Who Should Be VP?
 

Assuming that Obama and McCain are the candidates who do you all think should be their running mates?

-Should Obama choose Hillary as his running mate?

-Does he need an insider with foreign policy experience like Biden?

-Will he shock the world and pick someone like Colin Powell?

-Does McCain need to appease the far(ther) right by selecting Huckabee?

-Should he try to appease "centrists" by selecting Charlie Crist?

-Will he shock the world and pick someone like Lieberman?

What do you all think they should do?

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

Assuming that Obama and McCain are the candidates who do you all think should be their running mates?

[B]-Should Obama choose Hillary as his running mate? [/B]

This would ensure victory, IMO, but I think he hates her and her husband and would rather take his chances on his own. He figures he can win anyway and then he won't have those two breathing down his neck.

[B]-Does he need an insider with foreign policy experience like Biden?[/B]

Biden's foreign policy credentials are really overrated. He's no intellectual. He seems to have anointed himself the Democratic Party's foreign policy elder statesman. Nobody who understands the world at all would steal a speech from a loser like Neil Kinnoch. If you're going to lift from a British Labour leader, try Wilson or Atlee - everyone knows this.

-[B]Will he shock the world and pick someone like Colin Powell?[/B]

Interesting. I think he's more likely to pick a white woman, say, Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas. She's as liberal as he is and it would help him regain the support of some women. He needs to win women overall by 5 to 10 points, to make up for white men, whom he will lose by 20 points.

-[B]Does McCain need to appease the far(ther) right by selecting Huckabee?[/B]

No. Huckabee isn't that much more popular with conservatives than McCain. Evangelicals feel some kinship with him, but the Grover Norquist types and the Buckleyites can't stand him.

-[B]Should he try to appease "centrists" by selecting Charlie Crist?[/B]

I think he figures he can win Florida without him, so if he wants a candidate that can help him carry a swing state, Romney and MIchigan would make more sense. If McCain wins in Michigan, the math gets very tricky for Obama.

-[B]Will he shock the world and pick someone like Lieberman?[/B]

Only if he wants to speak to a crowd of about 30 people at the nominating convention. Lieberman's position on social issues would cause a full scale revolt among the various people who care about these thiongs. If he wants an out of the box, novelty choice he should pick Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. (apparently the only one in that state's history that wasn't hopelessly crooked) Jindal is the one person I see in the conservative landscape that gives me some hope for the future. Certainly you must be following him closely, SS.

[B]What do you all think they should do? [/B]

See above. Obama/Sebelius and McCain/Jindal.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;449857][B]-Should Obama choose Hillary as his running mate? [/B]

This would ensure victory, IMO, but I think he hates her and her husband and would rather take his chances on his own. He figures he can win anyway and then he won't have those two breathing down his neck.[/QUOTE]

Hate can be overcome. See Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan/Bush, Kyer/Lee... I don't know that Hillary would truly accept being a VP though. As much as she seems to say she would

[QUOTE][B]-Does he need an insider with foreign policy experience like Biden?[/B]

Biden's foreign policy credentials are really overrated. He's no intellectual. He seems to have anointed himself the Democratic Party's foreign policy elder statesman. Nobody who understands the world at all would steal a speech from a loser like Neil Kinnoch. If you're going to lift from a British Labour leader, try Wilson or Atlee - everyone knows this.[/QUOTE]

What about Webb, or even Wesley Clark? The former seems a better choice, the latter is just as "green" if not more so about Washington politics than Obama. As much as candidates like to say they're "not part of Washington" it helps to have that "in" Someone who understands how the system works behind the scenes. Some up here have speculated Chris Dodd. That'd surprise me. And of course there was that, now dying, talk of Richardson

[QUOTE]-[B]Will he shock the world and pick someone like Colin Powell?[/B]

Interesting. I think he's more likely to pick a white woman, say, Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas. She's as liberal as he is and it would help him regain the support of some women. He needs to win women overall by 5 to 10 points, to make up for white men, whom he will lose by 20 points.[/QUOTE]

She's certainly a front-runner.

[QUOTE][B]Does McCain need to appease the far(ther) right by selecting Huckabee?[/B]

No. Huckabee isn't that much more popular with conservatives than McCain. Evangelicals feel some kinship with him, but the Grover Norquist types and the Buckleyites can't stand him.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough

[QUOTE][B]Should he try to appease "centrists" by selecting Charlie Crist?[/B]

I think he figures he can win Florida without him, so if he wants a candidate that can help him carry a swing state, Romney and MIchigan would make more sense. If McCain wins in Michigan, the math gets very tricky for Obama.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what to make of Romney as a VP candidate. I think he's a smart guy who has shown the ability to problem-solve on the grandest stages but I don't know what he offers as a #2. It would also depend on what McCain envisions his VP's role would be.

