Senate just as Cheney does as Senate president.

“And I do not enjoy spending a lot of time at ‘undisclosed locations,’ ” Byrd s

aid.

good reporting, guys

“Absolutely,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). “I think I would be great. First of all, I know how to behave at weddings and funerals. And I know how to be commander in chief. I’d bring a lot of fun to the job. We would rock the Naval Observatory.

"We" = Mikulski and her partner?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/romney-poses-bigger-threa_b_102262.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a8aZdQtitYJo

It would be stupid for McCain to select Romney.

dignity shmignity
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics/national_elections&id=6150878

huckabee said he wants to be picked by mccain...good lord let this come to pass! the yucks will be nonstop

are you kidding, Dan? Romney would be a relentless attack dog, help shore up McCain's money disadvantage, make it harder for Obama in the West (Nevada and Colorado), and force more time and money to be spent in the Northeast

Huckabee would be a veep choice if Hillary were the nominee

he'd also help take care of McCain's I-know-nothing-about-the-economy problem

I wasn't kidding, Gab, but to be fair, you're raising points I hadn't considered. I'll circle back soon to address them.

So many quotables in Webb's "Women Can't Fight" essay:

"It is a delicate balance for any Academy graduate, looking back on those four years and measuring what he received in return for pouring every last hot ounce of his youth into Annapolis."

"One thing Bush does get excited about, however, is the way he perceives women being forced down the brigade's throat."

"Man is more naturally violent than woman. You might not pick this up in K Street law offices or in the halls of Congress, but once you enter the areas of this country where more typical Americans dwell, the areas that provide the men who make up our combat units, it becomes obvious. Inside the truck stops and in the honky-tonks, down on the street and in the coal towns, American men are tough and violent. When they are lured or drafted from their homes and put through the dehumanization of boot camp, then thrown into an operating combat unit, they don't get any nicer, either. And I have never met a woman, including the dozens of female midshipmen I encountered during my recent semester as a professor at the Naval Academy, whom I would trust to provide those men with combat leadership."

"I watched another of my men, a wholesome Midwest boy, yank the trousers off a dead woman while under fire, just to see if he really remembered what it looked like."

Obama leads comfortably in Pennsylvania, but the State wants a known quantity as his Veep

Too bad Robert Byrd is 90. Would have been an interesting ticket.

http://www.horror-wood.com/2nd_mi4.jpg

Ha!

I forgot the link

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/05/20/running-mates-pennsylvania-edition/

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/05/19/running-mates-8-tickets-16-matchups-17-states/

so does NM. it's hard to determine whether this is simply a matter of name recognition or a real problem of trust/novelty. it would be nice if they had asked about Richardson, say, in New Mexico.

Jim Webb can make the Four Seasons seem like a diner in Owensboro, Kentucky.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/jim_webbs_veep_tour_continues.php

(the Four Seasons)

I hope so, because Owensboro has some of the best barbecue in the US: mutton galore.

are you kidding, Dan? Romney would be a relentless attack dog, help shore up McCain's money disadvantage, make it harder for Obama in the West (Nevada and Colorado), and force more time and money to be spent in the Northeast

So, just getting back to this. First, Romney might be relentless as an attack dog, but I don't think he'll be a very good attack dog (I'm basing this on his underwhelming performance in the GOP primaries, which -- I admit -- may not be a good indicator). He just seemed limp and ineffectual at times when he was supposedly on-the-attack, especially against McCain. Second, if he plows his own personal fortune into the campaign, I guess that will put a dent in some of Obama's money advantage, but is he really going to do that? He seemed pretty quick to pull out of the GOP race and cut his financial losses. If he senses it's a losing battle in the GE, I imagine he'd do the same. Also, if you mean that putting Romney on the ticket will attract big-money donations to the GOP, I'm not sure I see why. I don't remember Romney's primary campaign being anything like the fundraising machines that are the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Third, as to making it harder on Obama in the West and Northeast, I guess he might. But he has so many negatives -- his religion/his inability to inspire the evangelical wing of the GOP; his plastic and phony demeanor, his flip-flopping(n.1) -- that I think they swamp his positives. I'm guessing McCain can find another VP candidate that puts those regions in play and brings other attributes to the ticket. Put differently, there's a reason why so many liberals were so anxious for Romney to win the GOP nomination.

I'm not trying to be dogmatic, so my apologies if it comes off that way. You made good points.

