home

Webb Out Of VP Stakes

Sonja Henie's out. We'll take Danny Noonan.

-Ty Webb in Caddyshack

Jim Webb says no to VP:

"Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president,” the Virginia Democrat said in a statement released to reporters. “Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country,” Webb said.

Allrighty then. So who's Obama's Danny Noonan?

By Big Tent Democrat

< Why Flip Flop At All? | Why Dems Lose, Part . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • jack webb (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Turkana on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    for the law 'n' order vote. granted, he may be dead, but the same has been said about cheney...

    Heh! (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by standingup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    never knock the appeal of deceased candidates.  We had one beat Ashcroft in Missouri.  

    Parent
    Well then, Clifton Webb should be on the (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    list too....he will get the curmudgeon vote.

    Parent
    Yeah, I wouldn't have liked (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    giving up that hard-earned senate seat.

    We need to hold onto every single senate seat we have now -- unless there's an absolutely compelling candidate out there who's clearly a no-brainer for Veep.  S/he does not exist however.

    Clark too, imo, is out of the running.

    Schweitzer wouldn't seem to help O shore up his major weak area, nat'l security, something Webb could have done.

     

    Good (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    Webb was never one of my favorite picks and IMO better to keep the Senate seat.

    Quoting Caddyshack? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:48:24 PM EST
    I'm surprised....a movie so full of sexist and racist un-pc speech...shouldn't you be appalled by such a film?

    I smell malign acceptance:)

    Lol! (none / 0) (#71)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:12:55 PM EST
    I guess it is OK since there were only gophers in Caddy Shack and no crows.

    Parent
    Of course, there were crows (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    in the flick.  There are crows everywhere, I swear.  Therefore, you are guilty of malign neglect!

    Parent
    Does that make me... (none / 0) (#100)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:29:25 PM EST
    ...and avianist?

    Parent
    Watch it Mile.... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    gopher can be considered offensive to personal assistants and other hired help.

    Parent
    And I smell a libertarian a@@hole (none / 0) (#184)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:33:40 PM EST
    who enjoys belittling serious issues that harm groups of people as 'PC' or 'oversensitivity' or 'silly' because, in his selfish privileged world, none of those issues will affect him so they should be mocked and trivialized.  

    But, hey, what do I know? I only saw this theme play out ad nauseum all over the liberal blogs this season.

    Parent

    Hey.... (none / 0) (#202)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:56:47 AM EST
    BTD quoted that vile film full of insensitivity, not me babe:)

    Nice to see you too Molly....but watch your language, a**hole can be considered offensive to people with intestinal problems.

    Parent

    Probably wasting my time but... (none / 0) (#203)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    in case your curious, crap like this is why I worry about the pc police.

    Hat tip to PPJ.

    Parent

    he should just go for it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    and run with Opra

    And give away free cars, too (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:44:24 PM EST
    That oughta get some votes.

    Telling us what to read, though, I dunno.

    Parent

    Hmm, wonder what's up with Webb (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    When a pol comes out with statements like:

    "Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president"

    and

    my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country"...

    It usually translates as:

    "Damn, Caroline Kennedy found out about (choose one: A)my lobotomy, B)the $5,000 hooker C)what happened in the bathroom stall at Washington National).

    Nobody comes out in advance to REFUSE a vice presidential nod.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM EST
    It's only "in advance" from our perspective.  It could easily signify that he received word that he's off the list.

    Otherwise, there's not really a good explanation for why he would suddenly decide to issue a Shermanesque statement right here and now.

    Parent

    Maybe he's found out something (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by cosbo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:02:29 PM EST
    about Obama that he doesn't want to defend, because that's what his job essentially would be isn't it?

    Parent
    Yes. That is really puzzling. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:27:30 PM EST
    I mean, if nobody asked him, why would he say that?

    In fact, we could all say that. Stop the presses!!!! I refuse to be Barack Obama's running mate too! How about you?

    Parent

    That's what I meant (none / 0) (#92)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:25:17 PM EST
    webb has a military background and (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:52:26 PM EST
    so does clark. webb was in support of clark. it may well be his way to saying "don't come knocking". as i have seen so far there have been several who made sure they weren't under consideraton.

    Parent
    Every pol has (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:18:34 PM EST
    his skeletons.

    Maybe Obama will have to pick the Bionic Man.

    Parent

    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    Strickland did. IIRC, so did Rendell.

    Parent
    Just tuning in? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:52:30 PM EST
    No, several this year have already come out and said no VP for me.  Rendell, now Webb, Edwards (although he may have reversed himself on that, and then reversed himself again), and Warner.  Biden also made noises about not taking it but I almost don't count him because he had a definite "pick me! pick me!" false modesty subtext going on.  

    Any I'm missing? Seems like there was a spate of them a month or so ago we talked about quite a bit on TL.

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:35:40 PM EST
    perhaps Webb isn't an Obama fan. It isn't like he was one of the pledged delegates on the Obama list. Last I saw he was a holdout and wasn't pledged all the way to the end.

    It isn't like Webb isn't known for his forthrightness.

    Then again, one of the biggest critcisms I saw about Webb was that he isn't "team" material which could have very well been why they precluded him. He would be "difficult" to control.

    Parent

    Yes. That's what I like about him. (none / 0) (#159)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:28:54 PM EST
    My guess is (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:48:33 PM EST
    Webb's realizing Obama won't win VA and doesn't want to be tied to him.

    There are still a LOT of Bubbas in that state...(I'm in TN, don't mean it as an insult ;))

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST
    How Do You (none / 0) (#193)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:24:28 PM EST
    Explain Strickland in that case?

    Parent
    I am fully prepared to have him (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    stick his finger in my other eye and pick someone who makes no sense to (I guess I have to call us this) "old" Democrats like me, who will resist with every fiber of their being having the Democratic brand turn into unrecognizable mush.