[QUOTE][B]Will he shock the world and pick someone like Lieberman?[/B]

Only if he wants to speak to a crowd of about 30 people at the nominating convention. Lieberman's position on social issues would cause a full scale revolt among the various people who care about these thiongs. If he wants an out of the box, novelty choice he should pick Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. (apparently the only one in that state's history that wasn't hopelessly crooked) Jindal is the one person I see in the conservative landscape that gives me some hope for the future. Certainly you must be following him closely, SS.[/QUOTE]

Bobby Jindal certainly would be an exciting choice for those of my ilk. But once I get past that, I simply don't agree with him on many issues. It could be a good choice for McCain though if he wants to win

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

I'll weigh in, in more detail later. But after Clinton's recent comments, which she probably didn't mean, any shot she had a Veep is done.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

Clinton is too divisive, IMO, to benefit Obama. Biden is, by all accounts, not smart. I don't know what his best bet is - interesting call on Sebelius. I think Webb would be an interesting counter to McCain - war vet, quasi-conservative, carries VA.

Jindal is interesting, but a Catholic in the White House (even as VP)? I'm not sure how that plays out. It's surprising how important that is to a lot of people.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

I'd like to see bloomberg on either ticket though it'll never happen. McCain doesn't bring jack to the table on economics, and don't really think Obama is much better in that regard. So I think a business/economic genius w/ political skills, like bloomberg, makes sense. That way the pres can focus more attention on foreign policy.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

Bloomberg is compelling, but would you want him one step away from the presidency?

Obama is giving a commencement speech at a university just 10 minutes from my place tomorrow. I'm tempted to go to hear him speak in person.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

i like Edwards to run with Obama. and i really like Jindal from Louisiana. he kind of reminds me of the republican version of Obama. i went to see both Clinton and Obama when they where in the area. and wished Mccain would have come around here. it would have been interesting to try and compare the 3. the best the Rep's could do in this area was Sean Hannity, who i think is a total idiot

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;449904]Bloomberg is compelling, [B]but would you want him one step away from the presidency?
[/B]
Obama is giving a commencement speech at a university just 10 minutes from my place tomorrow. I'm tempted to go to hear him speak in person.[/QUOTE]

That certainly gives me pause... but in the end I think he'd make a quality pres. Bloomberg is probably as bright as any of the candidates and he is not a partisan traditionalist - I get the sense he is all pragmatism which is something we've not had IMO for too long.

I wish I could hear Obama in person... you're lucky to get the opportunity.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[QUOTE=The Goat;449919]That certainly gives me pause... but in the end I think he'd make a quality pres. Bloomberg is probably as bright as any of the candidates and he is not a partisan traditionalist - I get the sense he is all pragmatism which is something we've not had IMO for too long.

I wish I could hear Obama in person... you're lucky to get the opportunity.[/QUOTE]

Well the commencement ceremony was closed to the public, so the best I could do is a webcast. He was speaking in place of Senator Kennedy.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;449861]


Bobby Jindal certainly would be an exciting choice for those of my ilk. But once I get past that, I simply don't agree with him on many issues. It could be a good choice for McCain though if he wants to win[/quote]

Your ilk is an interesting position to not only save the Conservative movement in this country, but perhaps mankind itself. They are a natural bridge. And, who else could have gotten the British to just walk away for no apparent reason. That commands a man's respect as oppose to say the Palestinians, who have no sense whatsoever.

What issues do you disagree with JIndal on? Do you think that Louisiana was better off corrupt? I suppose it's the abortion/gay business.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;449974]Your ilk is an interesting position to not only save the Conservative movement in this country, but perhaps mankind itself. They are a natural bridge. And, who else could have gotten the British to just walk away for no apparent reason. That commands a man's respect as oppose to say the Palestinians, who have no sense whatsoever.

What issues do you disagree with JIndal on? Do you think that Louisiana was better off corrupt? I suppose it's the abortion/gay business.[/QUOTE]

yeah well you don't eff with Gandhi

Various issues, will expand on them if he's chosen as a running mate

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

Hillary is done as far as VP is concerned. She has said so many f'ed up things that it would be counter to Obama's message to have her as his VP. I would definitely keep Hillary at a distance and take my chances, she's f'ing crazy and Bill in the white house would be an unruly scene.

