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

[Cyrus]

Ron Paul For Vp!


Ahahhahaah

 

[mheslep]

Stated in your own link.

Nowhere in the interview does Sen W. say he 'avoided' meeting the President or 'publicly insulted' him. The only thing that is said regards 'avoiding' is the picture, one of those standard "we're smiling and we all get along" newly minted Senator & Pres. pictures.

Fair enough. But I suspect that your youth betrays you.

Well thanks if that implies my thinking is not jaded (yet), but I suspect I'm older than you. I also have followed Webb for 25 years, studied his novels in college, and closely watched his Senate campaign.

"Reckless" and "Abuse of Power", or violating the separation of powers, pretty much covers it. Webb clearly stated that he opposed the war all along.

You keep putting words in his mouth. He says 'reckless', says he always opposed the war. He certainly makes clear that he became a Dem. and ran for office for many long and evolving reasons, and not solely because of a single minded obsession w/ 'Bush', as I summarized above.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is the most convincing argument I've read for choosing Hillary as veep.

* The chatterers insist she will be a drag on the ticket and bring the Republican base to the polls in huge numbers. If it is not obvious to the chatterers yet, they should pay closer attention the vicious anti Obama tirades by right wing bloggers and conservative talk radio show hosts. The Right will come to the polls all right...to vote against Barrack Obama in droves with or without Hillary Clinton.

* A drag on the ticket. Please. Hillary Clinton immediately expands the electoral map putting states in play that are currently out of Obama's reach; West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas. She helps move toss up states to leaning Democrat; New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada (if Obama breaks north of 60% of the Hispanic vote he wins all three, Clinton helps get him there). Clinton helps solidify weak Democratic states including Pennsylvania and Michigan; she can bolster Obama's lead in Ohio and probably makes Florida competitive which it is not currently. Any other VP candidate that can expand the map like this? Not even close.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/its_not_even_close_obama_shoul.html

 

[turbo]

I don't buy it, Gokul. Putting Clinton on the ticket could sink Obama. The conservative base of the GOP is none-too-excited about McCain and their lack of enthusiasm bodes ill for the GOP down-ticket, as well. If you want them to go to the polls in record numbers, just add Clinton to Obama's ticket - their visceral hatred of Clinton will drive them to the polls.

Obama needs to use all his time and energy to make his appeals to the voters in the general election. He can't afford to constantly be on the defensive, fighting off Swift-boat attacks on Clinton. (Whitewater, cattle futures, Rose law firm billing records, anti union Wal-Mart representation, Vince Foster's suicide, etc). Clinton claims to have been vetted, but the right-wing smear machine is licking its chops hoping that Obama takes the bait and picks her for VP.

 

[BobG]

* A drag on the ticket. Please. Hillary Clinton immediately expands the electoral map putting states in play that are currently out of Obama's reach; West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas. She helps move toss up states to leaning Democrat; New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada (if Obama breaks north of 60% of the Hispanic vote he wins all three, Clinton helps get him there). Clinton helps solidify weak Democratic states including Pennsylvania and Michigan; she can bolster Obama's lead in Ohio and probably makes Florida competitive which it is not currently. Any other VP candidate that can expand the map like this? Not even close.

* Chatterers insist Clinton will be a distraction to your campaign. Exactly what does that mean? That she will be on another page and therefore step on your message? Ridiculous. There is no more disciplined, on message politician in America than Hillary Clinton. But the argument raises a question; why would she want to step on the message? If the message doesn't succeed then you don't succeed, then Hillary doesn't succeed. Why would she want that?

* If you are elected Senator, so the charge goes, the Clintons will be constant problems for you. Hillary will promote her own agenda and Bill will wander the West Wing subverting your presidency. Absurd. When you get sworn in as president your stature will dwarf the Clintons. You have the Oval Office, Air Force One, and loyalists staffing the White House that wouldn't listen to Bill Clinton unless you insisted on it. I'd be surprised if he was in the White House more than a few days each year.

* As for Hillary subverting you, see above. Her political future will be dependent on your success; therefore she has every interest in promoting your agenda. The alternative (without her on the ticket) is much more problematical. She will be a huge force in the Senate with her own base and agenda. Would you rather have her out of the tent on the Hill permoting her own ideas or in your tent promoting yours? Not even a close call.

* By putting Clinton on the ticket you marry up the best money and organizational operations in the history of the Democratic Party. It wasn't her national organization that screwed up it was her supposed brain trust. With her money people committed, a $400 million dollar budget is very doable. Does any other VP choice have an organizational and money base like that? Not even close.

