The Veep Pick: Gore In 92

There is not much I agree with in Kos' post on Obama's potential veep pick. But one part really bothered me - his discussion of Bill Clinton's choice of Al Gore as his running mate. Kos writes:

Bill Clinton had it right, actually -- he bucked conventional wisdom ("must choose a northerner to 'balance out' the ticket") and chose another southern Dem (Al Gore) who reinforced his core message -- that he was a "new" kind of Democrat different from those northern urban elites. And they looked great together.
What Kos seems to forget is Al Gore was an experienced Washington legislator, 8 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate, with his own Presidential run in 1988 under his belt, when Bill Clinton tapped him for VP. To compare Al Gore in 1992 to Claire McCaskill, a first term Senator or Tim Kaine, a first term Governor, is simply ridiculous. Sure, the chemistry was important. Sure, the "new" Democrat message was reinforced. But most importantly, no one thought Al Gore was not qualified to be President. He was a well known commodity -- a respected statesman in his own right in 1992.

Let's compare Gore's 1992 bio to Claire McCaskill and Tim Kaine's today on the flip.

Al Gore:

In 1974, he enrolled in Vanderbiltís law school. Just two years later, he began to campaign for the Democratic nomination for Tennesseeís Fourth District congressional seat. When he won the nomination over Stanley Rogers, it was a big enough success to predict his win in the 1976 general election. After serving four terms, Gore jumped at the chance to fill the open Tennessee senatorial seat. He won the election in 1984. Among other things, Gore was particularly active in environmental issues. He played an integral role in the creation and passage of the 1980 Superfund bill to clean up chemical spills and dangerous land dumps. He has also worked for nuclear disarmament.

In 1988, Gore made a bid for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. He won five southern states on Super Tuesday, but eventually lost to Michael Dukakis. Gore remained in the Senate until presidential candidate Bill Clinton chose him as his running mate in 1992.

Claire McCaskill:

Claire broke new ground again in 1993 when she became the first female Jackson County Prosecutor, a position she held until she was sworn in as Missouri Auditor in 1999.

As State Auditor, Claire has been credited for revolutionizing the office and making it into a true watchdog for taxpayers and citizens. In 2004, Claire took on her own party establishment and became the first person to ever defeat a sitting Missouri governor in a primary election.

McCaskill lost the race for Governor in 2004. then she ran and won the race for Senate in 2006, defeating Jim Talent in a tough race. She has not yet served 2 years in the Senate. So to recap, McCaskill was the Jackson County Prosecutor for 6 six years, the State Auditor of Missouri for 4 years and United States Senator from Missouri for less than 2. No Al Gore she.

Tim Kaine:

Governor Kaine entered political life in 1994 and was elected to four terms on the City Council, including two terms as Richmondís mayor, where he worked to build Richmondís first new schools in a generation, cut taxes and slash the cityís crime rate. Richmondís success in reducing violent crime won national recognition from Presidents Clinton and Bush and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The improvements in Richmondís economy during Kaineís tenure earned the city its first-ever listing in Forbes Magazineís annual ranking of the top 10 cities in America for doing business.

Governor Kaine was elected Virginiaís Lieutenant Governor in 2001. He worked for four years with Governor Mark Warner to reform the stateís budget and invest new resources in education.

Kaine was elected Governor of Virginia in 2005. to recap, Kaine was a City Councilman in Richmond for 4 terms, a two term Mayor of Richmond, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia for 4 years and Governor of Virginia for 3 years. No Al Gore there.

There are certainly persons with more experience than Al Gore in 1992 or Hillary Clinton now who Obama can consider. Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Russ Feingold, etc. Tim Kaine, Claire McCaskill and Kathleen Sebelius are not those people.

Compare them to whomever you like, but do not for a moment equate them to Bill Clinton's choice of Al Gore in 1992. Not even in the ballpark.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< USAToday/Gallup Poll: McCain By 4 Among "LVs" | Accountability >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think it's the wrong comparison (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by sj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:13:18 PM EST
    Al Gore's resume suited Clinton's perfectly.  They were both very accomplished.  If you look at it that way, first-term Senator or Governer is the perfect analogue.


    agreed (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    They were both massively accomplished men with southern accents.

    And they beat Bush badly on the map.


    Gore was also (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:37:16 PM EST
    a VP who was given a voice in the Clinton administration.

    As a dem, I was happy, despite the bulls**t.  We've come to understand what was going on there, haven't we.

    We got the worst president ever, 9/11, and a recession/depression.

    Poor America.

    Obama, make your choice for VP a wise one, or your're toast.


    Ack! (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST
    I forgot the worst aspect of Bush:



    But there was no analogue (none / 0) (#110)
    by Truth Sayer on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:44:06 PM EST
    If you read Kos' post he didn't compare Gore to the others Big Tent mentioned in terms of first-term of anything. He compared them to Gore as the "best candidate that reinforces his message and complements his personality" - meaning both Clintons and Obama's message and personality.

    I don't understand the purpose of saying Kos said what he didn't say. Big Tent did the same thing with an earlier post in miscommunicating what the author of the American Spectator article was linking to Pew about. What's up with that?

    That said I agree with your post. It would be sad to have tow untested, unproven people in the WH during these times.


    The point is (5.00 / 10) (#119)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:50:47 PM EST
    Bill Clinton picked someone with a singularly impressive resume.  He didn't just pick someone who vaguely matched his demographic profile, even if that was the media narrative.

    I can't believe we've come to the point of saying "Clinton picked Gore, so Obama who has no experience ought to pick someone else who has no experience!"  Kos' post makes me feel like I'm through the looking-glass.


    Agree (none / 0) (#124)
    by Truth Sayer on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:55:33 PM EST
    But I'm still baffled by the miscommunication of what Kos said. There was plenty to talk about in his post without...well you know.

    Amazing (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:08:14 PM EST
    I spoke about something incredibly important about the Gore pick and you complain because I could have discussed something else? You can not be serious.

    Well (none / 0) (#139)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:13:56 PM EST
    you are criticizing a mischaracterization of Kos that doesn't actually exist anywhere in this post.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:07:06 PM EST
    Because there was more to the Gore pick than what Kos wrote. That was my point.

    I am shocked that you need it explained to you.


    Who could Obama pick as VP (5.00 / 16) (#2)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:13:53 PM EST
    who isn't more qualified than he is?

    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    Claire McCaskill (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    Claire (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:40:37 PM EST
    Doesn't strike me as one of the "sharpest tools in the shed"

    No choice for VP (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:54:16 PM EST
    would energize the PUMAs more than Claire - unless Obama asks Donna B.

    McCaskill for one.. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST
    Kos says she "completely fits the bill."

    She Voted for FISA (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    and just about every other Bush authoritarian measure.  If that's the bill, then she fits it.

    If Kos starts shilling for McCaskill..... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    ....he's a lost cause.

    Then he is lost. (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    Of the most recently elected senators, McCaskill completely fits the bill -- a great surrogate for Obama and a fresh face in politics

    I've got several people on my list of veep possibilities that would certainly reinforce Obama's core message of change, and several are women (mainly Sebelius and McCaskill).

    At this rate (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:28:18 PM EST
    next, Kos will be recommending Tim Pawlenty-o-nothing for VP!

    Well what does that tell you (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Truth Sayer on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:48:38 PM EST
    about Kos? When I used to post there before the site went radical I used to read some of what he wrote and could only scratch my head.

    I'm sure he is a nice guy but a political analyst he is not.


    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    I think Daley Obama would be kinda interesting. Oh hang on Obama Daley....he could reregister residency in wyoming....oh hang on.

    If McCaskill is VP nominee (none / 0) (#93)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    I am sending money to McCain.

    If Kaine is the VP nominee (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Josey on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:09:06 PM EST
    wouldn't the VA Repub Lt. Gov become governor?

    Josey- good point, but (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by kenosharick on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:06:21 PM EST
    you realize of course the Obama campaign does not care about that- only what is best for Obama!!!

    Clinton family not team players? (5.00 / 12) (#162)
    by Lysis on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    They've done more for the team and taken more hits for the team than any politicians in the past forty years.