Colin Powell would be an interesting pick but I don't know how the America people would feel about two black men on the same ticket. Plus Powell's stock as fallen mightily since he gave that speech at the UN. I suspect the poor bastard was duped but then again he did do some serious dirty fork for the Bush administration. I wouldn't mind seeing him as the secretary of Defense and a shot at redeeming himself by overseeing the withdrawal from Iraq.

Who would I like to see as VP? I really would like to see Jim Webb. The dude is no bullshitter and has mad creds. He would bring VA home too.

As for the women vote, tell them what will happen with the Supreme Court if McCain wins and they'll line up. Sure he'll lose some of the Hillary crazy die-hard fans but the majority will support him.

Jindal is a nut job in terms of his beliefs but I'm sure glad to finally see some color in the GOP. I doubt he will be picked as VP because it would negate the whole experience attack flight pattern McCain has been using against Obama. If he picks Jindal McCain would simply look foolish to attack Obama when he has someone 10 years Obama's junior as his VP ("if your VP is ready at 37 I'm ready at 47").

Naturally I want McCain to pick Lieberman but alas he is not that dumb. Right now, there's no quicker way to unite the democratic party than to have Joe "Darth Sidious" Lieberman as McCain's running mate.

I suspect McCain will pick Romney to help him bring home Utah and Colorado.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=70Chip;449974]Your ilk is an interesting position to not only save the Conservative movement in this country, but perhaps mankind itself. They are a natural bridge. [B]And, who else could have gotten the British to just walk away for no apparent reason.[/B] That commands a man's respect as oppose to say the Palestinians, who have no sense whatsoever.

What issues do you disagree with JIndal on? Do you think that Louisiana was better off corrupt? I suppose it's the abortion/gay business.[/quote]

Come on, you're smarter than that. Don't do my man Gandhi and the people who made so many sacrifices like that.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=saden1;449986]Come on, you're smarter than that. Don't do my man Gandhi and the people who made so many sacrifices like that.[/quote]


I think you misunderstand me. I have enormous respect for Ghandi and what he did. My point is that the Indians, et al are in a unique position geo-politically. They understand Western Values, Eastern Values, and are economically viable. We and the Chinese will be struggling to be their best friend for some time to come. They are the diplomatic hinge of the next 20 years, IMO.

Perhaps the phrase "no apparent reason" was overstated. Ghandi gave them good reasons to leave but they were enlightened compared to what happened with, say, the French in Vietnam. He more or less talked them into leaving. If Arafat were half the man Ghandi was, the Israelis would never have been able to maintain their presence in the West Bank all these years. Likewise if Ghandi had been a corrupt, venal, thug given over to violence, the English would have stayed out of spite, probably another ten years at least. v

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[QUOTE=saden1;449985]Hillary is done as far as VP is concerned. She has said so many f'ed up things that it would be counter to Obama's message to have her as his VP. I would definitely keep Hillary at a distance and take my chances, she's f'ing crazy and Bill in the white house would be an unruly scene.

Colin Powell would be an interesting pick but I don't know how the America people would feel about two black men on the same ticket. Plus Powell's stock as fallen mightily since he gave that speech at the UN. I suspect the poor bastard was duped but then again he did do some serious dirty fork for the Bush administration. I wouldn't mind seeing him as the secretary of Defense and a shot at redeeming himself by overseeing the withdrawal from Iraq.

Who would I like to see as VP? I really would like to see Jim Webb. The dude is no bullshitter and has mad creds. He would bring VA home too.

As for the women vote, tell them what will happen with the Supreme Court if McCain wins and they'll line up. Sure he'll lose some of the Hillary crazy die-hard fans but the majority will support him.

Jindal is a nut job in terms of his beliefs but I'm sure glad to finally see some color in the GOP. I doubt he will be picked as VP because it would negate the whole experience attack flight pattern McCain has been using against Obama. If he picks Jindal McCain would simply look foolish to attack Obama when he has someone 10 years Obama's junior as his VP ("if your VP is ready at 37 I'm ready at 47").

Naturally I want McCain to pick Lieberman but alas he is not that dumb. Right now, there's no quicker way to unite the democratic party than to have Joe "Darth Sidious" Lieberman as McCain's running mate.

I suspect McCain will pick Romney to help him bring home Utah and Colorado.[/QUOTE]

Romney has deep, deep pockets too which won't hurt

Do you think McCain would lean toward picking a VP who will pull in certain voters but basically have nothing substantial to do as part of the administration (a la Quayle) or one with significant imput (Cheney)? Same with Obama.

