News Who Are Potential Vice Presidential Candidates for Obama and Clinton?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around potential vice presidential candidates for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with a strong focus on Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel. Webb is praised for his military background, decisiveness, and appeal to both Democratic and independent voters, making him a strong candidate for either presidential nominee. Hagel is noted for his bipartisan appeal and military experience, with suggestions that his inclusion could attract conservative voters and signal a historic cross-party alliance. The conversation also touches on the importance of military experience in political leadership and the potential impact of these candidates on the Democratic ticket. Overall, both Webb and Hagel are considered viable options that could enhance the appeal of the Democratic candidates.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,423
Assuming that Obama takes it, which is looking better all the time, I am thinking that Obama-Webb would be a great combination. In fact Webb might be a great VP for either Hillary or Obama. He is strong, decisive, and a no-nonsense guy. He has a rich history with the military, and he used to be a Republican.

A 1968 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Webb served as a Marine Corps infantry officer until 1972, and is a highly decorated Vietnam War combat veteran. During his four years with the Reagan administration, Webb served as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, then as Secretary of the Navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb

Turbo, I think Webb may be just the type of guy that you had in mind in our discussion about conservatives.
Any president of either party would be wise to include a conservative of Buckley's ilk in their top tier of advisers
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Webb might be a good VP candidate, thought I would hate to see his Senate seat vacated. There are plenty of people out there that would be attractive. I have a friend in CA that would have great appeal. His name is Ed Feldman, and he is a straight shooter and a war hero. Scroll down to page 10.

http://www.firstcoastdoctor.com/november_2006_issue_4.pdf
 
Yay! CNN just reported that Webb is being considered.
 
Webb would help tip Virginia towards the Dems, but I think that Obama might be able to do that without the help. What would be a coup to end all coups will be if Obama wants and gets Hagel. And what a message that would send!
 
I'm not thinking of Va, I'm thinking of the military and those concerned about experience in military matters. He would also attract many independents [like me] who would like to see a conservative on the ticket.

Hagel doesn't jump off the page for me but might given some consideration.

Several days ago I started thinking of Webb - he really impressed me during his campaign. And I esp liked it when to his face he told Bush to shove it, in not so many words. The man means what he says!
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
Webb would help tip Virginia towards the Dems, but I think that Obama might be able to do that without the help. What would be a coup to end all coups will be if Obama wants and gets Hagel. And what a message that would send!
Webb or Hagel would be good, but I agree that getting Hagel would be something. What a message indeed.


At this point, I just hope Obama means what he says, and is not just saying what folks want to hear.

Personally, I need to hear substantive discussion, with an acknowledgment of the problems, and realistic solutions.
 
Why would Hagel in particular be such a coup?

Btw, there have been nineteen debates. What has not been discussed?
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
Why would Hagel in particular be such a coup?

Btw, there have been nineteen debates. What has not been discussed?
Hagel is a Republican and conservative, and a critic of the current administration. On the other hand, there are many areas where I disagree with him.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm


I'll get back with regard to the debates after a I review a couple. I've heard sections, and bits and pieces, but not a whole debate.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I'm not thinking of Va, I'm thinking of the military and those concerned about experience in military matters. He would also attract many independents [like me] who would like to see a conservative on the ticket.

Hagel doesn't jump off the page for me but might given some consideration.

Several days ago I started thinking of Webb - he really impressed me during his campaign. And I esp liked it when to his face he told Bush to shove it, in not so many words. The man means what he says!
I'm going to be lazy and go the Wiki way. Here are some tidbits:

