John Edwards, Sam Nunn on Obama's VP List

The AP reports:

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., who leads the Congressional Black Caucus, said members of her caucus asked her to forward the names of Edwards and Nunn when she met Wednesday with Obama's vice presidential search team. The team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, indicated the two were on the list.

What Obama's committee is looking for:

"I asked them what type of person the senator is looking for? And they said in general someone who could help him rebuild the country ... talking about change. How we reinvest in America, get people back to work and reinforce our education system and bring the jobs back," she said.


As to Edwards' strengths:

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who was John Kerry's running mate in 2004, could help Obama appeal to white, working-class voters who largely favored Clinton in the primary and will be a critical voting bloc in the general election. The drawback is that Edwards was the vice presidential nominee on a losing ticket four years ago, while Obama's campaign is about turning the page.

Edwards has said he is not seeking the vice presidency — but hasn't ruled out accepting if asked.

As to Sam Nunn:

Nunn would bring national security credentials to the ticket, having served as the longtime Armed Services Committee chairman. The former Georgia senator is a member of Obama's foreign policy advisory group.

But Nunn has not been in office for more than a decade so he is not well-known nationally. He is a conservative Democrat who supported school prayer and opposed gays in the military, while Obama tends to have a more liberal viewpoint. Nunn will turn 70 in September.

Who else is on the list?

Other lawmakers who have been briefed say there about 20 names on the list Obama's team has been discussing. The list includes current elected officials, former elected officials and retired military generals, lawmakers have said.

And a lot of Senators.

< Brian Williams Will Be Temporary Host on Meet the Press | FISA Update: Waiting For Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I hate to be the party killer here (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:06:35 AM EST
    But I have to say that Sam Nunn as Obama's VP would really make me unhappy.  I'm not sure how others feel but I would like to state that.

    You are not alone (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:43:33 AM EST
    What good does Nunn do us in 2016, assuming Obama even wins with him now?

    I will not vote (none / 0) (#2)
    by Makarov on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:13:24 AM EST
    for a ticket with Sam Nunn, any more than I would vote for a ticket with a Republican on it. I recall very well his role in '93 with DADT. I will not be responsible for putting him into elected office for dog catcher, let alone the Vice-Presidency.

    I've decided my vote is Obama's to lose. About the only way he could lose it between now and November is to pick a VP that's unacceptable to me. Nunn is one of those.


    Nunn of the above (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by candideinnc on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:03:06 AM EST
    Count me in.  I will never vote Republican, but as a gay man, I will never mark a ballot with Sam Nunn's name on it.  My vote to lose, Obama.  I will pass on the presidential ballot.

    Everytime (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Lil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:08:48 AM EST
    I try to get on the Obama bandwagon, I keep getting knocked off. Nunn would be like another slap in the face; battered women's syndrome might be settling in soon.

    It's funny (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:22:37 AM EST
    I knew more openly gay people for Obama (2 whole people) than I did Latinos for Obama or Asians for Obama (0 apeice).  Now frankly, I had about as much respect for LGBT for Obama folks as I do LGBT for Bush folks.  But that was the primary, this is the general.  What I heard is that there were many gays who voted for Obama out of anger at Bill for DADT.  I have a feeling that not a single one will bat an eyelash if Obama picks Nunn for the VP.

    But I will care and I believe a whole lot of other LGBT people out there will care as well.  


    ugh (3.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:12:22 AM EST
    Now frankly, I had about as much respect for LGBT for Obama folks as I do LGBT for Bush folks.

     I have zero respect for gay voters who expect anything other than token, minimal change at the federal level from the Democratic Party.  Our two gay, pro-Clinton representatives have certainly not been "change we can believe in."  Similarly, I have no respect from people such as yourself who would compare me to a gay voter going for Bush.

     I doubt Obama will select Nunn.  Regardless, Nunn claims it is time to reexamine and reevaluate this issue.  Indeed, his line is the same line on DADT I heard from Clinton supporters: it was progress in 1993.  Perhaps, say, as Clinton has evolved on these issues?

     Of course, since DADT is codified as a statute, a fact often overlooked by candidates and critics alike, it will require support in Congress.  But then, why let reality get in the way of a good rant?