Tim Pawlenty is another name that has been mentioned a lot.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;449992]Romney has deep, deep pockets too which won't hurt

Do you think McCain would lean toward picking a VP who will pull in certain voters but basically have nothing substantial to do as part of the administration (a la Quayle) or one with significant imput (Cheney)? Same with Obama.

Tim Pawlenty is another name that has been mentioned a lot.[/quote]

In an ideal world you should pick someone who is on the same page as you, a "yes" man who knows when to say "no" and "you're wrong," but with billion dollar elections at stake it's all about winning. It's all about who can help you win more states. Of course you don't want to end up like that idiot John Kerry who picked Edwards even though he didn't want to pick him and then come out after he loses the election and whine about it. I lost all respect for John Kerry after that bitch ass move.

Tim Pawlenty is 48 and has less experience than Obama, so unless the experience pellets are going to be shelved I don't see it. Plus Minnesota is blue country so I don't think he can bring home Minnesota and he has as much national recognition as the turkey I had last thanksgiving.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

On a slightly different topic, could someone tell me what is Obama's position on (slavery) reparations is? I think that if it is what I think it is, it would doom his presidential hopes. That is a question I would love to hear him answer in a debate.

Regardless of who is running for prez, this is going to get ugly and nasty.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=4mrusmc;450048]On a slightly different topic, could someone tell me what is Obama's position on (slavery) reparations is? I think that if it is what I think it is, it would doom his presidential hopes. That is a question I would love to hear him answer in a debate.

Regardless of who is running for prez, this is going to get ugly and nasty.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm not touching this one. I'm sure you've all seen the Chapelle Show's take.

[URL="http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefbCEjtIJ1cA3FSJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTByYzd0YjJoBHBvcwMxNgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANJMDg1XzEwNw--/SIG=1hbvd2g87/EXP=1211917378/**http%3A//images.search.yahoo.com/images/view%3Fback=http%253A%252F%252Fimages.search.yahoo.com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fei%253Dutf-8%2526fr%253Dsfp%2526p%253DAshy%252BLarry%2526iscqry%253D%26w=420%26h=317%26imgurl=static.flickr.com%252F63%252F209284544_cdd8ca2e5a.jpg%26rurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.flickr.com%252Fphotos%252Fwelovedonny%252F209284544%252F%26size=48.2kB%26name=ashylarry7zw%26p=Ashy%20Larry%26type=JPG%26oid=6a2d5a5ce192587e%26fusr=welovedonny%26tit=ashylarry7zw%26hurl=http%3A//www.flickr.com/photos/welovedonny/%26no=16&tt=84"][IMG]http://re3.yt-thm-a04.yimg.com/image/25/f11/29881750[/IMG][/URL]

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=70Chip;450051]Yeah, I'm not touching this one. I'm sure you've all seen the Chapelle Show's take.

[URL="http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefbCEjtIJ1cA3FSJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTByYzd0YjJoBHBvcwMxNgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANJMDg1XzEwNw--/SIG=1hbvd2g87/EXP=1211917378/**http%3A//images.search.yahoo.com/images/view%3Fback=http%253A%252F%252Fimages.search.yahoo.com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fei%253Dutf-8%2526fr%253Dsfp%2526p%253DAshy%252BLarry%2526iscqry%253D%26w=420%26h=317%26imgurl=static.flickr.com%252F63%252F209284544_cdd8ca2e5a.jpg%26rurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.flickr.com%252Fphotos%252Fwelovedonny%252F209284544%252F%26size=48.2kB%26name=ashylarry7zw%26p=Ashy%20Larry%26type=JPG%26oid=6a2d5a5ce192587e%26fusr=welovedonny%26tit=ashylarry7zw%26hurl=http%3A//www.flickr.com/photos/welovedonny/%26no=16&tt=84"][IMG]http://re3.yt-thm-a04.yimg.com/image/25/f11/29881750[/IMG][/URL][/quote]
I just did a Google search, trying to stay away from the far right sites so that I could get an objective answer. And, all I found was a whole lot of nothing concrete.

But, no I haven't seen Chapelle's take, and would that necessarily give any insight to Obama's stance. That is unless he (Chapelle) has any inside knowledge about what Obama's real stance is.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=4mrusmc;450048]On a slightly different topic, could someone tell me what is Obama's position on (slavery) reparations is? I think that if it is what I think it is, it would doom his presidential hopes. That is a question I would love to hear him answer in a debate.