    I am also preparing to cover my ears so I don't have to hear the media and the pundits get all breathless over the "brilliance" of the pick.

    Honestly, even the possibility of Hillary as VP doesn't move me - she would be wasted there.

    Handicapping this part of the race is probably a lot more fun if you like the person at the top of the ticket.

    Biden or Reed seem like the only plausible choices (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by ajain on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:18:18 PM EST
    I dont think Clinton is gonna happen, and frankly I don't care at this point (even though I ardently supported her and am still nursing my dissapointments).

    Webb was always a bad choice, right up there with Nunn (who better not be on the ticket). Hagel is also a bad, bad choice.

    Edwards, with his Rove debates, is very unlikely. Kerry is annoying to watch even as a surrogate. Richardson is truly pathetic. I think Sebelius or Napolitano wouldn't be great picks either.

    It just makes you sad to think that every name that comes up is in some way or another, very very bad.


    I'd be OK with Biden or Reed (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    I would much rather have Clinton or Clark, but I agree neither of those is going to happen.

    Just looking at the atmospherics, Biden has a youthful attitude even if he is older and very knowledgeable in foreign affairs. Reed seems very capable and confident. I think they both make believable VPs and possible presidents.

    Parent

    It's going to be Biden. (none / 0) (#143)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:50:10 PM EST
    Reed is more progressive, but RI has a republican gov who would replace him with a republican.

    Parent
    yep (none / 0) (#152)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM EST
    Webb withdrew when the search committee (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:01:33 PM EST
    asked him for his documents, according to Ambinder.

    I don't think he has anything to hide -  it just must rankle to have achieved so much in life and have to apply for a job to a committee of functionaries.

    Isn't that pretty standard though? (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:14:04 PM EST
    I have no idea, I just got the impression that that was what the vetters usually did.  I think this year it's just much more out in the open and slobbered over by the press since Obama made such a big deal of who he was appointing.

    Which he would not have, imo, had Caroline Kennedy not been on the list.

    Parent

    Yes, I believe it is pretty standard (none / 0) (#141)
    by democrattotheend on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    And when they talked about the prospect of Hillary as VP, I remember the talking heads mentioning that she might not be willing to go through the vetting process either.

    Parent
    i seriously doubt it was a request for (none / 0) (#188)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:05:00 PM EST
    documents that sent webb the other way. it had to be something far more serious. perhaps it was a political calculation in concert with his long term goals and maybe he is unhappy with something going on in the campaign.

    Parent
    Where are Obama's IL senate documents? (none / 0) (#201)
    by gram cracker on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:41:02 AM EST
    It would be interesting to see if Barack could pass his own campaign's VP vetting process.  Can he pass a FBI/CIA or security clearance background check?  My recollection is they are pretty strict on past drug use. Or has that disqualification been eliminated?

    Parent
    Good news (4.50 / 6) (#20)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    I'm gratified that Webb does not want to be linked too closely with Obama.

    I'm glad you're wrong (4.50 / 2) (#54)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:05:06 PM EST
    Webb is a very strong Obama supporter, and he will do President Obama more good in the Senate than as VP.

    Parent
    So strong (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    that he was undeclared all the way until the end eh?

    He may be on board the bus but I didn't get the impression that he was that strong of a supporter.

    I suspect someone from the Appalachians(as Webb hails from) might not have been impressed with Obama's showing(or lack of it) in WV.

    Parent

    Not buying it (none / 0) (#170)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    Webb is a conservative Dem.  He's anti-choice and hasn't done jack about what he claims is his opposition to the death penalty.

    What's in this for him?  Nothing, from where I sit.    He realizes tying himself to Obama could cripple him, perhaps fatally.

    (Anyone who thinks Virginia's a shoo-in hasn't been to Accomack County lately.)

    Parent

    Why is that? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    Two Senators on the ticket (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:25:00 PM EST
    with barely four years of experience together?  Nope.  Not even to get into Webb's predilection to write it all out there for years now, and some of his musings have not withstood the test of time.

    Parent
    Also, meant to add that a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:37:00 PM EST
    only two years ago, as Webb was (so I just read in Time), would not be the best way to reach the Dem base.  Then again, that doesn't seem to be a priority with the Obama campaign, which could see it as more reaching out to the Repub base.

    It all is becoming very confusing. :-)

    Parent

    Good (none / 0) (#1)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:30:23 PM EST
    He's a darn fine Senator, and he's helping Virginia turn blue.

    I'd like to think (none / 0) (#2)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:32:12 PM EST
    Webb was never really much of an option.  IMO, Clinton, Clark, Schweitzer and Sebelius should be the shortlist, in that order.  With a few extra spaces between Clinton and Clark.

    If it's not Clinton, Clark (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    is the only one I can see might draw Clinton supporters who are in the 46% who say they won't vote for him now.  Schweitzer isn't all that well known, and Obama's already got the 'youth' thing on board.  It's one of the things -- translated as inexperience -- that turns her supporters away from him.

    Clark has the NS cred and has the experience and age to add maturity to the ticket without raising specters of Cheney (which picking Nunn would just broadcast).  Plus he's smart and has the big intellactual credentials (Rhode Scholar, etc) that a lot of Dems really get excited about.

    Parent

    The 46% of Clinton supporters (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:36:13 PM EST
    who are already not planning to support Senator Obama will only be motivated by his choosing Clinton. For some of them, it will get him their vote. For others it won't matter one iota. Anyone else, who cares? The question is will his choice turn more of her supporters off? Clinton is the only candidate that can be a positive vote getter for him. The other candidates are either neutral or vote losers.