_______________________________
(n.1) On the subject of Romney's flip-flopping, he was pro-life in the GOP primary for President, but dig up the video of his scolding his opponent in the GOP primary for Governor, when he basically wagged his finger in her face and said, "Don't lie to people. I'm pro-choice." Priceless.

I don't think he'll be a very good attack dog (I'm basing this on his underwhelming performance in the GOP primaries,

debate performance, against a handful of people who hate you, is not the same as tv-talking-head-attack-dog-ism. he's been doing that lately, and very effectively.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/21/veepstakes-question/

last contest between current or former Senators was 36 years ago, of course

is Halperin implying that we should be looking at Thune/Graham/Hutchison/Lieberman vs Webb/Biden/Nunn/Hagel?

(Edwards?)

edwards said no

i suppose he could change his mind if asked but I don't think he'll be asked

(Edwards?)

Ugh, let's hope not. See supra at Romney. But I'm open to argument on the point, I guess.

Right, I tend to agree, I'm just struck by polling data that could be read to suggest people want Obama to pick a known quantity. that could change very easily if it turns out they really like a newcomer they hadn't heard of before, but it may be especially important in Obama's case as a newcomer with some trust issues himself. Edwards is a known quantity without the baggage (assuming the baby issue isn't real and can be shut down easily) of a Hillary, and in that respect is arguably an easy answer. I also think the experience thing is at least somewhat overblown with respect to an individual that strikes voters as trustworthy. Note that I'm not arguing that he brings any special strengths to the ticket, though I do think he could help at least a little in the rust belt and the Southeast.

xp

I also think most Dems and a fair number of others basically like Edwards (which isn't the same as feeling strongly about him), but shied from putting him on top of the ticket in part because of Elizabeth's health. That would be less of an issue with respect to a Veep.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/jim-webb-speaks-out-on-ra_n_102915.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21cnd-mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I've thought it quite possible that for all his talk about it being early in the process, McCain may see an advantage in picking fast and being able to introduce the veep to the public as early as possible, allowing a 2-on-1 attack dynamic and maybe forcing a pick by the other side. It may also be in his interest to define the battlefield as early as possible.

I'm just struck by polling data that could be read to suggest people want Obama to pick a known quantity

CLOON

if McCain is truly meeting with the only veep shortlisters - which is not at all clear - then I think it's clear that Romney (or perhaps Meg Whitman, who is also present) is the pick, as I don't regard Crist and Jindal as serious prospects

McCain wants that money, now

The Empty Suit and Rattling Head ticket.

maybe the implication of Halperin's earlier post is that it's almost certainly gonna be a guv

Romney should help McCain in MI and NH

Maybe. So let's just say it's Webb v. Romney on the VP ticket. You don't think Webb has a major -- major -- advantage, in terms of credibility, toughness (which, as you may know from my posts, I think it key in Presidential elections), genuineness, and foreign policy bona fides?

(which, as you may know from my posts, I think it iskey in Presidential elections)

Fixed. As you may also know from my posts, I'm illiterate and stupid.

xp - sure, though Romney is more shameless. but I don't think people really compare Veeps in that way, they compare tickets. So it's a question of who has an advantage between McCain+Romney and Obama+Webb.

Romney is more shameless

This is undoubtedly true.

i agree that webb would make romney look really bad - tho a lot of that is prob just romney looking really bad on his own - mccain would be wicked retarded to pick him

the only time the veeps will be compared is in their debate. debates have some impact, but not that much.

that may change if this summer unmoderated-forum thing goes forward and the veeps have been picked

I certainly remember the last GE's VP debate. I think it had an impact.

agreed, gabbneb, but I don't think vp choices have much impact either.

I still think McCain will go with Rice or Lieberman.

I see why he might choose Lieberman, but their collective lack of vitality and age would really hurt McCain. I don't think Romney is a good choice for McCain, but I think he's a better choice than Lieberman.

(Lack of vitality and the fact that they're both pretty old, is what I meant. Totally incoherent. Apologies.)

mccain's still has base problems, a lieberman pick would make those worse right? you only need to pull up the guy's record on abortion or taxes. seems like an idea that only makes sense inside washington.

er drop the possessive on mccain right there

Lieberman is scarred onto the american psyche as Loserman from his last VP run, he's droopy fucking dog and everyone hates him, I dearly hope mccain picks him and obama picks webb and webb beats lieberman to death during their first debate

^ yah

the first part of that post is totally not true, xp

welll hes a droopy fucking dog and i hate him

i'm afraid that might be insufficient

ok so could they pull off being the straight talker ambiguously-unideological duo? that would seem to have appeal to a narrow seam of independents and damn-it-all war nuts while not exciting anyone else at all, and being politically contradictory in the details

no way is he picking Lieberman. the base aint havin that

what have they got in common? the war. does anyone like the war? no. what do they have as differences? judges, taxes, trade, abortion, women's rights, etc etc etc. it seems like a pairing that looks on the surface to make everyone happy but once it hits the ground is guaranteed to piss nearly anyone off for one reason or another.

and theyre both so fucking ugly gahhhh

i don't know how important that is, but i forget that it is actually important.

