Monday Night Veepstakes Thread

I'm back to thinking Sen. Barack Obama will pick Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as his running mate.

Drudge quotes a New York Times reporter as saying the announcement could come tomorrow morning, but is more likely to occur Weds. morning. A Washington Post reporter thinks Friday is more likely.

Obama will be in Virginia on Wednesday. Also significant is this WaPo article about Obama's emphasis on Virginia. While some say the Dems wouldn't have given Mark Warner the convention keynote speaker slot if the VP also was from Virginia, I think they might, given how much effort Obama is putting into registering new voters in Virginia in hopes of turning the state blue. [More...]

Since the start of the year, 202,000 people have registered to vote in Virginia. Of those, 64 percent are younger than 35, a demographic Obama expects to win handily.

State election officials and the Obama campaign expect to add tens of thousands more voters by the deadline. Fairfax County, for example, is processing, on average, 1,800 registration applications a week, county officials said recently.

And, southwestern Virginia, which is more strongly Republican, has been losing registered voters. So with more Dems and younger voters in the North and fewer Republicans in the South, perhaps the state is winnable.

Virginia has 13 electoral votes. Indiana, another red state, only has 11. Colorado and New Mexico, both tossups, together have 14.

If I were Obama, I'd be concentrating on Ohio and Florida and Michigan and their combined 64 electoral votes. Since he's not, and Colorado and New Mexico are iffy, that leaves Virginia.

It also might be why Tim Kaine doesn't have a speaking slot at the convention yet.

I don't think a candidate with foreign policy experience will be Obama's final choice. He has been campaigning on his unique inspirational brand of politics. He's selling himself and what he will do in the future, not his past accomplishments. His supporters have enthusiastically endorsed him for who he is, not what he has done. It was clear throughout the primaries that experience wasn't as important to voters as was their belief that "change", whatever that means, was necessary.

So I think Obama's choice will depend on two things: the results his campaign got from internal polling and focus groups and which candidate they think is most likely to bring home a necessary swing state.

That sure isn't Joe Biden and Delaware.

On a related note, he sure is dragging this out. They say in comedy, timing is everything. I'm wondering if he isn't waiting too long. I'm already past the point of suspense and thinking, can we please just get on with this?

< Cheerleaders Wanted, Clinton Supporters? Not So Much | An Enlightented Crime Policy: The Best Jail is an Empty One >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:02:03 PM EST
    I guess I'll know by Wednesday which side of the fence I'll be standing on.


    What are the two sides of the fence? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:14:51 PM EST
    There are actually three sides (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:33:21 PM EST
    as of this moment one is  tepidly supporting Obama, staying home or actively campaigning against the Democratic nominee.

    Before someone calls me unreasonable, I didn't say I wouldn't vote for a Democrat when they ignored the electorate on Iraq. I didn't say I wouldn't vote for a Democrat when they sold us out on FISA. I didn't scream and holler never when I watched them steal votes to pull him across the finish line. I STILL said I'd vote for him if he chose Hillary despite this all. I don't think anyone else beside her would inspire my trust at this point but I STILL wouldn't actively campaign against him if I were led to believe that party platform principles were going to be represented not just in words but in deed with people that have a record of supporting choice and equality(Kaine doesn't have either. He supported the partial birth tragedy. He stated he felt marriage is between a man and a woman and signed the amendment to our constitution with little more than a mild rebuke(something about liniting contracts rather than infringing on rights).

    I have to draw a line somewhere and I am drawing it on choice and equality. I wouldn't be able to look my children in the eye and say some things ARE worth fighting for if I didn't do so. I will actively campaign against an Obama/Kaine ticket. I will do so because the party needs to understand there ARE some things worth fighting for and some things you just can't compromise for the sake of politics. Winning means nothing if you have to compromise everything to do so.

    Anyway, that's where I am. It's a pretty exhausting place to be. I never thought I'd be looking into prices of booths at my local festival to campaign against the Democrats. It literally breaks my heart.


    You obviously feel passionately (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:43:12 PM EST
    about putting a prochoice VP on the ticket, and a lot of folks no doubt agree with you.

    I know folks dont want to boil this down to the Court, but McCain said that the Justice he would not have appointed include Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, while Obama said Scalia, Thomas and Roberts.  That helps make the choice easy for me.


    Do you (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:48:26 PM EST
    trust Obama to do that? I wouldn't be surprised if he decided that he needed a pro life court. His record is all over the place on this issue.

    Huh? (2.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:52:00 PM EST
    Virtually no projection shows the Democrats not in control of Congress. Why would Obama possibly decide that he needed a pro-life choice? This is just detached fearmongering.

    Who do (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:59:25 PM EST
    you think they would stand up to more on judges? McCain or Obama? I know that's a tough question with as craven as they've been these last two years but I think that they'd make excuses for someone like Cass Sunstein (who said Roe was wrongly decided) and wouldn't for a McCain pick.

    I agree with you on this (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:22:53 PM EST
    The dems will cave to ANYTHING Obama wants.  With McCain, they would be able to fight.

    Besides, I don't trust Obama.  He was all set to vote FOR Roberts before his handlers told him it would be BAD for his nomination chances. So, just like anything else, he flip flopped on his opinion of Roberts in order to help get a future nomination.  What does he actually BELIEVE in?