I disagree with the first paragraph. She puts Arkansas into play, but not WV or KY. She adds Nevada, but Obama is more popular in NM and CO than Clinton is. She probably does help in the rust belt, but Florida (with Crist's help) is going to McCain. She helps, but Beckel exaggerates the amount of help.

A lot of the negatives against her might be overstated. Defanging a dangerous opponent by making them VP is an old tradition that usually works (unless the President dies, putting some maverick like Teddy Roosevelt into office). If Clinton has future ambitions on the Presidency, VP isn't a good spot to launch those ambitions from. The first Bush endured 8 years of claims his manhood had been stolen by being Reagan's VP and he was the only VP in recent years to go from VP to Pres by election instead of succession.

My thinking is that she isn't ready to bring "the best money and organizational operations in the history of the Democratic Party" into play just to spend 8 years in Obama's shadow. Cheney already broke the mold by being a very influential VP and it's hard for me to think Clinton would accept the slot if she didn't think she could continue that new trend. She's not going to subvert an Obama Presidency, but he has to deal with her whether she's his VP or in the Senate.

She's probably the only VP candidate in either party that could bring that much power to the position. Ford tried to - that's why Bush 41 wound up as Reagan's VP instead of Ford.

 

[mheslep]

Main drawback: Senator Obama's Candidate of "Change" mantra goes out the window if he brings the Clinton's back into the Whitehouse in the 21st century.

 

[Gokul43201]

Webb's not in the game anymore.

Senator Jim Webb, the Virginia Democrat, former Navy Secretary and once and forever Marine, said unequivocally today that he was not interested in serving as Senator Barack Obama’s running mate.

“Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country,” Mr. Webb said in a statement. “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/in-case-you-ask-webb-declines-veep-role/

 

[turbo]

Webb's not in the game anymore.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/in-case-you-ask-webb-declines-veep-role/

That's really good news. Webb's temperament and energy lend themselves to legislative activities, and the Dems need to retain his seat if they want to have the ability roll back some of the crap Bush has been laying on us.

 

[LowlyPion]

... the Dems need to retain his seat if they want to have the ability roll back some of the crap Bush has been laying on us.

I'd say retaining seats is more of a Republican worry this go round.

I think almost regardless of the Presidential winner, just about every Republican is at risk. The negatives on the economy, war, gas, etc. is a pretty swift current to be swimming against this year for incumbent Republicans.

I sense the national mood as being how could the Dems do worse than the Republicans have.

 

[mheslep]

...I sense the national mood as being how could the Dems do worse than the Republicans have.

Here's some more data for your sense of national mood

Democratic Congress approval ratings:
Approve: 18%
Disapprove: 73.5
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
18% is the lowest ever recorded, matching the '92 check bouncing Congress

 

[WarPhalange]

You do know that Republicans make up about half of the Congress, right?

 

[BobG]

Here's some more data for your sense of national mood

Democratic Congress approval ratings:
Approve: 18%
Disapprove: 73.5
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
18% is the lowest ever recorded, matching the '92 check bouncing Congress

Some perspective on Congressional ratings: Congress Approval Ratings

The difference is that Republicans liked a Republican controlled Congress. Democrats and independents have quickly become disillusioned about the possibility of a Democratic controlled Congress doing any better. Now everyone hates Congress instead of just independents and Democrats. In fact, approval among Democrats is even lower than among Republicans and independents.

 

[Gokul43201]

I personally thing approval ratings are mostly a bunch of hooey. Yes, Cheney probably has the lowest approval rating of any VP in the longest time, and he probably doesn't give a hoot. I almost admired him when he said "So what?". That's called having a spine. A terribly twisted one, but a strong one, nevertheless.

Congress' approval ratings were at historical highs (84% approve) just after 9/11 - for no real action that they can claim credit for. Oh wait, I forget: there was the landmark "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" that made everyone feel just so awesomely protected!

 

[WarPhalange]

Cheney's a public servant. Saying "so what" to the public means he should get fired, not applauded.

 

[Gokul43201]

Cheney's a public servant. Saying "so what" to the public means he should get fired, not applauded.

That's what elections are for. If you want all details of governance to be determined by opinion polls, then you don't really need an Executive branch.

 

[Astronuc]

Cheney's a public servant. Saying "so what" to the public means he should get fired, not applauded.

Cheney is a self-servant, and I heard someone comment to the effect that congressional Democrats are invertebrates. Mind you, that's just a disparaging rumor.

 

[turbo]

Cheney is a self-servant, and I heard someone comment to the effect that congressional Democrats are invertebrates. Mind you, that's just a disparaging rumor.