    Mmm (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by pukemoana on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:04:57 AM EST
    his line is the same line on DADT I heard from Clinton supporters: it was progress in 1993

    B. Clinton was trying to do more than this initially, and it was because of people like Nunn (and Colin Powell) that DADT had to be the compromise.  Not 'the same'

    Sam Nunn and Jim (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:29:05 AM EST
    Cooper, bad actors from the 1990s, who blocked Bill Clinton's more progressive agenda early on and forced him back into more defensive positions.  Why do their names keep coming up in connection with Senator Obama?  Why doesn't that bother his more vociferous supporters?  Everytime someone says "Sam Nunn" in the same sentence as "Vice President" (or "Jim Cooper" in the same sentence as "health care reform"...) the sad excuse for a unity pony I was issued (reminds me a bit of the Grinch's dog with antlers in lieu of a real reindeer) gets another kick in the hindquarters.  I get that I don't matter, but holy jeebus, batman.  Sam Nunn?  

    Sam Nunn? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by phat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:50:26 AM EST

    Is anyone as sick of (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by suki on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:17:58 AM EST
    the word 'change' as I am?
    It's become meaningless to me.

    We can only hope (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Chisoxy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:21:18 AM EST
     they come up with something new.

    why change? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:40:39 AM EST
    it's become (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Turkana on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:36:48 AM EST
    the same old same old...

    It always was the same old same old. (5.00 / 10) (#30)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:11:13 AM EST
    Change is constant.

    Change is also not necessarily a good thing.

    The Bush Administration brought on heaps of change over the course of the past seven plus years.

    The economy has changed.

    Our standing in the world has changed.

    Our environment has changed.

    Our values as a country have changed.

    And don't forget... "Everything changed after September 11th."

    Why change for the sake of change is so desireable is a mystery to me.


    Don't forget also (none / 0) (#98)
    by denise on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    Change can mean whatever you want it to.

    Nunn? Boren's pal??? And how about this? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by SunnyLC on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:25:42 AM EST
    From: UnheardAmericanVoices-Negative Messages
    Here's something that also should be looked into:

    "From: UnheardAmericanVoices-Negative Messages Intentionally Placed in Clinton TV Ads?? Who Inside Her Campaign Sabotaged Her? A Disturbing MUST READ/SEE"


    This is REALLY scary when you think about it...check it out if you haven't seen it already...


    IF Edwards really is playing this game, I am ashamed that I ever supported him.

    As for Nunn and his chum Boren...

    Nunn-Boren "Unity" Rears its Ugly Head on Behalf of Obama-Part I: With an Introduction to David L. Boren

    Part II: Obama's Adviser David L. Boren-How He Screwed Us Long-term in 1993 re: Energy and More

    Part III: Obama Adviser David L. Boren re: Foreign (inc. Energy) Policy

    Archived in April at my site...

    CHANGE??? Yeah, right....

    The link goes to nonsense. (none / 0) (#16)
    by MissBrainerd on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:18:22 AM EST
    there is no way to figure out what the heck you are talking about and this "source" is pretty shakey.

    Nonsense? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sj on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:49:56 AM EST
    I managed to follow it.  Have a family friend in the marketing biz which we talk about from time to time.  High end marketing campaigns are REALLY interesting.  I'll be bringing this to her when we next get together.

    nonsense? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kelsweet on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:22:32 AM EST
    I totally agree, i followed it and it is scandelous (sp?)

    I also followed it (none / 0) (#99)
    by splashy on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:37:31 AM EST
    Which lead to another website with links to videos on Youtube that were very interesting. I hope it's investigated further!

    Nunn (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:27:28 AM EST
    Nunn is entirely responsible for don't ask don't tell and was trying to drive all gays out of the military.  He is unacceptable and the fact that Obama is even considering him is appalling to me.

    "When Bill Clinton sought to keep his 1992 campaign promise to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, he met strong resistance in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. Nunn, one of the most adamant opponents, led a series of hearings that were stacked against ending the prohibition. Critics noted that Nunn held more hearings about and spent more time on gays in the military than he had on the defense budget or even the Navy's Tailhook sexual harassment scandal"  Capehart editorial against Nunn
    For his part, Nunn let it be known last week that he thought "don't ask, don't tell" should be revisited. "I'm not advocating anything, except I'm saying the policy was the right policy for the right time, and times change," he said. "It's appropriate to take another look." An attempt at inoculation in case the VP vetters come calling?