    Parent
    Many of Clinton's supporters won't (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:31:10 PM EST
    vote for him even if he puts her on the ticket. I don't want him to because I don't want her to go down in flames with him.

    Parent
    ... female version...Phoneix (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by fctchekr on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:23:04 AM EST
    ...bird regenerates when hurt or wounded by a foe, thus being almost immortal and invincible -- a symbol of fire and divinity.

    If Bill, the GOP and the media can't take her down, neither can Obama.

    Parent

    It is a quandry (none / 0) (#127)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    or maybe a minefield for him.  VP picks are supposed to reinforce a candidacy (at the very least bring some sort of geographic oomph), not add another minus to the list.

    Sebelius might actually be a neutral pick with regard to Clinton voters, since many of them who would object are already not voting for him.  She's pretty boring so may go largely unnoticed otherwise.  But no geography advantage, since it seems she'd may very well not even carry her own state.

    Parent

    Jack Reed (D-RI). (none / 0) (#4)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:35:20 PM EST


    Todays trial balloons . . . (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    Kerry and Graham are who MSNBC said were being "floated" . . . .  I believe the intro to the piece said Hillary voters would like Kerry, lol!~

    Parent
    Why would anyone in their right mind... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:42:26 PM EST
    ...want either on the ticket? For what POSSIBLE reason?

    Parent
    No clue! I was flippin' channels (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    and stopped to see WTF they were talking about. The 'pundits" didn't think Kerry brought anything to the ticket really, lol!~

    Parent
    So we can have another season of (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    Lurch references?

    No thanks.

    Parent

    Oh,I don't know. I can (none / 0) (#161)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:34:06 PM EST
    hardly wait to see the debates. Mr Uhhhhh....
    and Mr. never getting to the point.

    Parent
    rec'd (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    for the laugh factor!!

    Parent
    that would be about the right tin ear (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    for that team to think Kerry would be a choice Hillary voters would like. That same group probably thought the Hillary voters would like Webb. LOL

    Parent
    isnt that the pathetic (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    truth.

    Parent
    LOL Kerry (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    Oh goodness, he's be soooo dangerous!  Millions would die laughing.

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    Just think they actually pay these people big bucks to make this crap up. Exactly why would Hillary supporters like Kerry who supported Obama even though his state went heavily for Clinton?

    Parent
    The people who deliver these pearls of (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    wisdom are only talking to each other, that's why they think what they do; I have yet to hear anyone in a prominent anchor/headliner/political reporter-type position explain with any accuracy or insight what "the problem" is with Hillary supporters.

    Even when it is explained to them - even when there are lots of places to read what's going on, they still come up with baloney like this.

    Parent

    Too true. I haven't heard a one of 'em (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    who did the work to figure out just what the DNC did.  It's all about Obama, all the time, so we must just be pouting.  But we only do so periodically, so we'll come around.

    The question is will the Dem party come around to what it was, of course.  But figuring out what it did would be, as someone once said, harrrrd worrrrk.

    Parent

    Oh don't you realize we are still in the (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:36:27 PM EST
    ten stages of grief? Eventually we'll come to "acceptance."
    The pundits say so.

    Parent
    I'm in the ten stages of disgust with (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:58:13 PM EST
    Dems advancing Republican agendas. Been there and done that on acceptance and all it got me was more right wing crap. Tell the pundits to call me when the Dems actually start standing up for issues and principles that are important to me. Then and only then, we can talk about me coming home.

    Parent
    Kerry?! Di they mean Kerrey? :-) (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:26:56 PM EST
    Our local tv types always mess up pronunciations and can't spell to tell similar names apart, putting a Hartland in a county where a Hartford belongs.

    Parent
    I think Clark is a more compelling choice (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    Per Digby (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    Clark has "decided" to take some time off from Dem politics, because as one unnamed Dem put it his attack on McCain was not "helpful".

    God forbid this Party nominate a VP who has actually won a war, that would just be stupid you know.

    Clark has now been destroyed by the Media, which of course never works in concert on anything, that's just conspiracy stuff of addle-minded Clinton supporters you know.

    Jackson

    Parent

    you know, that quick media attack on Clark (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    makes me worry about what the media will do and who's side they're really on. I mean, attacks even came from Obama's own NBC. I'm beginning to think the media can be fickle. snark. But seriously, that was fast and vicious. Makes me think they're just waiting to pounce on someone.

    Parent
    Ding! Ding! Ding! (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    We have a winner!  LOL

    The Media was anti-Clinton, and being pro-Obama was a part of that mindset.  The worm (no, not that WORM-lol) will turn and stab Obama right in the back.  After all, the people were too stupid to listen to The Village when we didn't ride WJC out on the rails because of the unforgivable sin of being the first President ever to committ adultery.  Gore found that out the hard way didn't he?  They're really mad that we stubborn, bitter clingers wouldn't listen to their post-mortems on Clinton in February.  That's the reason Russert was so deified on Kos and the like, because he was an old school anti-Clintonite, not because they gave one half of a poo about his wife and kid.  

    Jackson

    Parent

    Yep, next step is to stick Obama (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:32:50 PM EST
    with a loser, so narrowing his options that the media will look all librul for backing him but making it harder for a Dem ticket to win.  

    For example, the NBC talk of Kerry.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    Last week, an anonymous Republican strategist was quoted as saying, "Dick Gephardt is the one we're really afraid of."  Can you imagine?

    Parent
    They must not like eyebrows. (none / 0) (#163)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:38:56 PM EST
    This thread is so funny! (none / 0) (#182)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:19:04 PM EST
    It's killing me!

