OH Gov Strickland Rules Out VP


Asked on NPR's "All Things Considered" if he is auditioning to be Obama's running mate, [Ohio Governor Ted] Strickland said, "Absolutely not. If drafted I will not run, nominated I will not accept and if elected I will not serve.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Faith to Play Big Role at Democratic Convention | Bob Barr Insists He's Seen the Light >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    he clearly wants it (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Turkana on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    he wants it badly!

    That may have been (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM EST
    Obama's only chance to win ohio.

    another way to look at it (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by Turkana on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:42:45 PM EST
    he's trying to help clear a path for someone he thinks would do an even better job of helping obama win ohio...

    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:45:36 PM EST
    Very possibly.

    Well, he WAS for her (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    before he was for Obama...

    I Had Two Thoughts (5.00 / 13) (#10)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:48:15 PM EST
    That one was the optimistic one.

    The pessimistic one is that he doesn't think Obama can win Ohio and it would be embarrassing to lose his home state.


    Point. (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:49:33 PM EST
    Also possible. (none / 0) (#26)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    But that doesn't say much for Strickland.  I think the first one is probably closer to it.

    I like Strickland. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    He's from Portsmouth.  Portsmouth is presently involved in an ongoing dispute with Kentucky over the city's legal right to a rock they pulled out of the Ohio river (which is, despite the name, owned by West Virginia and Kentucky along their respective Ohio borders) during a low water event when the rock was exposed and presumeably temporarily (or perhaps not) part of Ohio.  Kentucky is very mad, and would like its rock back.  That's slightly O/T - but it is about Strickland. Kinda.  See?

    I prefer the slightly optimistic take on his decision to rule out running as VP.  Or perhaps he believes that he owes the Ohioans who elected him governor the good governance he's promised.


    Please tell this west coaster (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by zyx on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:54:57 PM EST
    WTF is so darned special about this darned rock?

    The rock is allegedly - (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    - an historic monument, and has graffiti from as early as 1856, and as late as, well, probably three weeks before Ohio saved (or stole) it.  It's been a navigational landmark for boaters on the Ohio for some time, apparently, and was mentioned in some turn of the century newspaper article.  Maybe it has some Native American markings on it - or maybe not!  No one knows; the rock is usually underwater.

    An Ohio historian had it removed as: 1. part of Portsmouth history; and 2. supposedly to preserve it, as it was supposed to be deteriorating, but Kentucky is angry and has  grand jury investigating the theft of the rock.    It's now sitting in the Portsmouth, Ohio city garage.  


    Well, hornswoggle me! (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by zyx on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:33:02 PM EST
    I read your fascinating link about this cultural treasure beyond measure, and I recommend either splitting it in half, and sending the formerly south-facing half to Kentucky, or giving each state alternating custody rights of six-month or one-year periods or whathaveyou.  I'm not certain that the towns are that interested in ferrying it back and forth regularly, but it sounds like they deserve it.

    Chucking it back in the river sounds like a no-go, but if someone decides on that, I wouldn't position myself in the way!


    Great story! (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:34:24 PM EST
    I lolled pretty hard. Wouldn't it make a great movie? Kind of like Erin Brockovich meets Wag the Dog :DDD

    Obama already leads in Ohio (none / 0) (#106)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:54:31 PM EST
    The most recent polling out of Ohio has Obama beating McCain so pushing the envelope to win Ohio isn't a pressing need as of now.

    This poll is a little dated meaning any Obama bump from last week is not yet showing. Ohio shouldn't be scaring them.

    Michigan and Florida continue to be his only major (unanticipated) problems, but that can happen with a 48 state strategy.


    Coral- what polls? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:38:36 PM EST
    Latest Rasmussen has McCain over Obama by 1 point, and Quinnipac has McCain by 4. This is before the republican 527s and their tens of millions go to work.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#133)
    by IzikLA on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:37:48 PM EST
    I think he will win Ohio easily if it's an Obama-Clinton ticket.

    The way McCain is looking (none / 0) (#144)
    by catfish on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:06:36 PM EST
    He may win Ohio handily. There's just no intensity with McCain and he's not hitting his stride.

    I do not agree (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by IzikLA on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:17:24 PM EST
    As Dem's we can't take our eye off the ball and just assume that McCain is a weak candidate.  That is why I was a supporter of Hillary.  She is tough and much more.  I worry about Obama.  And while I hope he breezes through I don't think any of us should take that for granted, especially in a swing state where he lost by double digits while spending more than twice as much money as his opponent.  An opponent that was counted out and was vilified by the media each and every day.  I doubt he will have the same luxury with McCain.

    And also, let's be clear, the GOP is going to go all out for Ohio.


    I didn't vote for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by catfish on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:31:56 PM EST
    because I don't have confidence he can be on top of things or consistent. I'm a spectator at this point.

    Both Obama and McCain are very uneven, inconsistent campaigners.


    Literally Shermanic ... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:41:11 PM EST
    How many so far have rule it out?

    Do people not want this job?

    Will we down to American Idol semi-finalists by July?

    no David A! (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by dws3665 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:56:21 PM EST
    His father would bring too much baggage to the ticket.

    Good for him! (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    I guess the WaPo list is down to four.

    Good for Ohio! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    I like my guv very much, thank you.  Obama can poach some other state's governor.

    He can (3.66 / 3) (#27)
    by RJBOSTON on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    poach my guv and they can run as twins.

    Yeah, Deval Patrick (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:06:32 PM EST
    hasn't worked out so great for Mass, has he? Last I read, his approval rating was down to 41%.

    I actually voted for the guy in the Dem primary -- which was effectively the real vote for Governor, since the Republicans had no chance this time around.

    Maybe it has something to do with my very early skepticism about Obama.