    Whether you define "team" as the Democratic party, which you seem to do, or plain old Americans, as I do, they've been on our side.  Characterizing them as anything less is shamefully ignorant of reality.  


    Clinton versus the team (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by diogenes on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was president for eight years, but the party went down for the count in the Congressional elections in 1994 and remained so to the end of his term.  Bill Clinton might have been good for the country.  The Democratic party, not so much.

    Perhaps. . . (5.00 / 11) (#174)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:01:04 PM EST
    He has lived in other countries and understands well that people living in different environments have different views of the same situations which means he has more foreign experience than most .

    the single silliest comment I've ever read on the Internet (and that's coming from someone who believes it's a good thing to live overseas).


    "He has lived in other countries"... (5.00 / 8) (#178)
    by camellia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    ...???? He has lived in ONE other country as a CHILD!   Does a ten-year old have a sophisticated understanding of how other people think?  As for "team players", I suspect that he is less of a team player than almost anyone on the political landscape today.  Unless it's Team Obama.

    Well.......... (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:14:41 PM EST
    As a Virginian, I can say that having Tim Kaine on the ticket will do absolutely nothing for me and my vote or my husband's for that matter. You already know my position though. There is only ONE candidate that will help me overcome my aversion to voting for Obama and put me squarely up for play, VP wise. Just one. Obama would probably have to swallow his pride to get her though and he might need to apply some duct tape to a number of his supporters' mouths(which would be a bonus from where I'm sitting). Otherwise, I'm gonna be coy and play really, really, really hard to get.

    Sadly it seems that Kaine is much more (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:46:38 PM EST
    likely to be VP than Clinton (even though he's pro-life). Do you think that Kaine would help Obama win Virginia? I read somewhere that he wasn't even that popular.

    I will make this bet (5.00 / 11) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:49:09 PM EST
    if he passes over Hillary and picks a pro-lifer he is toast.  

    I won't take that bet (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:50:51 PM EST
    because I agree. He will be through if he doesn't pick her.

    I suppose there are other choices (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:53:50 PM EST
    that would not doom him.  but they are not pro-life.

    A pro-lifer would doom him (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    but I don't believe any VP pick other than clinton can help him win. I am of the thought that if he doesn't choose her there will be many voters who jump ship.

    I have long thought that the reason he is doing so well in the polls is that in large part most people believe Clinton will be his VP. she made it clear he would be hers they just assume the reverse is true. When it becomes clear it isn't...well...


    Just yesterday I had lunch with (none / 0) (#97)
    by camellia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:35:34 PM EST
    my son-in-law -- a confirmed redneck.  Apropos of nothing at all, he opined that he hopes Obama picks Hillary as his VP, because "that will make sure he loses".   Unfortunately, he (my SIL) is not all that unusual here in old Virginia.

    So what? (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:40:52 PM EST
    Virginia won't go blue.

    Well, we'll see, (none / 0) (#109)
    by camellia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    won't we?

    I hope you don't think (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:44:53 PM EST

    Delusional is no way to go through life.


    Actually, (none / 0) (#114)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    I think I misread your post.

    If I did, apologies.


    If he doesn't pick Hillary, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:41:41 PM EST
    he's toast.

    That's what I think, but (none / 0) (#68)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    Kos says Hillary "doesn't qualify" and Kaine would be and "excellent choice."

    And he calls Clinton supporters (5.00 / 11) (#88)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:27:46 PM EST

    {hands Kos a mirror}


    I'd like to have (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:42:45 PM EST
    a one-on-one discussion with Kos.

    He's wrong.  As wrong as one person could be.


    Virginians are pretty disappointed (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    in him currently. He hasn't been able to get anything done on our transportation problems. Of course, Repubs are pretty stubborn and numerous. He certainly doesn't meet the "results" test Kos mentions. He hasn't really done anything for progressives here who are probably the most unhappy with him. Don't think he adds much to the ticket but he would probably accept if offered because there won't be a Senate seat available(yeah!) when his gov. term is up.

    Mmmm- kind of (none / 0) (#103)
    by camellia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:39:48 PM EST
    agree, but not entirely.  He has a really stubborn group of republicans in the state legislature, and they are really determined to push NoVa to the wall with traffic and transportation problems.   But -- I agree that he hasn't done much else, and he isn't very appealing personality-wise.  I used to get aggravated when he was Lt.Gov and he would send me "Timmo memos"- self-promoting emails.  Sheesh!  "Timmo"?  

    Agreed...Kaine's not going to help (none / 0) (#146)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:23:57 PM EST
    Warner might. But Kaine's taken a real hit on the road/budget debacle.

    He's just not got the same...je ne sais quoi that Warner had.


    It seems to me (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:17:24 PM EST
    that the most revealing thing about the Gore selection is that it proved Clinton was not afraid to have a dynamic, super-smart individual on the team, even though that would result in far more disagreements than merely choosing a potted plant like Dan Quayle.

    It was actually Jimmy Carter who pioneered the notion of using the VP's constitutional office as a useful power center.  I hope we will continue in that tradition because there's a lot of work to be done.

    The combination of youth and dynamism with a resume as impressive as Al Gore's was in 1992 is something that's not easy to find, and I'm not sure who the heck would fit that profile today.

    Al Gore? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    Hee hee (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    Al Gore is now our wise elder statesman, though!

    You could find any number of experienced Democrats to lend gravitas to the ticket - Gore, Biden, or even SWSNBN - but balancing the ticket in that way is exactly what the "conventional wisdom" would suggest.  It's like Bush and Cheney, with less evil.


    to wise to take it IMO (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    and you point about Clinton and Gore is spot on.
    they were great together.  its hard to imagine anyone who would complete Obama in quite the same way.

    There is no Al Gore (5.00 / 13) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:22:33 PM EST
    available. the reality is Hillary Clinton comes closest to filling the bill.

    If she had not run against Obama. She would be the obvious choice, should be the obvious choice anyway.


    honestly (5.00 / 11) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:27:43 PM EST
    it seems more and more obvious every day.  if he does not pick her, and I believe that even though it seem more like common sense every day - he will not, it will reinforce every doubt I ever had about his judgment.

    Opposing counsel, who is an African (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:51:48 PM EST
    American male, said today Clinton would be a good pick, if only she hadn't sd. Obama isn't qualified to be Commander in Chief.  I sd., but that isn't what she sd.,  She sd. ask Sen. Obama.  He already knew that.  He is an Obama supporter.  

    If we assume (5.00 / 9) (#44)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:53:26 PM EST
    that it will not be Hillary, or Wes Clark, then I think Joe Biden would be the standout pick to help Obama with the voters he has the most trouble with.  By which I mean, the older voters who value experience and want to see a familiar name in that #2 slot.  Biden would also be a great campaigner for Obama - look how he made Rudy into a laughingstock - and maybe progressives would stop calling him racist.

    There was a great diary by desmoinesdem at MyDD a couple days ago, commenting on the fact that none of the "leaks" regarding Obama's VP selection have even hinted that any progressive names are in the mix and suggesting that the reason is: progressives simply aren't putting any pressure on Obama to pick a progressive!  Well, yeah, that is the problem isn't it.


    That is the post Kos is responding to (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:55:38 PM EST
    Oh Lord (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:59:48 PM EST
    Indeed it is!  I had no idea.

    In fairness to Kos, desmoinesdem's diary has about 100 responses from Obama supporters who don't get it either.  So as popular as it is to bash Kos for not understanding the female perspective, it seems he has a lot of company here.

    Desmoinesdem is not even a Clinton supporter, for the love of God, and yet they treat her like she's making some PUMA threat when she's simply offering an empirical observation.  All I had to do is ask my wife what her reaction would be if someone like Sebelius were the pick.  It really shouldn't be that hard to understand that yes, there will be lots of resentment, and yes, everyone will think that choosing a female is all about Hillary, no matter how much you stamp your feet and say it shouldn't be that way!


    Desi was an Edwards precinct captain in Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    So there's no obvious ax to grind on her part.

    KOS is responding (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:48:24 PM EST
    to the lack of progrsssive pressure for VP choice by suggesting Claire Mc?  WTF

    Biden would be (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:02:12 PM EST
    interest8ing in the Chinese sense of "interesting times".    He suggested Iraq ought to be turned into three states.  That is so at odds with reality it make Obama look like a seer.

