Obama's Top VP Choices

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

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

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    Whoops...edit....OMG, Jerylyn. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:59:15 AM EST
    Ditto (none / 0) (#96)
    by tek on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:50:18 AM EST
    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.


    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.  


    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.  


    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


    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.

    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.  


    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.  


    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.

    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!  


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

    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.

    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.


    Except Clark (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:09:50 AM EST
    I would be truly happy with that choice.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


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

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

     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.


    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?!!


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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    Ahhhh, not in my home (none / 0) (#183)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:49:09 AM EST
    That was a joke n/t (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM EST
    why yes, yes there is, since you asked. (5.00 / 6) (#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.  


    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.

    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.

    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!

    Don't F around. (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#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.  



    Ah, but he was. (5.00 / 8) (#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.


    Nope (1.50 / 2) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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?

    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?  

    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.


    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.


    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...


    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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?

    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!

    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.

    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?

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.

    I think that after Obama's move to the center.. (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.

    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 / 4) (#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.

    If you have to ask. . . (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:57:16 AM EST
    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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....

    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.


    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.

    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...



    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.

    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.


    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.


    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!

    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.

    Obama has problems (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    Two questions: (5.00 / 0) (#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)

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    Three List (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by koshembos on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:24:22 AM EST
    Horror List:
    Hagel and

    Garbage List:
    and Sebelius.

    Good List
    Brown and

    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

    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.


    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?  



    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.

    What does it matter? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:50:58 AM EST
    Two words. Dick Cheney.

    Hagel is ok for a Republican... (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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, since they are being floated as a short list that none of them are likely to be the pick.

    hagel (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Turkana on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:39:26 AM EST
    never voted for a republican, and not about to start now.

    The problem for Obama (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:09:53 AM EST
    is finding someone who is qualified for the job who isn't way more qualified than he is.

    Finding someone less qualified, on the other hand, will be impossible.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kimsaw on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:32:40 AM EST
    you've stated Obama's problem with glaring accuracy.

    I will never vote for Sherrod Brown (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by CMike on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:11:55 AM EST
    He voted for the Military Commissions Act while he was in the House. These days he says his vote was a mistake. It was no mistake. Brown voted as he did to grease the skids during the home stretch of his 2006 Senate run and you'd better believe if he was in the same situation in the future he would abandon all principle and decency and vote the same way.

    Brown voted in favor of the bill in early October, four weeks before he won his Senate seat with 56% of the vote. It was not a close election.

    The Military Commissions Act provided for the suspension of habeas corpus and retroactive criminal immunity for anyone who had violated certain prohibitions against the abuse of military detainees.

    Folks, what is it going to take for you to make a stand against these ruthless self-promoters? The guy would vote to rescind the 13th Amendment which outlaws slavery if he thought it would assure him an election victory.

    Then again, he has a "lovely wife," together they're such a fun couple, and he said he was sorry. What the heck, let's make him Vice-President.  

    Thank for reminding me of that vote (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:56:41 AM EST
    That would also be a deal breaker with me. No excuse for anyone, let alone a Democrat, for voting for that bill.

    Sherrod Brown (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Munibond on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:15:46 AM EST
    His being on the list would explain why his wife, also a former Clinton supporter, devoted a recent column to exhorting feminists to come to the defence of MO.  The column was not up to her normal standards, e.g. jumping to the conclusion that those who question MO's patriotism are sexist.

    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.

    VEEP Choice (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:44:46 AM EST
    Hagel is a rock hard conservative and horrible on women's issues.  Can't go for him.  Webb has to publicly apologize for how he treated women while Sec. of the Navy.  Otherwise, forget about him.  Nunn has to publicly apologized for measuring the space between bunks on submarines as a way to prove that heterosexual men would be too close and uncomfortable next to homosexual men.  Even then I couldn't go for him.  In other words, if Obama picks a social conservative as VP I will write in Hillary Clinton.  I am not a supporter of her for VP because I think she can have plenty of power without that position but if BO picks another woman over her I am writing HRC in.  I have always liked Wes Clark for his liberal values and I like Mike Bloomberg, a liberal on social issues, a fiscal conservative, and excellent manager.  

