home

Obama's Top VP Choices

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:19:06 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Huffington Post, here are Obama's current top choices for Vice President:

Top Tier:

  • Jim Webb
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Bill Richardson
  • Joe Biden
  • Brian Schwietzer

Worth Watching:

  • Janet Napolitano
  • Sherrod Brown
  • Chuck Hagel
  • Wesley Clark
  • Kathleen Sebelius
  • Tom Daschle

Honorable Mention:

  • Michael Bloomberg

Aside from Hillary and Wes Clark, not a star among them. If Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel or career prosecutor turned Governor Janet Napolitano make the grade, I'll be rethinking my support the Democratic ticket. If it's Hillary, Clark, or Richardson, he keeps my vote.

Are any a dealbreaker for you?

< McCain: Obama Should "Cut Clark Loose" | Someone Else To Cut Loose >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Top VP Choices | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Not sure I believe this list (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:30:47 AM EST
    but I am delighted to see that Sam Nunn is NOT on it.

    I like Hillary, Wes Clark, and, if we must, Sherrod Brown. The others are bleh.

    Oh, and Hagel, Daschle, and Richardson (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:31:36 AM EST
    are non-starters for me. Ugh.

    [ Parent ]
    Those are my dealbreakers (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:24:15 AM EST
    period, full stop.

    [ Parent ]
    Yours Is the Most Realistic Post On (4.00 / 1) (#191)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    this thread. I must admit though that if Hillary was the VP choice I'd still have to hold my nose to vote for Obama but probably would. Short of her...

    not a chance in hell. And there is even a lesser chance in hell that he will pick her.

    When one looks at Obama in general and particularly when one looks at Greenwald's list from yesterday of Obama actions over the last two weeks how could anyone vote for this guy?

    I refuse to have the blood of the Democratic Party all over my hands as he slowly guts it and bleeds all the life it has left out of it. Let other people try to sleep at night with that vote.

    It's one thing to be a loyal Democrat. But it completley another to vote for a guy who will drain the very soul out of the Party and then say you were loyal. Destroying the Party is not loyal.

    [ Parent ]

    Totally Agree (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:27:16 AM EST
    But the only way Obama is getting my vote is if Hillary's on the ticket. No one else.

    [ Parent ]
    All three of those guys are a big turn-off for me. (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:49:46 AM EST
    Many people might like certain aspects of Hagel, yet he's still a Republican. Obama's "turn to the center," is too far to the right for me. With Hagel, the Dems would have a veritable Republican ticket.

    Daschle is too weak for my tastes, and I'm just offended by Bill Richarson.

    Hillary is the my top choice, and Sherrod Brown is okay, but I don't know too much about the other females on the list.

    IMO, Obama is expecting a lot from Hillary, e.g., campaigning on his behalf, getting her donors to meet with him, being gracious after all of the verbal battling, her endorsement in the presence of the media, etc. If he offers the vice presidency to another female, it would be a slap-the-face to Hillary and many of her supporters as well.

    Obama might think he can win without her block of voters, but I doubt that he would. He has shown a bit more effort in "making nice," but is still lacking in that area. But he's capable of being gracious and warm to her if those are his desires. We've all seen him on the stump!

    Obama's choice will supply material for great discussions on the internets as well as everywhere else.

    [ Parent ]

    OMB,..Jerylyn. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:58:44 AM EST
    A crack in your armor of support for Obama?  My heart did a flip-flop when I saw that there is still a chance that you will see the light and drop your support for him.

    I'll say my prayers every night.

    [ Parent ]

    Whoops...edit....OMG, Jerylyn. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:59:15 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ditto (none / 0) (#96)
    by tek on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:50:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm with you ... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:41:32 AM EST
    those are my top choices.  

    Hagel would be a deal breaker for me.  Webb would make me very unhappy.

    But my guess is that it will be none of the names in either list.

    I still believe it will be a white, male, red state centrist who supported Clinton during the primaries and won't upstage Obama.

    I also think Obama will announce on the Thursday or Friday before the Olympics.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, it's just something that Huffpost (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:33:46 AM EST
    came up with?

    I note the absence of people like Bill Nelson and Ed Rendell. Also, though I don't like him, the obvious pick of Evan Bayh.  

    [ Parent ]

    I grew up where Bill Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:37:41 AM EST
    started getting into politics but I've never followed his career much.  

    I always liked him for whatever position he ran for first (primarily because, the day after he won the election he and his wife and kids picked a prominent corner in the community and stood out there holding signs thanking everyone who voted).  