Hagel is a Vietnam War veteran, having served in the United States Army infantry, attaining the rank of Sergeant (E-5) from 1967–1968. While serving during the Vietnam War, he received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.
...
After Reagan's inauguration as President, Hagel was named deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration. In 1982, however, he resigned his post over a disagreement with V.A. Administrator Robert P. Nimmo, who was intent on cutting funding for V.A. programs, and who had referred to veterans groups as "greedy", and to Agent Orange as not much worse than a "little teenage acne."
...
After leaving government employment, Hagel co-founded Vanguard Cellular, a mobile phone manufacturer that made him a millionaire several times over. While working with Vanguard, he served as president and chief executive officer of the United Service Organizations and the Private Sector Council, as deputy director and chief operating officer of the 1990 G7 Summit, and on the board of directors or advisory committee of the American Red Cross, the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute, Bread for the World, and the Ripon Society. He also served as Chairman of the Agent Orange Settlement Fund and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
...
Six years later in 2002, Hagel overwhelmingly won re-election with over 83% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in any statewide race in Nebraska history.
...
In July 2007, Hagel was one of three Republican Senators who supported the legislation proposed by Democrats to require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days.
...
The New York Times reported on Saturday, September 8, 2007 that Hagel would retire from the Senate at the conclusion of his present term.
...
On August 18, 2005, Hagel compared the Iraq War to Vietnam and openly mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes."

In November 2005, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: "To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic." This was in reference to the increasing amount of debate surrounding the Iraq War, and his assertion that the United States should withdraw its troops.

In December 2005, in reference to Bush, the GOP, and the PATRIOT Act, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president.
...
In November 2007, he rated the Bush administration "the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus -- almost every area" of any presidency in the last forty years. He also revealed he is open to running as vice-president with the 2008 Democratic nominee. In the same month, he said, "I have to say this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I've ever seen or ever read about. They have failed the country."

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

Hagel = Decorated war hero + successful entrepreneur + immensely popular senior senator + champion of veterans affairs + vocal antipartisan maverick from the Republican party, much like McCain of not so long ago. This is the only time in recent history that I'm aware of, that a cross-party ticket is remotely possible. This could tear down so many walls - it would be historic.

And Obama has co-sponsored more bills with Hagel than with Webb (nearly as many as he shares with Ted Kennedy).

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Those would be good reasons. :biggrin:

esp

In November 2005, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: "To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic." This was in reference to the increasing amount of debate surrounding the Iraq War, and his assertion that the United States should withdraw its troops.

and most important of all!
In December 2005, in reference to Bush, the GOP, and the PATRIOT Act, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Astronuc said:
I'll get back with regard to the debates after a I review a couple. I've heard sections, and bits and pieces, but not a whole debate.

Hillary and Obama have been struggling to identify how they differ, so at times they have gotten very specific.
 
  • #12
I don't understand. In what way does having served in war better one's credentials? In the end, war is the business of killing - hero or not. Shouldn't political merit be the only measure to consider?
 
  • #13
I don't think we want soldiers as Presidents, but we want Presidents who have access to good military minds; for one because even an innocent political mistake could lead to war. It is always important to understand the military implications of any political action or world event. And we certainly want good military people at the President's side during a time of conflict or crisis.

In the case of Webb, he didn't just serve; he has served at the highest levels. Hagel doesn't seem to be as strong on this point. But decorated vets are generally perceived as being brave and patriotic.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Gokul43201 said:
I'm going to be lazy and go the Wiki way. Here are some tidbits:



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

Hagel = Decorated war hero + successful entrepreneur + immensely popular senior senator + champion of veterans affairs + vocal antipartisan maverick from the Republican party, much like McCain of not so long ago. This is the only time in recent history that I'm aware of, that a cross-party ticket is remotely possible. This could tear down so many walls - it would be historic.

And Obama has co-sponsored more bills with Hagel than with Webb (nearly as many as he shares with Ted Kennedy).

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html

I'd say that on most issues Obama is definitely a liberal and Hagel is definitely a conservative. If you toss out the war, I'd find it inconceivable that Hagel would even consider the idea ... except, when asked on several occasions, he sounded like he'd accept a cabinet position in an Obama Presidency, let alone a VP slot. It would definitely pull in some Republicans that disagree with the war.

Sebelius of Kansas would be a more logical choice. A female conservative from the heartland, but still a Democrat. It would help defuse beating the first female candidate with a realistic shot at election and it just might give people in the heartland a reason to think they actually could have a place in the Democratic Party.
 
  • #15
I'd like to see an administration in which both 'liberal' and 'conservative' perspectives represented.
 
  • #16
BobG said:
Sebelius of Kansas would be a more logical choice.

Yes, and she has shown she can win an election in a red state.

As for a Obama-Hagel ticket, the flip side of that is McCain-Clinton.
 