    And I'll tell you, I liked Patrick a lot better when I voted for him than I've ever felt about Obama. Patrick at least managed to come across as something of a regular guy rather than an out of touch elitist.

    Patrick's decline in popularity should be a warning to us all about Obama's likely fate when rhetoric meets reality.


    Third that motion (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:54:13 PM EST
    DP is what happens when Hope meets Reality.

    that probably means he will (none / 0) (#72)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:58:50 PM EST
    have a place in Obama's govt!

    Will rhetoric ever meet reality? (none / 0) (#145)
    by catfish on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:08:58 PM EST
    I expected that to have happened already. When did it happen with Patric, and has he bounced back?

    (Actually, he did wheeze across the primary finish line.)


    Poach Another Governor (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:38:31 PM EST
    or Strickland and lose the national security vote.

    Second the motion (none / 0) (#32)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:01:20 PM EST
    And then McCain (none / 0) (#35)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:02:44 PM EST
    can pick Romney and MA will be well-represented!  :)

    I am from Mass also (none / 0) (#45)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    roflmao!!  They are twins!!

    Considering (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:21:42 PM EST
    all the play the "fist bump" is getting, maybe they could close the convention by doing the fist bump and then shouting "Wonder Twin Powers Activate!" ;)

    who's on the washpo list? (none / 0) (#61)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:39:07 PM EST
    Let's see... (none / 0) (#74)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:59:49 PM EST
    Strickland, Sebelius, Biden, Clinton, and...?

    Good (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:45:37 PM EST
    At the national level, I would feel very uncomfortable supporting an anti-choice VP.

    Deal Breaker (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    I already have a lot of problems with Obama on choice (as well as a myriad of other issues).  I won't line up an anti-choice Democrat to be the frontrunner for the nomination in 2012 or 2016.  

    I'm not sure I'll be able to vote for Obama at all, but an anti-choice VP, a GOP VP, or a jacka$$ DINO VP (e.g. Sam Nunn) would make it easy to walk away.  It would confirm all my worst suspicions about an Obama administration.  

    What can I say, I prefer real Republicans to fake ones, too.  I want a real opposition party to the GOP.  If Obama goes that way on his VP selection, it's a sign that the Dems under him don't intend to be that.


    Seems Like I Do A Lot Of Agreeing (none / 0) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:52:20 PM EST
    with your comments. Once again your position is the same as mine on Obama and his VP choice. T

    But think of all the evangelicals who (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:51:37 PM EST
    might come on board for a "former minister and prison psychologist."

    heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:52:49 PM EST
    I don't have anything bad to say about him, I just have a national office litmus test.

    I know. Although I did read Obama (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:55:03 PM EST
    campaign is reaching out to Clinton's gender preferenced supporters.

    Just mentioned on FOX (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    He was considered the 1st pick, and now Joe Biden's name is being mentioned most frequently in that circle of people who are "in the know" and talking to the media.

    Until the job is offered, and accepted, I think all talk is nothing but speculation. It's hard to go back to trusting the media right now.

    They clearly are trying to put the word out that Clinton is not real high on the list of Obama's choices.

    Biden would be a great pick (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:55:54 PM EST
    The VP is traditionally the ticket's "fighter," and Biden takes naturally to that role. :) Plus, he has tons of experience--and Obama decidedly does NOT, so that balance is necessary.

    And I thought Biden was exceptionally impressive in the debates: funny, cranky, smart, impatient. He clearly knows his way around just about any issue imaginable. He, Dodd, and Hillary all three were the real policy wonks and thus more interesting to me. I learned something almost every time one of them spoke. Obama...not so much.


    Yeah, Delaware is an important (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:59:22 PM EST
    state in terms of electoral college votes.



    :-) Yeah, I know. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:08:04 PM EST
    But Biden's appeal is more general.

    On the other hand, Biden is not a governor. Running two senators is bad luck or something, isn't it?



    Biden's appeal is more general - (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:09:49 PM EST
    - and proven by the number of votes he garnered in the primaries!

    /kinda snark


    Oh, OK--It's just that I like him ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    Biden should go over well with women (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    considering his actions during the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas mess. Some of us have never forgiven him for that little debacle.

    what a windbag.

    He's a decent Senator (none / 0) (#140)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:57:11 PM EST
    but as VP? No, thank you.

    Thank you for mentioning that (none / 0) (#75)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:02:54 PM EST
    Every time we hear that Clinton's supporters will vote the party in November, because that's what always happens, I remember those hearings.

    I still can't stand Joe Biden for his weak-spined, craven actions during those hearings.  And if he'd gotten past the early primaries this year, I would have happily not voted for him.  Those hearings were in 1991.  I don't really think I'll have a hard time sticking with my newer nonvote decision for 5 months.


    To Be Fair To Biden (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:37:58 PM EST
    He is a democrat. Spinelessness is kind of a requirement these days.

    LOL. Fair 'nough. n/t (none / 0) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:38:42 PM EST
    But does he have enough faith? (none / 0) (#142)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    That seems to be the new litmus test. Man, that makes me angry! So glad I left the party 2 weeks ago!

    You're welcome (none / 0) (#141)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:58:52 PM EST
    I haven't forgotten about that nor will I ever. It's one of the reasons Ted Kennedy's not one of my fave people. The craven behaviour of the Democratic senators during that mess was clearly an early sign of things to come. Not to mention the fact that they put Thomas on the court despite the fact that he's was -- and still is -- useless except as Scalia's yes man.

    Also, The Banks Should Love Him n/t (none / 0) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:54:20 PM EST
    Biden would overshadow Obama too (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    He is strong minded and he would be on the talk shows all the time expressing his views. I don't think Obama could control him.

    that was my first thought... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:43:55 PM EST
    ...he's too much of a gaffe-generator to fit in with the tightly controlled messaging of the Obama campaign.