    Parent
    It's going to be fun to read the reactions here (none / 0) (#118)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    when Obama wins in November

    Parent
    if obama works for for traditional (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by sancho on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:50:23 PM EST
    dem issues like universal healthcare, preserving roe, getting rid of the FISA atrocity, keeping social security, etc., then people here will be happy. if he continues to collaborate with corporate interests and ramps up the war and fails us on DEM issues, we wont be. for too many obama supporters, the election is about personality and not about issues and social justice.

    Parent
    I said corporate media want him to lose (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:49:25 PM EST
    not that Obama would lose.  He's got a shot at it, depending -- much depending on the VP pick.

    Got it now?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#196)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:51:32 AM EST
    Obama believes that a Colin Powell endorsement will totally wash away the Wes Clark stain....  

    Seriously...  

    Parent

    That is a dang shame (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:20:41 PM EST
    How much would you pay to be a fly on the wall the next time the Clarks and the Clintons get together for dinner?

    Parent
    I would give everything I have!! (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:35:46 PM EST
    Me too, and max out my credit cards as well! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:00:46 PM EST
    If need be, we can pool our resources! :) (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:52:01 PM EST
    I think you found the way (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    to retire Clinton's debt.  A lottery for a chance at dinner.  With or without Clark.  

    Parent
    Comment of the day!! (none / 0) (#181)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:16:26 PM EST
    God forbid this Party nominate a VP who has actually won a war, that would just be stupid you know.


    Parent
    wikipedia (obviously): (none / 0) (#12)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:41:39 PM EST
    Early life and family

    Reed was born in Cranston, Rhode Island, to Mary Louise Monahan and Joseph Anthony Reed.[1] Reed graduated from La Salle Academy in Providence and attended the United States Military Academy in West Point, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1971. Following his graduation and receiving an active duty commission, Reed attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he received a Masters in Public Policy. Reed, an Army Ranger and a paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry Platoon leader in the 325th Infantry Regiment[2], a Company Commander, and a Battalion Staff Officer. He returned to West Point in 1978 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences.[3] He married professional Senate staffer Julia Hart in a Roman Catholic ceremony in the Catholic chapel on the United States Military Academy campus on April 16, 2005. On January 5, 2007, Mrs. Reed gave birth to a daughter, Emily.


    Law and politics

    Reed resigned from the army in 1979 as a captain and enrolled in Harvard Law School. In 1982, he graduated and served as an associate at the Washington, D.C. office of law firm of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. Afterwards, he returned to Rhode Island and joined Edwards and Angell, a Providence law firm. Reed was elected as a state senator in 1984 and served three terms. In 1990, Reed was elected to the United States House of Representatives. For the next six years, Reed became well known in his state for his positions on education and health care, and when Senator Claiborne Pell announced his retirement in 1996, Reed campaigned to be his replacement and won the election. He was easily reelected to a second term in 2002.

    Reed is currently a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Americans for Democratic Action has often listed him as a "hero" as they indicate he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.[4]


    Parent

    I hve come to really admire (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:46:20 PM EST
    both of the Rhode Island senators.  Reed isn't very dynamic, but he's smart and appears to be amore principled dem that some of the rest of them.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Sheldon Whitehouse run for president.

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    I wouldn't mind seeing Sheldon Whitehouse run for president.

    Can you just see the campaign posters?  Put Whitehouse in the White House!

    Parent

    A perfect fit! (none / 0) (#42)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:55:58 PM EST
    :)

    Parent
    Whitehouse is very impressive (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:06:36 PM EST
    One of the few new 06 Senators that consistently vote Democratic on key issues like Iraq and FISA. Also, one of the best questioners around during his committee appearances. Some of the more established members could take lessons IMO.


    Parent
    I really like Whitehouse (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    We stopped donating to NARAL after they absurdly insisted on endorsing Lincoln Chafee over Whitehouse.  Gee, is the cause of abortion rights better served by a Senator who votes to confirm anti-choice judges or a Senator who votes to reject them?  Tough call there, NARAL!

    Parent
    NARAL is completely worthless IMO (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:27:50 PM EST
    The best thing pro-choice women could do is find another outlet for their donations and completely eliminate funding that organization.

    Parent
    Our pro-choice dollars (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM EST
    Even EMILY's (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:34:29 PM EST
    has its issues for me lately.  (Btw, it is an acronym -- Early Money Is Like Yeast.  I won't go into the wimmen's jokey takeoff on that. . . .)

    Parent
    Hee hee (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    I'm sure I wouldn't want to know!

    I eschew the capitalization because it looks weird, even though I know that's how they like it.  So far, they haven't called to say my checks are improperly made out, for some reason.

    Parent

    Mine go to Planned Parenthood (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:02:52 PM EST
    and occasionally Emily's List.  I'd already written NARAL off so was unable to un-support them even more this year.  Useless.

    Parent
    Reed is great in hearings... (none / 0) (#49)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    he comes in prepared and he holds feet to fire.

    What if McCain chooses Crist? I think that may be "change" evangelicals refuse to believe in, but nothing surprises me anymore.

    Parent

    funny thing, i noticed crist just got (none / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    engaged. that would certainly play better than single veep!

    Parent
    I'd love to see (none / 0) (#197)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:54:54 AM EST
    McCain choose Clinton.  That would totally throw everybody over!!  It would be the most fun you could have in an election year!!  

    Parent
    I'd die to hear (none / 0) (#198)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:57:01 AM EST
    McCain say "I told Hillary she could have any healthcare plan she wanted."  

    I'd totally die, choke, rollover, and whatever else -- and I'd vote for the McCain/Clinton 08 Ticket!!!!!!

    Parent

    Reed appears to be a good guy but (none / 0) (#67)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:11:41 PM EST
    I saw his appearance yesterday on, I think, This Week, opposite Sen. Lieberman.  I think Lieberman out-wonked Reed.  


    Parent
    Army captain vs. Supreme Commander of NATO (none / 0) (#25)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    No disrespect to Sen. Reed, but Clark is better known and has a better resume. And he's a liberal too.