  • #17
Obama-Hagel? I'd cast that vote proudly!
 
  • #18
Vanadium 50 said:
Yes, and she has shown she can win an election in a red state.

As for a Obama-Hagel ticket, the flip side of that is McCain-Clinton.

The flip side of an Obama-Hagel ticket would be McCain-Leiberman. Clinton on a Republican ticket is just a funny idea.

In order of probability:

1. Obama-Hagel (Hagel supposedly has no political future to worry about, so it's at least possible; Sebelius and Strickland probably rank ahead of him even if he would accept)
2. McCain-Leiberman (nearly no possibility, especially since either Pawlenty or maybe Huckabee will be VP candidate; there are no other possibilities - on the other hand, Leiberman will be 2008's Zell Miller)
3. Kerry-McCain (as floated in 2004 - 0 possibility; it was just something to rile up Republicans)
4. Ron Paul-Ralph Nader
5. Clinton-Gingrich (the nearly 0 chance of Clinton winning the nomination drop this to slightly below zero?)
6. Obama-Limbaugh (Obama owes Limbaugh for releasing the superdelegates to vote for him)
7. O'Reilley-Olbermann (on a third party ticket)
8. McCain-Clinton
 
  • #19
I didn't like any of the Democratic candidate choices and I still don't, that's why I voted in the Republican primary this time. Both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are socialists. The Republican choices aren't much better save for Ron Paul and a couple others.

If McCain is elected we will continue to see more of the same interventionist, big and powerful government, and welfare policies that have plauged us the last couple decades. There aren't any true fiscal conservatives and social liberals left but a small handful. Rebulicans have become only fiscal conservative in name. That said, the choice of candidates is apalling. The only way I will be voting is if Ron Paul is VP under McCain. Anything to give that great man some recognition the media has denied him, and give him the publicity he'll need one day to run for president again. Besides Ron Paul, are there any true pro-American politicians left, who would support the Constitution and uphold the visions of our founding fathers?

My dream ticket:
Ron Paul-David Duke 2008
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
RonPaul2008 said:
Both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are socialists.
Please post a link to an authoritative source that shows this. We don't allow false claims here. Please read the guidelines.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

My dream ticket:
Ron Paul-David Duke 2008
Well, I guess there is no guessing where you stand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
RonPaul2008 said:
My dream ticket:
Ron Paul-David Duke 2008

Is this the same David Duke who was a Grand Wizard in the KKK? The self-professed white nationalist?
 
  • #22
It is not a false claim. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama both wish to socialize health care. To do that they would have to raise taxes. They want to continue welfare and the other types of social programs already in place. Sounds like socialism to me. Would you not agree? If you would like me to go ahead and prove they are socialist, I can easily dig up their voting records.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Whatever personal views on race David Duke has is his own business. In my opinion, he would have sound non-interventionist foreign policy, though, and I am sure he would work with Ron Paul to halt illegal immigration. I don't neccesarrily agree with some of his racialist views.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
RonPaul2008 said:
It is not a false claim. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama both wish to socialize health care. To do that they would have to raise taxes. They want to continue welfare and the other types of social programs already in place. Sounds like socialism to me. Would you not agree?
No I don't.
 
  • #25
Hilary Clinton's voting records.
votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Barack Obama's voting records.
votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
RonPaul2008 said:
Hilary Clinton's voting records.
votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Barack Obama's voting records.
votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
What is this supposed to be? I thought you didn't support them, but now you're posting their voting records in their support?
 
  • #27
I do not support either, that's why I posted those links. Please don't put words into my mouth.
 
  • #28
RonPaul2008 said:
I do not support either, that's why I posted those links. Please don't put words into my mouth.
So then, what is your point in posting those links? Most people would consider their voting records as a positive, not a negative.
 
  • #29
RonPaul2008 said:
My dream ticket:
Ron Paul-David Duke 2008
Wow! That makes a McCain-Clinton ticket seem logical.
 
  • #30
BobG said:
Wow! That makes a McCain-Clinton ticket seem logical.
That even makes a McCain-BILL Clinton ticket look logical!
 