    The only (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:47:25 AM EST
    VP that would make me reconsider leaving the Presidential slot blank would be Hillary. The others do nothing or would make me want to vote for McCain like Richardson.

    Prediction (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:11:01 AM EST
    The VP pick will be the personnel equivalent of the FISA and faith-based  initiatives news lately--meaning much further to the right than most here would prefer.

    Obama has mentioned Lincoln and the whole "team of rivals" concept.  Combine that with his vision of what "not politics as usual" means, and you get: Hagel.

    And at that point, for the first time this cycle, I will seriously consider not voting for anyone for president in November.

    I think it's one thing to try to show... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:53:16 AM EST
    ... that you want to reduce partisanship, but another entirely to choose a running mate who would appoint conservative Republican judges, so I think a pro-life Republican like Hagel would be out of the question. Obama could choose a fairly conservative, pro-life Democrat like Bayh, or he could even choose Bloomberg, who gives you the appearance of reaching across the aisle without really deviating from Democratic orthodoxy at all (although I think if you are trying to weigh down McCain by tying him to Bush, it would probably be better to pick somebody who didn't endorse Bush last time).

    Bloomberg... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:55:58 AM EST
    ...appeals more to Democrats than he does to Republicans, at least nationally.  I don't see what he brings to the table.

    Well. . . (none / 0) (#136)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:01:17 AM EST
    he brings Jewish support which I gather from some of his appearances Obama feels he is in danger of losing.  And it contributes to the post-partisan narrative that Obama is trying to build -- here's a guy who's been everything and now stands "above politics" (hah!).  Plus he brings obvious executive experience in the public and private sectors.

    What he doesn't bring is a foreign policy resume or the hope of carrying a significant state Obama will not already carry.


    Well... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:01:44 AM EST
    ... I'm sure he'd reassure Jewish voters in Florida who are uneasy with Obama regarding Israel. And I think he'd appeal to socially liberal, economically conservative voters throughout the Northeast, although I'm not sure how many of those states are likely to be in play. Also, although Obama's not likely to be strapped for cash, Bloomberg could write Obama a hundred-million-dollar check, which could swamp McCain's potential fundraising.

    Why do people give creedance to MAYORS (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by rottodamn on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:21:07 AM EST
    going from a mayorship straight to the Presidency or Vice Presidency? I think this is a ridiculous concept that should be 86'd even if these mayors happen to be mayors of New York. I think that is awfully presumptuous of folk and quite disrespectful to folks who have paid their dues.

    Glad to see (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:25:39 AM EST
    the Hillary supporters being honest for the most part and admitting that all they care about is Hillary being President.

    I think this list is B.S.  I don't think that Hagel is being considered in any real way.  He is being floated out there as a way to show how much Obama likes Republicans.   I've seen this happen many times in the past but I can't think of a single time that the VP and Pres were not from the same party, at least in the past 130 years.

    Dascle is also bogus.  Very likely Chief of Staff but certainly not VP.  That would make no sense whatsoever.

    I agree that Nelson should be on the list.  I don't have a problem with Ed Rendell but I don't know if he brings anything to the table for Obama.

    I would be surprised if Bayh weren't on the list.  He seems like an ideal sort of running mate for Obama.  Gore should at least be thrown out there, even if it is only a fantasy.  

    Kerry did want McCain (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:20:18 AM EST
    He would have run with him too. So it almost happened. Heh.

    It doesn't matter (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:29:47 AM EST
    much to me. As with everything else I'm sure the selection will be laden with symbolism far beyond the need. And, of course, McCain will try very hard to keep that news cycle short. Perhaps he'll ask BO to fire whoever is selected because they looked crossly at him.

    Overall? Not too exciting (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:49:45 AM EST
    Question to ask about every one: Is the VP someone you would want to see as President in 2012 or 2016?  Could this person run?

    Jim Webb: would be strong on military issues, but on most everything else, he is to the right of Obama, and since Obama is more to the right than I think a Democratic nominee should be, it does nothing to reassure me that core Dem principles will be on the agenda.  President Webb?  Not so sure about that.

    Hillary Clinton: the only one that will bring tons of Clinton supporters into the fold.  Puts health care firmly on the table.  Would be great for "women's" issues.  She's strong on national security.  WOuld pull him more to the left - which a lot of Dems would like.  President Clinton?  Abso-freakin'-lutely.

