Obama VeepStakes

Via Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money who has some thoughts of his own, Kathy G at the G Spot gives a rundown and her rankings of possible vice-presidential candidates for Sen. Barack Obama. Her longer post with her reasoning is here.

Kathy's top three: Sherrod Brown, John Edwards and Kathleen Sebelius.

Scott likes Sebelius and Edwards.

My thoughts right now: The only ones that create any sense of enthusiasm are Hillary and John Edwards. My past thinking on Sebelius is here.

< Obama to Visit Israel and West Bank Next Week | Beltway Dems And The Blogs: Which Is Which? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Edwards is already a two-time loser... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    2 runs for president and one as VP...I heard rumblings about Gore, but I find that hard to believe!

    I agree about Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:55:49 PM EST
    but I also think he may be the pick.

    Edwards threw Hillary under his (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    bus so that should help with the Hillary haters. Recall that Edward's health care proposal was what he staked his campaign on along with championing the "other" America.  Well, lets see..Hillary had both of those going for her, but he still went off to Michigan and campaigned with Obama to try to snatch MI away from Hillary.  He has lost my respect.

    I actually think that adds (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    to his chances of being picked.  I actually heard on the Obama network this weekend people saying that the drop in Obamas numbers are because of his "embrace of Hillary". and how this takes the shine off this "new politics" bs.

    Actually there is some truth (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:13:47 PM EST
    to the no-hillary-for-vp argument. Not only is there danger of the "outshining" factor (even if the roles were reversed to be fair) Obama has a problem with people thinking he's 90% phony (like 99% of all politcians). If he selects Hillary with the world knowing he doesn't want her, there will be backlash (at least at the start)from just about every constituency. Everyone would realize it's pure cynical politics, not the "new kind of politics" noise.

    He could sell it easily (none / 0) (#75)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:29:51 PM EST
    It's not about what he wants, it's about what the Democratic Party wants, and an overwhelming number of Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton for their presidential candidate. Obama could diffuse some of the perception that he is arrogant and prone to put himself first by selecting Clinton.

    he could but he wont (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    because, in fact, it IS all about what he wants.

    The blame Hillary people are (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    still at work?  Never mind that he has flipped on a whole pack of important progressive ideas.  It has to be Hillary.

    Hillary 2012. She doesn't want to go down on (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    this sinking ship.

    I completely agree (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    the reaction to some when you suggest that is what Hillary will do is humorous.  anyone who thinks she is not already thinking about 2012 simply doesnt know the Clintons.
    quietly they are already working it.

    Hope! Believe! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    This would improve her chances (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    The only way for the Clinton's to redeem themselves in the eyes of many Obama supporter's is to campaign whole-heartedly for Obama, and the best way to do that is for her to run as VP. If Obama wins, she won't have much of a shot at 2012, anyway, and if he loses she will be well-placed for a run, and he won't have much of a shot.

    She's already campaigning for him and has (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:35:44 PM EST
    asked her supporters to support him.  What more can she do?  Obama has snubbed her, brushed her off his shoulder, wiped her off his shoe, never once came to her defense when she was being unfairly attacked, and you say she needs to redeem herself with his supporters?  Please.



    Do you want her to win? (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    Or do you want her to be the "injured party"? If she is to have a chance of winning any higher office, she will need support from a good number of people who hate her guts because she "trashed" Obama. As long as they believe the lies, she can't win. She has to convince them that it was "just politics", in the most definitive way possible - by campaigning hard for Obama, not just giving him an endorsement.

    Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by tek on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    and Bill never at any time ever trashed Obama.  Anyone who believes they did is too stupid to vote and would never be a Clinton supporter in any circumstance.

    Totally Untrue (none / 0) (#116)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:59:21 PM EST
    During the primaries, the Clinton campaign was rough on Obama. That was expected. It's politics, and both Clintons are formidable politicians.

    Many people, including me, felt just as angry and outraged about some of this as Clinton supporters felt (and feel) toward Obama and his campaign.

    But I don't hate Hillary or Bill, and could (and might) support her for office again either as my senator or president.


    you keep saying.... (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Josey on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    >>>>During the primaries, the Clinton campaign was rough on Obama

    but when asked to elaborate - you decline.

    I'll tell you what's rough - the Clintons making innocent historical statements and having Obama and Obamabots interpret them as "racist" while Obama was attending a race-baiting church.


    Both Sides Were Rough (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:05:17 PM EST
    with the other.

    I know that to be true from my experience of the primaries. One reason I don't list the times I found something the Clinton campaign said or did 'rough' is because I don't want to engage in a "Yes, they did." "No, they didn't." "He was worse." "She was worser (sic)" circular go-round.

    Plus, I'm not here to re-live old arguments. But I'm also not going to pretend about what I saw happening. I accept that's not your experience or the experience of others here. So be it.

    The central theme of my post above was to say I felt angry and outraged about things during the primaries and I came out of it not hating Clinton. And so did many Obama supporters.


    I cannot believe that folks honestly think (none / 0) (#170)
    by 0 politico on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:52:47 PM EST
    that HC was tough/hard on BO during the primaries.  A lot of people either have selective memory, or no real historical reference for comparison.  I know I was still "young" at the time, but Teddy was far worse in 1980, and he did not even have anywhere near the support!  HC was forced to fight the primaries with both hands tied behind her back.  Everytime time she tried to come untied, she was told by everyone in the Dem leadership and the MSM to stand down and "be nice".  Was that fair?

    I still say she should have gutted him in the Fall debates before anyone had a chance to get endeared to him.

    Now those folk who were "endeared" or "enamoured" with him may complain about his changes in positions, but let them slide, and are shocked when the media either critiques or makes fun of him.

    The party is getting what it deserves.  This fall is going to be ugly, regardless of who comes out to campaign for BO, or who he picks as a running mate.


    Funny Thing (none / 0) (#193)
    by daring grace on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    Here I am an Obama supporter who, yes, thinks Clinton's campaign crossed some lines in their behavior toward him in the primaries.

    Stepping back from my own anger and outrage at the time (since I'm not still fuming about it any more today) I also see that this is par for the course in politics. So you'll hear no "Oh, those Clintons! They play dirtier than anybody else. They'll do anything to win!" from me, because I can see how this occasional bare knuckle brawling is not that uncommon in so exceptionally close a race.