    I saw a wire story today that mentioned "retired military officers" who were being considered for veep; I guess that's their way of feeling out public opinion about Wes Clark as a choice.

    Honestly, I think Obama's pretty screwed in his choice unless it's Hillary. Middle-of-the-roader like Schweitzer or a pro-lifer like Casey? Gives me less of a reason to fear McCain, particularly if he picks someone moderate like Palin. Traditional lefty progressive like Dodd? So much for the "new" Dem party, and will drive away moderates and other crossovers. Sebellius or Napolitano as a sop to women voters? Haha, let's see how that works out.


    Regarding his VP choices (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by IzikLA on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    I also kinda think Obama is screwed when it comes to his choice.  In my opinion, his choices are all about Hillary.  He has to factor in so many things and they all seem to bump up against Hillary.  

    Richardson, Biden, Dodd or Edwards?  Well, why pick any of them when Hillary got millions more votes?  Would that not be a slight to Hillary and her supporters??  

    Sebelius, McCaskill, etc.??  Well, why pick a woman if it's not going to be Hillary?  Would that not be a slight to Hillary again and to women in general??

    Clark, Strickland, Rendell??  Well, why pick a Clinton supporter from a swing state when Hillary has proved her ability to get the votes in those states anyways??  Would that not be a slight to Hillary and her supporters.

    In short, why pick an alternative when you could have the real thing??

    Just my 2 cents.  He needs to pick Hillary or go way outside the box.


    Right now, in June (none / 0) (#139)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    much of what you say about HRC as VP is true.

    Fortunately, O doesn't have to pick a Veep in June and he won't.

    The Hillary situation still hangs out there, for sure, but things Hillary can and probably will, change by the time in mid-Aug when he announces his selection.  By that time the HRC as VP situation is likely to have either been put to rest or been put squarely on the front-burner.

    It looks like she's keeping this option open at the moment as added leverage in negotiations with the O-Team on other matters related to the campaign and in governing.  

    My guess is she either doesn't want it or knows O is not going to offer it.


    Biden was good in the debates. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:40:00 PM EST
    His comment that Obama is not ready to be CIC, and that the presidency is no place for on-the-job training is featured right now in an RNC ad.

    Biden (none / 0) (#46)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    was my choice for Democratic nominee until he dropped out.  That being said, I don't think he makes a good VP candidate.  Two senators is risky and if it's going to be two senators, it will be hard to justify not picking Hillary.  Also, probably just me, but I would like to see Biden as Sec of State.  Foreign policy and diplomacy are strong suits of his (unless he goes calling the Iraqi's "clean").

    Joe Biden (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    Change you can believe in.

    Sorry, I don't hate Biden.  But it's getting kind of amusing how many old Democrats are coming back under the name "change."  

    Having said that, if McCain goes insane (or make that more insane) and nominates Guiliani, then Biden absolutely has to be the VP nominee for the Dems.  I must get my Biden-Guiliani foreign policy debate.  Biden's eye rolls alone would be worth it.  Good times.


    Biden... (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:00:24 PM EST
    Didn't he make that odd "clean" comment about Obama when he was still running?

    Clean and articulate. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    Well, he got the articulate part right.

    Yep, (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:23:45 PM EST
    he came with baggage after all.

    Yes, and he's the one who (none / 0) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:35:19 PM EST
    racial profiled 7-11 clerks.

    Jeralyn has said she would never vote for a ticket with Biden on it and she gave us a link to her solid reasons why....about a week ago.


    I missed that. (none / 0) (#134)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:47:16 PM EST
    Do you still have the link (or remember which post it was in)?

    Wasn't it Biden that had the good Rudy/911 (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST

    Yep. A noun, a verb & 911 (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by cosbo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:27:20 PM EST
    is about the extent of Rudy's presidential run.

    I think McCain will pick a woman, after Obama picks the inevitable white male.


    Biden is a Legend in his own Mind (none / 0) (#171)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:46:57 PM EST
    Biden has some foreign policy credibility, but..., he sticks his foot in his mouth often, and from my perspective, his notion that the Big Brother U.S. should solve the problems we unleashed in Iraq by carving up the country in 3 parts is more ugly America imposing its will on another country.  I don't see Biden as a major vote getter for Biden or one who adds enough gravitas.

    Actually, Biden has a point about Iraq (none / 0) (#187)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:08:27 AM EST
    Before the British cavalierly lumped it into one country, it was three parts. Each dominated by a separate religious/ethnic group. To divide Iraq into three parts would be just going back to the original configuration of the country. Apparently, Biden has read his ME history, which is more than you can say for Obama or McCain.

    I think it was more complicated (none / 0) (#188)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:59:01 PM EST
    I think pre-war Iraq had 3 factions -- but living patterns were not entirely segregated. It's why the fighting in some areas, such as the Bagdad area, was so deadly - Sunni vs. Shia in the same neighborhoods; it's why walls were put up, and why so many Iraqis fled the country.  

    I was talking about when Iraq (none / 0) (#191)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:20:57 AM EST
    came into being as a country, not pre-war. I meant back in the days of the British Empire, around the turn of the last century, when three provinces were lumped into one country, all three with different religious affiliations, different cultural heritage and hugely varied political goals. The war was just the latest bump in the road, not the cause of the internal strife in Iraq.

    LOL n/t (none / 0) (#41)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    these aren't people in the know... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:35:32 PM EST
    ...this is just the media's way of letting Obama know who they would pick for VP. If they knew so much they would have known that Strickland wasn't interested.

    Actually, I'm kind of glad (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    Ohioans had been saddled with a horrendously corrupt GOP state government until they started voting the bums out in 04. They need a competent governor, and thus far Strickland seems to be one.