    Bill Richardson - never.  President Richardson?  Excuse me while I throw up.

    Joe Biden - tons of foreign policy cred, but too much like having Dad in the car while you learn how to drive.  Foot-in-mouth problem: guaranteed to offend everyone at some point.  President Biden?  If McCain's too old, so is Biden.

    Brian Schwietzer:  Has governing experience, but young to the point where it might look like we are running the country with no adult supervision.  Seems practical and solid, but maybe a little too on the conservative side.  President Schweitzer?  Who the heck knows?

    Janet Napolitano: don't know enough about her, governing experience a plus, but no strengths in areas where Obama is weak. Too big a target for the how-come-she's-still-single attacks that we know ahe will get.  President Napolitano?  See President Schweitzer, above.

    Sherrod Brown: haven't felt the same way about him since he voted for the Military Commissions Act.  No real experience where Obama needs help.  President Brown?  I don't think so.

    Chuck Hagel: He's a Republican.  Slap in the face to Democrats, strong on defense but nothing about him says "Democrat."  President Hagel?  That would be ironic - the Dem VP runs as a Republican in 2016.  Opens the door wide for Clinton, but maybe too late for that.

    Wesley Clark: strong military cred, smart, but another "Dad" for Obama to have along for the ride.  No symbiosis here for me.  President Clark?  Why not?

    Kathleen Sebelius: if we can stay awake long enough to hear what she has to say, she would bring actual governing experience to the table, but not much more.  She's a woman - but so what?  President Sebelius?  I don't think so.

    Tom Daschle:  Never.  No way.  Nope.  Leaves me cold.  President Daschle?  Ugh.

    Michael Bloomberg:  Come on - this is just ridiculous.  If Obama wants him, we need to cut Obama loose from the Democratic party and let him run on the Unity '08 ticket.  President Bloomberg?  Yeah, right.

    With the exception of Clinton and Clark, less than inspiring, but part of that may be due to the fact that I don't think Obama is the right nominee, he inspires nothing in me but loathing, and there really is no one who can go on the ticket that not only neutralizes my feeling about Obama but is strong enough to overcome it.

    As a black Jew I would love to see Bloomberg (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:16:00 AM EST
    This country needs some new Black Jewish jokes, the old ones are getting stale :)

    Just wait. . . (none / 0) (#164)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:20:39 AM EST
    Jim Webb: would be strong on military issues, but on most everything else, he is to the right of Obama,

    That could change!


    McCain and Missouri....inc. VP matchups..... (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:08:42 AM EST

    Problems for Obama in Missouri seem to be brewing...and even Jim Webb might not help....

    Clinton & Clark (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Coral on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:13:39 AM EST
    are my top choices. Both have experience and backbone on their side. True grit.

    The others -- blech.

    Deal breakers -- Hagel, for sure. If I want to vote Republican, I'd vote McCain. If Nunn creeps back onto someone's list, I would not consider voting for the ticket with him as veep.

    Potential disasters as president: Richardson, as I was profoundly unimpressed by his performance in the primary. Daschle, as exciting and decisive as watery milk. Either choices would put me on the borderline of voting third party.

    None of them is a dealbreaker for me, BUT (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by bslev22 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:13:41 AM EST
    if Richardson is the nominee, all I do this year is cast my ballot.  I loathe what the man did with respect to his endorsement, and I believe James Carville's version of events, to wit, that Richardson reneged on a pledge to endorse Hillary.  I also value loyalty as a fundamental character trait, with caveats.  Richardson, and his decision to abandon Hillary Clinton, is justified by no caveat I can think of except rank ambition.

    I used to love Richardson as a potential candidate.  I cannot even look at him on the television still.

    Joe Biden (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by bmc on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:14:26 AM EST
    Biden is the best pick for the VP slot, gives Barack some teeth on foreign policy. But Biden adamantly stated recently on MTP that he didn't want it.

    If he picks Biden, I'm going to expect Biden to get tossed under the bus eventually--Joe's known to get carried away sometimes.