    Parent
    OTOH - Reed did not spend his entire career (none / 0) (#44)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:57:46 PM EST
    in the military.  He did a full term plus of military service.

    And, I've known (from my service days) a couple fellow officers who went on to teach at West Point.  (Now that I think of it, it'd take two hands to count them) They all made full colonel, a couple before hitting 20 years in.  You don't get that assignment - teaching at the Point - without (a) first having an advanced degree, almost always at gov't expense (i.e., the Army says "we think so highly of you that we will send you to one of the finest civilian colleges at government expense and pay you your full soldier-pay") and (b) having done exceptionally well in your troop assignments previously.  In other words, you're a star.

    That he quit to go to HLS and thence, tells you what a sharpie he is.  Impressive guy.

    Parent

    Clark will be a great SecDef (none / 0) (#120)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST
    The response to his comments have put him on the bench for VP

    Parent
    Can't be Sec. of Defense (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    unless Congress initiates legislation for an exception to the rule that a person must be retired from the military for 10 years. IIRC Clark retired in 2002.

    Parent
    Sen. John Kerry (none / 0) (#6)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    Why not? He's already been a presidential nominee, experienced legislator, Vietnam War Hero, etc...Heck, if he was good enough in 2004, why not 2008.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    He wasn't good enough in 2004... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:43:01 PM EST
    ...and we knew THAT in 2004!

    Parent
    Kerry? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    He's going to have to put up a fight to retain his senate seat, isn't he?

    Parent
    No, not much of one (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM EST
    O'Reilly has only slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell.  But he's getting a lot of attention and pretty good polling for an unknown out of nowhere because of Mass. folks' annoyance with Kerry over the Obama endorsement so early and so contrary to the sentiments of Mass. voters.  (my annoyance is solidly in the John Kerry Annoyance Pool).

    At the state primary caucuses, O'Reilly surprised a lot of people by getting over the 15% votes from delegates needed.  Both sides have said they know the pro-Clinton annoyance was a significant factor.  To O'Reilly's credit, he's working pretty hard for it and he talks quite knowledgeably about policy issues.

    Just today I was thinking that there are awful lot of people around Obama who seem to be trying to make themselves more important off of him, rather than already being important in their own right -- Kerry, Brazile, McCaskill, Daschle, Wexler.  Maybe reaching for greater prominence is more appropriate way to put it.  Some sort of twisting double reverse back suck-up.

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    Not so much. The last Massachusetts Senate poll has Kerry at +31. Can't see him being on the short list for VP though. I like Webb but suspect anytime we hear someone say "I absolutely will not accept" pretty much means they already know they will not be asked.

    Parent
    Um. (none / 0) (#33)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:50:51 PM EST
    Maybe he really doesn't want the job.

    Parent
    He does have a primary challenger. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:51:15 PM EST
    But I don't think O'Reilly's got the chops.

    Parent
    Um . . . (none / 0) (#51)
    by Landulph on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    Why on Earth would Kerry (who came within 3 points of the White House himself) even want the job? This sounds like something the pundits made up, to be honest. Makes no sense at all

    Parent
    Well, it's time for Kerry to stand up (none / 0) (#164)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:41:51 PM EST
    and say that "if nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve!"  

    Pretty soon we could have a whole group (pod?) of them.

    Parent

    Kerry would really help him with his (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    problem in small town and rural America. Not to mention the fun the Republicans would have with the two most liberal Senators evah and dueling flip flop images.

    Parent
    Oh LAWD (none / 0) (#171)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    And here we'd be stuck with the Swift Boaters all over again.

    Ay, carumba.

    Parent

    Attack of the 50 foot flip-flop (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by davnee on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    with a giant piece of arugula stuck to its sole.

    The R's would have too much fun with that ticket.  And I wouldn't be able to stop myself from laughing along.

    Parent

    Hi 5'ing Davnee....lmao (none / 0) (#90)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    Richardson of course (none / 0) (#11)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    OK, a bit of a snark. I'm kind of thinking he'll pick a Republican myself.

    Picking Richardson could have some value (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    of the comedic sort . . . .

    Parent
    I'd put a couple of bucks on Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MsExPat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    For these simple reasons:

    1. He's got a rep as an experienced foreign policy hand. But he's not so dynamic as to outshine the big O.

    2. Latino, speaks Spanish, from a purple state, governor (therefore no loss of Dem Senate seat)

    3. He sold his soul for O..and now they owe him.

    Okay, well I wouldn't put more than $20 on it.....

    Parent
    Picking a Republican would definitely complete (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:52:10 PM EST
    the transition from the Democratic Party to the Unity08 party. Great way IMO to help save the Republican Party from the consequences of its own actions and set up a Republican for president in 8 years assuming Obama is elected and serves two terms.

    Of course, I was never a fan of the Unity08 Party concept for precisely the reasons state above. Choosing a Republican VP would definitely have a negative impact on my vote.

     

    Parent

    Zero chance it will happen. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    For one thing, I don't think Obama would do it.  And if he tried, it'd cost him the nomination.

    Parent
    50/50 (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:59:50 PM EST
    is my opinion. I don't think it would cost him the nomination at all. And if changing on FISA and Roe v. Wade doesn't cost him much in the polls, why stop there?

    Parent
    50-50... LOL. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    If I could get even odds on that, I'd sell everything I have and bet the proceeds.

    He wouldn't get the nomination because the Democratic Party would be righteously pissed and take it away -- his margin is not so large that a bunch of angry superdelegates couldn't do it.

    Which is to say, even if he wanted a gooper (which he doesn't IMO; why would he?), they party wouldn't let him do it.