    Also, I'm convinced that the horrendously corrupt republicans like Ken Blackwell and others helped the GOP steal Ohio in the 04 election. I'm convinced that if PA had a similar state government, Bush may have "won" PA, too, in 04. But we have Rendell, I hope we keep him forevah!

    Strickland will work hard to elect Obama, as Rendell will in PA. But I think Obama has such a serious disconnect problem with the average Ohioan and Pennsylvanian that you actually couldn't pay a lot of them to vote for him.

    In fact, I'm surprised Obama is doing as well as he is in the polls in OH and PA--so surprised that I think they're flawed in some way.

    Me too (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:53:32 PM EST
    The best hope is that Obama tricks McCain into trying to defend Virginia.

    And North Carolina (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    Obama will win neither, IMO.  

    Agree with you both (4.20 / 5) (#36)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:05:26 PM EST
    VA is not going to Obama. I think the self-important types who live in the DC suburbs have made the same mistake that Markos and Arianna and Obamabloggers have made: they think they represent a large cohort.
    They do not.

    VA does have a large AA population and a good-sized creative class, BUT it has a lot of Navy folks and a  large, rural, dare-I-say Appalachian community.

    Jim Webb barely beat "Macaca" Allen two years ago, and that's with the Navy support, which I don't think Obama can count on up against McCain.

    But...Obama can force McCain to spend money in VA. NC, too. Heck, he can even force him to spend some money in Mississippi and Louisiana and Georgia.

    If Obama had turned out to be what I thought he was in the beginning, when I actually supported him enthusiastically, he could have been highly competitive in Southern states. Not now.  Not with his associations. But his enthusiastic AA support will make the GOP nervous enough to spend some resources in several states they normally take for granted.


    yah (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:19:22 PM EST
    McCain has the navy unless there is a Mutiny.

    sounds like a challenge (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:52:52 PM EST
    Lets elect him!!!

    Guess That Leaves Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:54:17 PM EST
    As the only reasonable choice.

    Do you suppose she'll accept if she is (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:56:08 PM EST
    the last one chosen for the Obama team?

    Last One Chosen? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    The other day someone said that no one ever turns down the veep position. My understanding of that statement is that it is true because no one is ever asked to become veep without knowing that they would accept.

    So, imo, there is no chance of anyone being the last one chosen, as the person asked to be veep is always the apparent first choice by the nominee.


    it was me who said that (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:46:20 PM EST
    and I dont think Hillary would turn it down.

    but (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    I dont think she will be asked.
    but I have been wrong before this year.

    Yes and (none / 0) (#76)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST
    when I close my eyes, no one else can see me.

    More Like (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:16:07 PM EST
    The lawyering rule in court, as I understand (IANAL), you do not ask a question unless you are sure what the answer will be.

    Couple of statements I (none / 0) (#125)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:24:22 PM EST
    would disagree with.  Pols have been known to turn down Veep offers.  Teddy K in two different elections comes to mind.  There were a number of others, from 72, who turned down McGovern.  Most of these offers from the nominee and rejections aren't made public at the time and some never leak out.  

    Probably a lot of VP rejections happen when pols know any ticket that's put together is doomed.

    Secondly, famously JFK did make a pro forma offer to LBJ not knowing that Lyndon would stun the political world by accepting.  Of course Kennedy was in a tough bind, since he knew that by not offering he would offend the hypersensitive Majority Leader, someone he did not want to unnecessarily upset.


    Turndown VP Offer (none / 0) (#190)
    by nell on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:04:12 AM EST
    Yes, they have turned down VP offers. Didn't McCain turn down Kerry's VP offer in 2004? Word was that it was McCain's if he was wanted it and would cross party lines for it, but that did not end up happening...

    I think he has to ask Hillary and the decision then has to be hers of whether or not she takes it. If he does not ask her and let the decision be hers I think he is in real trouble. Yes, I know many will argue that it should be his right to choose whoever he wants for whatever he wants, and he is entitled to that choice, but voters are also entitled to help him lose in November. Personally, I don't want to see her as VP, I want him to have to carry himself accross the finish line. I also think it is insulting to see the more expreienced woman play second fiddle to the less experienced male (welcome to the story of women's lives). But, hey, if she wants it, I want her to have it.


    "auditioning".... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    ...boy...if that isn't a sign of the times.

    American Idol, anyone?

    Dancing With the Stars?

    America's Got Talent?

    Perhaps Obama will dump Johnson (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:09:09 PM EST
    and replace him with Seacrest for the VP committee.

    For some reason (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Nadai on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:38:43 PM EST
    I thought that read Secretariat and had visions of Caligula.

    Oy. (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:05:33 PM EST
    I just saw the topic of the previous thread.


    Me too. (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    I missed the discussion but I'm so totally against it.  

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Burned on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:18:44 PM EST
    I was handing out 5's and then got tired of trying to deal with the comment load.
    So everyone gets one in that thread.
    Except the people that don't.

    Regarding Biden (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:33:01 PM EST
    Will Tweety ask whether he'll obey or not?

    Biden being "subservient," unquote (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:45:13 PM EST
    MSNBC, is beyond imagining.  This match is so not gonna happen.

    Anyone else (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Makarov on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:49:37 PM EST
    love the irony of a person named Jim Jones as possible VP?


    Others on Chuck Todd's not so short list:
    Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, Ted Strickland, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, and Sam Nunn.

    Awww (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by LoisInCo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:56:01 PM EST
    no Bill Richardson? Bwhahahaha

    Awww (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:04:25 PM EST
    no Claire McCaskill either? Bwhahahaha

    Wow, that's a lineup. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    Bayh, Strickland, Nelson, and Webb are all anti-choice, aren't they? Kerry, Dodd, Biden, Daschle, and Nunn are all "old politics," plus they're Senators when Obama could really use a governor.