  • #31
Astronuc said:
I'd like to see an administration in which both 'liberal' and 'conservative' perspectives represented.
Me too! ...as long as it was liberally conservative.
 
  • #32
We have a problem here. People on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide are driven by self-interest and use these blanket terms to tar one another in terms that the average voter cannot understand. Thus we have people complaining that Obama is a socialist and we've got Republicans saying that McCain is too liberal. Instead of having a dialog on policy and positions, we have senseless blather centered around monolithic dichotomies that DO NOT EXIST.
 
  • #33
BobG said:
The flip side of an Obama-Hagel ticket would be McCain-Leiberman. Clinton on a Republican ticket is just a funny idea.

In order of probability:

1. Obama-Hagel (Hagel supposedly has no political future to worry about, so it's at least possible; Sebelius and Strickland probably rank ahead of him even if he would accept)
2. McCain-Leiberman (nearly no possibility, especially since either Pawlenty or maybe Huckabee will be VP candidate; there are no other possibilities - on the other hand, Leiberman will be 2008's Zell Miller)
3. Kerry-McCain (as floated in 2004 - 0 possibility; it was just something to rile up Republicans)
4. Ron Paul-Ralph Nader
5. Clinton-Gingrich (the nearly 0 chance of Clinton winning the nomination drop this to slightly below zero?)
6. Obama-Limbaugh (Obama owes Limbaugh for releasing the superdelegates to vote for him)
7. O'Reilley-Olbermann (on a third party ticket)
8. McCain-Clinton
But you left out Ross Perot! Or how about Dan Quayle?

How about Victoria Sinclair?!
 
  • #34
"So then, what is your point in posting those links? Most people would consider their voting records as a positive, not a negative."

Would you explain your opinion as to how and what about their voting was positive and in any way beneficial to the average working American? In my opinion, they are both socialists who want to continue this perpetual welfare state and interventionist policy; them as well as McCain.

I wanted to point out the socialist voting records of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, who both voted for increased spending and more anti-business regulations. Hilary Clinton herself said on national television not too long ago that the oil companies can afford to pay about fifty percent of their windfall profits so that people buying gas at the pump don't have to pay their fair share of tax. She euphemistically refers to it as "the gas tax holiday." It helps you and me, sure, but it's unfair to the oil companies. Why should they or any company be punished for making a legitimate profit? Do you still deny, if elected, Hilary Clinton would enact socialist policies and allow the welfare state to continue? The economic leeches suck hardworking Americans dry. I don't want to pay for an illegal immigrant to have a baby here and pay for her TB shots. I don't want to pay for the welfare of a single mother and children because she doesn't know how to quit having babies. I don't want to pay for foreign aid to people on the other side of the globe. I don't want to pay for elderly who lacked the discipline or foresight to save for retirement. I don't want to invade sovereign nations who are not a threat to Americans. In my opinion, if Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, or McCain were elected, the status quo would remain the same for another four years, just a little different with each of those three candidates. We'd still be paying taxes for medical care, social security, welfare, and other programs that exploit from me and other taxpayers, and it would not be to our benefit. I don't know about you, but I like to keep most of the money I make. What about you? This forced philanthropy and worldwide intervention policy has got to end one way or another, and that is why I am voting for another revolution by voting for Ron Paul.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
RonPaul2008 said:
and that is why I am voting for another evolution by voting for Ron Paul.
You do know he's not being considered as a candidate, right?
 
Last edited:
  • #36
What is your point? Hilary Clinton isn't doing too hot either, but that isn't stopping many Democrats from standing behind her through thick and thin. You should never support or refuse to support a candidate based on his or her chances of winning. I share most of Ron Paul's beliefs, and I will write in his name on the ballot. I'm still hoping he will make an appearance and a political statement at the RNC, though, so that the next time he runs people will know who this guy is and what he is about. He is still on the ballot. No, he isn't doing well, but I'd say roughly 20% during the North Carolina Republican primaries is significant for somebody not well known who has not received nearly as much media coverage compared to other candidates. I think people and the media need to give this guy a chance and listen to what he has to say.
 