Lieberman is like the guy in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory who comes along with the whispering after kids find Golden Tickets.

i know this sounds mad morbius-like but i cant wait for us to win senate, house + presidency by big margin, then drop the ball on actually accomplishing shit.

eh actually accomplishing shit is relative - yr prob setting yrself up for disappointment by thinking of the democratic party as we

just wait for them to fuck one thing up and then lose the senate in a few years

Lieberman will make the right people happy. The Christian base is already going to be unhappy with McCain, so it won't matter very much what they think. This election is going to be about the war, I think, and Lieberman will bring it on that. He'll be a Cheney-like figure behind the scenes for sure. Plus, he's (arguably) a Dem which will convince some that McCain really is a krazy maverick who can cross the aisle. I think Obama will pick Webb and so crossing the aisle will be the big story there.

slugworth >>>>>>> lieberman (xxx-post)

xtianity is not the only part of the base he upsets tho.

per John King/CNN, via Halperin, Top McCain aide Charlie Black calls it “a social weekend,” denies a formal vetting process is underway

McCain of Love?

how long until black resigns?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/23109/thumbs/s-MCCAINMATES-large.jpg

This election is going to be about the war, I think, and Lieberman will bring it on that.

Puts too many eggs in one basket (the war). McCain can't afford to look lost on economic issues (especially since (a) he's not trusted by the GOP base on those issues and (b) has admitted he knows little about those issues), and Lieberman does nothing for him in that crucial area. Plus, Lieberman looks like an old, establishment guy, too. Putting them together creates a ticket far weaker than the sum of its parts. Won't happen. And, tellingly, Lieberman isn't invited to McCain's VP sleepover party.

BTW, what do you all think of the 36-year old La. Gov. who is on McCain's apparent VP short-list?

red herring

If Obama actually picks an ambulatory piece of shit like Nunn, Biden or (somewhat less so) Webb, and all we lefties vote for Mike Gravel or whoever out of justified disgust, you'll blame us for another for another Republican prez when the GOP wins, right?

Right.

Love you for it,

i know this sounds mad morbius-like but i cant wait for us to ... drop the ball on actually accomplishing shit.

It's called recidivism.

ha dont worry morbs all but a statistically insignificant slice of lefties learned their lesson in 2000

I'll be shocked if McCain picks Jindal. Dude's 36 years old. The ethnic angle is interesting, but still, dude's 36.

the "ethnic angle"? who are you, morbius?

I think he means the only angle that would result in Jindal being picked? "See, we like em too!"

jindal is so far off the table its insane

am crossing my fingers that its romney

mccain is even dumber than i thought if he picks romney

Once he has the boys all together, McCain should settle this the old-fashioned way: feats of strength, and maybe a belching contest.

Earlier today at the VP trials

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/55829845.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193CC300C081D9F470011983C3069B1CECDA3BA4A23CCC94035A55A1E4F32AD3138

the republicans don't really have any good prospects here, do they?

i mean, rice and powell are probably their best options, and powell wouldn't take it, and both he and rice are on the hook for lying about iraq.

the strong gop candidates are staying home at all levels this year

Was gonna mention Rice but I believe Powell's wife doesn't want him running for executive office?

Pawlenty not invited to the weenie roast so far.

Obama will choose Sebelius or Webb, but only if he thinks being a man down in the Senate is solveable.

powell doesnt seem that into the gop anymore - came off as a likely obama voter in a recent interview

im struggling to imagine any appeal at all bush sycophant condi possesses

yeah, sorry for the expression "ethnic angle", but I don't know how else to put it. Dude is Indian-American, which is totally rad, and that would help counter the total radness of Obama's background, that's all I mean. I understand that Jindal is hardcore conservative too, loved by the Christian base. And it's hard to find anyone right now who is loved by the Christian base and would be ok on a national ticket (even Huckabee fails this).