    Kaine's on the fence about abortion rights, isn't he? And Warner is desperately needed for the VA Senate Seat IIRC, the only one who could win this year. IDK anything about Jack Reed or Jim Jones ::googles::

    So looks like Sebelius or Edwards if they don't want Hillary. Both those tickets have some serious problems.


    Edwards has ruled out the VP slot also... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by cosbo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:29:08 PM EST
    so that just leaves Sebilius.

    Too bad, (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:38:43 PM EST
    at least Edwards would make his crowd happy. But I can't blame him for not ticking his head in that shredder twice. Sebelius guarantees a seriously irritated Clinton wing, IMO, plus she's pretty boring.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:45:36 PM EST
    My best friend lives in Overland Park. I went to visit her last year and in passing noticed something about the governor on the news. I asked my friend, and her husband, "Kansas has a female governor?" BOTH of them gave me a blank look and said, "not sure, I guess".

    Hee! (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:01:55 PM EST
    I remember thinking quite well of her at first, but OMG, her response to the SOTU was better than Ambien.

    Webb is pro-choice, Bayh mostly so (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:31:37 PM EST
    Otherwise, I think you're right.

    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:33:46 PM EST
    Bill Nelson has a 100% rating from NARAL.

    So does Obama (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:37:11 PM EST
    so that's not all that reassuring.

    Uh, because he is pro-choice (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:37:56 PM EST
    and any other suggestion is frankly ridiculous.

    Sorry, duh (none / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:35:40 PM EST
    I thought she was talking about the other Nelson, stupidly.

    Yes, Bill is pro-choice.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#99)
    by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    I got them mixed up again. And you're right about Webb, I was confusing his abortion rights record with feminist problems on other fronts.

    Jack Reed sounds okay--good military background, nice personal story, and Conservapedia hates him, which always makes me happy. But he's yet another Senator and from Rhode Island, for heaven's sake. Not sure how he increases the electoral map.

    I can't find Jim Jones for running into literal Kool-aid, lol.


    Jack Reed is a good Senator (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:44:33 PM EST
    but I think he adds very little to the ticket .

    Webb may be pro-choice, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:38:57 PM EST
    but his track record on women in the military is abysmal. And let us not forget Tailhook.

    That's fine, but not what I was addressing (none / 0) (#98)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    Webb (none / 0) (#173)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:54:26 PM EST
    Has anyone else caught his piece on Huffpo & his interview with Russert in which he all but calls the Scotch-Irish racist?  This will surely help Obama with the white working class.  Obama needs a VP who ads national security gravitas and appeals to a number of the sectors in the electorate he does not -- women, white working class, Latinos.  Anyone come to mind other than Hillary?  Only one who might help here is Clark, and he is just not a great campaigner.

    Virginia has a wingnut Lt Governor (none / 0) (#103)
    by HenryFTP on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:49:43 PM EST
    so Tim Kaine won't be the Veep nominee unless we're throwing the 50-state strategy under the bus, too.

    Kaine is lacklustre on the stump anyway, even by Virginia standards (Virginians don't do flashy).

    I'll bet they're leaning toward Sebelius, but I have yet to read a coherent argument as to how she would help the ticket -- although the Party would keep its streak alive of mediocre Veep candidates (Lieberman in '00, Edwards in '04).

    I understand forensic pathologists are still earnestly investigating the 2004 election to see if any trace can be found of any benefit Edwards brought to the ticket . . .

    I like John Edwards but his "debate" with Cheney was a disgrace to practicing politicians and practicing lawyers alike.

    Maybe we'll all be struck dumb again by the Obama campaign's "strategic brilliance" but at the moment they seem to be in disarray.


    Kaine seems to have budget (none / 0) (#115)
    by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:09:03 PM EST
    woes in VA too. I was just reading that they're going to be running a deficit, which of course the R's will blame on him. A governor is only as valuable as their record in their state, and Obama would greatly benefit from a serious heavy hitter on foreign policy, military, and economic issues. Too bad, Kaine seems like a nice guy with lots to offer, if a bit wobbly on choice.

    Please, please please!!! (none / 0) (#113)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    Please pick Jim Jones!!!!



    DNC Makes Phone Call (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:29:39 PM EST
    to txpolitico67's house:

    Asked on DNC's "All Things Obama" txpolitico67 is asked if he is auditioning to be an Obama voter:txpolitico67 said, "Absolutely not. If drafted I will not volunteer, if nominated to help on campaign I will not accept and if begged I will not serve Obama.

    May I quote that! I'll footnote, of course. (none / 0) (#155)
    by nulee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:30:45 PM EST
    sure! (none / 0) (#169)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:33:19 PM EST
    u bet! LOL  (hey if Obama can plagiarize...)

    Watching Obama (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:32:01 PM EST
    defend himself over the Johnson VP thing, I'm thinking he better pick Hillary.  That response was WEAK.  Basically, Obama was saying corruption is endemic.  Um, nice.  Very on-message.  

    Hillary is the Dem party's best debater.  Though she made some dumb decisions in her campaign (Tuzla comes to mind), she's still great at answering questions, and good at being present even when the response requires tact and a line of argument she may not personally believe in.  Her eyes don't glaze over, she doesn't painfully recite.  You could ask her about Johnson all day and she'd hardly be ruffled.  I don't think that's the case for ANY of Obama's other VPs in waiting.  

    "It's a discrete task!" is simply a D+ in political defense.  Clinton's political skills will be handy esp. in these situations, and only the VP has the normative authority to tackle these situations in the Pres nominee's place (Clinton as campaigner, not VP, would not have the authority to address Johnson).