    Anyway, he's a down to earth kind of guy.  I'd have to do more research but I think I'd probably approve of him.  

    [ Parent ]

    I was so angry with him (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:31:14 AM EST
    over the Patriot Act and war vote. Worked with MoveOn in the campaign to meet with Senators in re to votes, and he would not budge.

    I think during the Bush lovefest in Fl, he went to the right and then came back to the left when Bush began his decent. A pol is a pol.  Heh

    [ Parent ]

    He's a decent non-controversial Senator (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:43:26 AM EST
    with decent political instincts who represents a hard-to-win state.

    [ Parent ]
    He's a very likeable guy. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:47:41 AM EST
    I'm not surprised he's a senator now.  He's just one of those people you just like.  

    By the way, he won in a very Republican district.  

    [ Parent ]

    Wow! There's a Bill Nelson (none / 0) (#30)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:09:32 AM EST
    fan in the house?  (Just guessing because I got ratings on these posts.)

    Yes, he was a great guy who is coming from a really Republican area (the Space Coast) but he earned his votes.  

    If he can make it there, he can make it anywhere.  I think he might make a great VP!  

    Unfortunately, between you and me (and I don't know who you are), he doesn't appear to be on the short list.  

    [ Parent ]

    The good news is that this isn't an actual (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:52:08 AM EST
    short list (it's just Huff. Post speculation), but the bad news is that we have a Republican governor who would appoint a Repub senator if Nelson was the VP.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh well, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:00:23 AM EST
    that's bad.  But I think Bill Nelson (personally) is a plus on the whole.  From what I remember of him, he was a very personable candidate.  l

    Kind of like "Walkin' Lawton Chiles" -- remember him?  

    I'd love to see Obama walk across the USA for votes.  That would be fun!  

    [ Parent ]

    skink for v.p.! (none / 0) (#158)
    by english teacher on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:17:47 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I remember Gov. Lawton Chiles very well (none / 0) (#186)
    by FLVoter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:53:33 AM EST
    and miss him terribly.  I think Florida suffered under JEB.  However, Sen. Obama is no Lawton Chiles.  Gov. Chiles had a hominess to him that I do not see in any of the recent presidential candidates. And that hominess played well in Florida. I think that I can safely say that the "hominess" would probably play well in all of the southern states. I do not know anyone that does not think well of Gov. Chiles.  

    [ Parent ]
    I do not mean to rain on anybody's lovefest (none / 0) (#181)
    by FLVoter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:48:26 AM EST
    parade for Sen. Bill Nelson.  I have mixed feelings about him.  I generally like him, but cannot forget that he allowed as Florida Insurance Commissioner the creation of Allstate Floridian Insurance.  At the time I am sure he thought that it would help keep insurance companies selling hurricane insurance in Florida. Hurricane Andrew was devastating. However, it later hurt the state terribly.  If you are a Floridian I do not need to go into detail about this, because I think I could probably write a book.  In all I can say that Sen. Nelson is much better than Sen. Martinez (I voted for Betty Castor), and I do have a fondness for him depite his failings.

    [ Parent ]
    Looking at the list again (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:08:27 AM EST
    I find it hard to believe it is the actual list.  Maybe I am just sick of looking at those names.

    All I can say is that I hope Obama has a secret VP choice we have not seen yet.

    [ Parent ]

    Except Clark (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:09:50 AM EST
    I would be truly happy with that choice.

    [ Parent ]
    FWIW (none / 0) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:09:35 AM EST
    I heard a bunch of commenters on some political program last night all say that there's very large pressure for Biden in Dem. political circles because -- wait for it -- he's Catholic and Obama needs to shore up Catholic support.

    Took me by surprise since I never heard that justification for Biden before, but this was at the very end of whatever the program was so there was no further discussion/explanation.

    [ Parent ]

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:18:58 AM EST
    the kind of stuff that drives me nuts. We have a nominee who is so deficient that we are constantly talking about a VP to "solve his problems."

    Biden is NOT going to help Obama with working class catholics. It's kind of like saying that all of Hillary's supporters will automatically vote for Obama if he puts Sebelius on the ticket.

    Think about it this way: Kerry was catholic and didn't get those votes so why would anyone think that Obama is going to get those votes? People vote for the top of the ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    Every discussion... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Thanin on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:49:13 AM EST
    about a VP spot involves how theyll help the ticket and how they could solve any problems the candidate might have.  This is definitely not a new or surprising angle in the discussion.