Another reason why I don't have a party affiliation. The Democrats were handed a majority so that could roll back some of the crap that Bush/Cheney have been pulling, and they just sit on their hands. Gutless weasels! I take that back...weasels shouldn't be disparaged by comparing them to politicians - they are small, but they are brave and tenacious...we don't see either of those qualities much on the Hill these days.

 

[LowlyPion]

I almost admired him when he said "So what?". That's called having a spine. A terribly twisted one, but a strong one, nevertheless.

You would admire him for the brave way that he accepted responsibility for shooting Harry Whittington? Admittedly the man was a lawyer and all ... but still.

"Cheney told an investigator that he did not see his hunting partner while aiming for a bird."

Yes a man dressed in hunting orange does have a tendency to blend with the background. He has his finger on the trigger aiming down the barrel his eye didn't see what his buck shot soundly peppered?

As FoxNews reported "Accidents Happen".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185238,00.html

So much for accountability.

 

[BobG]

I personally thing approval ratings are mostly a bunch of hooey. Yes, Cheney probably has the lowest approval rating of any VP in the longest time, and he probably doesn't give a hoot. I almost admired him when he said "So what?". That's called having a spine. A terribly twisted one, but a strong one, nevertheless.

There's nothing wrong with completely disagreeing with a person's politics while liking them as a person. I've always liked Cheney. That just makes the bizarre policies he's pursued since 9/11 even more disappointing.

I'd say the same about Huckabee. He was easily the candidate that I most wished had the same views as me.

That's why a person's political views are still more important when it comes to elections than their personal character.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There's nothing wrong with completely disagreeing with a person's politics while liking them as a person. I've always liked Cheney. That just makes the bizarre policies he's pursued since 9/11 even more disappointing.

We didn't think Dick would turn out this way

-Friends of Dick Cheney in Wyoming [according to the governer.]
From Meet the Press, two weeks ago.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think today's Rasmussen poll is a nail in Tim (mullet or not) Pawlenty's vice presidential coffin.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/minnesota/election_2008_minnesota_presidential_election

The last 3 polls in MN have Obama with a 17 point lead (+/- 5 points).

Methinks McCain will have to abandon principles for politics and pick Romney. That could give him a much needed boost in MI, NV and CO (and maybe even in NH).

 

[Gokul43201]

Biden... or Bayh...?

The two senators widely believed to be at the top of Barack Obama's shortlist for VP have been given prime-time speaking slots at the Democratic convention Wednesday night — the very same night the vice presidential candidate is slated to speak.
...
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar will also speak Wednesday evening, according to the convention committee.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

[Gokul43201]

It's Biden ... isn't it? I hope it is.

I'm very happy with Biden - that's a guy who has a deep understanding of Foreign Policy, and is not afraid to speak up.

 

[WarPhalange]

Plus, he gives out free bagels! He's sure to get the Jewish vote!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/biden-brings-re.html

 

[mheslep]

It's Biden ... isn't it? I hope it is.

I'm very happy with Biden - that's a guy who has a deep understanding of Foreign Policy, and is not afraid to speak up.

2nd that. I don't agree w/ much of his domestic policy ideas but he has an intellectual conscience, a sense of humor, has respect for views not in agreement with his own, and is not afraid to admit he was wrong.

 

[Gokul43201]

Today, a class at Widener University will have a substitute lecturer for a seminar on Constitutional Law...

 

[Astronuc]

Well, not that Biden is the VP nominee, everyone is waiting for McCain to announce his nominee.

According to some, the choice of Biden puts pressure on McCain to choose someone who can stand up to Biden.

Biden is wrench in McCain's VP choice
http://news.yahoo.com/story//politico/20080827/pl_politico/12867_1

Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge and Lieberman have factors that would be problematic, e.g. Pawlenty lacks experience, and Ridge and Lieberman are perhaps too liberal for conservatives.

A friend indicated that perhaps Kay Bailey Hutchison would be the VP nominee. Now that would make for an interesting choice. She's conservative and she'd certainly appeal to some of those who voted for Clinton. But her indictment by a Texas grand jury in September 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering could be a disqualifier.

Well then there's Elizabeth Dole, or perhaps Nancy Kassebaum, Lisa Murkowski, Sue Collins, Olympia Snowe, and others.

 

[Gokul43201]

Looks like it's going to be Pawlenty... I think.

 

[turbo]

Well then there's Elizabeth Dole, or perhaps Nancy Kassebaum, Lisa Murkowski, Sue Collins, Olympia Snowe, and others.

I would love to see Susan Collins selected - it would give Tom Allen a walk-in in November. Not so much Olympia Snowe - she does not suck up to Bush/Cheney quite as blatantly as Collins, and her seat is not in contention this year.