    Here's a list of governors. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:48:40 PM EST
    You can easily copy these & nitpick them in terms of possible, never happen, & you are nutz!
    Janet Napolitano, AZ
    Mike Beebe, AR
    Bill Ritter, CO
    Ruth Ann Minner, DE
    **Rod Blagojevich, IL-------same state
    Chet Culver, IA
    Kathleen Sebelius, KS
    Steve Beshear, KY
    John Baldacci, ME
    Martin O'Malley, MD
    Deval Patrick, MA
    Jennifer Granholm, MI
    Brian Schweitzer, MT
    John Lynch, NH
    Jon Corzine, NJ
    Bill Richardson, NM
    David Paterson, NY
    Mike Easley, NC
    Ted Strickland, OH--------nixed
    Brad Henry, OK
    Ted Kulongoski, OR
    Ed Rendell, PA
    Phil Bredesen, TN
    Tim Kaine, VA
    Christine Gregoire, WA
    Joe Manchin, WV
    Jim Doyle, WI
    Dave Freudenthal, WY

    Lynch is an interesting choice (none / 0) (#138)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:55:14 PM EST
    But I'm not sure he could deliver NH.

    Part of my intent was to de-construct. (none / 0) (#146)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:09:16 PM EST
    Looking over the list of governors, it seems too obvious that the acceptables don't have any electoral votes & the big state guvs are not all that acceptable.

    Maybe a look toward members of the House?

    Perhaps a corporate headliner?


    Actually, in general, it looks as if Sen. Obama is probably "toast."


    Rendell doesn't seem so bad, actually (none / 0) (#147)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:13:19 PM EST
    but he's about as interested as Strickland.

    Thank goodness.. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:21:20 PM EST
    We loves our Eddie here in Pennsylvania, and really want him around to take on Arlen next time.  

    I think (none / 0) (#179)
    by Makarov on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:18:52 PM EST
    Ed nixed that idea himself not too long ago. He's not a legislator, has never been one and doesn't appear to be interested in being one. For those unfamiliar, he was Phila. DA, then Mayor (lost a bid for Gov against Casey Sr. in between), DNC Chair, and now Gov.

    What's interesting to me is he would be a good VP pick - tons of executive experience, the vast majority of it positive, turning deficits to balanced budgets, and would deliver PA - yet the pundits don't suggest him as a possibility.


    You can "concede" some governors . . . (none / 0) (#152)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:21:45 PM EST
    . . . in the sense of 'well, that could happen.'

    But it just seems to be a faaaaarrr stretch to fit up a logical, satisfying match.

    So . . . whadda' ya' think, Jim Johnson will put himself on the ticket--you know, a "discreet" task for the presumptive nominee???


    Rendell Has said No to VP (none / 0) (#177)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:26:37 PM EST
    many times in the last 2 weeks.

    Granholm...... (none / 0) (#154)
    by michitucky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:28:55 PM EST
    Was born in Canada......Not eligible.

    Wow, Mr. Strickland, (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:49:14 PM EST
    tell us how you really feel :-)

    Strick also said this, interestingly.... (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by nulee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:36:22 PM EST
    from the same ABC link....."When asked to rank the degree of difficulty of Obama carrying Ohio, Strickland says: "I would say somewhere around 5 in a scale of 1 to 10. I think it's, I just think it's a challenge because of the nature of our state.""


    I like Rendell and Strickland (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Mrwirez on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:22:37 PM EST
    being I am from PA. I am glad two strong Hillary supporters told Obama F-you. They supported Clinton and do not want to work for "the other guy"......

    OK (none / 0) (#185)
    by Mrwirez on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:51:25 AM EST
    If you say so.... Rendell would have jumped on a Clinton ticket in a heart-beat.

    I think that's code for... (1.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Artoo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:52:05 PM EST
    "We've got our fair share of racist Democrats."

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST
    Of course you clowns hear race in everything.

    C'mon (none / 0) (#166)
    by Artoo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:11:39 PM EST
    Race played a clear role in Ohio. All the exit polls say so. For people voting on race, Hillary won by a wide margin.

    And calling me a clown isn't helpful.


    Give me a break (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:32:48 PM EST
    I'm not going to rehash this simplistic interpretation of the exit polls yet another time.  The point is, you have absolutely no basis to claim that Strickland was talking about race.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:15:34 PM EST
    If anyone wants to look into Obama's problems appealing to the white working class and get beyond simplistic knee jerk statements, so that perhaps they can address the real problem and help him win, you should read Ruy Teixeira's study for the Brookings Institute, Sean Wilentz's piece at HuffPo and the Lind piece Wilentz references.  Real knowledge is power.  The non-sensical and largely hypotheses parading as truth on the Internet about greater racial prejudice in states with larger AA populations do not square with the evidence Teixeira et al. bring to bearm and will not serve to get the Dem candidate elected.  There is also at Salon a colloqium in which Sean Wilentz, Teixeira and others talk about the issue.  Wilentz is professor of American Studies at Princeton, Lind is professor of journalism at Columbia U School of Journalism, Teixeira's qualifications are legend, but hey, I suppose it's easier to bandy about superficial ideas and convictions that keep us ignorant as to what these voters are really all about. Stick a label on them, put them in a stereotyped category and dismiss them -- to me this is true bias in the guise of righteousness.  

    OK (none / 0) (#182)
    by Artoo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:03:48 AM EST
    So what do they say that the exit polling data doesn't?

    Very briefly (none / 0) (#189)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:03:46 PM EST
    said various things, including:
    (i) polls and reports lump together those who indicated race was one of many factors and the far smaller number who said race was the most important factor in deciding which candidate to select; and

    (ii) polls and reports ignore those whites for whom race was a factor and who voted for Obama.