    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:08:57 PM EST
    Biden's plan was consistent with the Iraqi constitution and was not nearly as far out as you seem to think.

    This is something that would happen only if the Iraqis wanted it, not a solution we would force on them as a foreign sovereign.  It's not like the boundaries drawn by the British way back when are particular special or unchangeable.

    Iraq is such a mess that I have absolutely no problem with someone who is willing to think outside the box.  And Joe Biden is one of those people who makes me think, if I don't agree with him on a matter of foreign policy, maybe it's me who is missing something rather than him.


    I tend to think his (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:23:40 PM EST
    idea was a disasterous as partition in India.

    I toyed with the idea of partition... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:25:14 PM EST
    ...myself and then I looked into the various examples of such events and realized that it was a recipe for massacres and the sort of fanatical hatred that you see between Pakistan and India.

    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:28:24 PM EST
    partition only works as you said if all parties agree and are basically doing it in a spirit of commity. Like the modern Czech partition. the reality is that that partition encourages racial suppremacy and creates the religious zealots who  do things they'd otherwise avoid.

    See the wierdo Radovan Karadic.


    It kinda made sense... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:36:59 PM EST
    in a federated states of Iraq (with Baghdad being a sort of centralized gov't) kind of way.

    His supporters on the prog-blogs (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    are pressuring him- they're pressuring him to not pick Hillary.

    So they're pressuring him, so what? (5.00 / 8) (#132)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    Obama flipped them off with his vote on FISA, and they came back for more. His hardcore supporters aren't ever going to desert him. They will always find a way to justify his actions. As soon as Obama announces his pick for veep, that person will be hailed as the most brilliant of all possible choices, if only because all of Obama's choices are the most brilliant.

    That reminds me: (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    Sadly, those so-called """progessive bloggers"""  would flip easier with the pick of Hillary than with the turnaround on FISA.  

    Mark my words.  His pick of Hillary will take the polish off him in no time.  Despite what they claim to be, the likes of 'kos' are united in their CDS.  

    I have not seen Markos display any principles whatsoever, and people without principles who just 'want to win' are a mini version of Nixon, no matter how they try to convince themselves otherwise.


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:37:02 PM EST
    back when it looked like Hillary would surely be the nominee, Markos was quite clearly laying the groundwork to support her, making it clear on the front page how wonderful all our candidates were and so forth.

    He would have had quite a war with his Clinton-hating denizens, but I think he was prepared to fight that war lest his successful site be doomed to perpetual irrelevance.


    A few things about Biden (none / 0) (#96)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:35:06 PM EST
    as VP that need to be considered:  1) he's a motormouth and very gaffe-prone, 2) his D.C. Dem Establishment profile fairly shouts out Anti-Change, 3) his pro-Iraq War vote, and 4) the unfortunate business over plagiarism which came out in the 88 race would be resurrected.  Just a few downside items to chew on about Joe.

    The positives you mention are no doubt true.  But he's one of the worst picks possible if you want to seriously undecut and virtually toss out a winning theme of Change.  

    Sebelius has many positives, including (unlike the thin-resumed Kaine) two terms as gov, to go with other significant gov'l experience, and in a very Repub state.   And we don't lose a senate seat or even a governor's seat.  The major downside with her -- almost the only one worthy of discussion -- is with some of the Only Hillary Is Allowed to Break the Glass Ceiling! folks.  As with the several PUMAs, I think much of the No Woman but Hillary position is being wildly overrepresented in the progosphere.

    In the end, as with the unusual center-right Veep choices from 1960 and 2000 which temporarily upset many on the Dem left, most folks will come around in Nov with an Obama/Sebelius ticket.  Especially since Sebelius is one of the more lib of O's possible picks at this point.



    Guess what...we're "not coming around" (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:41:50 PM EST
    to Obama...anytime.  With or without Sebelius, Kaine, Biden or Clinton.

    Sebelius (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:45:30 PM EST
    after knocking Clinton out like that seems creepy.   It's like a Pod party.

    Sure, folk could be convinced on the left but sheesh. It's like having a bad photo copy of Clinton.


    "Change" is vapid (5.00 / 9) (#113)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:45:58 PM EST
    Every politician has promised change since time immemorial, and the sooner Obama supporters get over the ridiculous notion that he discovered a political Rosetta Stone by making "change" his campaign theme the better off we will all be.

    The "change" people are Obama's base, and I am hardly worried that millions of college students will lose their enthusiasm for Obama because he picked some old-guy Senator to be his VP.  No one thinks like that.  But for the people who aren't particularly about "change," particularly the older voters who want to see some semblance of experience around the ticket, it would be awfully smart to pick someone like Biden.

    Obama's highest-profile endorser during the primary was Ted Kennedy.  Does Ted Kennedy represent change?  Was Obama's message magically undermined by having Ted Kennedy say "this is the guy to change Washington for the better"?  Please.  "Oh no, Obama isn't allowed to pick anyone with any experience whatsoever, it will ruin his awesome CHANGE message!"


    Is Ted Kennedy going (none / 0) (#128)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    to be picked for Veep?  Sorry, that's not how these things are evaluated and perceived.

    Who goes on the ticket matters as to promoting the campaign's theme, not the many surrogates and supporters.

    As for Change as a theme, it's of no consequence what some disgruntled onliners think about its style over substance qualities so long as the packaging seems to work out there on the hustings.  And so far, the hustings folks seem to want to embrace it, or shake hands with it -- or at least say Howdy!  'Bout time we had someone new in this town!


    You have it backwards (5.00 / 7) (#138)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    People do not like Obama because they want some nebulous concept called "change."  People say they want change because they like Obama and change happens to be the word he was selling.

    If Obama were a long-time political veteran emphasizing his experience, and Hillary were a fresh-faced state legislator calling for change, the election results would not have been reversed.  People voted for the candidates, they didn't vote for nouns.

    The idea that a candidate must be true to his chosen noun in preference to every other political consideration is just bizarre.  Can you name me some of those people who will lose faith in Obama's ability to deliver change if he picks an experienced VP?  Do you really think there's no damage whatsoever to Obama's theme of change when he gets endorsed by one long-time Washington insider after another, but if he chooses a VP who isn't changerrific enough, suddenly the whole thing comes crashing down?

    This is not political analysis.  It is pop psychology.


    I don't think this is entirely true. (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:37:51 PM EST
    If Obama were a long-time political veteran emphasizing his experience, and Hillary were a fresh-faced state legislator calling for change, the election results would not have been reversed.  People voted for the candidates, they didn't vote for nouns.

    I think some people try to stay in fashion by always wanting the new thing -- especially when they are able to project their own opinions onto the new candidate.  I think that's what happened to some extent with Obama and the so-called activist base, or netroots, or whatever you want to call it.  It didn't hurt, of course, that Obama is a very good candidate and politician and was more than happy to ride the "different kind of change politician" meme.

    But I imagine the same people will feel quite differently after two years of an Obama administration -- and not because he radically changes his positions but simply because they'll have grown tired of the last new thing and be on to the next new thing.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:42:05 PM EST
    I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but I hope you take my point as well.  Obama didn't win because he invented the idea of change.

    Maybe we will have a cute situation a couple of decades down the road, where some upstart young Dem is talking about how President Obama was such a sellout, and I'll be in the position of defending all the positive, incremental things he accomplished, just like with President Clinton.  Or maybe not!


    I think it is wildly underrepresented. (5.00 / 11) (#120)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:51:15 PM EST
    Why can't you all get this? Would any somewhat qualified AA male have satisfied Obama supporters if it was the other way around?

    My extended family is very active politically and I think they are more representative than anything I read on blogs. They don't read them or post on them.

    And Hillary worked her butt off to crack that ceiling and she deserves this position over any woman period. There may be plenty of men as qualified as she is but I can't think of any woman how has proven herself the way Hillary has. Any woman chosen that isn't her will be chosen only because she is a woman and not because she is the most practical proven choice.