    Parent

    While I tend to agree that Obama would probably (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:19:21 PM EST
    not go this route even though Hagel's name is said to be on the list, IMO nothing short of being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy will cost his the nomination.

    Parent
    Well, I wish he would then. (none / 0) (#165)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:42:50 PM EST
    Chuck Hagel would be Best Choice for Unity08 (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:12:06 PM EST
    obama already appears republican lite... (none / 0) (#93)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:26:52 PM EST
    so I guess a repub VP wouldn't be too far-fetched...or how about an Indy like obama's mentor, Joe LIEberman?

    Parent
    or Hey....how about that Zell Miller fella? (none / 0) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:29:16 PM EST
    How 'bout a Unity Pony? (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM EST
    After all, the Romans crowned a horse as caesar . . . and the coronation will be in a coliseum.

    And the media reduce it all to a horse race, anyway.

    Parent

    Depends on how he is doing as Nov comes (none / 0) (#23)
    by Saul on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    If he is way ahead then it probably  won't matter who he picks. But if he is in a dead heat with McCain or if McCain picks up steam and pulls ahead by a little bit he will then pick Hilary so he can cinch the election.  It's his ace in the hole although he does not really want her. Only if its absolutely necessary.

    Yeah, but he has to pick next month. (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:50:31 PM EST
    No reason to think much will change in the polls before the convention. He'll probably be in the same position as he is now, up by a few points.

    Parent
    um, he (and dems) have to pick in August (none / 0) (#30)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    so waiting until November or earlier is not an option.

    Parent
    That could be right (none / 0) (#139)
    by democrattotheend on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:39:21 PM EST
    Although I am not convinced that she wins him more votes than she loses. I'm an Obama supporter and I want him to win so I am all for him picking Hillary if that's what it takes to win but I'm not sure she helps the ticket as much as some people seem to think. Polling so far shows that she helps with the base a little bit but scares away some independents and "Obamacans". I like Hillary and part of me actually wants her to be the VP nominee but I am not sure she adds more votes than she loses.

    Parent
    Run with Schweitzer! (none / 0) (#32)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    He is popular among liberals without being a marquee name who will detract from Obama's aura.

    Just my opinion.

    cue choir of angels: (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:52:28 PM EST
    who will detract from Obama's aura.

    Hee hee.

    Parent

    still smarting from the primary, eh? n/t (none / 0) (#52)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    You're funny today. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:12:34 PM EST
    He won't want it... (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    And he's a fighter...darn tootin' he opens his mouth and speaks his mind, the "aura" will be detracted from.

    Parent
    Having him speak his mind and 'fight' as you say (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:05:20 PM EST
    is really the point. He can be there to soothe the base while Obama runs the big picture campaign without Schweitzer drawing a lot of attention himself due to his not being a national brand a la a Clinton or Edwards, etc.

    Parent
    Elizabeth Edwards is fine for me (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:42:36 PM EST
    and would get my vote, with hope of really coping with the health care insurance costs (as I'm in the city with the highest costs in the country -- just wait 'til the rest of you see the results of that).

    Clinton would do so, too, but I hope that she stays far, far away from this campaign.

    Parent

    Now we have common ground. (none / 0) (#173)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:59:15 PM EST
    Neither of us wants Hillary Clinton as VP, and we both like the idea of Elizabeth Edwards taking over the healthcare issue.


    Parent
    Schweitzer has a personality (none / 0) (#191)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:39:26 PM EST
    all of his own.

    The only reason he's not on the larger stage is that he doesn't want it.

    He doesn't do second fiddle well.

    Parent

    I think your last bit is key (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:54:57 PM EST
    the choice can't outshine Obama in any way for him to be comfortable IMO. So it needs to be someone just past middle aged like Obama (late 40's or early 50's) vs. "old" like in late 50's or gasp 60's. And it would be better if they didn't have really stellar or star power experience. And he better not even think about Mark Warner because we need him to win in VA.

    Parent
    FWIW (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    Given those parameters, Schweitzer makes a lot of sense.

    Parent
    Every once in a while I make some sense. n/t (none / 0) (#63)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:08:13 PM EST
    Then you start (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    talking about aura, and good sense flies out the window, just like the singing angels.

    Parent
    Don't be intimidated by a big word. ;o) (2.00 / 0) (#95)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:26:57 PM EST
    A lot of people are voting for Obama purely b/c of the energy he gives off, the feeling of being something special. That's aura. Hillary has one of her own, don't worry--a big one--and that is why she unfortunately can't be the VP. It's not that we don't like her; it's just that she's too famous/popular for the show to be all about Barack. That's all I'm sayin'.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    It's notable that Bill Clinton was not too insecure to name a VP who was a dynamic power center in his own right.  

    Parent
    Zigackly (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Landulph on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:38:36 PM EST
    Even Kerry, for that matter (I know, I know . . .), surprised a lot of people by choosing Edwards--better looking, more charismatic, better speaker--but he sublimated his own ego by going with the candidate he thought (rightly or not) would help him win. (FWTW, I thought Kerry's convention speech was clearly superior to Edwards, but I've been wrong before).

    And I despised Joe Lieberman long before it was cool (his presence in '00 nearly caused me to abstain--ah, my foolish, innocent youth!), but he was an individual of experience and substance (well, experience, anyway) who wasn't just a cipher or placeholder on the ticket. If our nominee is so fragile or thinly qualified that he has to pick a complete nonentity as Veep to avoid being overshadowed, we've got severe problems.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton won a three-way race in which (none / 0) (#175)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:02:34 PM EST
    he needed a big name to lift his profile. Barack Obama is going to be the first black president of the United States and an orator whose skill has garnered him worldwide fame. Your comparison--and attempt at belittling Barack--is lacking.