    I will try to write something more in depth.  Articles also talk about how difficult it is to extrapolate actual racism from the way polling questions asked.


    Sorry to off topic (none / 0) (#24)
    by Netroots Nation on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:56:20 PM EST
    curious about posting user Diaries around here.  Is it permissible?  What are the parameters for posting?  Thanks.

    You have to email Jeralyn to get permission (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    thanks for the Info (none / 0) (#49)
    by Netroots Nation on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    I will see about making that happen.  But then again - I may be assuming that you all might be interested in knowing about events relating to the Netroots Nation conference.

    Depends (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    I heard it was being held in connection with the Blogher conference.  I'd love to hear about that.

    Yearly Kos?  Uh, no.


    Not really interested (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Coldblue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:02:15 PM EST
    I unsubscribed months ago.

    Formerly known as Yearly Kos? (4.92 / 13) (#54)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    I use to be interested, but not this time around.

    Likewise, frankly (5.00 / 10) (#56)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    If you visit their web site (5.00 / 9) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:34:30 PM EST
    You'll see their self-proclaimed slogan that they're "changing the face of progressive politics."  Me, I definitely get that.

    yeah, in a Jack Nicholson sort of way. (none / 0) (#114)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    "Short list" up on Huff Post is (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:46:04 PM EST
    definitely not short and it includes John Kerry.

    That would delight me. Really. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    Me, too (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:09:16 PM EST
    As long as he resigns is senate seat to run.

    Heh, heh (none / 0) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST
    Wouldn't that be great? Then, when they lose, Obama still has his Senate seat, but Kerry is out.

    This race is about judgment. To even put Kerry on the long list concerns me.


    Well, we don't know he's on the list, really, do (none / 0) (#107)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    we?  Isn't this just some Chuck Todd list or something?

    Maybe he just got on there because 1) he's been angling for it and 2) he's one of the few major Democrats who haven't said 'No!' yet.


    Chuck Todd is (none / 0) (#186)
    by Mrwirez on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:58:02 AM EST
    an A$shole. MSNBO is so slanted it makes me sick. I hope tweety runs in PA for Arlen Spector's seat, so I can reject him.

    If he picks Kerry (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:13:38 PM EST
    I think I'll laugh so hard I might pee my pants.  Can you imagine the size of the flip flop the Republicans would create for their marketing campaign?  My God it would be big enough to eat New York.  And imagine the loser meme that would be created, as the young apprentice deliberately selected the effete, windsurfing, loser bore to be his jedi master.

    Of course once I'm done laughing my butt off, I think I'd go cry my eyes out at how pathetic and corrupt and stupid the party had become.

    All that being said, I don't put much credence in the Kerry speculation.


    It would be beautiful (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:27:35 PM EST
    karma though...wouldn't it? I mean can you imagne the contortions Kos and Huffpo would go into in order to redeem and love them some Kerry?!

    It would be evidence of the fix. (none / 0) (#112)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    I'd really look at a Kerry pick as a pay-off for fixing the nomination process.  Same with Daschle  It would feed the conspiracist in me that believes Obama is the Trojan Horse of all these frustrated old-line Dems that could never best a Clinton or get America to like them.

    Choosing Kerry would be smart---kind of like (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:53:27 PM EST
    how you want to go to a singles bar with a friend who's not as good looking as you.
    I don't care for Obama's speeches very much, but with Kerry as VP, I will positively pine for them whenever I see Kerry.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:59:26 PM EST
    But seriously, what does Kerry bring to the ticket?  Geography can't (or shouldn't be) a concern -- MA isn't even a purply state.  And one of Kerry's biggest problems in 2004 was that although his life experience is quite remarkable, he's as boring as watching paint dry.

    He does nothing to dispel the Eastern-liberal- elitist image that Obama already has and the Republicans will be only too happy to exploit once again.  I don't get it.


    Let's Remember, with Kerry's Backing (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:18:52 PM EST
    and all the other Mass. officeholders, Hillary creamed Obama in MA!

    MA was 'purply' for Mondale.... (none / 0) (#160)
    by nulee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:50:26 PM EST
    ... actually downright cherry red.  

    So let's not get ahead of ourselves here, and I believe that even some polls have shown that BO will lose MA (sorry, just faulty memory, no link.

    Anyway, Kerry would in my mind be a ridiculous choice but by the same token we may lose MA with a candidate like BO, and I wish we did not have that problem/risk.


    Mass polls (none / 0) (#176)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:19:41 PM EST
    I keep seeing references to Mass polls showing McCain close or winning, but all I was able to find was an SUSA poll that showed McCain w/i 3 points right after the Wright video.  Since then Obama's been running a good 10 points or so ahead.

    I'd be very interested to see other polls.  I'm still majorly ticked off at Kerry and Kennedy for advocating so strongly in opposition to the clear preferences of the voters of Mass (Clinton by 15, thanks).

    Thing is, if Mass. really becomes purply this year, then Obama will have lots more to worry about than its 12 EV, so I still don't see Kerry being a big help.  


    biden (none / 0) (#91)
    by isaac on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM EST
    has zero appeal to anyone but stupid pundits.  the average american will see him as another rich white guy

    Obama can't pick any DC types (none / 0) (#109)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:57:22 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned.  If he picks a Washington insider then he wrecks his allegedly all-important new politics theme.  He loses all excuses for not picking Hillary at that point.  He must pick a governor if he is going to pass on HRC.  That or maybe Clark from the military who is not strictly speaking a pol.  He needs an excuse not to take Hillary, and a governor or Clark gives him a plausible cover of wanting an outsider and someone with executive experience.