    Hagel, Biden, what's the diff (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by djork on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:21:37 AM EST
    I find it odd that a VP pick could be a deal breaker when everything that's already occurred isn't. The sexism, the race baiting, the thuggish tactics, the voter disenfranchisement, the empty rhetoric, the crazy associates, the overall lack of qualifications - those were the dealbreakers for me.

    Hagel is an anti-choice troglodyte (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:22:08 AM EST
    The fact that he even makes the list is shocking.  Just as I would never vote for McCain, I would never vote for a ticket with Hagel on it.

    I'd be very, very disappointed with a Richardson pick and none too pleased with Webb.  Sebelius and Napolitano would be unacceptable to me.

    I'd be most pleased with Clinton or Clark.

    For VP (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Moishele on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:26:40 AM EST
    Deal breakers- Bill Richardson (almost as vague as Obama), Joe Biden (poster boy for opportunism), Chuck Hagel (Republican), Tom Daschle (he blew it for us once. Do we really want to give him another chance?), and Mike Bloomberg (pick a party- any party). Plus any of them would be another blow to the whole 'change' mantra.

    After this last McCain as Commander in Chief disaster I think we can remove Wes Clark from the list. Or maybe it's another loyalty test to see if Clark will still support the ticket after being left to twist in the wind.

    Hillary might keep me in line. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:36:29 AM EST
    But I am so down on Obama that any other choice may not work. Personally Obama has to convince me and  he continues to act and say things that only cement my negative feelings about him.

    I agree with the person who states a gov (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by rottodamn on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    will likely be Obama's VP. I love Hillary and that is why she should stay away from the VP position unless she wants to be the sacrificial lamb.

    It may be something she may want to take as time is not on her side and if they win she would be the first female VP. It is a dicey game of course. If Obama loses and she is not on the ticket, of course she would be good for 2012 as he would be done.

    This is tricky!

    Richardson is a deal breaker (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    So much so that I will not only- not vote for the ticket I will campaign against it in the Latino/Hispanic communities in my state.

    What he did to the Clintons was disgusting on so many levels but it showed me just how little morals the man has. He went on television and said that if you were, Hispanic or a Governor then you should vote how your constituents decided. Well, Hillary won the Hispanic vote across the country and in his state along with winning the primary. What does he say when he's confronted with his own words? He says Hillary only won by a thousand votes and that her campaign was negative and Barack's speech on race was awesome.

    I started out the primary conflicted because I wanted Hillary and I want Richardson. Eventually Hillary won my vote and loyalty Richardson earned my disdain and ire.

    PS. I hope that the sexual harassment stories pushed on the Obama 527 formerly known as HuffingtonPost, during the primary are true. That should keep Richardson out of the White House.  

    Loyalty (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:08:05 PM EST
    Are loyalty oaths in now?

    Ask your guy Obama. He is making a point of driving Democrats--longstanding, loyal Democrats like John Lewis--out of the party by setting up primary challenges to them. Why? Because they supported Hillary during the primary, and because they did not fall quickly enough into line to worship at the Messiah's feet now that he's the presumptuous, er, presumptive one. Some of these people, like Lewis, have been at the forefront of the issues Obama supposedly cares about from before he even thought about running for office, but insufficient loyalty to the Messiah is apparently grounds for being bullied and purged from the party. So ask him about loyalty oaths.

    What Richardson did, the way he did it, was unconscionable, but Obama has a penchant for encouraging his supporters to be especially nasty, and for looking for ways to foment anger and hurt feelings (see Patty Solis Doyle, and the timing of the Edwards endorsement). Sure, it's politics, but it isn't necessary and it certainly reveals something unwholesome and unattractive.

    Obama's parallels to Dubya get weirder and more marked every day. This tendency to be childishly vindictive is yet another in a long, long, list of things the two have in common.

    If he picks Hillary (4.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:28:54 AM EST
    I think I'll have to vote for him.  

    I like Wes Clark, but I'd have to think about that one.  

    Anyone else:  No Deal

    Bill Richardson (3.00 / 2) (#142)
    by northeast73 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:04:38 AM EST
    is unacceptable for any position.  After his pathetic debate performances, his wishy washy mannerisms, and his lousy Obama endorsement (how's that campaign debt Bill?) forget it.

    This primary showed me that if not for the generous support of Bill Clinton, Richardson would probably be Assitant Manager of a Taco Bell right now.