I still think he's super young/inexperienced for this, waaaay more than Obama (and people understandably worry about that). But hey, bring it on: this guy will have a hard time on the campaign trail, and that's good for Obama.

xpost jh0shea yeah, folks like Jindal are making it this far in the process because who else is there?

I think Rice would be an awesome pick for him, though. The pro-war base loves her, and again, it counters the awesomeness of Obama from a crude "quota" standpoint, plus it raises the gender stakes. If McCain goes for Rice then I think Obama will have pressure to go with a woman.

there is this guy his name is george bush the whole country hates him?

I saw a guy at the KC zoo a few weeks ago with a "W: the president" t-shirt on. I live in the heart of Bush country and was still pretty shocked to see someone willing to do that.

In the ATL this Christmas I still saw a few W stickers on SUVs but way less than I did in Dec 2004, say.

Jindal is a born-again christian and hard core creationist

Gross. Hoping these rapture-ready types get left behind in Nov.

McCain couldn't pick a 36 year old. They'd look like father and son. Way to emphasise how old he is.

> They'd look like father and son.

OMG Black love child!

If McCain goes for Rice then I think Obama will have pressure to go with a woman

pressure, yes, but he won't necessarily pick one. I don't know that Condi appeals to many of the women who want a woman in the White House. And she's not going to help with the 'working class white' folks.

>And she's not going to help with the 'working class white' folks.

Maybe he should go for Hillary.

I don't know that Condi appeals to many of the women who want a woman in the White House

I think it will, but mostly only on anecdotal evidence (e.g. my wife's lifelong Republican grandmother in Iowa who voted for Mondale just for Ferraro)---plus the way this Democratic primary's gone, where one of Clinton's base of support has been among older women (in addition to those who want the Clinton brand back).

yeah, older white Democratic women who are going to be hit in the election with strong social security/medicare and supreme court/pro-choice messages. and Iowa is next door to Minnesota.

older white women like condi rice?

also condi said she'd never run this isnt an issue

the Mondale/Ferraro percentage in Iowa was the same as in New York

hay guise im pretty sure no one in the entire world likes condi rice

Thanks for the data, I'll drop it. Like I said, I just have anecdotal evidence which isn't worth much at all.

VP choices are such fun to speculate about because they can pick anyone, but candidates tend to pick pretty conventional choices in the end.

I read that Rice got a big push from the pro-war and Grover Norquist types a few weeks ago, so I think she's still popular with them. And those guys are pretty powerful among the Republicans still.

the most recent polls i can find are from summer 06 (pre-katrina, when rice took a huge drop) and even then shes only 51/41 approve/disapprove, not very presidential

She only has to be vice-Presidential, Ethan. Rice is discreet, polite, upper middle class from birth, and is something else that a lot of women my mom's age like in other women. Condi could be eating the heads off babies in her spare time for all my mother knows or cares but SHE'S CLASSY so she gets a pass with the Fox crowd, for whom she is also the acceptable face of blackness.

I never, ever believe a politician who says they are categorically not interested in higher office until someone else is chosen for that slot.

I never understood the compliments Condi got for "poise." She always looks like she's on the verge of pulling an Ed Muskie (or is that sexist?).

not to lend dignity or legitimacy to rumors about condi's sexuality but haven't ppl done "is she or isn't she?" pieces a few times over the years? and while I know not all Republicans are crazed fundies OK, I also don't think McCain/the party will be in a big hurry to further alienate that part of the base that's already a little pissed off that they didn't get a crazed fundie like Huck as the candidate

she's also unmarried - who was the last unmarried vp candidate?

there's great stuff all over Halperin right now:
- Romney is set to chair a conservative PAC; says veep (or any other political future) is very unlikely
- Pawlenty's already been to the 'ranch'
- Obama's process has begin, with Daschle advising and Jim Johnson (Kerry, Mondale) vetting
- Bill wants Hil as veep; she's opaque to a top staffer
- Teddy wants Vicki in his seat
- Obama is down a few points in OH and FL, while Clinton looks set to win them; Obama has a solid lead in PA, while Clinton puts it away

key from Ambinder:

Aside from the question of what to do with Sen. Hillary Clinton, several political imperatives confront Obama as he begins to think about his choice. One is that the candidates with whom he has bonded would not necessarily serve his political needs. Another is that if he chooses a Democrat from the party's establishment, like Sens. Clinton, Dodd or Biden, he might undercut his argument that the establishment needs to go. If he chooses someone young and with a relative lack of executive experience, he opens the ticket to criticism that it is too green. If he chooses a Republican or a pro-life Democrat, he risks a major backlash from Democratic women as he tries to bring more of them to his side after the primary season ends. If he chooses someone young and flashy, he risks being upstaged. And while Obama discounts the experience argument, many of his advisers do not.