    As for how Clinton was treated by Obama's campaign, and the media, you'll get no argument from me that a couple of times the roughness was too rough from team Obama. A couple of times ("You're likable enough." smirk), I got disgusted.

    Even more so with the media. Between Iowa and NH, the coverage of Clinton and the ludicrous speculation about whether she would or should drop out (AFTER ONE LOSS!), and the farcical coverage of her tears or whatever...

    I could go on but I've made my point. I'm someone who is neither 'endeared' or 'enamored' of Obama, but who merely supports his candidacy as the best choice in the field. But that doesn't mean I hate Clinton or am blind to what she has endured either.

    Although I missed the part where she was ordered to "stand down and be nice" etc. I strongly doubt this. And if it was communicated to her, I can't believe for a minute that a formidable, ambitious and savvy politician like her would have knuckled under to it if she saw a chance to win.


    Number one, I don't believe Obama will select (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:50:08 PM EST
    her.  There is too much animosity and he would be overshadowed.  It would become all about Hillary because the media is obsessed with her.  Number two, I don't want her near him because I think if he is elected his presidency would be a disaster.  Number three, those who "hate her guts" because she "trashed Obama" will always hate her.  There is no rational reason for their hatred so she can't "convince them that is was just politics."  I'm not sure there is a cure for CDS. Finally, Hillary has the support of the core of the Democratic party and so long as she stays in politics and remains true to herself she has a viable chance in 2012 with or without some of Obama's supporters.

    there was a report yesterday that Obama.... (none / 0) (#125)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    had a ohone conversation with one of Hillary's big bundlers (a woman whose name I don't recall) who is reluctant to support him.  She asked Obama about Hillary and the VP slot.  His response was that Bill would be a problem if she were the VP pick.  THis woman Clinton supporter IMMEDIATELY went public with the content of the phone call.

    The only thing you never know about these tidbits that come out is whether they were actually intended to come out or not.....


    That she went public with it... (none / 0) (#129)
    by mike in dc on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    ...did Hillary no favors.  

    It did Obama no favors. Shows he can't stand (none / 0) (#134)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    up to Bill Clinton.  And that he can't convince Hillary's backers to support him.  

    He can do fine against Bill however... (none / 0) (#196)
    by ps911fan on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:29:02 PM EST
    the real substantial issue is that we should be moving past this caustic behavior. I'm new to the board and I do support Obama strongly. I also believe the Democratic party is needed (with all its flaws) to help turn the tide.

    Obama did the equivalent of an NCAA upset where the top seed was knocked out by an underdog. It must have been difficult to process for Bill as well. However, while I think many of us have an interesting approach on Hillary and Bill. I have plenty of reasons to be angry with both of them but I'd rather win and unlike many supporters who continue to hold on to their rage, even Hillary realizes that to what ever degree she can settle with being defeated, she is doing the right thing. I can appreciate her efforts.

    Bill however continues to disappoint with his IMHO questionable behavior. The country needs a Dem. Everyone should be on board. His absence will beocome more and more obvious but eventually I hope Bill will emulate his wifes incredible ability to adapt to a contrary result.
    I certainly would like to see Bill on the road for Barack. I think if he wanted to, he could concoct a succinct message some undecided voters might grab a hold to.

    It's important to understand that Barack has no fear of the Clintons but really wants to bring the party together. Im more passionate like many supporters that I would like it to happen immediately. ?Hopwever, I disagree with the idea that Hillary supporters still want to see Obama lose. To me that is extremely disappointing.

    Hillary and Barack did agree (with suttle differences) on various issues but the war will end, healthcare will finally get the passion it deserves, the middle class might finally get a break, etc. We can't get every thing we wnt in life but it would be great if we could work together to achieve goals the USA desperately needs.

    I really think Obama has and is showing Hillary and Bill some deference but I am finding it more and more disappointing when the circular firing squad seems to want to last much longer than it should.

    Looking past the disappointing fisa vote, the main core issues Dems care about


    forgive the typo's (none / 0) (#197)
    by ps911fan on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:33:04 PM EST
    i hit the button a little early. Hillary got a lot of votes but so did Obama but together we can bring real, substantive change to this country.

    Its going to take teamwork to do it. I hope we can all find a way to put aside our frustrations and get McSame out of the way once and for all.


    And (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by tek on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:51:32 PM EST
    for your information, Hillary could win the WH handily without any of Obama's people.  Americans will vote for either Clinton because it has been demonstrated that the Clintons can CHANGE things and give Americans HOPE and, even better, give us jobs, security, and peace.

    Riiiiiiight (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    "Hillary could win the WH handily without any of Obama's people"

    Which is why she is our current nominee...

    Oh wait, she isn't???  I guess she needed those people after all....

    Look, we all made fun of Obama and his people when they said they didn't need Clinton voters in the G.E.  Let's not act like idiots and make the same remarks about Obama voters.  The democratic party is not big enough to just win half of them and be ok with that.


    Like Obama can win without her supporter's? (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:04:17 PM EST
    No. She needs support from as many progressives as possible, just like he needs her supporter's. The nation is way too divided to go into a Presidential election at a huge disadvantage, and you can bet that right wingers will gleefully come out in force to vote against anybody named "Clinton".

    We need all the cylinders firing (none / 0) (#198)
    by ps911fan on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:36:24 PM EST
    We really do.....in a year where so much is going wrong, we have a chance to get new voters to see that a look left might be the right thing to do.

    My understanding is that for the youth we energize, we can keep them moving left as progressives.

    I really hope we can channel our energy to victory.


    Do you (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by tek on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:47:45 PM EST
    seriously believe the Clintons are worried about "redeeming" themselves with the Obama supporters?  No.  The person who needs redeeming, Big Time, is Barack Obama.  All this is his problem now and he mostly created it.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#124)
    by Faust on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:06:22 PM EST
    You sound just like an Obama supporter at the end of the primaries. Just flip the names around. Cracks me up.

    If he loses, she will be toast. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    If he wins, she will be stuck for the remainder of her political career, more than likely.

    Really? (none / 0) (#123)
    by jb64 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    Seems to me you've got that backwards. I'm really starting to wonder if aint the Obama acolytes who are bitter

    I think that the Obama (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    wing of the Democratic Party, including Obama himself, truly believed that once Hillary suspended her campaign, all of her supporters, including the big money donors, would just switch sides. His poor showing in the polls and his weak fund-raising has come as a surprise to him and them. The "you have nowhere else to go" theme isn't cutting it with them.

    been reading that McCain is actually (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    beating him in fundraising now.
    karma can so suck.