    Jeff Soref, former chairman of the DNC's LGBT caucus, isn't buying it. " 'Revisiting' is not admitting a mistake or apologizing for the pain he inflicted or the tens of thousands of lives affected by the policy," said the Clinton supporter. "Surely there are more compelling choices out there" for vice president, "starting with Hillary Clinton."

    How does Sam Nunn (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Esme on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:55:28 AM EST
    represent change?

    "change" is just a word (3.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:18:39 AM EST
    Obama would like to keep Gates as Sec. of Defense.
    Wonder how Obama followers are accepting this?

    wow, two really bad choices (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:03:33 AM EST
    Not really the best press he could be getting. I like Edwards a lot too, but I think as a VP given 2004 would be a bad choice. Not that 2004 was his fault, I think I could have won against Bush if he were on the top of the ticket, but that's the DNC for you. And Nunn? Wow. What are those people smoking and can I get some.

    I think the obvious choice is Clark. It would tick me off a bit because I'm secretly hoping for Hillary vs. McCain in 2012 and with Clark, Obama would have a lock in my opinion. I definitely don't want Hillary as VP because I think that would really tick me off with the more experienced woman as number two to the inexperienced young man/empty suit.

    Of others, let's see. Gore or Kerry, uh, no. Any repub, uh, big no. Bill Richardson, well, I kind of hope so (see above), but not if you want to win. I'm not sure about any senator actually, but there may be some.

    meant: I think he could have won... n/t (none / 0) (#14)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:04:14 AM EST
    Who the heck remembers who Sam Nunn was (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:18:02 AM EST
    and how can some 70 year old Southern Conservative mean change? They've been floating him for VP for months now, but he makes almost as little sense as Hagel. If you want military experience, pick Wes Clark.

    Many of the people who do remember Nunn (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:04:36 AM EST
    do not remember him fondly and would be against the idea. Bad idea IMO. Surprised that Clark's name isn't mentioned on any of the short lists that I have seen. Hands down better than Webb for VP position.

    I remember Nunn and change or not (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:14:06 AM EST
    picking him would not make me happy.  Not happy at all.

    I remember him. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    Vividly.  I remember him leading a gang of photographers around the inside of a submarine, demonstrating how close the quarters are . . . it was supposed to convince the public that there was good reason why hetero guys just could not serve knowing that a gay man might be inches away!

    Should have been parody, but wasn't.  

    Seriously, what are they thinking?


    Did I read that right? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:19:18 AM EST
    Sam Nunn's name was put foward by members of the Black Caucus? I find that unbelievable. I read it a few times but still hope I read it wrong.

    Could be the CBC (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:29:48 AM EST
    is trying to put at least one Southern state in play, and GA and NC look to be the only possibilities and those two pols the only way to get there.

    Edwards certainly would undermine, in an awkward way, O's message of Change.  But he is popular, or at least not unpopular, with the Dem base, and has some national appeal and name rec.

    Nunn is rather an unappealing unlikable old codger type and an insider hardball player.  He too undermines Change and New Politics.

    I'd much prefer to see Gen Clark over Nunn if O is looking to shore up NS creds.  

    10 days for Clark in campaign boot camp where he would be debriefed intensively on a range of domestic issues, followed by 10 more days of testing, simulated debating, and rapid fire questioning about SS, UHC, the economy and so forth.  Should be good to go by then.


    I bet you're right. n/t (none / 0) (#58)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:29:27 AM EST
    So much for the dream ticket. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:25:52 AM EST
    It's going to be hard to vote for this guy.

    Glaring Omission! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:44:05 AM EST
    I saw this last night and thought leaving out Hillary was either a message that she wasn't on the list, or that he wanted us to know in fact he was not considering her and wanted to permanently squelch the notion, period, or that even the mention of her name would dredge up some scintilla of hope for her supporters, oh my goodness,did I really say that?

    And the reason is the Congressional Black Caucus was heavily lobbying this appointment for Hillary as Veep, but there's no mention of that at all. Of course even AP was quilty of throwing Hillary off the bus.

    From The Article I Read About The (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:58:03 AM EST
    CBC meeting to mend fences with Obama, there was many who stated they wanted Hillary for VP. Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama campaign co-chair, was said to say no to the idea. Due to his position with the campaign, I can't see him doing this without Obama's approval.

    Well, Jackson Jr. analyzed her (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:06:33 AM EST
    tears in NH, as he promised to, and found they were not authentic, so that probably explains it.  Funny his Dad endorses the "unity" ticket.