Regardless of who is running for prez, this is going to get ugly and nasty.[/quote]


Without doing any research as to what his specific stance, if any, on reparations, I can tell you he's not in favor it. At least not publicly.

First of all, you have to take into consideration that Obama is just as much white as he is black. And from what I've read from both of his books, while he understands our sordid history as it relates to slavery, he doesn't believe that in and of itself defines our country. So to highlight that, would certainly cut across some of his fundamental beliefs about our country.

Secondly, this would be political suicide. Plain and simple. With race being injected into this election so much over the past several months, why on God's green earth would he take a position that would further divide the electorate, or at least have the potential to do so.

Thirdly, Google Barack's position on Affirmative Action or at least the last response he gave in the most recent debate. Based on that, I think it's safe to assume where he stands on something like reparations.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

I vaguely remember him saying he's not for it a while back (it was in a debate or some interview). i have no sources to back this up but the question was put to him and he said no from what I recall.

As for reperation itself, it's a dumb idea much like the gas tax holiday. It's a gimmick play by idiots like Sharpton to pander to some who believe that America still owes them 40 acres and a mule. It would do nothing for the black community. I would rather see more investment in education in inner city schools than hand out checks.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=saden1;450059] It would do nothing for the black community. I would rather see more investment in education in inner city schools than hand out checks.[/quote]

This is pretty much Obama's position. If -- if -- the government wants to do something, then invest more in inner city schools. I still maintain that's more of an opinion he holds than an actual policy position.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[url=http://video.msn.com/dw.aspx?mkt=en-us&from=truveo&vid=a60d1761-fc20-42a7-9cb4-88fdf9627f99]Edwards against reparations; Obama suggest money for education instead - MSN Video[/url]

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

I think McCain has a much more difficult job than Obama in terms of choosing a veep. It's relatively apparent what Obama could use most in a veep: someone w/ military background who can swing white, working-class and working poor voters (and who can help in economic policy). While I think Bloomberg would add some serious muscle to the Obama camp in terms of policy prowess (and the Jewish vote in Florida etc) it does nothing for him among white working class/poor voters. Jim Webb fits almost perfectly and could swing VA. Bob Kerrey or Chuck Hagel, both of Nebraska and extremely talented politicians, are less obvious but still interesting personalities.

With Mccain's veep the criterion is more complicated IMO. If the democrats actually run a 21st century campaign McCain will have to be very careful in who he chooses. First off, McCain needs somebody w/ a strong comprehension of economic policy. His admission that it is not a strong point for himself will be low lying fruit for tough campaign adds starting this summer, so he needs to bring someone to the table that can hit back hard. Then McCain has to choose someone to energize the religious right and I think it will be a tougher challenge than people expect. My maternal relatives are evangelical conservatives to the bone - they f'n hate McCain almost as much as they hate democrats, Europeans, most minorities and well... anybody who doesn't look, act, talk, and think the way they do. Romney, Huckleberry, or Paul could probably help but I don't really know how much (I don't understand the way they think). But the issue that could play biggest, depending on how clever the dems want to be, is that the veep on the republican ticket is essentially running for pres as well because of McCain's age and the immense stress of the oval office. For the first time ever the veep could see as much scrutiny as the pres, which means a much tougher road to travel IMO.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

I think Obama goes with either Kathleen Sebelius or Chuck Hagel.

[B]Kathleen Sebelius[/B], as has already been stated, can definitely help Obama with the female vote. Especially now that many feminist feel, rightfully or wrongfully, that their girl has been given a raw deal by the media and the good old boy network trying to elbow Hillary out of the race. Or at least so they claim. So someone like Sebelius may go a long way to heal the rift between Obama and many Hillary supporters who have vowed to support McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. One other plus to her being a Governor and not a Senator is, the last time two Senators were on a winning ticket was Kennedy and LBJ; 1960

[B]Chuck Hagel.[/B] Like Sebelius, Hagel has that mid-west appeal coming from Nebraska. He's one of the few Republicans that have been very vocal in opposing the war and has been equally critical of the Bush Administration's handling of it.

On the other hand, he has publicly praised Obama for some of his foreign policy ideas. Also, I think Obama would further demonstrate his desire to change Washington, as he puts it, by having a bi-partisan ticket with Hagel as a running mate. This would shake up the establishment on so many levels and give Obama instant credibility. The downside to this ticket is, of course, the second man in charge is Republican and that can't sit well with top brass Dems.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;450072]I think Obama goes with either Kathleen Sebelius or Chuck Hagel.