    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:34:03 PM EST
    This notion that the candiates must have 'chemistry' is something that is more appropriate to The Bachelor than to selecting a VP.  These people are professionals and should be able to work together for the good of party goals.  Obama should be selecting the most qualified person he can find for VPOTUS, someone who will both support policy goals and challenge him when needed.  No yes people need apply. We've had enough of that for eight years.  I can't even believe McCaskill is being seriously considered.  It's like the a Dem Bizarro World these days.  Up is down. Down is up.  Worlds are colliding!

    Yep, Hillary did blaze the trail. (none / 0) (#129)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:03:11 PM EST
    Huge credit for that.

    But politics is a tough businesss.  And there are other considerations for the positoin of Veep besides mere resume-oriented ones.  Like feeling personally comfortable in working with the person, on the stump and once in office particularly.

    It's just that, as I've noted here, the proper groundwork for a Sebelius pick hasn't quite been laid yet.  One important step there -- Hillary herself noting that she doesn't want the job/has already had sorta that job, for 8 yrs, etc -- would seem to be a crucial part of the prep process.  

    Still a few more weeks to go, however, and so it could still happen.


    You keep saying it needs to be someone (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:10:51 PM EST
    Obama feels comfortable with but at some point he needs to consider who the voters feel comfortable with, too. He polls far better against McCain with her on the ticket than he does without her.

    If she doesn't want it, this conversation is meaningless but I haven't heard the people close to her imply that.


    Every time (5.00 / 10) (#142)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:18:37 PM EST
    that I saw Hillary and Obama together they seemed totally comfortable with one another, actually.

    I have never seen Obama and Kathleen Sebelius in the same room, nor have most people, I'm guessing, but somehow it's received wisdom that the two of them are long-lost soulmates who complete each other's sentences.  Maybe they were once stranded on a deserted island and had to work together to build a life raft, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to cover that aspect of their backgrounds.  So maybe when people talk about what a great pick Sebelius would be because she works so well with Obama, and how Clinton would be a bad pick because she simply doesn't have the chemistry, they're basing it on nothing more than random puffery from the same media that sold us the Iraq war.


    You can't judge by mere appearance. (none / 0) (#153)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:30:55 PM EST
    Pols, the good ones anyway, can act, at least to the level of being able to fake enjoying being in the temporary presence of a former tough opponent whose tactics (in the view of the other camp) weren't always appreciated.

    Happened in 1960, when Jack Kennedy found himself stuck with Lyndon, and the two of them, in several joint appearances, had to pretend they enjoyed each other's company, how much they respected each other, what good friends they were, etc add nozz.

    Once in office though, it was a horrible relationship -- which got even worse in the 3d and final year of that forced partnership.

    Carter picked Mondale after a grueling set of lengthy interviews with potentials -- Fritz was the guy he felt most comfortable with sitting down and going over matters in detail.  

    The Clintons and the Gores hit it off when they met for the final round of talks in 92.

    Kerry made a mistake in not picking the guy he felt most personally sympatico with -- Dick Gephardt (sic).  As it turned out, Edwards very much underperformed as a #2 -- and rumors are he wasn't always loyal in carrying out Kerry campaign directives.


    You forgot (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:35:07 PM EST
    to get around to the part where you illustrate that Obama and Clinton do, in fact, lack chemistry.  In lieu of any evidence, all I can go by is what I see.  Other people seem to claim some mystical knowledge that derives from God knows where.

    This much I know, if the best argument against chemistry is the Kennedy-Johnson combo, then I'm against chemistry.  Not only would JFK have almost certainly lost the election without Johnson, but we got more progressive legislation from Kennedy and Johnson than from anyone else since FDR.  If the price was that the two of them were forced to endure some awkward moments in the locker room after the game, that's kind of irrelevant to me.


    JFK-LBJ is a unique (none / 0) (#173)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:00:28 PM EST
    situation in that it's the only pairing I know of in modern political history which was not intended -- an unfortunate accident from the perspective of the Kennedy camp, which turned out well for them (though we can only speculate about how other picks might have faired) in the election, but not thereafter.

    It was also always going to shape up as a close election, given Kennedy's religion mostly, which indeed ended up hurting him in the PV as Protestant Dems failed to support him in the numbers that had been there reliably for HST and FDR.

    This yr, a solidly Dem one, ours to lose, Obama is right to decide on factors other than picking up one additional state in the EC.  

    For sure, the getting elected part has priority over mere working chemistry.  But I don't see how the appealing Sebelius -- helps in the MW, and with WWC and older types -- would do other than help him win the WH.


    She would certainly help the insomniacs (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:10:01 PM EST
    She's one of the most deadly dull speakers I've heard in recent years.

    And the idea that they were ever (none / 0) (#199)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:08:04 PM EST
    able to successfully fake being comfortable together is really ludicrous.  They were always visibily uncomfortable and as I remember stayed generally away from each other during the campaign.

    This idea that the presidential candidate has to be "comfortable" with the VP pick is pretty silly, IMHO.


    That VP polling is name ID (none / 0) (#145)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:22:44 PM EST
    mostly.  And (my primary fave) Hillary as #2 really cuts both ways with the electorate -- strong upside and strong downside.

    Sebelius would immediately, w/n just a few days, become nearly as well-known as Hillary.  She also wouldn't have the significant downside that HRC has built up over 16 yrs including the fairly brutal skirmishing in the primaries with the Obamaites.

    I like the way KS would come to the party with far more of a clean slate than nearly any other potential candidate.  

    Not much of a risk, since she's fairly experienced and has political genes, and yet a bold stroke.  


    I see nothing bold about her brodie. (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:35:32 PM EST
    And Clinton's VP polling isn't just name recognition...she did win an awfully lot of votes.

    Put Sebelius and Hillary in a debate together or a primary together and I have no doubt who would win. Hillary has such a strong personality that KS would pale beside her.

    I don't think Obama will pick her but I do think he is making a huge mistake if he picks Sebelius (though I would prefer her to McCaskill).


    Wow!!! (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:38:26 PM EST
    "Within just a few days, Kathleen Sebelius would become almost as well-known as Hillary."



    That is exactly what I was thinking: WHAT??? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by bridget on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:42:20 PM EST
    Some exaggeration, for sure, (none / 0) (#170)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:51:08 PM EST
    since HRC's ID #s are about as high as it gets, but the point being that O's pick would quickly become very well known across this great land of ours, including out there among the great unwashed.

    It would be a huge story -- far more so than a ho-hum pick like, say, Bayh or Kaine or Biden -- the usual white guy suspects.

    People will like her -- fresh attractive face, smart, experienced and w/o any negative baggage I can detect.  A few temporarily will be angry it wasn't Hillary -- and most will come around in time for Nov.


    Define "most" (5.00 / 8) (#176)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:03:42 PM EST
    If you mean more than half, I agree with you. If you mean an overwhelming majority, then it's wishful thinking on your part. Sebelius will not bring the disaffected Democrats back into the fold in large numbers. She wouldn't be the huge turn off that McCaskill would be, but she wouldn't be a draw either.

    Uh (5.00 / 6) (#184)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:19:06 PM EST
    You vastly, vastly, vastly overestimate the media's interest in educating us all about the details of Kathleen Sebelius' life and career.

    I also think the "most will come around" locution is pretty glib coming from the mouth of someone who has long since come around, and it's more than a little insensitive.  No one likes to be told that they're being taken for granted, and that kind of cheap little jibe is the kind of thing that just entrenches people's resistance that much more.


    Wow. First, you seem to (none / 0) (#191)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:35:34 PM EST
    be resisting the fairly obvious, namely that an historic Sebelius pick for an historic nominee would cause double the normal headlines for a Veep selection.  Maybe even triple points.  

    The MCM not only gets the Doubly Historic Ticket angle, but it gets the And She Wasn't Hillary!  story.

    As for insensitive, it just seems to me you are being a little too eager to complain about hurt feelings, especially on behalf of future nameless others.

    Now, it's not a matter of taking anyone for granted, but merely noting how most HRC backers, it would appear from the polling, have in fact come around after 6-7 weeks, with another 3-4 weeks still to go before the convention.

    I don't doubt some Hillary supporters will be disappointed with a KS not HRC choice, but I'm not really here to fret about some people's supposed sensitive feelings about such and such a pick.  Calls 'em likes I seize 'em, that's all.