Potential ticket-mates, in no particular order, include Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Ex-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), Ex-Sen. John Edwards, (D-NC), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS), Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), Sen. John Biden (D-DE), Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) ex-Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN), Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) and others.

Note who isn't on the list: Rendell, Schweitzer, Salazar, Nelson, Bredesen, Bloomberg. Who else?

she's also unmarried - who was the last unmarried vp candidate?

is this a rhetorical question? cause I have no idea

"in no particular order", riiiiiight.

this John Biden guy sounds like a real comer

William R. King served as U.S. Vice-President 1853 under Pres. Pierce.

William R. King was the only unmarried Vice-President. He died never having married. He had no children.

also not on the list: Clark, Zinni, Jones

Imagine if Condi had been James Buchanan's veep.

it seems to me that it's almost gotta be webb. although, he has that weird 'women can't fight' article in his past which is going to piss off women voters even more.

she's also unmarried - who was the last unmarried vp candidate?

Charlie Crist is also unmarried. (He was married once, almost 30 years ago. It lasted a year.)

It won't be Condoleezza Rice. McCain needs to find ways of advocating for the Iraq War while simultaneously distancing himself from the Bush Administration. Picking Rice does not help him walk that very fine line (Indeed, Rice's most distinctive trait is to tsk-tsk anyone who opposes Admin. policy and smugly declare, in so many words, "The President says such-and-such," "The President correctly notes this-and-that," "The President wants so-and-so." That isn't what McCain needs).

Sherrod Brown isn't on the list either.

there's no way he's going to pick hagel. if anything hagel is on the list for a secretary of defense, the way clinton picked william cohen. in fact, what is william cohen doing now?

your mom

I am aghast that Dr Morbius and Gabbaneb are not being considered for the spot.

I still think the best way to put Hilz aside (which needs to be done) is to choose a governor and say it was a categorical decision. It really needs to be done because if not, Obama has a chickenshit scared of Hillary problem that would be more attackable than her butthurt supporters threatening to go to McCain

no, william cohen is doing his wife and writing books about it, according to wikipedia

I still think the best way to put Hilz aside (which needs to be done) is to choose a governor and say it was a categorical decision.

Nah. I still think CW strongly says that Obama would be loopy to choose HRC as the VP. She'll start enthusiastically supporting him soon enough.

I agree but apparently the HRC/VP pressure to Camp Obama is all coming from the Screamin' Lobster?

Tim Roemer: Indianan (South Bend), 51, Catholic, former Rep and 9/11 Commission member, current national security thinktank prez, pro-life, anti-NAFTA (pro-GATT), deficit hawk, education specialist, son-in-law of conservative former Louisiana Senator and current lobbyist Bennett Johnston, Ph.D., workhorse

Prob., but Obama will resist it. HRC will not be his VP. (xp)

xxxp Also, Hoover's VP, Charles Curtis was widowed when elected.

Charlie Crist is also unmarried.

And, if the very strong rumors are true, unstraight.

Roemer looks pretty good on paper, but he strikes me as having little upside and little risk. He's not an exciting guy, though---he was my representative for a few years, so I have a little background. Close friends said he spent a lot of time talking to them about politics when they ran into each other at the gym, so I think well of him. I don't think he'll be the first choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cohen#Recent_years

Let Hilary be the new Ted Kennedy figure in the senate for the next 20 years.

If he chooses someone young and flashy, he risks being upstaged

Not a risk.

William Cohen's been, er, busy.

McCain VP strategery?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/mccains-vp-coming-on-june_b_103026.html

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080107/080107-obama-edwards-vmed5p.widec.jpg

^^^^ NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

NO.

I think I've mentioned this before.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/9426/r1930815884fl1.jpg

i'm not so hot about that pairing either

It will be fine if McCain chooses that 36-year old kid, tho.

Otherwise, as I've said, NO.

john edwards is a fake ass motherfucker

guys have a lot of teeth

http://images.politico.com/global/071111_obama_edwards.jpg
http://unitedagainsthillary.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/edwama.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-schoen/the-john-mccain-imperativ_b_103118.html

GO JOE GO.

JOEMENTUM!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-schoen/the-john-mccain-imperativ_b_103118.html

-- gabbneb, Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:09 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

huffington post not home to the sharpest thinkers huh