    Not funny, McGee. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    Nothing funny about the youth rebellion/takeover.

    This one is beginning to look a lot like the Bush youth rebellion/takover.

    Incompetent and dependent on the pre-Clinton 'old guard' for management M  & O.

    Back to the future.



    Pro school prayer and anti-gay (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:46:50 AM EST
    Don't think Nunn would be the VP for Change I Can Believe In. I get a kick out of people who are suggesting Gore for VP. For the life of me I can't think of one reason why Gore would want the job. He has so much status on his own right now playing second banana to Obama doesn't seem like a move up IMO. Can't say that the other names proposed in that article would make me want to vote for Obama.

    BTW has anyone else seen the article about Jim Webb bucking Obama on off shore drilling. Webb has signed on with Sen. Warner to sponsor a bill to allow Virginia an exception to do off shore exploration for natural gas. Wonder what effect that has on Webb's position on the VP short list.


    Obama will be for off shore drilling (none / 0) (#40)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:34:10 AM EST
    soon enough.

    Once, now too many times? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:52:25 AM EST
    If Edwards accepts VP again I think you could say there will be a lot of Democrats murmuring under their breath, "What an opportunist and a slick snake oil salesman (the hair)." The guy failed twice at a Presidential run. If he was picked instead of Hillary it would be because he's window dressing. As we all know as charming as Hillary is, she'd never be considered merely a prop.

    Clark or Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Coral on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:14:59 AM EST
    Those are two VP options that would move me from tepid to enthusiastic support for Obama.

    Nunn is a name I couldn't vote for.

    Part of me wants to think that this may (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:25:16 AM EST
    be a head feint, and there's some stealth candidate out there who will be floated after Obama assesses the feedback he gets on the names that are now trickling out.  Another part of me thinks that if they are floating these names, it's probably because they are being seriously considered.

    Some thoughts:

    1.  If it's Sam Nunn, there goes any argument that John McCain is too old to be the president, as Nunn is 70.  

    2.  It makes no sense to put someone on the ticket who isn't going to be the party's nominee in 4 years or 8 years - it's reminds me of nothing so much as Obama having a learner's permit and not being able to drive without "Dad" in the car.

    3.  I guess we see now why Edwards endorsed Obama - he wants to be president so bad he can taste it and this is his last chamce.  As someone who started out as an Edwards supporter, I can only say that I wish I thought he wanted this because he knew it was the only way to be in a position to help the American people, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot of personal ambition there, too.

    4.  If Obama isn't going to pick Hillary, Edwards is probably the only chance we have to get universal health care - which is a big deal.

    The whole thing just makes me roll my eyes and groan a lot.

    Age popped up for me too (none / 0) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    1.  Nunn best for McCain
    2. Edwards didn't do well this time, will he in 8 years?
    3. It's personal ambition for all of them, what bothered me was the games behind the scenes.  Edwards campaign guy said their strategy was to take out Clinton.  Edwards thought he could beat Obama.
    4. Clinton and Obama are campaigning together next week.  I'm sure she is allowing herself to be used... but who knows, maybe they will team up effectively.   The pres selects the goals for the admin, it would be new for a VP to be given a specific issue.

    When they campaign together (none / 0) (#79)
    by IzikLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:40:43 AM EST
    The idea of Clinton as VP will be in the media and discussed incessantly.  My bet is this is a test to see how everyone reacts.  If the press is good and people love them together (as I think they actually will) then he will have no reason not to pick her.  There are a couple decent alternate VP choices (Clark, for instance), but none match up to Hillary.  They are floating these names like Nunn, Edwards, Gore just to gauge reaction and will be doing the same with Hillary.  I am going to trust that the Obama campaign is smart enough to make the right decision.

    By the size of the list (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:46:07 AM EST
    it seems like a list meant to suck up to everyone by letting them think they were in the running.

    I doubt if anyone mentioned in that list will be the pick.

    Sam Nunn... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:08:19 AM EST
    ... would come off as a Democratic Dick Cheney. I can't see how that's any kind of a recipe for winning.

    There! It's been said at last. (none / 0) (#61)
    by prostratedragon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:38:40 AM EST
    In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Nunn's people insisted on the leak, what with him surfacing in public lately, trying to erase memory of his DADT stunt and how it thoroughly undermined his party's new president.