    Sebelius makes the most sense for O, almost the closest thing this cycle to an Al Gore-type pick (except for the age difference), and Dems will rally around the ticket in the end ...


    My goodness (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:25:11 PM EST
    You might be the first and last Sebelius Cultist ever.  Claiming she'll be almost as well-known as Hillary within a few days of being picked?  Comparing her to Al Gore?  Please.

    I do not deny the existence of the And She Wasn't Hillary! story, since that's the very point I started out with.  What you don't seem to realize is that 99% of America will never know any more about her than that she's a woman who isn't Hillary.  Just because she is historic (historic in the sense of being second, I guess) doesn't mean that people are going to be interested in learning all about her Kansas political biography.

    For the most part, the only time most people learn anything about the VP nominee is on the night when the VP debate is televised, and I don't see that changing if Sebelius or any other anonymous pol is chosen.  I can't believe you really think that just because she's a woman, suddenly she's going to be getting all the full-color spreads in the popular magazines the way Obama did.  Obama is a unique phenomenon.


    i really don't think (5.00 / 7) (#172)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    that Clinton's negatives would matter.  

    Her negatives fall into two camps.

    1. repugs who aren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

    2. The far left Obama supporters who would probably not abandon him if he picks her.  So far, they are letting Obama get away with anything he wants.  Why would picking Clinton be any worse?

    Yikes! (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:13:23 PM EST
    And there are other considerations for the positoin of Veep besides mere resume-oriented ones.  Like feeling personally comfortable in working with the person, on the stump and once in office particularly.

    That's just not how the real world works.

    Obama doesn't have creds, darling.

    Who can help him get some semblance?


    I agree again (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by IzikLA on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:22:14 PM EST
    And the reality is, he will have explaining to do with almost any other pick other than Clinton.

    I believe, if he picks Clinton he has an "out" to all those people that say she is old politics or a part of insider Washington or any of the nasty things said about her.  That out is 18 million voters.  He can say she is the best for the job and the proof is in the votes.  To me, that line of reasoning should easily trump all else.


    Absolutely!! (5.00 / 9) (#141)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    Note that Clinton was NOT afraid to have a super smart wife either.  

    Bill Clinton has many good traits, and his generosity of spirit and lack of pettiness ranks right up there.


    The Clinton/Gore team: A smart division of labor (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by bridget on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    Bill Clinton most def. was not afraid to pick a very smart running mate.

    He said at the time that he wanted a VP who was an expert on certain issues he himself knew less about. Such as the environment and technology. Thats why he selected Al Gore.

    It really was a "dream team." And

    Both had very smart wives ;-))


    Bingo (none / 0) (#188)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:28:20 PM EST
    If obama wasn't running for president, (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:17:51 PM EST
    I doubt anyone would tap him to be a running mate.

    not sure I agree with that (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    I could see him being a good VP candidate for the right P.

    Capt. Howdy....I stand corrected :) (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:33:58 PM EST
    you know (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    the "right candidate".  smart, short, frosted hair, pantsuit.

    No, I'm sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:25:43 PM EST
    I still am not convinced that he is qualified to be her VP. Clinton/Kucinich or Clinton/Feingold: either would be fine with me.

    If the experience card (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:21:05 PM EST
    had not been played it surely would come to the fore with Kaine, McCaskill and Sebelius. The rhetoric of a Presidential candidate can transport him past a thin resume, but when someone who has no national experience is tossed into glaring light of American politics with him there is opportunity for concern. And where there's anxiety there's a republican looking to exploit it, and a media to narrate it.

    Clinton is so obviously the best choice (5.00 / 12) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:23:35 PM EST
    it is not funny.

    but it will never be Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    Obama's ego and his the political immaturity of his campaign -- not to mention the overriding testosterone -- will never allow it.

    And I don't want her to take the job.  She'd be forced into the shadows to do much of the heavy lifting while Obama would, as seems to be the case often if one looks at his history, step into the spotlight to take the credit and the bows.  

    I'd rather she continue to work as my Senator and grease the wheels for a run in 2012.


    they are afraid of Hillary (5.00 / 14) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:31:13 PM EST
    and her supporters.  I believe this is the central reason for the stadium speech.  they do not want to take the chance of half the place chanting HILLARY HILLARY HILLLARY.
    although it could still happen.

    What would be even funnier is if a bunch (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:36:37 PM EST
    'o repugs, fronting as dems, signed up as obama volunteers and showed up to the stadium.  In this campaign cycle, anything is possible.

    its going to get interesting (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    thats for sure.  I do not expect to be bored much for the next 98 days.

    Fear (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:40:46 PM EST
    I can see why you think she would be wasted in an Obama administration. She might be forced into the role of selling and defending some b.s. move by Obama. This seems to be the plight of the veep.

    I agree, (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by camellia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:46:49 PM EST
    totally!  She should not have to play second violin to his first chair when she is a better player than he is, and has eons more experience, not to mention smarts.  I cannot imagine her doing it anyway, even if he were arrogant enough to offer it to her.  

    the NYTimes (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:52:06 PM EST
    has a story on just this subject -- how Obama doesn't seem to have Hillary high on his list of VP Picks -- as well as one speculating why his popularity isn't being reflected in the Polls.

    Seems TL is ahead of the curve a bit!


    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by IzikLA on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:12:53 PM EST
    It seems so simple.  The fact of the matter is any pick other than Clinton is going to be compared to her and I think anyone else is going to come up short.  

    There is still a small part of me that thinks he will pick her.  The fundraising potential of the two of them together, I think, is almost reason enough.


    If the person at the top of the ticket (5.00 / 13) (#19)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:31:25 PM EST
    is considered to be the most qualified to be president, and the person in the #2 spot is not supposed to appear to be a better candidate than his or her running mate, I think the likelihood is that Obama's VP will be either someone with less experience than he has, or it will be someone so old guard that Obama will end up looking like the student driver with a parent in the car.

    There's nothing wrong, per se, with picking someone older and with more experience, except that Obama's running on "Change," and an old-guard pick (1) doesn't exactly scream "change!" and (2) it doesn't really pave the way for that person to run for president in 2016.  So, if he picks one of the older people - like Biden or Nunn, you're already looking at a political dead man walking - neither of those guys are going to go 2 terms with Obama and then run for president, so then you are either looking at a lame-duck VP for Term #1, and findong someone else to run as VP in 2012, or going the full 2 terms and then having to find a new candidate to run in 2016.

    Seems a shame that in an election where a VP pick is actually going to be important, Obama seems to be in a very tight corner, with wet paint on all sides.

    Too bad the DNC didn't think about this way back (5.00 / 14) (#22)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:34:45 PM EST
    when.  We could have had Hillary for 8 years then Obama for 8 years.  But, nooooooo, they had to go with the inexperienced guy over the experienced woman.  

    We Could Have Had Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:49:49 PM EST
    as the presumptive nominee now if she'd won more of the pledged delegates, and convinced more super delegates to back her.

    She didn't.

    Obama did.

    So he's the presumptive nominee.


    right (5.00 / 11) (#125)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:55:49 PM EST
    as it stands, we're looking at a Presumptive Nominee who lost NH, CA, NY, NJ, OH, PA and FL.  Never in the history of Presidential Races have we had a Nominee who lost those States and a solid chunk (18 million) of the Dem Base along with it.

    But thank God we're a shoo-in to win all those Red States in the GE which Obama got his delegates from in those February Caucuses, right?


    Tough (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:35:59 PM EST
    It would be difficult to find someone with less experience than Obama.

    He is a student driver... and we are the passengers.


    There is no other choice. (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:34:01 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is the only choice that makes any sense.
    If Obama does not select her, I really would have to wonder why.

    E - G - O (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:35:24 PM EST
    One of the reasons why (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by dk on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:40:22 PM EST
    is that the Obama campaign made the decision that the only way it would secure a totally dedicated base in the primary was to push (or be complicit in other people pushing) the idea that Hillary is toxic.

    It's one thing to betray your base on policy, but to betray them on personality politics is something else entirely.  I don't see them doing it.