    "vote for Senator Mccain and you'll get more of the Same." - Hillary Clinton
    [ Parent ]
    The (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:04:27 AM EST
    problem is that Obama has so many problems that it's which problem is bigger? Pick candidate x to solve his women problems. Pick candidate y because of his national security problems. Pick candidate z because of his weakness on economic issues. Every problem has a potential vp pick attached to it. It seems the reality of the situation is that he needs about 5 vice presidents.

    [ Parent ]
    Or none (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:22:15 AM EST
    The minute he picks one VP, whichever problem that person is picked to offset goes right to the top of the glaring deficiencies list.  With Obama's lack of experience, any deficiencies in the VP pick will be scrutinized even more.

    If he picked no one, though, then all the problems just sort of mingle about.  It's sort of like zebras -- you know how with their stripes when they all run together it's confusing for a predator that's trying to single one out?

    I actually think the zebra problem is why Republicans seem so unfocused this campaign (yes, yes, I know, they have other problems as well).  But with Kerry they had one or two big things they went after.  With Obama there's so many.

    Also, one less person to throw under the bus.  It's win-win.

    [ Parent ]

    ... nor is it unique to Obama. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Thanin on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:50:49 AM EST


    "vote for Senator Mccain and you'll get more of the Same." - Hillary Clinton
    [ Parent ]
    Not to this degree. (none / 0) (#193)
    by pie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    unless you count Bush/Cheney.

    [ Parent ]
    See? We don't always... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:22:15 AM EST
    ...disagree.  

     Bloomberg, Biden, Nunn, etc. have no chance.  That they're even considered serious by beltway types would be surprising...if I thought for a moment they actually believed Obama would select them.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't I just read that (none / 0) (#172)
    by pie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:30:09 AM EST
    48% of Catholic voters because didn't know where Kerry stood on the issues?

    Heh.  And on the rare occasion I find out where Obama stands, I usually don't support the position.

    I agree with your first statement.  As someone said earlier, the trick is finding someone who is qualified for the job who isn't way more qualified than he is.  But who wants two inexperienced candidates?!!

    [ Parent ]

    Omit because. (none / 0) (#173)
    by pie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:32:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    By the way, there is no Catholic voting bloc (none / 0) (#182)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:48:40 AM EST
    that I know of and I have been RC my whole life.  

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe not, but (none / 0) (#190)
    by pie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:01:19 AM EST
    there were several polls that claimed to poll Catholic voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:06:03 AM EST
    it's really more defined as a demographic group ie. working class catholics--large numbers of them in places like PA, OH, and MI. They are considered the largest swing vote in the nation.

    [ Parent ]
    as i recall those working class folks (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by hellothere on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:17:31 AM EST
    have been told their votes weren't required by the new democratic party.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:07:13 AM EST
    Obama has the same problem. Like I've said before, Obama is Kerry minus the medals and experience.

    [ Parent ]
    Well you do realize that Biden's picture (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:19:10 AM EST
    is right there next to the Pope's in every Catholic's home.

    These people actually get paid to talk politics, heh?

    [ Parent ]

    Ahhhh, not in my home (none / 0) (#183)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:49:09 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That was a joke n/t (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    why yes, yes there is, since you asked. (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:37:37 AM EST
    Are any a dealbreaker for you?

    that would be "obama for president".

    i always (obviously foolishly) like to think the most qualified person is being nominated, by the democrats, to be the person with their finger on the button. since that clearly (at least right now) isn't the case, the matter of vp is moot.

    ok, unless he can convince god or his son, jesus, to run with him as vp. i might be convinced to vote for him. but only then!

    as it is, i'll be writing in sen. clinton's name, and voting the down-ballot races.

    Well, this is an issue for me too (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:45:25 AM EST
    since I don't particularly like Obama for President.  

    McCain has a lot more experience and I'm a "experience/resume voter" who will only be swayed if the "experience/resume" of the Democrats tops that of the one the Republicans offer.  

    That's going to make it hard for Obama because he has hardly any experience or resume.  The only person he can run with who can make up those deficits is Hillary -- and I really think Hillary should be running as President, not VP.  

    The more I think about all of this, the more conflicted I become...   I really don't want to vote for Obama because he will be the President and I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.  

    [ Parent ]

    Writing in Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by mcw on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:55:16 AM EST
    I too will be writing Hillary in for President so I have no comment about who bo might choose as a veep since I am not voting for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Writing in Hillary (none / 0) (#171)
    by delacarpa on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:30:07 AM EST
    will be the way many will go, so no problem. Hoping her name appears on the ballot in Denver.