    The more optimistic take would be that either the CBC just wanted to put something out for reporter lagniappe (whatever happened to close to the vest?) and figured those two names would be innocuous enough —right on Edwards, dead wrong on Nunn— or someone's really pushing for Nunn so hard that s/he has to be convinced that it's a non-starter with the public. Hope the FISA disaster and Scotty's star turn today don't drown out the outrage.

    Unfortunately, this being the second act of the Mayberry Machiavellis we got going on here, my bet is that it's either Nunn or the field.


    none of these names (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:23:50 AM EST
    in my opinion are under serious consideration.  They're not dumb enough to play that card just yet.  Their real choices, the real shortlist is being held close to the vest.  These names are just out there to spur debate, keep the Presidential Candidate Obama (you know, the one who's now making Big Decisions like this) in the news and help keep people off the track of who's REALLY on the list.

    Regardless who he chooses, the person will still have a resume which makes Obama's look thin by comparison.  And the GOP will jump all over that.

    Actually (none / 0) (#80)
    by IzikLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:43:53 AM EST
    I think your quite right about them floating names to spur debate.  I also actually, once again, think it's all about Hillary.  The more names they float and the more vetting they do the better I say.  Until proven otherwise I choose to believe that they are doing this so that they can pick Hillary as VP in the end and show that valiant efforts were made to actually pick the best person as VP and, after an extensive search, believe that she is the best pick.

    Maybe I'm off base but I hope not.  I think there must be a larger plan here.


    I disagree with you (none / 0) (#87)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    about them picking Hillary.  

    The Hillary-Hate you see in the blogs comes straight from the Top and there's no way Barack and his handlers are going to allow Hillary the VP spot.  

    The floating of names is not only to spur debate, but to also muddy the waters, so to speak, by crowding the "Who Could Be VP?" field with more possibilities thereby -- hopefully -- helping people to forget Hillary.

    Getting voters to think about possibilities OTHER than Hillary helps move them away from having to chose her.

    There's no way they're giving the VP Spot to Hillary.  Obama isn't confident enough in his abilities or resume -- and neither is the DNC -- to place someone on the ticket who is heads upon heads and shoulders upon shoulders better than him.

    Ain't gonna happen.  (although it'd be the smart thing to do)


    this whole "obama for president" (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:35:32 AM EST
    thing gets more entertaining by the day. could he possibly twist himself into any more shapes? he's making a pretzel look straight, by comparison.

    "hope and change", "a new kind of politics", blah, blah, blah. who was stupid enough to buy into this nonsense? at this stage of the game (and it's still early yet!), i don't think he even has a clue what the heck he's talking about any more.

    in fairness to bill clinton, DADT was an improvement over the witch hunting engaged in, prior to its enactment. i spoke out against both DADT & DOMA publicly, and was damned to hell by nearly every preacher in town. the only thing missing were the angry townspeople, pitchforks and lit torches in hands, on our front yard.

    that said, it's time to put the kibosh on both, but don't expect that from a pres. obama, he's certainly shown no leadership on either issue.

    "hope and change", and a 70 year-old vp! too f*ing funny!

    Sam Nunn!?! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:55:24 AM EST
    Who's next on the list?

    Estes Kefauver?

    Still dead. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:33:19 AM EST
    It might be good to resurrect his committee hearings, though.

    Well, it might make for (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:10:56 AM EST
    some real fun if O pulled an Adlai and decided to throw open his Veep pick to the convention.  Even ABC would probably be willing at that point to cover the entire evening's proceedings.  Things could get real inneresting.

    Wasn't Kefauver though a bit of an improvement over Adlai's 1952 pick of the segregationist Alabamian Sparkman?  


    We know who fits this description, don't we? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by OxyCon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:16:52 AM EST
    "I asked them what type of person the senator is looking for? And they said in general someone who could help him rebuild the country ... talking about change. How we reinvest in America, get people back to work and reinforce our education system and bring the jobs back," she said.

    But they won't pick her, will they?

    I think this is all crap! (none / 0) (#68)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:32:16 AM EST
    They will pick someone who improves Obama's electability, someone who can deliver an otherwise undeliverable group or state.  It won't be about "change" or "health care" or any other agenda.  It will be about how to get elected.

    As an aside, what qualifies Caroline Kennedy for this important position????  No insult to her personally, but what the heck??