    How so? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    If she's VP, he loses, she's blamed. If he wins, she's VP for 8 years, not a Senator or anything else, and too old for Prez.

    Didn't think your post meant with her on the ticke (none / 0) (#133)
    by jb64 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    My Bad. I suppose she would get the blame for that indeed. I just get tired of hearing the "redeem herself" narrative out there.

    naw, i can't agree. after what i have (none / 0) (#190)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:10:59 AM EST
    seen and heard, this if only hillary does this or bill does that bull makes me want to throw up. i am sick of hearing it. it has been my experience when someone hates, they do so for reasons all their own that often have nothing to do with person they hate.

    hillary could walk across america singing obama's praise, and they would still whine. that's right whine! most of us are smart to know the difference between warranted criticism and having poor linus(hillary) continue to kick the football and have lucy(obama supporters) jerk it(approval) away. i have reached the conclusion if i have done nothing to someone that warrants a correction, then i don't give a flip what they person thinks. it makes live much easier and simpler.


    I'm on board with 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:24:24 PM EST
    BUT, the way I read the Gallup numbers the last couple weeks is that his numbers go up every time he appears with her and they get a lot of press.

    Ras. numbers are pretty much exactly opposite.  Maybe just noise.   BUT it would not surprise me at all if she's the only one who can help him.

    The only VP numbers I've seen are SUSA, which doesn't poll Hillary and show that in most states Obama alone runs better than Obama with anyone.

    Of course, I want her to stay 1000 miles away from his mess.


    IACF! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    If "embracing Hillary" is causing (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    his numbers to drop, then I wish he'd let her off the hook (and Bill, too). She doesn't need him any longer, and she doesn't need grief from his supporters. I don't want her to run on his ticket as VP so if she's off the list, I would consider that good news. My frame of reference for choosing a VP is entirely from the view of which one would make a good President in the future. No one on either list excites me at this point. The only person that I have ever seen mentioned that stirs my curiosity is Ed Rendell. I think I could see him in the oval office.

    Boy, no kiddin'..... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jb64 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    I'm sure she would be a lot happier if he went with anybody else. I know she would do it if asked, and I still think its the right move, but I certainly couldn't blame her if she didn't want to spend the next 4 months getting her brain bashed in by the MSM, just to elect her rival.

    His numbers and his money (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:04:53 PM EST
    have been dropping from March.  He was hardly 'embracing her' then.

    Or are we revising history as we go so more?

    I only wish she was causing his drop in numbers.  Then, as you say, she'd be off the damn hook.

    I have few remaining curiosities -- one is what happens when he picks a VP and it isn't her.  Will he still campaign with her to desperately shore up his numbers?  Won't that look a bit weird, not campaigning with his VP?

    Now that he doesn't have her to rev up the competition (and the attention), interest in him is dropping.   Plus, just under half her supporters haven't moved their support or their money to him.  Without her to prop him up or copy of off, he's floundering.


    Also - (none / 0) (#157)
    by Josey on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    we can't assume Hillary polling low for VP is an indication that she is being rejected. Many Hillary supporters do not want her to be Obama's VP.

    hillary is getting her debt gradually paid off. (none / 0) (#191)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:14:45 AM EST
    she doesn't need obama's funds. he needs all he has it seems with the dnc hanging around with a "write us a check" look on their faces. so if having hillary involved "hurts" obama, by all means let her get back to the senate and work for her folks there. i am sure the dnc and obama campaign will be just fine without her, and then if and when he fails it isn't her fault but his. oh yeah, that's right, she's daxxx if she does or doesn't. shakes head!

    I did see a statistic a couple months back (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by abfabdem on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    where the RNC had over $50 million and the DNC just $3-4 million.  You can bet they were assured of some Obama money but now he needs it for himself.  Will be interesting to see how this shakes out and what it means for the party as a whole.

    Is there anyone who still buys into (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:34:43 PM EST
    the "new politician" branding, after a month of FISA and faith-based flip flopping, and now this great article in the New Yorker?

    unfortunately yes (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    Sounds like more b.s. spin from the obama (4.33 / 6) (#96)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:44:35 PM EST
    camp...easier to once again blame Hillary than to face the fact that maybe people are on to obama's
    pandering, flip-flopping, lack of experience, etc.

    I liked Edwards better than Hillary & Obama (none / 0) (#132)
    by cosbo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    because, I kinda figured the clusterf*ck that we're stuck in with the divided party was a given between the 2 "firsts". Not only that, Edwards went through a national election and barely had scratch on him, and Hillary had the 90s crap to deal and Obama was too unknown. Who knew Obama's skeletons would make Clinton's skeletons look like pansies?

    That said, I thought Clinton got much much better towards the end of the campaign and her continued strength in face of misogyny and hate earned my complete admiration.

    I would still prefer Edwards as the nominee. Frankly at this point he would make a great compromise between the Obama and the Hillary crowd. I think nominating him would probably reunite the party immediately. But that's just me.

    FYI, there's a psychic who has been predicting a Clinton/Edwards ticket for months now. http://www.michellewhitedove.com/blog.php

    Let's see how things shake out between now and Denver. There's way too much discontent in party with the forthcoming nomination of Obama.


    and where has gore been since then? (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:16:02 AM EST
    the answer is nowhere in sight.

    I don't like either, altho' (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    Edwards is better than Sebelius. Still not a winning ticket, imo. Edwards might attract some but Elizabeth would have to compromise health care and I think people in this country admire and respect her too much to see her compromise too much.