    [ Parent ]
    Did (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by tek on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:53:02 AM EST
    you see the Yahoo! morning headline that Obama is candidate most people would rather have over to a barbecue?  Isn't that like Dubya was the candidate most people wanted to have a beer with?  Sheesh!

    [ Parent ]
    Don't F around. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:45:56 AM EST
    If it's not HRC the Dems very well might lose in Nov. If it is HRC the Dems will probably win.

    Ditto (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:00:27 AM EST
      A nod to Richardson will enrage Hillary's
    supporters. He was particularly nasty.

    [ Parent ]
    huh? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:09:17 AM EST
    He was called a Judas by carville. He wasn't remotely nasty.  Her surrogates certainly were...to him.

     This was an episode that made me rather skeptical of any broad appeal on Clinton's part.  Why was he expected to support Clinton lockstep? A loyalty oath? I have many complaints about him, but the absurd claim that he was "particularly nasty" falls on deaf ears.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    OH (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by tek on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:54:20 AM EST
    get a clue, will you?  Richardson sold out, period.

    [ Parent ]
    sold out? (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by tben on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:48:15 AM EST
    What did he sell out?
    Seriously, where is this coming from?

    Is Richardson viewed by the Clinton people as some possession? Some flunky on their payroll forever because Bill gave him some good jobs in the nineties? So he is no longer allowed to think for himself and make his own decisions?

    [ Parent ]

    Sold out (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by pie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:15:24 AM EST
    to th highest bidder.

    What a guy.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, but he was. (4.55 / 9) (#62)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:37:11 AM EST
    Did you actually follow the primary? Because Richardson did not only endorse Obama (fine, endorse who you want), but he was going on television and trying to bully Hillary (as much as that weak-willed doltish man can bully) into dropping out. Saying she was dividing the party by staying in the race.

    Oh and uh, he couldn't really think of a reason for supporting his own candidate. Other than being "new."  So Richardson? Was particularly nasty indeed.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (2.66 / 3) (#63)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:46:37 AM EST
    These are the kind of lies that trap Clinton supporters.  Denigrating Richardson is not a winning strategy...for anyone frankly.  

     And asking whether or not I actually followed the primary is also offensive.  I did, and any support I had for Richardson dissolved quite readily.  Nevertheless, the attacks on him by Clinton partisans were bewildering.  I didn't like Carville before, I like him less now.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that I find his style ugly and unwelcome.  

     I also think this is a rather easy question.  Calling a fellow party member a "Judas" loses you points...with taste and decorum.  So yeah, you're full of you know what.

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson also (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by mikeyleigh on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:07:19 AM EST
    went public with details of his conversation with Hillary, her reactions to his decision, and so on.  That's not exactly a class act.  In fact, it might be described as nasty.

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:14:57 AM EST
    Are loyalty oaths in now?

     There might have been an argument before they tossed him under the bus when Carville (an obnoxious act if ever there was one) called him a Judas, of all things...if you cannot see that as absurd and hateful, well...there's a reason that dolt was on the obnoxious crossfire progam.

     Sorry, a losing argument.  I don't like Richardson all that much, but his treatment is very telling.

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson's a jerk with an ego (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:12:53 AM EST
    He hurt Hillary and for what?????   Between Hillary and Barrack issue differences are at best minute.....and the Clintons did indeed bring Richardson into the big time politically speaking.

    Bill knows politics and he knows a publicly disloyalty to people who helped you is a "gotcha" and will get tongues wagging.  In my view, he wanted to hurt the Clintons and he did.  WHY?  I believe it is because he felt it was best FOR HIS CAREER to be tied to Obama.  He was looking out for #1
    .... and he was selling out people who helped him.  It's not about loyalty. It was about character.  Richardson showed his and it is not a pretty picture.  

    [ Parent ]

    He could have said nothing (5.00 / 8) (#71)
    by Mike H on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:07:50 AM EST
    If you look at Richardson's history, he owes the Clinton's big time -- and politics, whether we like it or not, is all about relationships, favors, alliances, etc.

    So, yes, on a certain level Richardson's actions were shocking and were a slap in the face, and would have been so no matter which party they were part of.  The GOP has its internal betrayals and grudge matches as well, it's human nature, it's political reality.

    Richardson could have just let it go and not endorsed either if he felt he couldn't endorse Hillary, but he didn't go that route.  He clearly felt he had more to gain by ditching the Clintons and hitching his wagon to Obama.