[B]Kathleen Sebelius[/B], as has already been stated, can definitely help Obama with the female vote. Especially now that many feminist feel, rightfully or wrongfully, that their girl has been given a raw deal by the media and the good old boy network trying to elbow Hillary out of the race. Or at least so they claim. So someone like Sebelius may go a long way to heal the rift between Obana and many Hillary supporters who have vowed to support McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. One other plus to her being a Governor and not a Senator is, the last time two Senators were on a winning ticket was Kennedy and LBJ; 1960

[B]Chuck Hagel.[/B] Like Sebelius, Hagel has that mid-west appeal coming from Nebraska. He's one of the few Republicans that have been very vocal in opposing the war and has been equally critical of the Bush Administration's handling of it.

On the other hand, he has publicly praised Obama for some of his foreign policy ideas. Also, I think Obama would further demonstrate his desire to change Washington, as he puts it, by having a bi-partisan ticket with Hagel as a running mate. This would shake up the establishment on so many levels and give Obama instant credibility. The downside to this ticket is, of course, the second man in charge is Republican and that can't sit well with top brass Dems.[/QUOTE]

Very goods points IMO. I wonder if Sebelius would make some Hillary supporters feel they're being patronized? Anyway, her most ardent supporters may not join the Obama camp no matter what. Hagel is pretty fascinating to me. I get the sense he's at an age/stage of life where the petty partisanship no longer influences his policy, and yet because he is not a sycophant he cannot become a heavyweight in the Senate. I think if the white house or a serious cabinet position is not on the horizon he will bow out of political life.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;450072]I think Obama goes with either Kathleen Sebelius or Chuck Hagel.

[B]Kathleen Sebelius[/B], as has already been stated, can definitely help Obama with the female vote. Especially now that many feminist feel, rightfully or wrongfully, that their girl has been given a raw deal by the media and the good old boy network trying to elbow Hillary out of the race. Or at least so they claim. So someone like Sebelius may go a long way to heal the rift between Obana and many Hillary supporters who have vowed to support McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. One other plus to her being a Governor and not a Senator is, the last time two Senators were on a winning ticket was Kennedy and LBJ; 1960

[B]Chuck Hagel.[/B] Like Sebelius, Hagel has that mid-west appeal coming from Nebraska. He's one of the few Republicans that have been very vocal in opposing the war and has been equally critical of the Bush Administration's handling of it.

On the other hand, he has publicly praised Obama for some of his foreign policy ideas. Also, I think Obama would further demonstrate his desire to change Washington, as he puts it, by having a bi-partisan ticket with Hagel as a running mate. This would shake up the establishment on so many levels and give Obama instant credibility. The downside to this ticket is, of course, the second man in charge is Republican and that can't sit well with top brass Dems.[/QUOTE]

And what about McCain's veep?

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=The Goat;450070]I think McCain has a much more difficult job than Obama in terms of choosing a veep. It's relatively apparent what Obama could use most in a veep: someone w/ military background who can swing white, working-class and working poor voters (and who can help in economic policy). While I think Bloomberg would add some serious muscle to the Obama camp in terms of policy prowess (and the Jewish vote in Florida etc) it does nothing for him among white working class/poor voters. Jim Webb fits almost perfectly and could swing VA. Bob Kerrey or Chuck Hagel, both of Nebraska and extremely talented politicians, are less obvious but still interesting personalities.

With Mccain's veep the criterion is more complicated IMO. If the democrats actually run a 21st century campaign McCain will have to be very careful in who he chooses. First off, McCain needs somebody w/ a strong comprehension of economic policy. His admission that it is not a strong point for himself will be low lying fruit for tough campaign adds starting this summer, so he needs to bring someone to the table that can hit back hard. Then McCain has to choose someone to energize the religious right and I think it will be a tougher challenge than people expect. My maternal relatives are evangelical conservatives to the bone - they f'n hate McCain almost as much as they hate democrats, Europeans, most minorities and well... anybody who doesn't look, act, talk, and think the way they do. Romney, Huckleberry, or Paul could probably help but I don't really know how much (I don't understand the way they think). But the issue that could play biggest, depending on how clever the dems want to be, is that the veep on the republican ticket is essentially running for pres as well because of McCain's age and the immense stress of the oval office. For the first time ever the veep could see as much scrutiny as the pres, which means a much tougher road to travel IMO.[/quote]

I mildly disagree with a couple of points you make. Very respectfully I might add.