    I don't see him doing it either (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    and it will be a disaster. He will drop like a stone in the polls over night and I believe he knows that. All of the things he has been saying recently about the VP pick seem to indicate, at least to me, that he wants people to believe Hillary is the pick; or at least leave it open to that interpretation.

    Aren't we assuming that Clinton... (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:40:36 PM EST
    aren't we assuming that Clinton wants the job?

    I mean, if I were her, I'd say "thanks, but no thanks".  Given the open hostility to her among those closest to Obama, she has to know that she'd have little imput into policy in an Obama administration.  And if Obama loses, she'll be blamed.  (Not to mention the fact that it will create huge problems for Bill Clinton's ability to make money hand-over-fist...)

    The VP job is a step down for her -- she's been there/done that already when she was WJC's 'chief advisor/co-president' for eight years.  


    I wish she would make (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:08:50 PM EST
    that statement.  Been somewhat surprised we haven't heard it already.

    Indeed, as I've said here since April, she already has been VP -- the most powerful and important one in history, I might add.

    She'd be far less influential in an Obama admin -- not even close.  Why would she want that one?  And the daily ... well, not quite humiliation, but disappointment (or worse) having to take marching orders, then the daily reminders of how close she came, if only she'd done this or that differently ...


    Per one of the broadcast news tonight, Clinton out (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by jawbone on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:24:07 PM EST
    Reported that Obama has not "vetted" her.

    Now, I would rather not see her leave the Senate--we're going to need every strong progressive we can find in that body.  

    Lioness of the Senate, hear her roar!

    Of course, the BO campaign could be pulling the MCM's legs.  


    I'm not sure I agree (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by sj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    she has to know that she'd have little imput into policy in an Obama administration.

    He has few real policy goals of his own, and no over-arching issue that he's championed.  I think he would be perfectly happy to let her do the heavy lifting and then bask in the glow of accomplishment.  It wouldn't be the first time he's taken credit at the last moment for work that others have done.  And frankly, Senator Clinton doesn't care who takes the credit as long the job gets done.  As a partnership, I think it could seriously work.

    The announcement, on the other hand, would send howls throughout the hard-core Obamaland residents.


    M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E (none / 0) (#38)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:49:11 PM EST
    ha (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:52:04 PM EST
    fist pound

    I can't believe Kos wrote that. Maybe I can. (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:41:36 PM EST
    I've also noticed our friend Geek and others saying that any woman who opposes Sebelius as VP has "no right to call themselves a feminist". We need to knock their heads together and get them to face reality.

    My mother, who swore she would never vote for Obama, has changed her mind. The only way she won't vote for him is if the picks a woman not named Hillary. (Or Richardson, she's still mad as the dickens at him.)

    its hard to believe a lot of things (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    you see there.  but I think it comes from existing in an echo chamber.

    You know (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:48:26 PM EST
    if we ignore everyone on the blogs, cultists and PUMAs included, and we just go out on the street and start asking people, you will have a hard time finding anyone who would not see a pick of Sebelius or any other unknown woman as being entirely about Hillary and her supporters.

    We have had exactly one female VP nominee in history, and it was a Hail Mary in a year everyone knew we were going to lose.

    No one will believe that Barack Obama looked around the country and just happened to decide that the Governor of Kansas, completely irrespective of her gender and the context of this year's primary, just happened to be the best choice for the job.  It doesn't even matter if it's true.  No one will ever believe it.


    That is exactly the point (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:51:44 PM EST
    Kos wants to cover the sun with his hand.

    heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:59:52 PM EST
    is that a classical allusion?

    Obama's suggested things that remind me of King Knut's courtiers.


    I know. But in the same post, Kos says it is (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    asinine to take a woman off the list because it might offend some Hillary supporters. I don't see how he and other supporters of Obama can't see that. It offends every Clinton supporter I know.

    not just us (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM EST
    even non affiliated observers are pointing this out.
    like I said, echo chamber.  actually its worse than that.  he is in an echo chamber with his head up his rear.

    Dude. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:58:05 PM EST
    I think that the Kossacks will say it with straight faces.  Just like they said that Obama's race had nothing whatsoever to do with his campaign, and anybody who said it did was playing the race card.

    What Street Are You On? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:58:06 PM EST
    Where you are, you may be right.

    Where I am, nobody would know who the governor of Kansas is, or the junior senator from Missouri, for that matter.

    They'd recognize Clinton because she was First Lady and maybe as our senator, although I'm not betting on that one.

    As to what would or would not be "being entirely about Hillary and her supporters" this is NOT in the minds of the people I live and work with or (I am sure) the people around my street.

    Taking these kinds of concerns outside the blogs and the political insider 'drawing rooms', you'll hear a lot of crickets on this subject. You really will.

    Unless, maybe your street is in D.C. or a Washington suburb. :)


    Are you seriously trying to say (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:59:40 PM EST
    that you live and work with people who don't recognize that Hillary ran for president?

    Oops, My Mistake (none / 0) (#75)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:14:26 PM EST
    I was focusing on who the person-on-the-street knows veep-wise and how much they would fathom (or care about the intricacies of the Obama-Clinton veepstakes dance.

    What I meant to convey is that they (average people on the street in the city where I live) aren't all that attentive to the primaries/election.

    But yeah, in that sense they easily know Clinton better than Obama.

    Actually, I'll bet McCain might be as invisible to them as McCaskill and Sebellius.

    Now, I'm talking 'ordinary people' on random city streets. if you go to one of the college campuses around here or over to the State Capitol...different story.


    Gee, I thought I lived in the boonies and land (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:02:48 PM EST
    of uninformed. You can't be serious.

    Uh (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:05:42 PM EST
    You are quite right that no one knows who the governor of Kansas is.  That is, in fact, exactly the point.

    It's fine for Obama supporters who are political junkies to say oh, but Sebelius is very accomplished, she worked with Republicans in the Kansas legislature to do all these great things and yadda yadda.  No one on the street knows any of that and they wouldn't care if you told them.

    I would be rich if I could have a dime for every time I've heard some Obama supporter offer some silly pablum like "I'm sure he is giving all the candidates due consideration and he will choose whoever he believes is genuinely best for the country."  Gag me.  As far as real people are concerned, all they will hear is a female name and they will say, "Oh, guess he didn't want to pick Hillary, huh?"


    he needs a grumpy old (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    attack dog.

    Just For the Record (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:18:42 PM EST
    It looks to me like the only female potential running mate who adds anything to the ticket is Clinton.

    I don't have a preference at this point, but I will be very, very surprised if he picks a female running mate and it is not Clinton.

    But then I also don't think he's going to pick a woman.

    If he does pick Clinton and announces it soon, won't that be the best kept secret in the history of politics?


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:21:51 PM EST
    the Obama campaign, in general, seems to be extremely well disciplined and leak-free.

    This, to me, is an extremely happy change from the standard Democratic way of doing things.  I'm so sick of every strategic move being undermined by some anonymous quote from within the campaign.

    I very much doubt it will be Hillary, though.  Obama is a politically cautious guy and he is ahead in the polls.  Hillary would not be a politically cautious pick.


    Exactly right (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:13:41 PM EST
    But Steve, (none / 0) (#78)
    by dk on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:19:41 PM EST
    even if you are right, do you think that Obama will lose the election if he picks a woman other than Hillary?  If the answer is no, then I don't see Obama's incentive.  

    He has so many reasons not to pick her (silly and pathetic reasons, in my opinion) but given what seems to be the mindset of the Obama campaign, and its base, I don't see the reasons that would convince Obama to pick Hillary (or not to pick a Sibelius, etc.).


    what about this. (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:22:30 PM EST
    She was the strong second pick of party and the clear favourite with the backbone of the party.

    She's a also a safe pair of hands and a good campaigner--as it turns out she is an energizer bunny.


    A strong Obama supporter . (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:22:42 PM EST
    told me today Obama campaign will need Clinton's big donors and choosing Clinton as VP may be necessary for that reason.  Interestingly enough, he didn't know about Sibelius's weak response to State of Union speech.  

    Interestingly (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    It's almost as if playing hard to get and actually expecting something in return for your support actually pays dividends!