    Any reaction he got after he endorsed Obama should have been easily predicted by him -- by any seasoned politician.  And given that Bill Clinton was the most popular Democratic president since JFK, and the first two-term Democratic president since FDR, this sullying of the Clinton legacy doesn't exactly seem to be the right way to rebuild Brand Democratic Party.

    To me, Obama and the people supporting him have been making a series of very questionable choices, but time will tell.

    [ Parent ]

    He owes them what? (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:29:19 AM EST
    Undying loyalty?

     See, that is becoming an issue with Clinton supporters.  Their loyalty to the party was nonexistent, but for some reason Democrats of all stripes "owe them" because he won two elections.  And every failure of undying loyalty is treated as a slap in the face.

     Was Bill a good politician? Absolutely.  Do I "owe" him anything? Absolutely not.  The Republicans built a legislative majority under his watch, after years in the wilderness.  I think that both Bill and Hillary care about liberal causes, but I also think it would be absurd to describe them as loyal Dems willing to fight for party principles.  They retreated at every opportunity.

     So...when Richardson is described as a traitor by the Clinton set it comes off as false and self-serving.  You can moan about it being "unfair" in some cosmic sense, but that is the reality.  

    [ Parent ]

    Bull (none / 0) (#91)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:39:13 AM EST
    I am willing to bet my loyalty to the party will match or surpass most.

    Maybe it is because of so may years being loyal, those of us who are angry and more aware of the present Democratic incompetence, that we just might be more loyal to the party than others.

    I'm fighting to save the party, not destroy it.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (none / 0) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:44:57 AM EST
    Talk about revisionist history.   How's the weather out there on Mars?


    [ Parent ]
    He wants to be VP; what's friends (none / 0) (#147)
    by jpete on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM EST
    compared to that?  

    [ Parent ]
    ah, the mafia rules,... (none / 0) (#188)
    by tben on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:55:08 AM EST
    Bill appoints Richardson to a job, he owns Richardson's testicles forever. How absurd.

    The trashing of Bill Richardson by the Clintons and their supporters is a peek into the dark heart that has turned so many people off to the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]

    but, but, but.... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:30:59 AM EST
    yesterday you wouldn't make Obama take any responsibility for Wes Clark's statements even though Obama is an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

    Now you want to blame Clinton for Carville calling Richardson Judas and Craville had no official position on the Clinton campaign.

    Besides, there are other reasons to dislike Richardson.  He had about the worst debate performances of any ofthe candidates.  How many times did he have to come out after a debate and explain how his misspoke or didn't understand the questions because he was "tired" or "couldn't hear".  It was pitiful.

    [ Parent ]

    so. I can't type (none / 0) (#115)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:32:15 AM EST
    should be....

    even though Clark is an official advisor to the Obama campaign...

    [ Parent ]

    Good catch (none / 0) (#117)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:37:02 AM EST
    Still disagree.  Regardless, it is the same old Obamahate.  

    [ Parent ]
    i don't hate Obama.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:00:11 AM EST
    I don't think he is qualified to be president, but i don't hate him.

    But, the Obamahate defense does seem to be your standard response to everything.  You spent yesterday denying that Clark has an official role on Obama's campaign, even though he does.  You basically ignore reality and accuse anyone who doesn't fall in line lock step as being an Obama hater instead of addressing the issue at hand.

    You like to defend Obama by pointing out what statements didn't come out of his mouth directly.  But, then you blame Clinton for Carville calling Richardson a Judas.  Either you weren't actually aware ofthe facts that it was Carville who said it, or you like to use two different standards for two different candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    Lies, Alec? Now, apologize (none / 0) (#156)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:15:45 AM EST
    since both statements the commenter made about Richardson were witnessed by millions watching tv.

    And Carville isn't on the vp list.  Focus, Alec.

    [ Parent ]

    Your post... (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:18:18 AM EST
    ...makes no sense.  You will have to write more.  Really, I just have no idea what you are talking about.  Who said Carville was on the VP list?

    [ Parent ]
    Loyalty Oath... (none / 0) (#102)
    by vml68 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:59:24 AM EST
    Forget about the endorsement of Obama...you think he could have atleast stepped up when both the Clintons were being called racist and WJC staements were called Mcarthyist. The man is spineless, talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:15:09 AM EST
    Richardson is scum in my view.  He is all about himself and not about the party.  He KNOWS damn well that despite their flaws, their human frailties, neither Bill nor Hillary were ever or could ever be racists.  His silence speaks volumes about his lack of character.