    Parent
    I hate to have to tell you this (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:02:19 PM EST
    But the worldwide fame is kinda more for the black thing than the oratory thing.

    Parent
    Should "the show" . . . (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Landulph on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:33:52 PM EST
    not also be about principles, ideas, the Democratic Party, and so on? Something besides a personality cult? Apparently not . . .

    BTW, if a mediocre candidate is that terrified about being overshadowed by his Veep, he winds up picking Dan Quayle. (Supposedly that was Bush Sr.'s primary reason for choosing "Mr. Potatoe Head.")

    Parent

    A Blast From The Past (none / 0) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:49:43 PM EST
    Guess we'll never get through a VP selection process without dropping Potatoe Heads name.

    The upside is there will be no Dan Quayle personality regardless of the pick. The downside of course, that also means there will be no Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown debates.

    Parent

    You're fogetting that (none / 0) (#133)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:08:20 PM EST
    his stunning good looks were to draw the women's vote!

    Parent
    Poor Dan (none / 0) (#136)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:20:34 PM EST
    What was Dan's biggest failure. The potatoe, or initiating a debate with a TV character...and losing.

    As an historical figure for the vice presidency, he did set the bar mighty low for future VP picks (even with his stunning good looks).

    Parent

    I wonder if Dan is still available? (none / 0) (#166)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:44:22 PM EST
    As I said, Schweitzer is a good liberal who does (none / 0) (#179)
    by halstoon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:08:30 PM EST
    a lot to further principles, ideas, the party, etc. All those things matter, and Gov. Schweitzer is a good choice for them all.

    He is also a good choice b/c that is essentially all he represents. He has no 'cult of personality' to use your term. Barack does. People want to vote for Barack, and we don't need a VP with their own built in fan base. Schweitzer shores up the base of the party, leaving the personality and showmanship to Barack, who regardless of what you may think is at least a talented enough candidate to beat a Clinton, something nobody else has done since 1982.

    Remember, Bush won when he picked Quayle...

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Landulph on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:03:02 AM EST
    for officially admitting what many of us have suspected, halstoon--that Barack Obama DOES indeed have "a cult of personality." I claim 10 points.

    Parent
    I'd go with Former FL Sen. Bob Graham (none / 0) (#43)
    by Exeter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    He's got alot of street cred in national security, he's from a key battle ground state, he doesn't contradict Obama's position on Iraq, and most of all he adds gravitas without outshining Obama.

    Too old. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Landulph on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    And heart trouble forced him to bow out of his Presidential run in '04. If it's Florida you're after, why not Ben Nelson (who I don't particularly like, but would give a significant edge in the Sunshine State).

    Parent
    He's younger than McCain (none / 0) (#105)
    by Exeter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:32:29 PM EST
    and heart trouble never stopped Cheney. Nelson wouldn't be a bad choice either.

    Parent
    I've nothing against Graham, (none / 0) (#116)
    by Landulph on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    he was right on Iraq, after all--but wouldn't choosing a 65+ Veep undermine his "message" (such as it is) of youth, freshness, etc? And recurrent media mentions of Graham's medical history might remind voters of Cheney. Silly, I know--but stupid stuff like this has lost elections before.

    Parent
    My mistake . . . (none / 0) (#156)
    by Landulph on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:05:07 PM EST
    Mixed up my Nelsons! Their voting records are so much alike, it's hard! Good call, Palomino.

    Parent
    Schweitzer is the flavor du jour, but: (none / 0) (#66)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:11:14 PM EST
    The real battle is not for Montana -- it is for Ohio and Michigan, and for party unity.

    The best choice remains Ed Rendell.

    VPs don't deliver states. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    It just doesn't work.  So it's not a real consideration IMO.

    Parent
    It may be true as a general proposition ... (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:30:20 PM EST
    that VP candidates don't deliver states.

    However, Rendell has already delivered Pennsylvania once this year.

    Parent

    Pennsylvania went for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    not sure I'm getting the already delivered part of your email.

    But Rendell already said no dice to VP.

    Parent

    Yes, of course Pennsylvania went for Clinton, (none / 0) (#200)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:38:35 AM EST
    with the high-visibility support of Rendell and his organization. That is precisely what would make him appealing to the Clinton wing of the party.

    Rendell's attributes extend well beyond "delivering" Pennsylvania, which is a state that I think Obama is likely to win anyway. His decidedly un-elite persona would I think make a nice counterbalance to Obama's. Rendell is a very sharp and smart debater, and would be very effective in an "attack dog" role. Rendell is also Jewish, which would directly help with a crucial voting bloc in Florida, and would finally drive a stake through the heart of the Obama-is-a-Muslim canard.

    Even his history of plain-speaking "gaffes" could work in Rendell's favor. It's far better that the press be talking about latest muffed phrasing of the VP candidate, rather than that of the person at the top of the ticket. However, I saw little evidence of Rendell's reputation for "message undiscipline" in the actual 2008 campaign. The comparison with Wesley Clark, another plausible VP candidate from the Clinton camp, is illustrative, and highly favorable to Rendell.

    I know Rendell has downplayed his own personal qualifications to be a VP candidate, but I interpreted that as part of the traditional VP flirtation dance. I may have missd something, though.  Has he actually said anything Shermanesque?

    Parent

    I get more convinced it will be Sebelius (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:13:41 PM EST
    all the time.  My reasons:
    1.  Obama truly likes her and wants to work with her

    2. They think a woman will help with Hillary voters

    3. Red state governor - even if Kansas is not the red state they are going for, she talks the talk.

    4.  I just added this today - Invesco stadium send-off needed for 'excitement infusion'


    Another non-starter. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:16:37 PM EST
    And she doesn't bring much more to the table than he does.

    Parent
    the way this is going, we'll be luck if the (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:02:21 PM EST
    candidate can bring their elbows to the table.