    As I recall, when Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59:55 PM EST
    endorsed Obama (correct me here, if my memory is fuzzy) he didn't look very convincing and Mrs. Edwards it was reported supported Hillary, and when Obama stated with Elizabeth in the audience that he and Elizabeth would be working together soon on healthcare, she and John left before the end of the meet. It was then subsequently reported that she and Obama had not discussed this issue. Isn't this all fodder for a repub. ad to not vote Obama/Edwards?

    prior to Edwards' actual endorsement.... (2.00 / 0) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    a few weeks before Edwards actuall endorsed, the runors were tha he would endorse Clinton.  This was prior to the PA race i beleive.  One of the Sunday talk prognosticators predicted it via talk he heard.  It made sense because at the time it was also reported that Edwards mtg with Clinton went much better than with Obama.  Hers was substance, his was defensive on healthcare.
    It was also reported at the time that Edwards was reluctant to endorse Clinton because as a souther, white, male, he thought he would be viewed as racist.  (I don't know where he got that from.  It's not like anyone not supporting Obama was automatically called a racist)

    So, I think Edwards just held off until he thought it was inevitable and tried to go with te one he thought was going to win because he wants to be Attornet General.  besides, I don't think his endorsement either way actually changed anything.  He didn't endorse Obama early enough to help in PA.  And Edwards isn't though highly enough in NC for it to have helped Clinton in NC if he endorsed her.  And, it sure didn't help Obama in KY or WV either.


    Yes. (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    Let us just make the charade complete by having Edwards proclaim that public campaign financing is no longer needed, UHC is not important, and that it is ok to listen to our phone calls. Gold medals for Olympic flip flopping all round.

    Hm (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    As a former Edwards supporter, I don't have much enthusiasm for him as VP.  What he brought to the table was a compelling progressive message that I thought was great in terms of moving the dialogue to the left.  But in the #2 slot, in the position of pushing Obama's message rather than his own, I don't see how it works.  His rhetoric of fighting tooth-and-nail with the Republicans is directly contrary to Obama's message of unity and eschewing partisanship.

    If you look at how much better Edwards was in the debates this year, or even the primary debates in 2004, than he was in the debate with Cheney in 2004, it's easy to see why I believe he's far more effective at pushing his own message than someone else's.  In addition, he brings nothing substantial to the table in terms of executive experience, foreign policy expertise, etc.  I think it would be a bad pick.

    I guess I hold out hope (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:12:03 PM EST
    that he could influence Obama and bring him leftward. A girl can dream.

    Electorally you are probably right - he would not be seen as bringing any more foreign policy heft to the ticket.  But the Obama campaign has already said they don't need any of that.


    Yes, and they were so right! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:12:54 PM EST

    Yeah (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:19:33 PM EST
    snark well taken!

    Seems to be the story they are sticking to though, if those indeed are the top 3 choices. sigh.


    Keep in mind (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    that for whatever reason, Edwards had very little success in persuading the Kerry team to try a different message in 2004.

    Well, he was a successful lawyer (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    He must be able to convince someone of something.

    But you are probably right, and like so many of my hopes, that one is very unrealistic. I'll give up on meeting Colin Firth in a tiki bar too.


    Mmmmm....Colin Firth....;-) (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    mmmm (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    too bad he can't be vp... At least we'd have something nice to look at...

    Clive Owens. If we're going to swoon over the (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:25:35 PM EST

    I almost said him (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:35:18 PM EST
    but I'd never get back to being able to concentrate on work if I did.

    There, now you did it!


    'twould be highly entertaining. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    don't want to rock the boat (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:13:04 PM EST
    But what in the world has John Edwards done to be qualified to be President? Besides being over 35 and a natural born citizen? One lackluster term in the Senate.

    He has no foreign policy experience. He has little legislative accomplishment. And he lost as a V.P. in 2004. He didn't even carry N.C. for Kerry in 2004.

    Sebalius for the women, Brown for Ohio, Richardson for foreign policy experience and hispanic vote in Southwest.

    My hunch, it's gonna be Richardson unless there is some internal polling which says that an African American and a Hispanic can't be elected together.

    No (none / 0) (#84)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    Richardson was an embarrassment as a candidate in the Primary.  Didn't radiate either strength or experience -- although he has both -- in his speeches or during the debates.  A real hum-drum candidate.

    I also think the trap is unfortunately set for Obama that no matter who he picks -- unless it's someone less qualified than him which, in itself, would be a disaster -- the Republicans will highlight Obama's inexperience by comparison.  Either Richardson or Clinton -- two choices which will never happen -- are both more experienced and knowledgeable than Obama and his campaign knows that.


    His dad worked in a mill. (none / 0) (#168)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:28:27 PM EST
    I don't like the supposed top two, Edwards and (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    Sebelius.  Can't stand McCaskill.  

    I get the impression some want a woman on the ticket just for the novelty of it.  But there is no woman - or man - who is as exciting, intelligent, experienced and worthy as Hillary Clinton.  

    Sebelius will not upstage him. He'll pick her. (none / 0) (#108)
    by catfish on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    Because she's more boring than he is. Yuck. While she may have good stances, after seeing how powerful and commanding Hillary was on a national stage I do not want the first female veep to be boring with no charisma.

    I think it's a little sad (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:41:46 PM EST
    the biggest priority seems to be finding someone who won't outshine Obama and they're having such a hard time finding that person.

    amen to that (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by jb64 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    maybe he will go (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:13:38 PM EST
    with Bushs solution and pick Cheney

    It will be Bayh (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    I would be willing to bet money on it.

    The Obama campaign opened 25-30 offices in Indiana...the state has not gone for a Democrat in many decades and there have been no demographic shifts here to suggest that it will be different in 2008, like in VA and NC. In 2004, Bush won reelection by something like 20 points. The only way they could really make a play for the state is with Bayh on the ticket (I think they would win the state).

    Bayh also makes sense because he has executive experience (2 term gov of IN before the Senate) and he will not outshine Obama. It also makes sense for Bayh because whether Obama wins or loses, it gets Bayh's name out there on the national stage and he can try again in 2012 since he is still pretty young. He wanted to run for 2008 but couldn't get enough name recognition.

    Doesn't change anything for me. The presidential candidate is unqualified, no VP choice can make up for that, but I think Bayh will be his choice.

    This makes a lot of sense to me... (none / 0) (#104)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    although I think Bayh is a Clintonite and might refuse on those grounds.

    Otherwise, your reasoning is excellent.


    He won't refuse (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    He wants it, and he wants it badly. He has said openly that if offered, he would accept.

    As I see it, the reason is that it doesn't really matter for him whether Obama wins or loses because all Bayh needs is to get his name out there on the national stage. If Obama wins, Bayh is pretty much guaranteed the nomination the next time around, and if Obama loses, Bayh will now have national name recognition and a more significant fund raising machine behind him. Either way, Bayh wins in terms of advancing his own political career.