    [ Parent ]
    actually (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:03:48 AM EST
    if you recall Richardson did speak up to defend Clinton against the personal attackes during debates.  He was the one that called for more discussion of issues.  Then after he dropped out of the campaign himself, I think he decided he had more future possibilities with Obama and decided to change his tack and start attacking Clinton for her "supposed" nasty campaign tactics.  That was the excuse he used for finally endorsing Obama, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Richardson was unnecessarily (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:12:56 AM EST
    insulting to Clinton when he endorsed Obama.  It was way over of line.  If he wanted to simply endorse, that is fine.  Instead, he beseeched her to drop out.  He accused her of destroying the party.  That was unforgiveable to me.  I liked him before that.  

    [ Parent ]
    Even if you (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:00:34 AM EST
    discount his handling of the Obama endorsement, Richardson came off the debates as a complete bumbling fool. I even considered him early in the primary season. But then he opened his mouth. If given the national spotlight, he would suffer from foot in mouth desease even more than Biden. He should have run for the Senate seat in NM (where he had a great chance to win) instead of president.

    [ Parent ]
    huh (none / 0) (#174)
    by delacarpa on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:32:57 AM EST
    Were you there? I don't think you have a clue what happened there, although being called Judas means something.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that after Obama's move to the center.. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:46:40 AM EST
    in the past several weeks, it seems much more likely that he'll pick someone like Joe Biden, Jim Webb, or Evan Bayh or maybe even someone like Nunn, Bloomberg, or Hagel.

    I'll still vote for him regardless (since I think he is better on every major issue than McCain), but if he picks one of these people I'll be much less enthusiastic about it.

    If he chooses Nunn (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:48:35 AM EST
    I lean toward leaving the top of my ballot blank. And it would take a lot for me to say that about a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:42:25 AM EST
    that Jimmy Carter is pushing for Nunn to be VP. Frankly, I see where Nunn adds nothing. He won't help in GA or anywhere else for that matter.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:51:27 AM EST
    If Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel or career prosecutor turned Governor Janet Napolitano make the grade, I'll be rethinking my support the Democratic ticket.

     Hagel I would understand.  Originally I thought he might be a great Republican to ask to join the ticket, but now I think that would be unwise.  But I won't kick Democratic candidates to the curb like that.  Biden and Napolitano are not my first choices, but they'd hardly convince me to toss my vote away or vote GOP.

     I like Clark the best of all, although that might be impossible now and there were problems even before Clarkgate08.

    Dealbreakers (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:54:23 AM EST
    The deal's already broken for me, but:

    Clinton: only one who might make me rethink my nonvote with any seriousness

    Wes Clark: the worshipfulness the last few days of posts makes me nervous, but if TLers from all sides of the river like and respect him, I might go there.

    Schweitzer: hmmm, interesting

    Richardson: never, after seeing him on a national stage, he just needs to get off it

    Biden:  never, never, never, I still remember his spinelessness during the Anita Hill hearings combined with his 'No one has done more for women than I have' bleating (and you all thought Obama invented that, heh)

    Webb:  Tailhook, no deal.

    Sibelius:  sorry, been slapped in the face a few too many times already

    Hagel & Daschle -- dealsmashers, more like.

    Of course, I doubt HuffPo has any better idea than  I do who's really on the list.

    Tailhook? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:55:52 AM EST
    What's that mean?

    [ Parent ]
    If you have to ask. . . (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:57:16 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The military sex scandal? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:59:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, it's not that (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:03:28 AM EST
    The real problem for Webb is this. The title tells you what you need to know.

    [ Parent ]
    From the November 1979 Washingtonian (none / 0) (#31)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:10:19 AM EST
    That tells me pretty much what I need to know.  He has recanted.  

     Webb I don't like as VP for a few reasons, but I don't think this has traction.  Webb is Webb, and that opinion was not nearly controversial as it would be today when he offered it.

    [ Parent ]

    Well yeah, you think everyone (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:15:50 AM EST
    is going to accept that reasoning? Given the course of the primary, I think it would be a terrible idea.

    [ Parent ]
    Not dispositive (none / 0) (#39)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:25:16 AM EST
    That's all I'm saying.  A majority of the country supports allowing openly gay soldiers in the military as well.  Doesn't stick as an issue in the GE.  

     Webb has plenty of problems as a VP candidate, but what he said in '79 isn't one of them.