    Actually... (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:19:54 AM EST
    ...the fact that hellothere has not been permanently banned after repeatedly violating the rating regulations, after some of us (myself included) conformed our conduct to comply with them is particularly troubling.  "Hellothere" has become an obnoxious troll.  I wonder if anyone else has noticed this.  

    Go back and read (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:57:48 AM EST
    all your comments on this thread.  Almost every single one of them is insulting and nasty and laden with ad hominems against commenters whose opinions you disagree with.

    Dealbreaker? (1.00 / 2) (#149)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:10:49 AM EST
    the choices are:

    1. vote for Obama even if he has a crappy VP
    2. don't vote, which is the same as a vote for mccain
    3. vote for mccain.

    mccain is insane. His bloodlust is palpable. His misogyny rages just beneath the surface. His vindictiveness and spite surpasses even bush. His mental instability, low cognitive ability, and confusion are ever-present and obvious with EVERY speech he makes. If bush is the embodiment of all the worst traits humanity has to offer consolidated in a single corporeal being, mccain is more of the same.

    Why would anything short of hitler on Obama's ticket be "a deal breaker" and even then its VP, not POTUS? Choices (1) and (2) above are false choices.

    Mega ooops (none / 0) (#151)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    "Choices (1) and (2) above..."

    SHOULD BE: "Choices (2) and (3) above..."


    Tom Daschle and Bill Richardson are like (none / 0) (#3)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:30:55 AM EST
    joke names, yes?  Hahahahahahaha!  Well, I can take a joke as well as anyone!  

    And Bill Richardson's mother-in-law in Polish, right?  Hahahahahaha!    

    Joe Biden is a great guy... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:32:43 AM EST
    I just don't see him as presidential or VP material.  I like him a lot though, and I think he should try to get Tim Russert's old job.  

    Yeah, I like Joe Biden a lot too. (none / 0) (#6)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:33:27 AM EST
    Why Jeralyn doesn't like him??

    Biden? Talk but no action. None ... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:50:24 AM EST
    to the point of just plain annoyance.

    I have never seen him more excited and happy when the disastrous terrible Lebanon war started ... for him it meant partisan U n i t y. Appalling. Foreign policy expert? I don't think so.

    Biden has acted like a fool many times in the last three decades. Examples are numerous. Anyone else remembers the Thomas hearings? Yikes! Totally overrated Big Dem IMHO. Looks like the folks on the net have rediscovered him during the primaries.  

    P.S. Anyone who was a regular guest on the Imus MSNBC Show for years and years is undeserving of my respect anyway.  

    ok just my two cents


    I heard some pundats talking about Biden (none / 0) (#159)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:18:01 AM EST
    Because he is catholic, and they thought this would help both with White catholics and latinos.

    If I remember correctly... (none / 0) (#40)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:35:53 AM EST
    it's his views on drug laws?

    I am going with Webb. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:40:49 AM EST
    I dunno, that's my Carnac guess... I guess.

    Daschle would be the closest to a deal breaker for me.

    I agree that Daschle is bad news (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:42:20 AM EST
    Worrying sign: Obama's campaign sounds a lot like I would expect it to if Daschle were running the show.

    I can't agree on the latter. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:45:25 AM EST
    I do agree Daschle would be bad news and I really don't think he could actually be on hat list. Who in their right mind would consider him after flat out refusing to fight back for his own seat.



    Obama's chief of staff (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by BestinShow on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:55:46 AM EST
    is rumored to be Daschle

    yeah, I 've always been betting on that (none / 0) (#200)
    by tben on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    ideal person for the job. Knows what all the levers are and how to work them, has contacts with everyone in DC, and by all accounts is much loved and respected by those working under him.

    don't see Daschle (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by manish on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:58:55 AM EST
    what would Daschle bring to a ticket?  He lost his Senate race a few years ago making him doubtful to bring SD (and its whopping 3 electoral college votes) into the Democratic fold.  He doesn't help with the base and he has limited appeal to swing voters.

    Daschle was sent out to support (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:59:39 AM EST
    Obama renegging on the Public Financing thing.  

    As an outsider, I felt he did a really bad job of this because he retained his smile the whole time like "Ha ha ha!  We pulled one over on you!"  