This idea that Bloomberg can add something to a ticket, I just don't see it. First of all, no one really knows what his appeal is outside of New York. Sure he's the Mayor of the largest city, has deep pockets, and he's pretty damn smart, but that doesn't always translate to votes. Which leads me to my second point about Bloomberg, if his being Mayor of New York would translate to votes in Florida, then Rudy Giuliani would have never been forced to drop out of the race so early. Rudy had a one state strategy - win Florida. If he couldn't carry Florida with all of his connections to the Jewish vote, then what good was he afterall? Well guess what happened, McCain took his ass to the cleaners in Florida, and Bloomberg took pause.

If Rudy, with all of his popularity couldn't swing enough of the Jewish vote to his favor, I have serious doubts whether or not Bloomberg could do any better.

Secondly, the idea that Obama has white working class voter problem is seriously overstated. It's just not accurate. This is something that has plagued the Dems for years, it's not specific to Obama. Obama does have an up hill battle with a very specific white voter, within a specific demographic. But to suggest that he's not getting white working classs people, male or female, to vote for him just isn't true.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=The Goat;450079]And what about McCain's veep?[/quote]

I think McCain wil go with Charlie Crist or Jindal.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

Chuck Hagel? The man who lacked the courage to speak up until he announced his retirement? The guy who has a 90% lifetime conservative rating from ACU? The guy who voted for the war? On a democratic presidential ticket?

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;450082]I think McCain wil go with Charlie Crist or Jindal.[/QUOTE]

If you were McCain, who would you pick?

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;450081]I mildly disagree with a couple of points you make. Very respectfully I might add.

This idea that Bloomberg can add something to a ticket, I just don't see it. First of all, no one really knows what his appeal is outside of New York. Sure he's the Mayor of the largest city, has deep pockets, and he's pretty damn smart, but that doesn't always translate to votes. Which leads me to my second point about Bloomberg, if his being Mayor of New York would translate to votes in Florida, then Rudy Giuliani would have never been forced to drop out of the race so early. Rudy had a one state strategy - win Florida. If he couldn't carry Florida with all of his connections to the Jewish vote, then what good was he afterall? Well guess what happened, McCain took his ass to the cleaners in Florida, and Bloomberg took pause.

If Rudy, with all of his popularity couldn't swing enough of the Jewish vote to his favor, I have serious doubts whether or not Bloomberg could do any better.

Secondly, the idea that Obama has white working class voter problem is seriously overstated. It's just not accurate. This is something that has plagued the Dems for years, it's not specific to Obama. Obama does have an up hill battle with a very specific white voter, within a specific demographic. But to suggest that he's not getting white working classs people, male or female, to vote for him just isn't true.[/QUOTE]

My apologies for not being clear. I think Bloomberg brings muscle in terms of policy, and I mean he would bring policy acumen to any admin dem or republican. Like I said he doesn't do much for Obama politically.

As for Obama I hope you're right. Clinton seems to have done better w/ white working-class and working-poor than he has, but I don't really know how that translates into November facing McCain. I want to give props to Obama for being the most articulate, charismatic person the dems have seen in a decade and therefor he should have the best shot at communicating reasonable middle-class policies that somehow go unnoticed. One case in point I always think of here is the Family Act from the 1st clinton term that gave women the right to keep their jobs and get some extra time after pregnancy. I don't even know how many moms i've worked w/ who took every hour of leave time when they could but talk about clinton like he personally screwed them over at some point. Dems need to do a much better job communicating policy and values and Obama IMO could be have enormous success there.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=saden1;450085]Chuck Hagel? The man who lacked the courage to speak up until he announced his retirement? The guy who has a 90% lifetime conservative rating from ACU? The guy who voted for the war? On a democratic presidential ticket?[/quote]

Absolutely. Yes he voted for the war, but he has also spoken out against it since and has admitted his vote was a mistake. As far his lifetime conservative rating, well Obama has been rated as the most liberal guy in the Senate by some of these ratings. It could be a match made in heaven. Many view him as having strong foreign policy credentials.

Look, there are downsides to every ticket. Ultimately the nominee has to set the tone and the agenda for the campaign. Hagel is definitely on Obama's radar.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;450086]If you were McCain, who would you pick?[/quote]

I honestly don't follow the Republican contest(s) as ardently as I follow what's going on with Democrats. If I were McCain, I would go with Bobby Jindal.

Just from a practical point of view, I think race and color is important and something they can no longer afford to ignore. The Republicans have a long way to go to remake their image, this is something their top ranking members have recently stated, in fact. (see Tom Davis)

One of the issues they face is attracting people of different races and people of color. America is becoming more and more racially diverse. That's a fact regardless of your politics. It's just a matter of time, not sure how much time, before the racial gap between whites and non-whites in America will be as close as we've ever seen it; it narrows daily.