    He really wanted to run this year and had actually raised a pretty significant amount of money given that he doesn't have a lot of national name recognition, but pulled out partially out of respect for Hillary and partially because he recognized early on that the media wanted this to be a race between Hillary and Obama. Running with Obama gives him name recognition, and that is all he needs.

    The only disadvantage is that they are both from the Midwest, but if polling shows that Bayh brings Indiana, it doesn't matter.


    Well... last polling (June SUSA) showed (none / 0) (#111)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:51:47 PM EST
    a dead heat in Indiana, so that's a pretty good reason to open those offices even if Bayh's not in the picture.

    But I do think your reasoning on Bayh's strengths as a running mate are pretty good.  I still think it's more likely Obama goes with somebody the left likes, though.


    Fluke (none / 0) (#115)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:57:47 PM EST
    I don't believe it.

    I think you have to find some explanation for a HUGE shift like that before you can believe it and it would be a huge shift given that Bush won reelection by about 20 points in 2004. Indiana has gone red in the presidential election for decades. There have been more minorities moving into Indiana in the last few years, but not enough to make a huge difference. In VA and NC, for example, the state has been trending blue and there have been demographic changes, so there is reason to believe the polls. In Indiana, there have been no such changes, and only one poll has shown a dead heat.

    So, I don't believe it...but Bayh would bring the state.


    Don't care if you believe it. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    Since April, in multiple polls, Indiana has looked like a dead heat.  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either (other than Indiana being next to Illinois, which does help), but I'll take data over your (or my) intuition eight days a week.

    Also (none / 0) (#118)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:59:38 PM EST
    Obama doesn't care what the left thinks because he thinks we haven't anywhere else to go...Haven't you learned that by now? He isn't going to go with a candidate that pleases the left, he is going to go with someone who is a centrist and who is not controversial at all because that is what pleases the media, and that is the constituency that he really needs to go happy. He thinks we lefties have nowhere else to go but he knows that the media can always go back to their first true love - John McCain.

    Kathy G thinks he is not personable. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    Huh? But her other reasons were pretty sound. Is he likely to choose a strong Hillary supporter? I don't think so. You?

    Exactly (none / 0) (#121)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    Bayh won't outshine Obama in terms of personality (resume is a different story, but apparently, this country doesn't choose presidents based on their resumes and accomplishments). I think he actually did a great job with Hillary on the campaign trail, but he definitely won't outshine Obama, and that is exactly what their camp wants...

    Interesting (none / 0) (#138)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST
    I have not heard so strong an argument for Bayh, but that makes sense.

    Also may be a move to make it easier for the Clintons to support the ticket.


    I almost don't care, really, (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    because, for me, there is no one who makes Obama palatable.

    Edwards was my original pick for the WH, but I was truly disappointed in his endorsement of Obama - I thought it revealed more propensity for sucking up for personal gain than I was comfortable with.

    I love Hillary Clinton, but I think she would be hamstrung in that job - I just don't see Obama allowing her to do anything that has people speculating that she is the real brains and brawn behind Obama - he's got to pick someone who is happy in the back seat.

    Whoever it is needs to be someone who projects real strength - and the only one I get that from is Clinton.  

    I'm pretty sure he will pick someone most of us will gag over, and really, who needs that?

    Cheneyesque VP? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Mike H on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    The only thing that sometimes intrigues me is if Obama DOES choose Clinton as VP, maybe she would be able to guide him from "behind the scenes" the way Cheney does Bush.

    That would please me.


    VP (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Little Fish on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    FISA has me so down on our dem candidate that this year might be the first year I vote based on VP. Edwards/Clinton are the best to get me excited, but that's just the fangirl in me. I started as an Edwards supporter (still am, but a lot of that is due to Elizabeth) and I came to admire/support Sen. Clinton over the course of the primary. I'd vote for them if they were on the ticket.  Sebelius is a non-starter for me. Sidenote: I literally fell asleep during her sotu address which says a lot because I cannot sleep with the tv on. I was texting my friend (all omgz is Bush drunk? Is Cheney actually alive or is it a weekend at Bernie's thing?) and I woke up 2 hours later with my phone pressed to my face and keyboard marks in my cheek. Blah.

    Edwards would be a terrible choice (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:04:26 PM EST
    Regardless of the enthusiasm some have for his politics, he is a major proven loser. Choosing him makes no sense. Personally I thought his most ridiculous moments in the debate were when he teamed up with Obama---he had less than even his usual credibility.
    I imagine Sebelius will be the choice. Obama wants someone who is definitely playing second fiddle.

    I think he should choose Clinton..... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Kefa on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    but my money is on Biden or Dodd....the safer ones....probably doing Clinton a favor, the way it's heading.

    Obama had a lot of opportunities... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:19:44 PM EST
    ...to say clearly and succinctly "The Clinton's are not racists, nor are they race-baiting, please leave race out of this campaign." He may have commented on the MLK statement, but that was pretty early in the campaign, long before his campaign started to gain support based on Clinton's supposed race-baiting. I think that early on, Obama didn't plan on using race to win. But his campaign realized that he wasn't going to win without using some Chicago style politics, and he was willing to do whatever it took. That's his style - do what it takes to win, whether it is stabbing friends in the back, taking money from slumlords, or letting people believe that other's are racists.

    As for race-baiting not being racist... I can't see how anybody could use race callously to win an election without being a racist. How could anybody even consider doing that if they believe even a little in racial equality? The only people who could do that would be people who believe that they are privileged, either because they were white or because they were black - and that they had the right to use that for personal gain, at the expense of somebody with a different skin shade.

    Obama supporters like you (4.00 / 3) (#166)
    by kenosharick on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:08:25 PM EST
    are driving the permanent wedge. Keep sticking the knife in over and over- great way to win our votes. I am much LESS likely to vote for Obama than I was a month ago- and you all are a big part of the reason.

    My money is on Edwards. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:48:03 PM EST

    Two one-term Senators who ran (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by catfish on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:05:14 PM EST
    for president before the term was up. Also Edwards ran before as veep and lost. And in certain ways Obama resembles Kerry.

    I have no faith that Obama would pick a good veep.