    I hope the roundabout point I am making is clear, but if not, I am saying that the way to get a candidate or a party to do what you want is not to proclaim your unconditional loyalty.  I have no idea if your scenario will come to pass, but it's sure a lot more likely now than it would be if Hillary's donors had instantly signed onto the Obama campaign with no questions asked.  It would be like "Gosh, folks, I'm really thrilled to have your support... and since I can take you all for granted, please meet VP Sebelius."


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:26:30 PM EST
    it is really impossible to point to any one decision and blame the election on that, although I guess McGovern's VP pick was pretty much a fiasco.  It's not like we get to run the election twice, once with Hillary and once with someone else.

    I agree with the notion that Obama is less likely to make a politically bold choice when he appears to have a comfortable lead.

    I'm just baffled by Kos' notion that because Clinton chose someone vaguely like himself, Obama should also choose someone vaguely like himself, meaning someone with no resume who hasn't been around Washington very long.  But no one pays Kos for his deep political analysis.


    Gore had a rep as a centrist (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:29:43 PM EST
    Bill was the liberal--at least in the popular imagination.

    What made me go "Urgh!" (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:56:04 PM EST
    Here's the bottom line -- Obama is running as an outsider agent of change. HIs best veep pick would be someone who reinforces that message. Hillary clearly doesn't qualify, nor does anyone in the Senate that was elected earlier than 2004.

    Okay, the whole "outsider agent of change" schtick is truckload of bovine excrement to anyone who has been paying attention.  So those people would be completely unimpressed by another fresh new face.

    In addition, Obama downplayed that meme the minute Hillary was out of the primary fight.  There's nothing wrong with ditching the primary campaign memes and creating a new set for the GE.  So I don't understand why Kos is so stuck on the "outside agent of change".  That meme just reinforces Obama's youth and relative inexperience which is not a good move against McCain.

    It's as if Kos actually believes Obama is an "outside agent of change".  Or pretends he does.


    I don't think O would want (none / 0) (#118)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:48:59 PM EST
    someone too much like himself wrt barely been in important higher office.  Like McCaskill.

    Nor would he want to dilute the Dem majority in the senate he'd have to work with -- as would happen with McCaskill and most other senate picks.

    Sebelius works dandy in that she at once furthers the message of Change, is experienced in political office, and also is a bold, dynamic stroke, i.e., not among the MCM's favorite Usual Safe White Guy Suspects.

    And, unlike most other suspects, she's someone with whom O seems to feel personally comfortable.  Since this is a Dem year, the Comfort Factor will be more of a central issue than in most cycles.


    I doubt she'd make much difference either way. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:54:07 PM EST
    It's not like the Dems have shirked on the bold new ethnic/sexual/gender stakes this year.  Who ever he picks it'll be seen a genius.

    He has 18 million reasons not to do that. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    A man would be okay with many/most but another woman will bring back every wound from the primaries.

    I agree with daring grace (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by dk on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:05:57 PM EST
    on this.  I don't really think it will have much impact on the election whether he picks Hillary or someone else.  If he wins or loses, it will be for other reasons.

    Now, I think he could gain a lot by picking Hillary because she could actually be a valuable asset in his administration (for example, being sent out to discuss the ins and outs of policy, a task that he doesn't really seem good at, or even cares about).  But to be honest, she could probably accomplish more outside of his administration, so I kind of hope it isn't her.


    Uh, hate to tell you but discussing the ins and (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:09:37 PM EST
    outs of policy would be part of his JOB.  But you're right.  Obama just wants the title of President, he just doesn't want to have to do the work.

    Oh, I agree with you Angel. (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by dk on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:12:42 PM EST
    Don't get me wrong.  But it was decided that knowledge of, or an interest in, policy details was not so important this time around.  Don't blame me, though, I voted for experience.

    Next they'll tell us..... (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    ...we have no right to call ourselves women.

    Any person who allows themselves to be (5.00 / 9) (#98)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:36:58 PM EST
    defined as feminist or not by Kos is not a feminist.  Of that I am completely sure.

    This whole line of argument -- you're not a true Democrat/progressive/feminist/liberal/puppy-lover -- is just bullying.  It's not even an argument, it's just intellectually vacuous intimidation, passed down from McCarthy (you're not a real American!) through GWB (you're not a true patriot!).  It doesn't matter what the fill-in-the-blank word is, it's just crap that bullies use when they don't have a legitimate argument to make.


    Kaine wasn't even elected as Mayor- (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:48:20 PM EST
    he was selected by the other City Councilpersons. Richmond only went to elected Mayor a few years ago.

    I think Bayh is likely (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:56:25 PM EST
    he is just milktoast enough.

    I suggest Jesse Jackson Junior (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:58:23 PM EST
    he'd reinforce the Obama message nicely. snark

    In Bob Woodward's book ... (5.00 / 13) (#64)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:07:57 PM EST
    ... The Agenda, about Clinton's campaign and the struggle to pass the 1993 economic reform bill, Clinton is asked why he wants to choose Al Gore. He responds, "Because I could die, that's why."

    In a later book, Clinton is running for re-election in 1996, and takes steps to help Bob Dole in the GOP primary. Why? Because there could be a scandal and the voters might throw him out. Clinton wants to have confidence in whoever he turns the keys over to.

    The point in those choices was to make sure the country would be in good hands if something went wrong. Obama should try to do the same thing.

    Yep, one heartbeat away... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:12:36 PM EST
    That's (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:40:36 PM EST
    where I start my evaluation.  The VPOTUS should be someone qualified to be POTUS.

    I am underwhelmed with the names that I'm hearing.  Clinton and Clark are both under the bus but Sebelius, McCaskill, Bayh, and Kaine may be on the list???

    This is where I hope the punditry and the actuality are miles apart.


    I like Tim Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:11:32 PM EST
    but he's not Mark Warner, and I frankly doubt he would help the ticket carry Virginia, much less a real battleground state. He is a lacklustre campaigner compared to Warner or even Webb. Selecting him hands the Virginia governorship to a right-wing Republican Lieutenant Governor.

    Yep, Kaine hands over (none / 0) (#140)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:17:13 PM EST
    power in a key state to a REpub.  That and he's only a one-termer (barely) -- a mostly unflattering aspect of Obama's resume he would not want duplicated or highlighted in a running mate.

    Again, note how Sebelius, with a Dem Lt Gov, still keeps that position Dem if she's chosen.


    Heh! Maybe that will be just another reach across (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by jawbone on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:26:13 PM EST
    the aisle, making bipartisan with the Repubs and all that jazz.

    That Dem Lt. Governor is a Republican who (none / 0) (#148)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:25:08 PM EST
    switched parties.

    True, but hey, it's (none / 0) (#167)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:43:00 PM EST
    Kansas folks.  Can't hope for much better than that, I'm afraid.

    Sebelius would also put KS in play, not to win probably but to force the other side to squander resources there.


    I think Kaine wouldn't even be (none / 0) (#152)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:28:10 PM EST
    a serious VP contender had Mark Warner and Jim Webb already taken their names out of contention.

    There will never be another Al Gore. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:33:35 PM EST
    He invented the internet, saved the people of Love Canal,  had a romatic novel written about him and created the "Lock Box". He is currently single-handedly saving our planet. Who will ever measure up?

    Either that's bad snark (none / 0) (#201)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:22:16 PM EST
    or you're a GOP operative.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:25:56 PM EST
    I thought it was pretty funny snark.

    I am so not interested. It's obvious Obama (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by WillBFair on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:39:18 PM EST
    has to pick another lightweight. And it'll be an embarrassment.
    But there are bright spots. Obama is up by 9 points. Yippee! And he actually spoke with substance about geo strategy on the tube. Shocker.
    It's the first time he's said anything worth hearing. And I'm so going to miss the Clintons' vast knowledge and clear, simple, and elegant speech.

    The VP doesn't matter too much (none / 0) (#116)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:48:17 PM EST
    He should pick a nice non descript ugly old governor.  Or some dashing blade who'd compete for glamour with him.

    Or soem dashing blade... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:06:30 PM EST
    And for some reason I thought of a good looking, charismatic openly gay guy.  No one in particular, that's just what came to mind.  

    That would indeed be a first!  But we are talking Obama here, so - no.