    [ Parent ]

    He was a member of the (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:20:40 AM EST
    Reagan administration.  He is at best a conservative dem who was able to win VA because he was NOT George Allen.  Sheesh...this gets me.  The liberal blogs and bloggers who have hated and trashed Hillary for being too centrist, adore and worship men who were basically Reagan dems or even republicans for most of their lives....

    [ Parent ]
    And? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:25:51 AM EST
    Nothing you say is remotely inconsistent with my post.  There's no there, there.  

     BTW, if we tossed out Reagan dems...there goes Clark and, I guess, Clinton's '92 arguments.  Fine by me, I guess, but I don't want to hear accusations of "Reagan Dems" from people who frankly can't understand that even Dean was appealing to them in his '04 run.

    [ Parent ]

    I am fine with (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:31:23 AM EST
    Reagan dems coming back and voting for progressives.  But a member of the Reagan administration on the ticket...no thanks.
    And like other women, I have issues with Webb and his views on women.  Maybe he has changed. I don't know.  But hell, if my candidate is trashed for things good for progressives (tried and failed and had to compromise) that she did 15 years ago; while her amazing stance against the Chinese government for women around the world is ignored; why the hell would I support someone who worked for a right winger, union busting, anti everything I believe in president.

    [ Parent ]
    You like Reagan dems, you hate Reagan dems... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:43:29 AM EST
    ...which is it?

     Look, I know they are necessary for a strong party.  But the complaints about Webb (and I have plenty of my own...at least as a VP choice is concerned) are tiresome.  My preference was for Clark in '04 and for VP in '08...and I nearly vomited listening to the GOP candidates scurry like rats after the "Reagan footsoldier" role.  That's pragmatism for you.  I get pragmatic politics.  Been practicing them for a bit.

     I rather liked Senator Clinton's speech about China.  Speeches...speeches...where I have I read attacks on speeches...

     

    [ Parent ]

    Dean (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:47:59 AM EST
    WAS NOT appealing to Reagan Dems in 04. Dean was the darling of the left wing of the party. Frankly, anyone who supported Obama during the primary has zero concern about the Reagan dems since Obama's campaign constantly denigrated them by implying they were all racists and low information voters etc.

    [ Parent ]
    He could have fooled me... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:51:45 AM EST
    ...with his overtures to Confederate flag touting Southerners. Whether it was an effective appeal is an entirely separate question.

     Wait...I thought Obama loved Reagan and praised him at the expense of Dems? Or was that the primary narrative?

     Give up.  It has become obvious now.

    [ Parent ]

    That (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    comment was NOT appealing to reagan dems. Gephardt had the right statement on that when he said he wanted the guys with the american flag on the back of the pickup to vote for him.

    Sorry, but touting President Reagan was pandering to Republicans not necessarily the Reagan Dems. The reagan dems voted for Hillary. They value toughness and experience.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:13:32 AM EST
    I hope he's changed the "If I were British, I'd vote for Margret Thatcher" line, too.

    THAT might've been a deal-breaker. -shudder- There are few world leaders I like less than Margret Thatcher.

    [ Parent ]

    OMG (none / 0) (#99)
    by tek on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:56:34 AM EST
    I forgot that he wrote some kind of twisted romance novel!

    [ Parent ]
    Google it, Dalton (none / 0) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:51:44 AM EST
    It was quite a while ago but a very, very ugly business.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama has problems (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:13:53 AM EST
    no matter who he picks.  

    He could pick Mother Theresa as a running mate and he'd have problems.  

    This probably isn't what anyone wants to hear but it's the truth!  

    Mother Theresa for VP (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:14:54 AM EST
    would be a faith-based initiative.  That's a plus for Obama these days, if not for me.

    Think of all the plusses:  She doesn't wear pantsuits.  And she's already dead, so the media and other misogynists wouldn't have to destroy another woman, with this one beyond even their evil.

    But if she wanted to be president, they would even call Mother Theresa a b*tch and turn her into a nutcracker toy.  Better that she RIP.

    [ Parent ]

    Mother Theresa (none / 0) (#179)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:45:31 AM EST
    was about as well-hyped as Obama. She wasn't a saint and she didn't rock the boat.

    [ Parent ]
    Jim Webb? NAAAH! (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:16:33 AM EST
    The way far too many of Hillary's supporters still feel right now, is Barack Obama really willing to rub salt in their still-raw wounds by nominating a man who's affiliated with the Tailhook fiasco AND who once opposed the admission of women into the U.S. Naval Academy?