    Agreed (2.00 / 0) (#7)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:54:01 PM EST
    although does anyone else find it ironic that for the first time in like, forever that at least THREE females would make solid to good choices for VP? (Clinton, Sebelius, McCaskill) I'm very proud of this development. Maybe there is more light at the end of that tunnel than I thought.

    thank Hillary for that (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    you think that would be happening if not for her amazing run.
    I say no way.

    McCaskill? (none / 0) (#81)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:34:30 PM EST
    Not so much. First term senator, does not bring the kind of experience Obama needs to balance out the ticket. She brings no national security experience to the table.

    Besides, if you saw her on MTP, she is no policy wonk. She was fumbling and bumbling.


    Good point (2.00 / 0) (#89)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    about McCaskill being too green. But she cleaned that other lady's clock on MTP. McCain's campaign staff is looking disasterous. Romney was much better, but he wouldn't have stood a chance in the GE because of his religion.

    Disagree (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    I watched and I actually thought Fiorina did a pretty good job on McCain's behalf, certainly better than McCain does for himself. McCaskill did not, in my view, effectively make the case for Obama...she basically pretended that he had not made a statement about getting out of Iraq in 16 months, which he did. She also seemed very unsure of herself when talking about the economy.

    Heh, Carly Fiorina... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    ...yeah, I'd say that was just about the end of the McCain/Fiorina speculation.  Oof, she looked out of her element (and as others have said, McCaskill's not exactly a tough matchup).

    But, but, but; (none / 0) (#95)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    she showed excellent judgement because she supported Obama early on. If one can judge Obama as being worthy because he made a speech in 2004, certainly an argument could be made for McCaskill.

    Speech was in 2002. (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    I meant the convention speech. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:52:26 PM EST
    But then I get confused about which historic speech is suppose to prove what to whom sometimes. Sigh. You are correct of course. Maybe his Denver historic speech will cover all the bases of his "speeches equal change" mantra and I can just refer to that. So much easier for me.

    I heard Edwards is not interested... (none / 0) (#135)
    by cosbo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:27:58 PM EST
    and is only being polite in interviews, according to his wife.

    Elizabeth (none / 0) (#139)
    by Little Fish on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    She said that in interview on NPR last week.  She sounds sincere and is a bit more of a straight shooter than her husband but who really knows.    

    Feingold doesn't even get a mention? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:51:10 PM EST

    A man of principle. . . (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    as #2?  I'd imagine that's the last thing any Presidential candidate would want.

    Now there's a (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:55:55 PM EST
    great pick! But yeah, that would be too good to be true.

    are you kidding (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    you want someone who makes Obamas lack of conviction stand out in bold relief?

    Then Hill is out. (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Lysis on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    Using that logic, which is probably what will come to pass.  It's like having Meryl Streep serve as the understudy for Miley Cyrus.

    I agree that Hill is out. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    CF: Patty Solis Doyle. (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:22:40 PM EST

    Oh yeah... (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST
    I forgot about that. Sebelius or Kaine it is then.

    Kaine, no (none / 0) (#86)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:37:38 PM EST
    I am pretty sure I read that Kaine totally ruled it out. I can't find the link right now, but I am pretty sure. Anyone else remember this/have the link?

    I think the gov of Kansas is a bad idea for a lot of reasons - she is boring, she brings zero national security experience to the table, and frankly, I think a lot of women, myself included, would see it as a slap in the face to women, as if we could be placated by putting another woman on the ticket. I didn't back Hillary just because she is a woman, I backed her because I believe she is the best candidate for the job, because I am amazed and impressed with her wonkiness - no other candidate this cycle came even close to matching her on the facts, and because I find her to be dynamic. KS brings none of those things to the ticket that I have seen, so there is no reason to believe she would be a pull in.


    You're totally right about (2.00 / 0) (#107)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:49:47 PM EST
    Sebelius' negatives. But I quarrel with your point about her as the choice as condesending (even though your concern has merit). She may not be as smart as Hillary, but the list aint that long frankly! She is very competent, and is a Gov.
    Also, Sebelius was being mentioned way back in Jan. or Feb., before the sexism/racism hot potato really got going. (yes i do monitor pro-obama sites!)

    Yes but the fact that people talked about (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    Sebelius back in Jan. will be totally lost on most folks.  We have a 3-minute political memory.

    Plus, just because they talked about her in Jan. doesn't mean that it wouldn't still be a slap in the face.  I don't think they understand Clinton's supporters very well (ok, at all).  The idea that you can just sub in anyone with double XX chromosomes and win HRC's supporters insults not only HRC, but her supporters.  It's right up there with how Dan Quayle was going to win women for the Republicans because he was 'so cute'.  Women are so superficial and stupid, they vote for anyone.

    And -- my bitterness post script for the day -- ALL I heard about in Feb. was how morally, politically, ethically, intellectually and supercalifrajilistically wrong it was for women to vote for Hillary because Hillary is a woman.  And I heard it from quite a few smirky smartmouth holier-than-thou 20-somethings who were not even eating solid food the first time I voted.  Compared to them, I practically invented political correctness, ok?.  The fact they can parrot back the slogans on political buttons does not give them any even mildly nuanced understanding of sexism or gender issues.  But nooooooowwwww it'd be ok to vote for BO because he'd put someone wearing a skirt on the ticket?

    The real crucible will be, if Obama wins, how many women does he appoint to powerful positions?  My guess, not many.   /end bitter rant (for today).


    I would think (none / 0) (#98)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:45:24 PM EST
    that if Obama picks a Dem, it will be someone who is not currently occupying a seat in the Senate, the House or a Governor's mansion.

    Seems to me we need all the Dems we can get in that respect, although some are sorely lacking in commitment to Dem principles, as we know.


    J, spot on analysis on Sebelius (none / 0) (#6)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    I just re-read it and I can't believe it was written a month ago.

    Richardson? (none / 0) (#8)
    by CatWhisperer on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:54:24 PM EST
    What do you think of Bill Richardson?  He seems to get ignored, and I think he would make a great VP.

    PS First time commenting here...trying to get involved in blogs other than DKos.

    Welcome! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    You will not find a lot of love for Richardson around here. My opinion, in short, is that he looks a lot better on paper than he does in real life campaigning.  I don't see him as an asset to the campaign.

    Richardson didn't have one good (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    performance in any of the debates that I can recall.  And, several times had to come back out right afterwards with an explanation of why he screwed up an answer.  Usually blamed it on being tired or not able to hear the question.