    And then he talked himself into pretzels, all the time with that same sick "We pulled one over on you" smile.  

    Whatever love I may have had for Daschle prior to that moment flew out the window then.  


    Guess what? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by tek on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:01:13 AM EST
    Daschle is running the show--he's one of the power-mongers running the Obama side show.  Who ever thought we'd see Daschle in the news again?  Appearing on Sunday morning talk shows?  It totally reminds me of Tricky Dick's comeback.

    huh (none / 0) (#24)
    by manish on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:55:59 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.

    because all of these folks as VP (a role that has little substantive power) would somehow make McCain more preferable than Obama?  Biden would be so awful that stacking the Supreme Court with more nutjobs and staying in Iraq for 100 years is preferable?

    This list is just some guy's opinion, (none / 0) (#43)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:42:09 AM EST
    and it isn't from the Obama campaign. I think he missed a lot of names that still have a decent chance.

    Jim Webb on that list is a disgrace (none / 0) (#49)
    by rottodamn on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:53:56 AM EST
    He has less political experience than Obama. I know the hard left is yelling for Webb but truth is that is too little experience on that ticket and I might not be able to support it!

    There is no "hard left" (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:05:38 AM EST
    Where on earth did this silly idea come from?  There's no "hard left" in this country, to begin with, and the folks furthest to the left aren't supporting Obama and never have.  Webb is one of the more rightward-leaning Dems in the Senate, and "the left," such as it is, is definitely not a fan of his.



    IMHO there is DEFINITELY a hard left (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by rottodamn on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:06:28 AM EST
    I describe these people as people who are ideologues who can't be reasoned with. And yes, they are as frothy and rabid as the hard right.

    I am left, left of left really and a complete secularist when it comes to matters of government business. Probably more left than most, but no I cannot deal with people who would bite the heads off of other Dems just to hijack the party.

    That is what the Christian right wing did to Republicans and quite frankly, I'm sick of the left mirroring the right. If this primary season didn't show you there is a hard left, then you must have some sort of vision impairment. And for that, I am truly sorry.


    I have no dealbreaker in this race (none / 0) (#52)
    by phat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:05:03 AM EST
    I might be worried about some of them, but really, it doesn't bother me too much, whatever happens. I suppose the Lieberman experience should tell me differently, but it doesn't.

    Sherrod Brown would be all sorts of fun for me. I don't expect it to happen, though.

    Hagel would make my life a lot easier, but I'm from Nebraska.

    Yes thank you. I am that dense (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:58:40 AM EST
    and Bloomberg is not the only one who I find offensive.

    Bloomberg... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:01:26 AM EST
    ...is many things.  Opportunist comes to mind.

     But as a deciding factor ? Hagel is one thing.  Bloomberg is quite another.


    This List Is Encouraging (none / 0) (#88)
    by bob h on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:21:36 AM EST
    to me, because it really suggests the Obama people know what they are doing.

    If Richardson is the choice (none / 0) (#104)
    by kempis on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:01:41 AM EST
    I'll still be likely to vote for the ticket, but I'll need two clothespins for my nose.

    Bloomberg isn't ANY kind of Republican. . . (none / 0) (#122)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:46:43 AM EST
    except "former", he's not affiliated with any political party (that is, he's an independent).

    Of the people on the list, he's one of the few that I would imagine is in actual consideration, along with Richardson, Biden, and Webb (the last also a former Republican but, unlike Bloomberg, a real Republican in terms of his past policies).

    Since I respect YOUR viewpoint, I will (none / 0) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:35:45 AM EST
    respond to why Bloomberg is on my list. IIRC first Bloomberg was a Democrat, then he was a Republican and now he is an Independent.   To me, Bloomberg lacks any loyalty to anything other than getting elected. Don't think a person without loyalty to the Democratic Party is a good VP choice for Obama.

    Too much of Obama's campaign appears to me to be morphing the Democratic Party into the Unity08 Party already and this is not something that I like. A Bloomberg VP selection would just be going further in that direction.

    You may not agree with my reasoning (which is fine BTW) but I normally have a reason for my opinions.  


    Really? (none / 0) (#198)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:08:35 AM EST
    To me, Bloomberg lacks any loyalty to anything other than getting elected. Don't think a person without loyalty to the Democratic Party is a good VP choice for Obama.