    Uncle Ted qualifies her. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:36:38 AM EST
    She's his eyes and ears inside the Ocamp...she has no other qualifications.

    The Ten Worst Possible Choices (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    As I compile a list of the ten worst choices for vice president, Sam Nunn leads the pack, hands down.  Nunn was a bane for President Clinton and, would certainly be for a President Obama. "Change" does not seem, to me, to entail the plucking out from a decade-old retirement, a predictable right-winger, masquerading as a senior statesman.  Nunn should stick to his retirement avocation of disarming stray nuclear weapons, where his destructive tendencies are actually helpful.

    It sounds like no one here bothers (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by tben on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:02:01 AM EST
    to actually find out what Sam Nunn is doing with his life.

    Its all - who is this guy besides being someone who opposed gays in the military.

    Actually he is doing enormously good and valuable work as a leader in the nucelar disarmament movement. He has enormous credibility in that field, and his advocacy has been very courageous. It would be wonderful to have him injected into the center of the national security debate.

    I would very much hope that he has evolved along with the rest of the country on gay issues, or, failing that, that he is willing to accept the leadership of others on those matters. His views of 15 years ago are unacceptable, but they may well have changed, and his value on other issues is enormous.

    doesn't matter (none / 0) (#89)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:27:53 AM EST
    the GOP and the Media will have a field day painting him as the guy who -- 15 years ago -- was a driving force for DADT.

    And with gay marriage and the rights entailed with that bond now in the news -- and sure to be during the Election as well --, his views (and, thus, his running mate Obama's views) will be open to questioning, open to interpretation and open to the public mauling via the GOP it will get.

    Not to say the GOP will be pro-gay suddenly.  They don't have to be.  All they need to do is cast doubt on where the Obama/Nunn ticket stand and they'll turn off those on-the-fence voters who would rather stay home than vote for someone who may be homophobic or not interested in championing civil rights.


    i dont care (none / 0) (#92)
    by tben on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:16:22 PM EST
    what the media and GOP do. They can do whatever they want to. I am sick and tired of liberals and Democrats living in fear of what the big bad media and 527s do. The way to defeat them is to go right ahead and do what is in your interest and leave 'em in your wake.

    His views on gay matters may be open to question, but he would, if he were the choice, do what all VPs do, and fudge the issue in some eloquent way which gets across the message that he will support whatever the administration decides, and, by the way, I am here to talk about other issues.

    Anyone who decides not to support a Democratic ticket because the VP was anti-gay rights 15 years ago, is not thinking very clearly. I mean after all, only 10 years before Bill chose Al Gore, Gore was saying things like :" "I think it is wrong," and then adding, "I don't pretend to understand it, but it is not just another normal optional life style."

    In 1984, he said, according to the Nashville Tennessean, "I do not believe it is simply an acceptable alternative that society should affirm." He also said then that he opposed the Gay Bill of Rights and that he would not take campaign funds from gay groups.

    People change, as society does. THere has been a huge evolution in societal norms, and I think Nunn should have a chance to show that he has been part of that.


    okay (none / 0) (#97)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    you don't have to care what the GOP and he Media will do, but most Americans base their beliefs on a candidate on what they read, hear and see daily, so it does matter.

    How else could someone who served with distinction in the military and was awarded Purple Hearts be so affected by the Purple Band-aid swiftboating?  If they can do that with John Kerry, just imagine what they'll do with Obama and Nunn.

    But, yes, if Barack and his Team decide Nunn is the absolute best choice for him, then, by all means, he should do what he wants to do.  Doesn't mean people have to vote for him.

    Votes are earned, not gifted because there's a (D) after someone's name.


    sound like you don't bother to read (none / 0) (#91)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:14:11 PM EST
    any other posts.....like the one I posted, 15 minutes before yours, outlining some of Nunn anti-proliferation work.

    yes, sorry I missed that. (none / 0) (#93)
    by tben on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    And thanks for posting it.

    Correct me if I'm wrong... (3.66 / 3) (#20)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:37:44 AM EST
    But didn't Edwards already say "no thanks"?

    I have the feeling that Elizabeth will put her foot down on this one....

    as for sam nunn.... well, I'm just glad I've reached the age where casual hookups are no longer a part of my life --- because back when they were, I had a policy of "no gay republicans".... and if Sam Nunn was the nominee, I'd have to exclude "gay Democrats" too... ;)

    It won't be Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Redshoes on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:50:14 AM EST
    The real question is who do the handlers want.  How do they owe or control?  I think Edwards (whom I supported) might still be too independent.  Doubt seriously he'd be asked.  