    That would be pretty damned funny (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:10:10 PM EST
    Anyone got the data on what a devastatingly brilliant gay  man could do in a political debate as an attack dog?

    I'm thinking Rupert Everett (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:25:34 PM EST
    debating, oh, say, Mitt Romney?  I would pay good money to see that.

    but... (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:29:53 PM EST
    most of the dashing gay politicians are Republicans! (oops, did I say that out loud?)

    i agree wholeheartedly BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by cpinva on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:37:04 PM EST
    should be the obvious choice anyway.

    but for top billing, not VP. why should she kowtow to a political and intellectual naif? sorry, she stands head and shoulders above obama, in every respect.

    frankly, if he were to offer, and she were to accept, i'd be terribly disappointed in her.

    and i'd still write her in for prez.

    KOS is NOT a progressive (5.00 / 7) (#179)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:08:26 PM EST
    He's a former Reagan loving little guy who can't stand women as strong and as powerful as Hillary Clinton.  He and his ilk b*tched and moaned about Hillary being too centrist, too friendly with republicans.  And he talks about McCaskill and Sellibus who are at BEST Blue Dogs.
    Hell Sellibus' father-in-law was a Republican congressman.  And McCaskill is barely progressive.

    You are so right.
    KOS so does not get it.  And he and his ilk talk down to women and it sickens me

    McCaskill is one of the most conservative (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:16:52 PM EST
    Democrats in the Senate. She isn't close to barely progressive.

    Melissa at Shakesville (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:20:05 PM EST
    is not amused by the suggestion of Kaine.

    I read the responses (none / 0) (#206)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:30:00 PM EST
    I agree.  Whenever Kaine is mentioned I think of astraea's first line.

    Kos is really being silly (5.00 / 5) (#192)
    by ajain on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    Not only do I disagree with the post, I also think he of all people should not talk and/or lecture people about feminism. He has never understood the bond Clinton has with her supporters and he really should stop psycho-analyzing things he doesn't understand.

    Oh, I forgot this about Kaine. (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:40:27 PM EST
    There is a progressive website called "Raising Kaine" which was formed for the purpose of helping his election. They are now so furious with him that they are calling themselves "RK" though they are neglecting the fact that the web address is the same. They are heavily into Obama and were pretty awful to Clinton so I find it amusing. They're having an identity crisis!

    come around (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Miri on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:04:30 AM EST

    ".....and most will come around in time for Nov."

    You are in for a shock in November.

    NO MCCASKILL (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by jxstorm on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:24:55 AM EST
    Picking any woman that is not Hillary is a slap in the face!  If Hillary were the presumptive nominee and she chose a black person that wasn't Obama, all hell would break loose!

    Invisible Picks (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by fctchekr on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:39:45 AM EST
    Kaine, Biden and Bayh evidently are frontrunners. I think he's bent on selecting some one like him: not qualified for the job.

    This in the LA Times today (and they suggest we start rumors, as a joke I think, that Bill is on the short list, not Hillary):


    There's a never before growing list of naysayers who would not welcome the VP offer.

    I think this alone tells us something huge about the difference in this campaign compared to any others before it.

    The media has evolved into an insatiable covetous, conniving tabloid monster who will stoop at nothing to controvert and exploit what little decorum is left in the political process...

    Maybe some of us like it that way?

    experience? (4.50 / 2) (#211)
    by Miri on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:28:47 AM EST
    "He has lived in other countries and understands well that people living in different environments have different views of the same situations which means he has more foreign experience than most ."

    Living in Indonesia as a six year old qualifies as "foreign policy experience"?

    This is the mindset of a typical Obama cultist.

    Guess we're down to Boxer. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:14:06 PM EST

    and Tammy Baldwin! (none / 0) (#149)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    refuting a pathetic little man (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:17:12 PM EST
    who peddles lies isn't hard.

    But well done anyway.  Good research and info here.

    Sen. Obama choices similar to Gore (none / 0) (#137)
    by wurman on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    Joe Sestak, PA, 7th District
    Tim Ryan, OH, 17th District
    Ron Klein, FL, 22nd District
    Robert Wexler, FL, 19th District
    Chris Van Hollen, MD, 8th District

    There are numerous veep choices available who are sturdy campaigners, who have excellent credentials in foreign policy, & don't have the media status to overshadow the presumptive nominee.  The 5 above are very likely qualified to be president if required.

    Careful observors could find many more.

    Except that. . . (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:17:38 PM EST
    none of those choices is in the tiniest way similar to Gore as BTD makes the argument.  Have any of them had more than a single term in the Congress?  They have no experience in national government.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:35:21 PM EST
    having already been on the national stage because of a prior run for president. That's how a lot of us were introduced to Al Gore in '88.

    I really can't think of a single person who is a true equivalent of the Gore pick in '92.  Kos should not have attempted that analogy.


    I'd argue that Sebelius (4.00 / 3) (#197)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:45:40 PM EST
    is the closest, most viable Gore-type pick (excluding age differential).

    She enhances the major campaign theme, is experienced at an important political level, comes from political stock, is attractive and smart and comes from a red state.  

    If Gore was a little younger than her in 92, KS has new name and fresh face going for her, and like Al is experienced in ways that matter yet doesn't shout Tired Establishment Pol as she represents dynamic progressive forward-looking governance.

    Like Al and Bill, Obama and KS seem to hit it off, judging by some of O's public comments about her and the stories of their comfortable personal/political relationship.


    This is the first time (5.00 / 5) (#205)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:29:53 PM EST
    I've seen "Sebelius" and "dynamic"in the same paragraph.

    Tim Ryan (none / 0) (#144)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    gives a great speech, but does he really have excellent credentials in foreign policy?  I'm not positive he's even old enough to be President.

    Rep. Ryan turned 35 this year. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by wurman on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:47:31 PM EST
    He was a legislative aide to Rep. Jim Traficant.  

    He has specific knowledge on the effects of foreign steel imports & "dumping" as they affected the defunct Youngstown OH industries.

    And the above results in broader knowledge of the USA vis-a-vis the EU & the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) beyond the imports of steel & ferrous metals.  His credibility runs the gamut of NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, & bi-lateral agreements--Ohio took all the hits, especially his district.


    I hope Tim remains (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:00:54 PM EST
    where he is and continues to grow in depth as well as passion. He could be great for the party. It's people like Tim Ryan that give me hope for the party.

    You're kidding. (none / 0) (#177)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:05:11 PM EST
    There's not one there that would help Obama.

    Oh, my God (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:25:25 PM EST
    can you imagine having to listen to Wexler bellow his way through the general election and for eight years if he won?  Can you seriously imagine Bob Wexler as POTUS?  Oh, my aching head.

    Obama campaign wants FL (none / 0) (#195)
    by wurman on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:45:17 PM EST
    Wexler & Klein.

    You don't even know their committees or the work that they've done.

    They are not on any list, but that doesn't make them non-entities.

    If Sen. Obama wants OH, the guy that can carry it for him is on the list.  A new rep. with years of DC experience as a legislative aide--8 years more than Sen. Obama.

    Joe Sestak is a retired VAdm with military & foreign policy credentials.

    Get some facts.  Read some Bios.  Of course, that's what the VP search team is supposed to be doing.  Long pause . . . for effect.

    By the way, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., anyone???


    VP Bump (none / 0) (#216)
    by fctchekr on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:52:09 AM EST
    Despite some in the media say the VP pick is inconsequential, the liklihood this election is that it's more critical than any other election..

    The hype surrounding these two contenders' VP picks is over-the-top.

    "Vet, vet their spouses."

    That quote has interesting implications.
    Frankly, I don't see Obama getting a bump from any of the top contenders on his list. McCain will get a right-wing bump with Romney, but how will conservative Dems and Independents like him?

    For that matter (none / 0) (#217)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:41:38 AM EST
    let's compare Al Gore in 1992 to Barrack Obama in 2008.

    No comparison.

    Gore was qualified to be President, Obama's NOT.

    Proof positive (none / 0) (#218)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:49:22 AM EST
    I really can't think of a single person who is a true equivalent of the Gore pick in '92.  Kos should not have attempted that analogy.

    That KOS can't find his fanny with his own hands.