    It strikes me that they'd get along famously!

    Seriously, it's true that Bloomberg hasn't had an overwhelming degree of party loyalty -- although, in part, his initial decision to go Republican was due to the messed up machine politics we have in New York City that meant he would never have had any chance whatsoever in the Democratic primary no matter what his qualifications.  So while it's true that he abandoned the Democratic Party in order to get elected it's also true that the Democratic Party did not provide him, a long time loyal member, with a fair opportunity to get elected mayor.

    But, as BTD says (I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking about Bloomberg here) we ought to be true to ideals rather than parties.  And although Bloomberg's ideals may not be 100% mine, they're pretty darn good when stacked up against most politicians of either party.  And he can be counted on sticking to those ideals even when not politically popular -- if not 100% of the time, more often than other politicians.

    That said, I certainly have no problem with people who feel a prerequisite to the Democratic Party nomination for Vice President is actual membership in the Democratic Party.  My only point was to correct Alec who incorrectly stated that Bloomberg is a Republican, if not a "real" one.  In fact, he's registered independent of any policital party.


    "Rolling eyes" (none / 0) (#204)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:17:42 AM EST
    Bloomberg can call himself whatever he wants to call himself.  A NY Republican, a NY Democrat, a NY Independent...he has been all three, at one point or another.  But suggesting he would play on the national stage...well, if he had run an independent campaign I assure you he wouldn't have been picking off Republican voters.  He comes off as a NY liberal in the states where it would matter...and frankly, my criticism of him as a VP choice has nothing to do with his party affiliation, which bends with the wind.  

     He brings nothing to the table as VP.  I wouldn't think that a controversial observation.


    Bloomberg is a better Dem (none / 0) (#209)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:00:49 AM EST
    than Obama, lol!~ And he's pretty clear about where he stands on issues.

    I don't think (none / 0) (#124)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:48:09 AM EST
    Obama will take another sitting Senator.  This campaign is unusual in that the next president will actually be a sitting senator - hasn't happened since JFK and before that, I don't know when.  I predict a governor or someone else.  

    Doesn't matter- I'm still not going to vote for him.

    Balance (none / 0) (#133)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:00:07 AM EST
    If they follow the same blue print of the past, they'll have to pick someone from the Senate or House that has a lot of political captal in order to push Obama's agenda through. (As JFK and GWB did). As disgusting as I find Cheney, he was the perfect VP for GWB). In that top tier list only Biden or Hilary fit that mold. And I have several doubts about Biden's ability.

    Are these current? May 9 seems very (none / 0) (#135)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:00:34 AM EST
    long ago to me. Will Thomas is just speculating here anyway. Anyone know of any more recent odds on likely picks?

    No Deal Breakers For Me (none / 0) (#140)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:03:38 AM EST
    I have never voted for anyone that wasn't the Democratic candidate for president so there are no deal breakers for me.

    Given a choice I would pass on Bill Richardson though. He reminds me a bit of a smarmy used car salesman, kind of the same way I always viewed Homeland Security Rainbow Man Tom Ridge...but that being said, a VP choice has never effected my vote. Hell, I voted when Lieberman was on the ticket and his self-righteous whiny babble made me (and still makes me) want to puke.

    if you google Clark Obama adviser (none / 0) (#169)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:27:08 AM EST
    you will find that Clark is described with terms like

    "Wesley Clark, a key military adviser for Barack Obama"

    That makes Clark a formal member of the Obama campaign.

    It's rather disingenuos for you to continue to deny it.

    Webb's Senate win. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:27:56 AM EST
    His margin was very small but he didn't win just because of Allen's Macaca moment. Repubs still loved Allen. Also, the anti-gay marriage amendment was on that ballot which energized Repubs and conservatives. He was able to win with an energized GLBT and liberal Dem electorate and that is a good thing for Dems in the fall. He also appealled to Reagan Dems and moderates. And he won despite being a terrible campaigner!

    Not trying to sell him as VP. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:37:55 AM EST
    I like him where he is.

    The dealbreaker for me (none / 0) (#192)
    by Montague on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:03:16 AM EST
    is at the top of the ticket.