    At the end of the day, a governor is also important for Obama, imo, because they would be at least somewhat less likely to make him look like he is their apprentice.  Let's face it, he's going to be the weaker team member based on resume no matter who he picks for VP.  If he picks someone with too much gravitas or power, then you may as well just give the VP candidate a diaper bag to carry around with him/her while they are on the campaign trail.  Who does that remind me of?  Why Cheney perhaps!

    Agree, he's got to go with someone outside (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:11:35 PM EST
    of D.C., which explains the crazy choices on his list.  Frankly, he may be in a position of having no really good choice except Hillary, she whose name must not be spoken.  And if he chooses her, his media echo chamber will turn on him on a dime.  It's not so much fun to be Barack Obama these days.

    What I find interesting is the McCain game.  Do you suppose he just waits out Obama, then chooses his VP in response?  He can, since the repub convention is later.


    BTD seemed to think so (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:15:52 PM EST
    I think McCain would be smart to use this time and a lot of the time leading up to their convention to float a lot of names, even diametrically opposed ones, to make as many people as possible think he'd be open to a variety of viewpoints on the ticket.

    Obama'd be wise to do the same, but he's more restricted than McCain, with both time and the corner he's painted himself into by not reaching out to Clinton's voters.


    McCain has another reason to wait, IMO. (none / 0) (#121)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:17:32 PM EST
    He wants Obama to be defined by a summer of attacks, making him someone no Republican could vote for, before choosing his own mate, who might be someone who would rile the base.

    I Disagree (none / 0) (#131)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    McCain's biggest problem isn't Obama, it's that the GOP is not excited about him or their prospects.  I think he needs an energetic, up and comer from outside D.C. (so he or she is untainted from the current mess).  It would also get the party focused on the its future.  Always a good thing for a party that's collapsing and in disarray.

    If the GOP brand weren't in such trouble, I suspect McCain would be beating Obama.  Heck, even with the GOP in trouble, he's stayed close in both national polls and the EV.


    Ooops (none / 0) (#132)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:37:44 PM EST
    Should've added that McCain, IMO, needs to do this sooner rather than later.  He needs money and press and some excitement.

    Oh but its what they so desperately desire (none / 0) (#120)
    by jb64 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:16:41 PM EST
    The media really, really, really wants Hill to be the VP. My God, that twitter running up Chrissie poos leg is the thought that this will happen.

    Might unify the party, not that seems to matter these days.


    Yup (none / 0) (#122)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:17:38 PM EST
    And I think the GOP is interviewing "some of each".

    I'm not sure what McCain's play will be (none / 0) (#124)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    Part of me thinks McCain should get out ahead of Obama and make a bold pick and make Obama look like a day late and dollar short waffler that can't make up his mind.  This might particularly work if McCain picks Palin before the Hillary as VP issue is resolved.  Part of me thinks the Palin pick would be risky given her inexperience and maybe he should just play the wait and see game.  And I haven't thought through the Romney factor.  A lot for McCain depends on how secure they feel the base is.  If they think the base is squirrely then they may have to go with Romney, which is not an altogether bad pick given the Michigan factor and Mormons in the Mountain West.

    McCain should wait... (none / 0) (#150)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:18:04 PM EST
    until Obama makes his pick...

    What McCain should be doing is a whole lot of campaigning with potential VP nominees....

    My favorite McCain pick -- JC Watts.  Second Favorite -- Christie Whitman

    As for Obama -- he has no good choices.  Unless someone discovers that Ashlee Simpson is really 35 year old, anyone he picks is going to 'outshine' him on questions of experience and competence.  If he picks an "unknown" like Sebelius, it raises more questions about what "change" means.  If he picks someone well known, it raises question if "change" has any meaning at all.

    HRC isn't going to commit to being on the ticket until mid-August.  She wants to be sure that Obama can win before she signs on...and if it looks like he's in trouble, will run against him for the nomination.


    No Senators!! (none / 0) (#118)
    by jb64 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:13:45 PM EST
    Not gonna happen nada un-uhh no way. there's only one.

    it comes down to Napolitino, or that woman governor from Kansas, or some general. All pretty uninspiring to tell the truth.

    Not very inspiring choices (none / 0) (#129)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    How is it that the Dems have such a weak bench?

    Odinga, Obama--Kenyan By-Elections (none / 0) (#148)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    Obama's thuggy "cousin" (never really denied" is issuing "warnings" and demanding amnesty for his supporters who created mayhem after the December 07 elections.  The coalition is fragile and I'll be following it to see what happens in the by-elections which are next Wednesday.

    The way Odinga and Obama operate are so eerily similiar....

    In Kenya, Struggle for Parliament is Happening Now-Odinga's Party Issues Warning (Sounds Like Cousin Obama)


    Somehow this is not good or helpful! (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:23:28 PM EST
    Maybe odious?

    Don't like Strickland (none / 0) (#156)
    by Artoo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:31:28 PM EST
    I'm from Ohio and he's been one of the folks behind pushing for legalized gambling here. I really hate that...

    Gambling generates lots of revenue (none / 0) (#178)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:27:42 PM EST
    -- not just from gambling, but also from hospitality industry generally.  Perhaps Strickland is trying to help the economy in OH?

    Yeah? (none / 0) (#181)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:57:03 PM EST
    Every gambling proposition in Ohio gets trounced come election day.

    We might have passed that stupid anti gay marriage proposition, but I think the Buckeye record for gambling is 0 for 4.


    vp choices (none / 0) (#172)
    by phoebecaulfield on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:54:04 PM EST
    Bob Graham?? old, (but so is mccain) and voted against the war and spoke out against it from the  beginning? Is he popular in florida?

    May not be "new" washington but might be consistent on message.  Webb gives great interviews but i gather he has baggage??? which is????