    Edwards Has Backed Off Original Position (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:50:11 AM EST
    Edwards has said he is not seeking the vice presidency -- but hasn't ruled out accepting if asked.

    "I'd take anything he asked me to think about seriously, but obviously this is something I've done and it's not a job that I'm seeking," Edwards said last Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

    The real question is who on the list wants (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:21:20 AM EST
    Patty Solis Doyle as their Chief of Staff. lol

    LOL Is Right n/t (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:31:35 AM EST
    My first thought (none / 0) (#53)
    by tek on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:09:48 AM EST
    Edwards already said no.  Wants someone who can rebuild the country, huh?  Sorry, it's just too hypocritical.  He now seems to want everything he blasted Hillary for promoting.

    Yes, I found it interesting that (none / 0) (#19)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:33:40 AM EST
    the Congressional Black Caucus floated Edwards and Nunn.  Nothing against Edwards, I just don't recall him having a particularly large african american following.

    Does Obama need to shore up the (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:19:05 AM EST
    African American vote?

    What is happening here is that the CBC seems to be involved in identifying the candidate that might appeal to the white working class vote.


    The CBC seems to by trying to (none / 0) (#39)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:33:26 AM EST
    find a way to put all those AA votes in the Deep South that usually get wasted to productive use, for a change.

    They aren't probably the experts on (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:52:44 AM EST
    who would draw the white working class voters though.  I don't think Carloine Kennedy or Eric Holder are probably particularly insightful on that front either - especially in the South and the Appalachian region - Kennedy may have some academic understanding of the importance of Appalachia as her Dad and uncles both courted the people who lived there during their time - but her understanding wouldn't be more than academic - and these folks are culturally different from the New England working class folks in some important ways.

    Pretty bad PR (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:53:46 AM EST
    imo. Edwards? Been there done that. Nunn? He's been out of politics for a dozen years. Frankly, I haven't seen any good names for VP thrown out there.

    that's because there are none... (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:44:29 AM EST
    Its like finding the right wine to go with sauteed Cowpats.  

    Either you get a wine that doesn't wash the taste of the Cowpat out of your mouth, or you get a wine that can get rid of the bad taste, but keeps reminding you that you are being forced to eat Cowpats in order to get the decent wine.


    We can't (none / 0) (#42)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:41:07 AM EST
    read too much into this.  This is just a story of names some members of the CBC asked Kilpatrick to float to the Veep search committee.  I'm sure there are other members of the CBC who floated other names as well.  Edwards and Nunn were already on the "short list" so they are not new names.  I doubt Obama would pick Nunn for reasons already mentioned by others including the fact that it makes no sense to name someone who is 70 years old and couldn't run for the office at the end of your term.  

    pretty simple really (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:43:06 AM EST
    float out two names, one being someone that has a long record to be chopped up by the left and the right, the other a shorter record with less controversy.  Let the left voters vomit over the controversial candidate and the one you pick suddenly seems a lot more palatabe. Not one complaint about Edwards here, seems to me it is working.

    Edwards does undercut Change (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:53:12 AM EST
    and his 08 campaign was something of an embarrassing failure.  

    The only election the guy has ever won was a full decade ago now and against an unpopular NC Repub.

    And his thin elected office resume doesn't exactly help with shoring up O's fairly thin one.

    Not likely to end up on O's final Short List.


    brodie (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:09:34 AM EST
    who wouldn't undercut change?

    Governors, mostly. (none / 0) (#54)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:19:08 AM EST
    And you know who my favorite in that bunch is.

    A progressive oriented semi-maverick senator type also -- but Feingold seems just too mercurially maverick and independent to put on a ticket.

    He might decide to play maverick a little too much on the campaign trail.  A regular James Garner.

    It is all too easy to point out the downsides of any potential VP pick.  I do it all the time here.  


    i love feingold (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:23:29 AM EST
    but that would send the right clearly over the edge....

    but what will Jay Carney say? (none / 0) (#47)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:49:45 AM EST
    I mean, he's been an Obot from WAY back -- he's the guy who was "concerned" that Edwards should be staying home after Elizabeth acknowledged that her cancer was back.