On the flip side, Republicans to date, have one minority in the Senate and none in Congress. Bobby Jindal is, to the best of my knowledge, the only minority Governor in the GOP.

Putting him on the ticket could be their opening to appealing to more minorities as well as attracting more into the fold for future elections. Could Jindal be the future face of the GOP? Not sure, but how many people of color will vote for McCain this fall simply because a person of color is standing next to him at the convention. I'll betcha more than had previously considered voting Republican. They just have to start thinking beyond this election cycle and begin to draw fresh, new, diverse blood into their party. If the GOP is smart, which I think they are, they will figure out a way to get Jindal on Mac's ticket.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

Just to be clear, I'm in no way suggesting that Jindal only brings a racial dynamic to this ticket. Clearly he's an accomplished politician.

The people of the Gulf region, many of whom are still struggling from Katrina, might feel Jindal inside the Beltway could make a difference in their lives.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

Do you think some of those same people in the Gulf region might think "Wait a minute you just became Governor of Louisiana less than a year ago, and now you're suddenly off to Washington. What about us?"

I could see Jindal being a keynote speaker at this or the 2012 convention and then being a Presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016 (depending on what happens this year)

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;450100]Do you think some of those same people in the Gulf region might think "Wait a minute you just became Governor of Louisiana less than a year ago, and now you're suddenly off to Washington. What about us?"

I could see Jindal being a keynote speaker at this or the 2012 convention and then being a Presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016 (depending on what happens this year)[/quote]

Well, to some extent, the same can be said about Obama. Obviously there's a difference between a departing Senator and a departing Governor. But Jindal could make the argument, "now I'm inside the Beltway. I can make a bigger difference. I'll never forget the fine people of Lousiana, you're the one's who gave me my start. I determined to fight poverty, etc. "

But yes, I can see him lining up the White House in '12 or '16.

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

I think we should just have an Obama/McCain ticket or a McCain/Obama ticket and call it a night

Re: Who Should Be VP?
 

[quote=The Goat;450070]I think McCain has a much more difficult job than Obama in terms of choosing a veep. It's relatively apparent what Obama could use most in a veep: someone w/ military background who can swing white, working-class and working poor voters (and who can help in economic policy). While I think Bloomberg would add some serious muscle to the Obama camp in terms of policy prowess (and the Jewish vote in Florida etc) it does nothing for him among white working class/poor voters. Jim Webb fits almost perfectly and could swing VA. Bob Kerrey or Chuck Hagel, both of Nebraska and extremely talented politicians, are less obvious but still interesting personalities.

With Mccain's veep the criterion is more complicated IMO. If the democrats actually run a 21st century campaign McCain will have to be very careful in who he chooses. First off, McCain needs somebody w/ a strong comprehension of economic policy. His admission that it is not a strong point for himself will be low lying fruit for tough campaign adds starting this summer, so he needs to bring someone to the table that can hit back hard. Then McCain has to choose someone to energize the religious right and I think it will be a tougher challenge than people expect. My maternal relatives are evangelical conservatives to the bone - they f'n hate McCain almost as much as they hate democrats, Europeans, most minorities and well... anybody who doesn't look, act, talk, and think the way they do. Romney, Huckleberry, or Paul could probably help but I don't really know how much (I don't understand the way they think). But the issue that could play biggest, depending on how clever the dems want to be, is that the veep on the republican ticket is essentially running for pres as well because of McCain's age and the immense stress of the oval office. For the first time ever the veep could see as much scrutiny as the pres, which means a much tougher road to travel IMO.[/quote]

Webb might me able to swing Virginia in an election that Obama would win anyway, but I doubt it. Edwards had no effect on North Carolina and Obama would be much better advised to batten down his hatches in Pennsylvania and Michigan. I keep hearing how BHO can win in Virginia, but as a lontime resident of the Commonwealth, I think it's more dicey than people like Tim Russert or Chris Matthews seem to understand. He needs to first secure the states that Gore and Kerry won and then go after a swing state like Ohio. Besides, Webb would not be able to hide his wife anymore if he were Veep candidate. He hid her so well in his Senatorial campaign that I had to do internet research to figure out who she was 2 years ago. She's Asian and she's quite a bit younger than he is, which is fine with me, but he was hiding the fact from Virginians for some reason. Some pollster said something to him. He love her not very long time. I'm just saying.