    Welcome, CatWhisperer (none / 0) (#11)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:55:36 PM EST
    Richardson has (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    a female problem that would not help him at all with the women he needs to attract.
    and he is also bit of a doofus (IMO only, of course)

    What female problem? (none / 0) (#18)
    by CatWhisperer on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    Doofus?  Perhaps.  I guess I like his diplomatic skills and the fact that he's been a successful governor.

    there are many allegations (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    of his inappropriate actions toward women.
    google it.

    He also (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59:15 PM EST
    totally stabbed Hillary in the back. Not good for the "Unity" theme. Lol

    Won't happen (none / 0) (#87)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:39:21 PM EST
    If Judas could stab the Clintons in the back, he can stab Barack Obama in the back. Obama obviously benefited from his about face towards Hillary, but after seeing that happen first hand, he would stupid to trust him in his own administration after seeing how little loyalty means to Richardson.

    Once a Judas, always a Judas.


    I keep hearing murmers that Obama (none / 0) (#10)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    really likes Sebelius -- agrees with her about pretty much everything, thinks she's a good public servant, thinks he could work with her, etc.  But geez, it seems to me she doesn't add much to the ticket politically, especially if some women would see her nomination as tokenism.

    I still say Clinton, Clark, and Schweitzer would be his best picks, in that order.

    He needs a very ,very experienced (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
    person as VP.  That will be what the GOP will aim for on the airways and in print. People who don't pay a lot of attention to politics get thumbnail sketches of people like "Charismatic, young, inexperienced" or "old war hero, maverick, experienced."  That is why someone with great name recognition or lots of documentable experience is important.  I think Clark would have been an excellent choice, but who knows now.  I also think Hillary at this point is well known and seen as very experienced in spite of how the O camp tried to dismiss that.

    I think that Sebelius would be a poor choice (none / 0) (#141)
    by Inky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    after taking a look at her during this weekend's governors' conference. She and Obama both come across as very patrician, in spite of the fact that she's a woman and he's AA. I think he would do much better with someone with more working class appeal -- someone like Clinton, Schweitzer, Rendell, or Edwards, for instance. But I'll admit it's hard for me to get excited about any ticket at this point.

    Edwards and working class appeal (none / 0) (#159)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    Maybe folks more knowledgeable than me can answer this, but while Edward's policies are very progressive and beneficial to the working class, I just don't see him winning a lot of working class votes.

    Edwards seems to be mostly a mild netroots darling (after Clark of course) mostly because he's not HRC, and a bit more of a netroots-r (refugee) darling, on policy.

    Other than that, he presents as another suit.  And while I may want him as say, my lawyer, I don't see him as someone I'd really want to hang with.  He doesn't seem to generate a whole lotta excitement, except with folks who are voting for Obama anyway and netroots-r policy wonks.

    But perhaps I'm missing something here.


    I like (none / 0) (#16)
    by Punchy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    Hagel.  A Republican-lite is fine with me as a VP.  Ought to give some insight and experience to Obama, and some street cred with the indys.

    Hagel is a hard core conservative (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    don't let the fact that he's vocal about the Iraq War (while still voting with Bush) fool you.

    I think Hagel is his pick. (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    He needs someone with FP creds who will not overshadow him.

    Personally, I agree with you. Hagel is massively conservative on almost every issue. But, he is seen as an anti-war Republican, and Obama is already considering him for SecDef.

    We will see just how much lip service he feels he has to pay to his online supporters. Of course, it may be too late for that after FISA.


    I actually would not have (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:12:45 PM EST
    a problem with him as SofD.
    I would have a big problem with him as VP.

    I would not want him anywhere near (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:16:55 PM EST
    the levers of power. The guy is a total crook. He even stole his own election to the Senate.

    Also, we need to stop giving in to the frame that Republicans are better on National Security. Enough. I thought Obama was supposed to be "changing the mindset" that got us into this war. Well, that mindset was Republican, wasn't it?

    Sorry Captain Howdy - I just get a little scared when people start mentioning Hagel in a favorable light. We just can't afford to jump on every supposed anti-war politician's bandwagon.

    We can see where that's gotten us today.


    ok (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    you convinced me

    Blech, not SecDef either. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    That would just play into the tired old meme that you go to Republicans for national security and Dems for the economy.  Actually, you go to Dems for both.  Plenty of qualified candidates out there who aren't Republicans.

    I hope he picks Hagle (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:08:30 PM EST
    I think that might just be the final nail in the coffin for the Kos/Americablog crowd.

    Absolute show stopper for me (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:14:51 PM EST
    Not sure what I would do, but I would not vote for that ticket.

    you know who would be a (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    show stopper for me?
    not that the show is racing along for me anyway but if he picks Nunn, which I happen to think is very very likely, I will NEVER vote for that ticket.
    Nunn is worse than Hagel but might slide by a little easier because most Obamans dont really even know who he is.

    I forgot about him (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:32:58 PM EST
    me too

    I wouldn't either. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    Fortunately, it's not in the making.

    And how would you know that? (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    It's definitely being floated by the media. Do you have campaign sources?

    Nah, I'm as in the dark as you. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    But the political arguments against it are overwhelming.  It would a) hurt him with the activist wing, women, Hispanics, etc., b) deprive him of an attack dog for the campaign (what, Hagel's supposed to hit McCain on the stump when he agrees with him on most issues??) and c) open up the possibility of a floor fight at the convention (the party establishment's not going to swallow a Republican VP in a Democratic year).  That's just off the top of my head.

    You are using logic. Bad Pegasus! :-) (none / 0) (#92)
    by madamab on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    I don't disagree with a lot of what you said. But here's the thing:

    1. The VP will not take on McCain; and Hagel and McCain, in any case, do not agree on the war.
    2. The Village and its Broderistas will absolutely SWOON if Obama and Hagel team up.

    That's where I'm coming from.

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    the market in fainting couches would soar.

    I dont agree with your post (none / 0) (#199)
    by ps911fan on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:46:39 PM EST

    This obama supporter would not want to see
    Chuck Hagel in a position to undo all the work we need to get done.

    I don't think
    Chuck hagel has a chance except in the media's eyes for the VP job.


    Hagel is. . . (none / 0) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:08:55 PM EST
    a Republican heavy.  He's extraordinarily conservative.