    What about Bob? (none / 0) (#202)
    by Exeter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:17:24 AM EST
    As in former Florida Sen. Bob Graham? He opposed Iraq from the beginning and used to be chair of the Intelligence committee.

    there is no such thing (none / 0) (#211)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    as a "reagan democrat", they're republicans.

    when someone, in whatever field, helps you out, stabbing them in the back is considered gauche. they don't own you, but you do owe them the courtesy of knifing them from the front.

    bill richardson, in his treatment of sen. clinton, displayed all the characteristics that explain why he's forever going to be a "C" list politician, at best.

    anyone too dense to understand that concept isn't worth attempting to simplify it any more to.

    Joe Biden (none / 0) (#212)
    by baked potato on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    would be great to do his hand-wringing routine while Obama lets our civil rights slip further away and blames it on the need for "more security."

    Richardson (none / 0) (#213)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:31:24 AM EST
    When Richardson endorsed Obama, I believed the only reason Richardson would defect from the Clintons was because he was promised the VP slot.

    Also, Richardson is the only one of that top tier who wouldn't appear to be stronger than Obama.  I believe Obama's advisors will be careful to choose someone who won't make Obama look weak, and that this will be more important to them than experience, military service, economic expertise, etc.

    So I think Richardson was chosen early on, and they believed he could deliver the Hispanic vote.  Now that Obama is doing well with Hispanics, Richardson may go by the wayside, who knows?  I still think Clinton is his best choice, but I don't think it will happen.  They'll flirt with it for as long as possible to try to bring her voters over to him, but in the end, I think they will do everything possible to avoid choosing her.  It's a shame, in a way, but on the other hand, if I were Clinton, I don't think I'd want the job because I think she'd be treated poorly.

    It's pretty funny (none / 0) (#214)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:45:24 AM EST
    The allegation from the Clinton camp is that Obama promised Bill Clinton to his face, multiple times, that he would not endorse Obama.

    True or false, that's their story.  (In fact, Richardson's reaction made it pretty clear the story is true.)  That's why they call him names for going back on his word.

    This is about a promise Richardson made to Clinton during this campaign, not about "a job Clinton gave Richardson in the 90s."  Enough with that strawman.

    Iraq war auithorization? (none / 0) (#215)
    by sallywally on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    How many voted for this or supported the war?.....lots of them were not in the congress at the time, or weren't in a position to vote...

    I know Biden voted "for the war" because I sat screaming at the TV when after authorizing the use of force he went on and on that he really hoped Bush would not use force....DUH! Of course Bush was going to go right to war on this.

    But like Clinton, he voted for it under the delusional hope that W would not use it as an excuse to go ahead and attack.

    Re: McCain's bloodlust - no doubt true.

    But I think Obama also has a huge cauldron of rage just beneath the surface. Don't know why, just have that feeling.

    Daschle, Sebelius and Hagel (none / 0) (#216)
    by esmense on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM EST
    would be deal breakers for me.

    I would also be very disappointed if Webb, Brown or Schweitzer accepted the position -- I like all 3 and think they can be more effective elsewhere. I fear their political futures wouldn't benefit from, and might even be harmed by, the VP nominaton.

    I'd be shocked, (none / 0) (#217)
    by mkevinf on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    shocked! if Ed Rendell, our governor in PA, were on that list, as he was very clear the the Democratic party was nominating the weaker candidate.
    I agree with other posters re: Richardson, it's an offensive selection.
    Wes Clark would be my choice, but given his honesty and Obama's silly distancing himself from that honesty, Wes is out.
    I don't see Hillary being asked or taking it if she is asked.
    I think he'll play it safe with Bayh or someone like that.
    Play it safe is what he does well.

    My general belief is follow the money........ (none / 0) (#218)
    by Kefa on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    and it leads to Hillary and her money backers.....VP if she wants it. IMHO.

    I'm voting Democratic (none / 0) (#219)
    by McKinless on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    I'm not particularly fond of BO, and may not like his VP pick. But the worst of them is a far cry better than John McCain.

    Obama's Choices For VP (none / 0) (#221)
    by waveonshore on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:23:46 AM EST
    I think the only way Obama can break into a sizeable lead in the polls and win the election is with Hillary Clinton on the ticket. Let's support a ticket with TWO great people.