  • #37
RonPaul2008 said:
What is your point? Hilary Clinton isn't doing too hot either, but that isn't stopping many Democrats from standing behind her through thick and thin. You should never support or refuse to support a candidate based on his or her chances of winning. I share most of Ron Paul's beliefs, and I will write in his name on the ballot. I'm still hoping he will make an appearance and a political statement at the RNC, though, so that the next time he runs people will know who this guy is and what he is about. He is still on the ballot. No, he isn't doing well, but I'd say roughly 20% during the North Carolina Republican primaries is significant for somebody not well known who has not received nearly as much media coverage compared to other candidates. I think people and the media need to give this guy a chance and listen to what he has to say.
He has NO chance unless some nut-case assassinates McCain. Clinton is in the same boat. Do you think that we are going to select our leaders through a process that involves assassination? You have gone way past theoretical to psychotic.
 
  • #38
RonPaul2008 said:
He is still on the ballot.
Are you serious?

No, he isn't doing well,
Understatement of the year.

not well known who has not received nearly as much media coverage compared to other candidates. I think people and the media need to give this guy a chance and listen to what he has to say.
That is exactly why he isn't taken serious, people *have* looked at what he's saying and his voting record.

Sorry, IMHO, Ron Paul only appeals to an odd fringe. The numbers speak for themselves.
 
  • #39
" Do you think that we are going to select our leaders through a process that involves assassination?"

When did I once mention or imply assassination as the best method of leadership selection? That would go against my libertarian views. The only realistic revolution in a free society is done with ballot sheets, not bullets.

"That is exactly why he isn't taken serious, people *have* looked at what he's saying and his voting record."

Here is an overview of his voting. What do you find so questionable about his voting or his views? You still haven't been clear as to what you find so wrong with this guy or what would be wrong with his plans if he becomes president. Nobody has countered and explained why.

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

"Sorry, IMHO, Ron Paul only appeals to an odd fringe. The numbers speak for themselves."
I hate to tell you, but the majority aren't always right. The majority believed in slavery back in the day, if you could believe it. Sometimes it takes a few insightful men to make drastic and effective change. America does need change, but Obama isn't the one. By the way, I'm still waiting on the senator's explanation of what exactly his "changes" will be. Ron Paul has been very clear on what his will be. But whenever I see the Obama campaign spouting off change, it seems awfully reminiscent of John Kerry saying "I have a plan" with a broken record, without ever revealing what that plan was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
RonPaul2008 said:
" Do you think that we are going to select our leaders through a process that involves assassination?"

When did I once mention or imply assassination as the best method of leadership selection? That would go against my libertarian views. The only realistic revolution in a free society is done with ballot sheets, not bullets.

"That is exactly why he isn't taken serious, people *have* looked at what he's saying and his voting record."

Here is an overview of his voting. What do you find so questionable about his voting or his views? You still haven't been clear as to what you find so wrong with this guy or what would be wrong with his plans if he becomes president. Nobody has countered and explained why.

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

"Sorry, IMHO, Ron Paul only appeals to an odd fringe. The numbers speak for themselves."
I hate to tell you, but the majority aren't always right. The majority believed in slavery back in the day, if you could believe it. Sometimes it takes a few insightful men to make drastic and effective change. America does need change, but Obama isn't the one. By the way, I'm still waiting on the senator's explanation of what exactly his "changes" will be. Ron Paul has been very clear on what his will be. But whenever I see the Obama campaign spouting off change, it seems awfully reminiscent of John Kerry saying "I have a plan" with a broken record, without ever revealing what that plan was.

I would like to see more of Ron Paul, myself. We'll see what happens.
 
  • #41
Interesting!

Chuck Hagel Takes On McCain, Repeatedly Praises Obama (May 20, 2008)

Chuck Hagel is quickly becoming Barack Obama's answer to Joe Lieberman.

The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level.

"We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things," Hagel said of some of McCain's recent rhetoric, namely his policy on talking to Iran. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."

Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Hagel looks like a very interesting choice.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
How about Sarah Palin as a VP for McCain.