    Besides, lest we forget, Jim Webb only carried Virginia by a relative handful of votes, despite his opponent having stepped knee-deep into the macaca.

    While I'm glad he's in the Senate, Webb's selection on the Democratic ticket would be an absolute non-starter for me. And to put it bluntly, we're never going to win by emulating the Republican chest-thumpers who long to revive the good old days of the Cold War.

    After all, as no less than President Harry Truman once observed, if you give voters a choice between a bona fide Republican and a Democrat who talks and acts like a Republican, they'll most always reject the Democratic facsimile and take the real deal.

    Webb Has Voted With The Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:49:51 AM EST
    on Iraq and FISA. If Obama choses someone with that voting history, it would make me even more inclined not to vote for Obama.

    I mainly vote top of the ticket so for me no VP will result in me automatically voting for Obama. It is up to him to give me reasons to vote for him. So far, he is managing to give me more reasons not to vote for him.  At the moment, I would be more inclined not to vote the top of the ticket.

    Selecting  a Republican, Hagel or Bloomberg or an anti-choice VP would make me seriously consider voting for McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Two questions: (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:20:36 AM EST
    1. Who is the best choice for VP? (I say Clinton, but I also like Clark and Brown)

    and
    2. Who right now is the most likely VP? (I say Webb and Biden)

    Webb (none / 0) (#121)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:46:06 AM EST
    No way - too much baggage, barely beat Allen, not polling in VA above 50% last I checked, and needed as a Dem in the Senate.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't the fact he won in a reddish state (none / 0) (#148)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:09:45 AM EST
    Mean he is a strong candidate?  I personally don't care who the VP is.  I have met Sharrod Brown a number of times while I was at Oberlin, he was a really nice guy,very student friendly, but that is just a side point.  

    [ Parent ]
    Most likely. . . (none / 0) (#125)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:49:30 AM EST
    is Richardson, I think.  Brings a heavy foreign policy resume and possibly some additional excitement in the Hispanic community.  He's not the best, but I think he's the most likely.

    [ Parent ]
    If you are right, I hope Obama's (none / 0) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:12:35 AM EST
    campaign sends him to a crash course on "How to campaign without making yourself look stupid." His brief presidential campaign was horrible.

    [ Parent ]
    Three List (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by koshembos on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:24:22 AM EST
    Horror List:
    Napolitano,
    Hagel and
    Dascle.

    Garbage List:
    Biden
    and Sebelius.

    Good List
    Webb,
    Clark,
    Brown and
    Clinton.

    I don't vote for hate mongers; I stay home in November.

    Why not Napolitano, when I have heard her speak (none / 0) (#150)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:11:54 AM EST
    I have been very impressed.  But I don't know much about her outside of a hearing her a few times on NPR

    [ Parent ]
    umm (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by boredmpa on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:37:16 AM EST
    this is just speculation by huffpost and their attempt to get traffic to their poll...which is probably going to end up being biased to people that don't have a chance in hell of winning.

    Not to mention that the advertised poll doesn't exist, forcing idiots like me to disable adblock/noscript to try and find it...and netting them more ad views.  yes, i am a cynic about news sites.

    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:38:45 AM EST
    ... only one current Republican (Hagel) and one recent Republican and current Independent (Bloomberg) on the list.

    What better way to say that Democratic policies are superior than by nominating a Republican vice president?

    Except... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:43:50 AM EST
    ...this is what a lot of Americans seem to want.

     They want fighters and they want post-partisans.  And they seem to misunderstand the inherent contradiction.

    [ Parent ]

    I have problems with this whole (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:53:13 AM EST
    "post partisan" thing.  

    People are now looking for politicians who can't fight and win?  Because that is the definition of the ultimate "post partisan" candidate.  The ultimate post partisan candidate won't get the majority of the votes from either side.  If they get the majority of their votes come from either side, then they are partisan.

    So... What shall it be?  

    Do they believe the loser should somehow win?  

    ???  

    [ Parent ]

    Two recent Republicans. . . (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:50:31 AM EST
    I'm not sure exactly when Webb switched, but I think it wasn't long before his campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Hagel is ok for a Republican... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:01:17 AM EST
    compared to his brethren, but if Obama chose him to be a heartbeat away, then all his talk would be nothing more than BS.

    Hagel's record, except for Iraq, is a disaster for liberal and progressive causes.

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:15:32 AM EST
    is turning out to be a disaster for liberal and progressive causes.

    [ Parent ]
    I look at this list (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by phat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:10:23 AM EST
    And I think