    Quite frankly, Edwards would go WAY down in my estimation if he were to accept the VP slot.  I can see how he could justify runnng for President for the sake of his children's future, even though it meant less time with his wife and family... but running for VP when Elizabeth is dealing with cancer is simply wrong.


    This just shows (none / 0) (#59)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:34:06 AM EST
    they are being considered, which really isn't news. We knew that already.

    I really thinking Clark is close to the top of the list.  I've been seeing him in lots of photos with Obama, and yet for some reason he's not on Obama's national security advisory team...

    I think Edwards (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:59:30 AM EST
    is a head fake.  and a nod to his voters.  I dont think he would do it again.  
    of the two I think it would be Nunn and if it is I will absolutley not be voting for the democrat most responsible for DADT.

    Sam Nunn (none / 0) (#73)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:14:58 AM EST
    I had no idea what change candidate Sam Nunn has been up to, so I did some research, and found some interesting info on Wikepdedia.

    Basically, he has been active with think tanks and academia with emphasis on addressing the issues of nuclear and biological weapons proliferation.

    Currently the co-chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a charitable organization working to reduce the global threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons,
    In addition to his work with NTI, Nunn has continued his service in the public policy arena as a distinguished professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at Georgia Tech. There, he hosts the annual Sam Nunn Policy Forum, a policy meeting that brings together noted academic, government, and private-sector experts on technology, public policy, and international affairs to address issues of immediate importance to the nation.

    Additionally, Nunn serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

    I was surprised to find out he has been nominated for 3 Nobel Peace prizes  in and around that work.

    Along with Republican Senator Richard Lugar, co-author of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, Nunn's work to "strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons," has resulted in at least three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000, 2002 and 2005.

    On the less than positive side,

    Nunn is a board member of the following publicly held corporations: Chevron Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, Dell Computer Corporation, General Electric Company.

    And Former President Jimmy Carter, in an interview published June 4, 2008 by the Guardian, said that he favors Nunn as Obama's VP, as does columnist and Reagan and George HW Bush speechwriter Peggy Noonan.

    Note his "bi-partisan" streak - Cohen and Lugar. Probably an attraction for Team O.

    "Bipartisan Support" Such as it is: (none / 0) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:39:38 AM EST
    Sam Nunn is also a favored vice presidential pick for Obama, by the neocon William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard.

    Kristol AND Noonan (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    Well, that's all I need to hear to convince me! :)

    I have been looking all morning (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    for the pic that appeared on the FP of the NYTimes during the DADT fiasco.  it was of Nunn poking his pointed head out of a bunk on a submarine with the intent of pointing out just how close the poor straight soldiers would have to sleep to those dangerous homos if Clinton got his way.
    I will never forget that and I will vote for McCain if he is on the ticket.

    Several Other Nunn Comments to Look For (none / 0) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:24:54 PM EST
    Look, also, for the comment during Nunn's committee hearings that the reason gay men want to serve in the military is just so that they can ogle fit young men.

    Didn't the article keep on mentioning Gore? (none / 0) (#88)
    by laurie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST

    Then I will be voting for McCain. (none / 0) (#90)
    by AX10 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM EST
    Sam Nunn in the Democratic Cheney.  The nation cannot afford another one of those.

    A LESSON IN UNITY (none / 0) (#94)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM EST

    Well, we certainly wouldn't want part of the team that gave us...... THE GREATEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN HISTORY,...... or 8 years of...... PEACE & PROSPERITY, ......now would we.

    No, instead let's disrespect women even more than we have already.  Let's chose the 2 MALE candidates for Pres & Veep, and give the candidate with the experience, knowledge, maturity, and the MOST VOTES another slap in face.

    That should really bring in those Hillary voters.

    I have to believe (none / 0) (#96)
    by mkevinf on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    that this is a smokescreen.  Edwards is, with all deference to his efforts and supporters, a 3-time loser.  Nunn is a sop to the likes of Carter and Noonan...NOONAN????? WTF cares what that dizzy dame thinks, or that other semi-blonde William "My-Dad-and-Mum-Were-Trotsykites" Kristol.

    Obama will never throw the choice open to the convention, as it will result in civil war, given that roughly half the delegates will be Hillary supporters and half will be ...non-Hillary supporters.

    Will they boo Hillary at the joint appearances next week?