Pros:
- First woman President could get there by succeeding the oldest President in history.
- Her approval ratings as Governor of Alaska are in the 80's - she has the highest approval ratings of any politician in America right now.
- Has a reputation for cutting spending.
- Has a reputation for integrity. Filed ethics complaints on other Republicans serving on Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Cons:
- All of the people she filed ethics complaints against were found not guilty (of course, there's a difference between criminal guilt and unethical behavior).
- Suing the US Department of the Interior for listing polar bears as endangered species (it could impact oil drilling in the state)
- The Matanuska Maid Dairy. Fired the state dairy board when they recommended closing the state owned dairy (it was losing money). The new board kept the dairy open until it lost even more money. The dairy finally closed and couldn't even sell off its assets.

Pro/Con (depending on views):
- Pro-life
- Opposes same sex marriage, but vetoed legislation that would have denied benefits to gay state employees.
- Pro gun rights.

Who cares trivia:
- Point guard on her state champ basketball team
- Miss congeniality in Miss Alaska beauty contest
- Eats mooseburgers and rides snowmobiles (of course, it's Alaska so riding snowmobiles is kind like saying she drives a car).
 
Last edited:
  • #44
BobG said:
How about Sarah Palin as a VP for McCain.
I doubt that she'd want to do it. She gave birth to a baby last month - her son had been diagnosed with Down Syndrome. It's already very difficult balancing governance with childcare.
 
  • #46
Interesting possibilities -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080528/pl_politico/10672;_ylt=Ak9KVWklsSBhwSLaY8XRpzxh24cA

. . .
But according to interviews with Republicans in their home states, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill differ from Clinton by two important measures: They’ve managed to win elections without developing polarizing personas, and they’ve shied away from emphasizing gender in their campaigns.

The distinctions are important for Obama, the front-runner in the Democratic nominating contest, as his campaign begins the process of thinking about possible running mates. Selecting a woman might serve to mend the gender-based rifts that have surfaced as a result of Clinton’s historic candidacy — and Sebelius, Napolitano and McCaskill all possesses red-state political portfolios that would make them attractive vice presidential candidates.

Some common themes emerge when talking to Republicans who have battled them. All three are respected for their ability to win in difficult political environments for Democrats, and all are credited with having done so by successfully tacking to the center, reaching out to Republican voters by crafting an independent image. In part, that’s why Napolitano and Sebelius made Time magazine’s “5 Best Governors” list in 2005.

Napolitano draws praise from the other side of the aisle for managerial competence and canny political skills. Arizona Republicans describe the former federal prosecutor as extremely smart, noting that she has adeptly handled hot-button issues such as immigration.
. . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
The Marine combat veteran, best-selling author and former Republican is widely discussed as a potential Obama running mate, and it was clear tonight that the presumptive nominee is a big fan. "If you're in a fight, and we're going to be in a fight, you want Jim Webb to have your back," Obama told a cheering crowd, saluting his colleague as "an indispensable voice for change."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/05/obama_praises_webb_and_kaine.html
 
  • #48
No better way to lose the Clinton women than putting Webb on the ticket. Same for the anti-war demographic.
 
  • #49
Why would he be more of a negative for the female vote than any other candidate besides Clinton? As for the anti-war vote, I don't see that either. Who are they going to vote for, McCain? Will they stay home and give it away? It doesn't seem likely unless there is something about Webb that makes him particularly offensive.

He would be a HUGE pull for moderates, like me.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Ivan Seeking said:
Why would he be more of a negative for the female vote than any other candidate besides Clinton? As for the anti-war vote, I don't see that either. Who are they going to vote for, McCain? Will they stay home and give it away? It doesn't seem likely unless there is something about Webb that makes him particularly offensive.

He would be a HUGE pull for moderates, like me.

I think the argument that Webb would repel some women voters is based on an article that he wrote in 1979, "Women Can't Fight."

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/2182.html

In that article, he opines that women should not be allowed to enroll in the Military Academies. The article is quite long, and he makes several salient points. I think he may have moderated his opinion in recent years, but the article is still out there.

The uber-feminists who believe sexism alone sank Clinton's campaign are not going to like Webb much, IMO.

As far as Webb scaring away the anti-war vote, I see no evidence of that at all. In fact, as a Marine comander who lost 51 guys in Vietnam, I would expect him to be far less careless about sending our nation's youth into war than the chicken-hawks we now have in the White House.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top