    Heard Something Funny (none / 0) (#62)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    on one of the Sunday shows that if Obama chose Hagel and got elected to two terms then the favored candidate to succeed him to be the next Democratic nominee would be... a Republican.

    (Since it is usually/often the Veep)

    I'm confident it's not going to be Hagel. Other than that, I have no idea.


    I could easily see Sherrod Brown (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    He's an acceptable choice to me.

    I cannot imagine (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:03:36 PM EST
    a centrist on trade like Obama picking the #1 anti-free trader in the Senate.

    Heh (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    That would be a sticking point, except that the muddled message on trade has worked to Obama's advantage before.

    For BTD it might be a big problem, but then again not.


    Me too (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    I was surprised to see him in anyone's top 3 (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    I have seen him ruled out in most places. He would be fine with me too. Better than Sebelius, anyway.

    Of those 3 I would prefer Edwards. I don't blame him for Kerry's loss.


    Do you think another (none / 0) (#48)
    by lilburro on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM EST
    junior Senator plays well?  He is fortunate to have been a Rep for a while I suppose.  Still I'd be wary of having two junior Senators on the same ticket.  It leaves the experience argument wide, wide open.

    He could bring home Ohio though and that is tempting.  Unless he is to Ohio as Casey is to PA...not really that influential or popular.


    Edwards campaigned in (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    West Virginia for Obama and we all know how THAT went.  I don't believe Edwards pulls as much weight as people think he does.  He didn't even deliver his Home State for the Democrats in 2004!

    And, yes, the two of them on the same ticket makes them sitting ducks with the Experience Issue.  All Obama needs to do is bring out his vaunted anti-war stance pre-Iraq war and McCain will cut him down with his votes to fund the war as well as his inaction as Chair of that Committee.

    I sincerely hope Obama has more than his anti-war stance to run on.


    Shifting possibilities (none / 0) (#37)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:09:46 PM EST
    I have to wonder how the changing narrative of this election cycle will or could change Obama's pick.  If he were ahead comfortably in mid-August, I suspect he would feel free to pick someone he really liked, even if that person wouldn't give him much of a boost.  (Sebelius leaps to mind as an example.)  But if he's either in a virtual tie with McCain or trailing, then I think he'll try to target whichever voter block he thinks will do the most good--Hagel for the centrist/righties or Edwards to shore up the base, for example.

    Right now, I'm really glad that I'm too smart to bet real money on such things...

    Edwards shores up the base? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by DaleA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:53:14 PM EST
    How? The split in the base is between Obama/Edwards/Richardson/etc and Hillary. Picking another of the backstabbers will worsen things. Edwards made himself very unpopular with the Hillary wing when he endorsed Obama. Edwards may bring many things, but the Hillary wing is not one of them.

    no, no, no (none / 0) (#56)
    by jb64 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:19:09 PM EST
    Edwards makes no sense at all. He never got more than 15% in the primaries. I like the guy, but I think he'd be a better fit in the cabinet. I don't think he brings anything to the table as VP but the reminder that he is a perpetual losing candidate.

    Edwards for AG (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    Sounds good to me (none / 0) (#69)
    by jb64 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    I'm happy (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    With just about anyone who isn't Dick Cheney :)

    Not really... But the fact that he isn't on anyone's list does make me smile.

    I wonder about Mark Warner? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    He would sew up VA and he really wants to be Prez. I don't want him to because of the Senate but I wonder if there's been any discussion. Anyone remember any scuttlebutt?

    I think he is an outstanding choice (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by tben on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:37:44 PM EST
    Helps win VA, would give the ticket the same type of synergy and buzz as Bill and Al had. He also has experinece running effective campaigns in Appilachia. And I know lots of Repubs who grudingly respect the guy, and have little bad to say about him.

    I think if Tim Kaine jumped into the Senate race, our chances of taking the seat would not be hurt much at all.

    There has been a fair amount of low level buzz about this, but Warner seems to have made some relatively strong statements about being focused on the Senate. fwiw...


    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#128)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    but last I saw, Sebelius doesn't even help him win Kansas.  What good would she do?

    Jack Reed has joined the mix. (none / 0) (#176)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:36:58 PM EST
    I still say Brian Schweitzer is the best choice, but Jack Reed is also a strong choice.

    Edwards has some of the same problems as Hillary Clinton; his name is too big, meaning he has an established brand, thus making him incapable of being a true Obama change protege. He also lost with Kerry and got creamed in the primaries, so he clearly not going to bring a large electorate with him.

    If Obama chooses someone besides Bill Richardson who has run for president, I would be shocked, and I would think it was a poor choice. I only say Richardson is acceptable because he does bring a state (NM) and a demographic (latino) into the mix that Obama may otherwise not do as well with.

    According to AP, Reed is out (none / 0) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:26:49 PM EST
    Richardson (none / 0) (#187)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:11:40 PM EST
    was terrible in the debates, brings a lot of baggage (there are lots of allegations of misconduct with females, you can google it), and from the Obama perspective, is clearly not someone that you can trust to be loyal (if he could stab the Clintons in the back, he can stab Obama in the back, and I am sure the Obama team is smart enough to recognize this). Also, Richardson likely brings his home state, but I don't think he locks the Latino vote for Obama - if that is the objective, he should go with Hillary. Hillary was always far and ahead of every candidate among Latinos, including Richardson.

    Colin Powell for VP (none / 0) (#189)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:35:28 PM EST
    Why not? He has to become a democrat first, though.

    A Sparkplug or a piston? (none / 0) (#195)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    If Mr. Obama is looking for a sparkplug, Mrs. Clinton is his only choice.  If he is looking for a piston, just to keep the old machine rolling, he has several choices.  In the latter category, Evan Bayh is head and shoulders above other dull candidates. Bayh actually has experience (governor and senator), will not upstage in any way, may improve chances of capturing Indiana's electoral votes; voted for the FISA bill, demonstrating harmoniously his cavlier approach to the constitution, is a new national face,and he looks good. The raising of odd and curious names, such as Nunn (appropriately right-wing if that is the direction sought),has that pesky DADT episode of the past to deal with.  Colin Powell has a plethora of drawbacks, but a serious one is his inability to do the work, unless he does not mind fleeing aggressive justices around the world by exiting through hotel kitchen passages.