    Parent
    I'm thinking the same (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:17:54 PM EST
    Don't discount the bit about who Obama likes and can work with. I think that will be more important than most any factor really. Which is why I think Bill Richardson is still in contention as well.

    Parent
    agree (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:19:54 PM EST
    Some also think (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Landulph on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    Sibelius will help deliver Ohio, because her father, John Gilligan was a "wildly popular" Democratic governor of said state.

    Reality check. I'm from Ohio, and Gilligan served a single term back in the early 1970s, over THIRTY YEARS ago. No one in this state knows Sibelius is related to him, and no one would care if they did, because no one can remember who her father WAS. (Say "Gilligan," and the first thing anyone thinks of is The Skipper, The Millionaire, The Movie Star, and The Minnow.) If Donna Brazille and friends have some idea that "the Gilligans" are to Ohio what the Kennedys are to Mass, they need to enter Kool-Aid detox pronto.

    Parent

    Meh (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    She may be able to talk in a way that is relatable to Ohioans if her Daddy was governor there.

    That said,if he thinks the women folk will come around because he picked a token female, he ought to think long and hard. Many of us didn't support Hillary based on her female parts.

    Myself, unless Clinton is on the ticket, he can count me out. It's the only thing Obama could do to bring me on board.

    Parent

    Perhaps . . . (none / 0) (#157)
    by Landulph on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:07:52 PM EST
    but if talking to Ohioans in a way they can relate to is key, what about Strickland (Gov.) or Brown (Sen.), who are, y'know, actual OHIOANS with experience winning recent statewide landslides? The only reason I can think of is that neither are dishwater-dull yes-persons, and that either might well overshadow the nominee.

    Parent
    Strickland (none / 0) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    has already done his Shermanesque statement....search the archives on this blog.

    Parent
    Sebelius could use an excitement infusion (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:48:12 PM EST
    if ever I saw someone in need of it.  She reminds me of that great SNL skit on Perry Como, supine and soothing and sendine one and all into snoozeville.

    That reason, of course, probably rates her higher for others who don't want Obama outshone.  But if they really think that any uterus will do, it is more evidence of inability to listen to the real issues of a lot of Clinton supporters.  No surprise.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    Loved that Perry Como SNL bit.

    I feel the same way you do about it, but I really think she will be the pick, especially after they ran so scared from Clark's statements last week.  They don't want a fighter.

    Parent

    Then it will be McCaskill (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM EST
    just to get MO Blue going over the edge.

    And to get Missouri -- more "gettable" than Kansas.

    Parent

    You got that right about McCaskill (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    sending MO Blue over the edge. {grits teeth at the thought of her as VP}

    McCaskill and a large portion the MO political machine couldn't win Obama votes outside the normal Dem strongholds during the primary and doubt she will be much more successful during the GE even as VP.  It is not like she is the much loved Senator from MO.

    It is a well known fact that Claire as VP would definitely not persuade me to vote D for the top of the ticket. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Parent

    Real No. 4 (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    I forgot this one:

    4. They think a VP that has foreign policy and national security experience only highlights the fact that Obama has so little. I'm not joking - that is really how they think.

    Parent

    I just realized why it won't be Hillary. (none / 0) (#125)
    by WillBFair on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    The media smear campaign has been going for 16 years, and even though it's been nothing more than childish insults, there are a ton of dingbats on the far left and right who swallowed it with a shovel. They have been seething for years, and by now the sweet name of Clinton sends them into a raving fit.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com


    What took him so long? (none / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:34:16 PM EST
    As a first-term senator who barely got elected and then only by a fluke, I can't imagine the party would allow him to risk that senate seat...

    I can think of a certain Nobel Laureate (none / 0) (#147)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:33:49 PM EST
    that seems to fit the bill well.  He even has VP experience. :)

    Oh please. I don't want Gore to (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by derridog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:45:59 PM EST
    degrade himself by becoming Obama's veep.

    Parent
    gore literally turned down any chance of (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
    running as the candidate. there is no way he wants any part of this campaign.

    Parent
    John Edwards (none / 0) (#190)
    by Diss on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:11:02 PM EST
    It is going to be Edwards, you watch BTD.
    He retracted his strong refusal and said he would still be open for vp, probably as a result of being contacted for vetting. Also he is going to have a SERIES of debates with Rove so that might be another indication when he is taking such a high profile role as an attack dog (which he will have to be against Rove).

    He is southern too (none / 0) (#192)
    by Diss on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:41:48 PM EST
    One thing I forgot to mention above, I think Edwards is from North Carolina (or has a strong connection to that state, forgot what it was) and Obama is making a serious play for NC which has been solid red before. he is only 3-4 points behind in majority of polls there. Edwards is a southerner which might also help with some southern states that are very close right now.

    Parent
    Bayh (none / 0) (#194)
    by nell on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:32:37 AM EST
    I think it will be Bayh only because I read today that the Obama campaign is opening up 25-30 campaign offices in the state. They are making a play for Indiana, which makes NO sense given that it is a red, red state. Bush won in 2004 by 16 or 20 points. There haven't been any major demographic changes, either, which would account for the difference. I bet Obama would bring African American voters out in droves in IN, which would certainly help to make it closer, but I don't think that alone could make up the difference.

    The only person who could deliver Indiana state wide is Evan Bayh...their play for the state makes me think it is him. In addition, he brings solid economic credentials given that he balanced the budget as a two term governor of the state, is in his second term in the US Senate, and he won't outshine Obama...

    On the contrary (none / 0) (#204)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:55:28 AM EST
    Two different polling averaging sites have Indiana in play. Fivethirtyeight lists Indiana as a toss up and RealClearPolitics gives Obama a microscopic lead.

    Parent