    I'll go with DemForever's answer. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:01:45 PM EST
    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:24:44 PM EST
    had a Democratic congress for two years -- then the public decided that one Democrat in charge was enough and voted in a Republican Congress.  

    If Obama and Congress don't get their acts together, there is a decent chance there will be a Republican Congress again in two years.  This is one of the dangers of getting a Democratic president.  Congress' poll numbers aren't looking so hot lately...  


    Worse than Bush's. (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:28:19 PM EST

    Or maybe we believe in the separation of powers, and people blame the majority of those who have shirked their duties and caved to administration bullying.

    Hard to have respect for cavers.


    I trust Obama (none / 0) (#88)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:53:28 PM EST
    to appoint a pro-choice court.  Sorry if it wasnt clear.

    re-election? (none / 0) (#168)
    by kredwyn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:10:35 PM EST
    Yes, I trust Obama on that (none / 0) (#82)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:50:30 PM EST
    and I trust McCain even more to appoint a RW court that will be in place for years to come.

    Well, everyone has (none / 0) (#112)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:25:13 PM EST
    her own own comfort level.

    Men who are "uncomfortable" don't figure in.



    TheDNC, leading Dems, and far- left blogs (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kenosharick on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:48:18 PM EST
    do not care about the courts. If they did, they would not have forced a razor-thin election and iffy candidate down our throats rather than a runaway winner. I'm supposed to care? I do actually, but as was said above we each have our line in the sand. I am a gay man and already do not trust Obama on gay issues (mccain either, of course)- if he picks an anti-gay, anti-choice veep thats it for me as well.

    Don't forget that Obama's biggest accomplishment (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by JDM in NYC on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:02:47 PM EST
    as President of the Harvard Law Review was making very nice with the Federalist Society, and giving them much more representation on the Review than they had ever had, and more than they had after his term. The Federalist Society has essentially controlled judicial nominations since Reagan. I had hoped that a Dem President would change that. Now I think that all we have is a choice between tones: McCain's picks would be Bork-like, but Obama's would be less confrontational. Like Roberts.
    Post-partisanship in action.
    Happy Days Are Here Again!

    Sadly (none / 0) (#119)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    I don't trust Obama. He's given me no reason to do so and being a Democrat isn't enough because more than one Democrat aided and abetted to get partial birth passed.

    No the only way I'm going to believe that he is committed to the same values as me is to choose a runnning mate with those values(and that ain't Kaine, no matter how nice he is. And he is nice. I worked to get him in the governors office.)


    Biden also voted in favor of the late term (none / 0) (#180)
    by nycvoter on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM EST
    ban.  I heard him say "it's not as bad as you think, the woman can still go to court and there is an exception for her life"

    He was speaking, along with all the other candidates in April 2007 at the National Jewish Democratic Council


    Hillary or someone else (none / 0) (#51)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:26:59 PM EST
    for a lot of folks, anyway

    And if it's either Hillary or someone else? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:28:53 PM EST
    ...what then? What are the two options?

    If it is Hillary, a lot of her supporters (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    may support him, even if reluctantly.

    If it is anyone else, a lot of them are likely not to support him


    And support whom? (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:50:08 PM EST
    Will they stay home?

    I imagine they might.

    But only if they don't appreciate what a McCain presidency would mean, considering his Supreme Court answer at the Warren forum.


    That (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:01:50 PM EST
    argument is shop worn. The SCOTUS threat apparently isn't a good electoral strategy. It was truly the case in 2004 about the court and it wasn't a winning issue.

    And if that's the only argument you have for Obama, well, it's not a very strong one.


    Not nationally... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:03:52 PM EST
    ...and not in the electoral vote pattern.

    But among people who care and know about the power of SCOTUS I can't imagine it wouldn't be persuasive.

    I can't imagine blog posters wouldn't care.


    I think (none / 0) (#86)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:52:09 PM EST
    Rockin' (none / 0) (#87)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:52:44 PM EST
    I'm partial to (none / 0) (#169)
    by kredwyn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:11:50 PM EST
    the Scooby Doo administration.

    "Scooby snack in every pot."


    Today - the media is focused on Biden (none / 0) (#122)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:34:38 PM EST
    And irrc, he's been conspicuously absent from Sunday talk shows recently.

    hmmm, may be telling n/t (none / 0) (#139)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:55:23 PM EST
    he's out of the country (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:10:17 PM EST
    in Georgia.

    so disappointing (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:05:50 PM EST
    I am so hoping it is Hillary, it is the only successful choice I see at this late date..

    I dont think enough people nationwide know Kaine, of course this could be a sop to his prolife vote he seeks to get in VA and Catholics across the nation also, he is weak on the partial birth votes
    and he may think this will save him,

    I would say it won't help a white with that group and will further divide Dems who are concerned abut his pro life positions (ie feeling blue, dont get the wrenching morale choices)I know I think it does absolutely nothing for him

    lol (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    Freudian typo?

    won;t help a /whit (not white!)

    Here is my thought (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08:35 PM EST
    I believe way, way too much of the prognostication focuses on finding clues in who is speaking on various nights, who is not speaking, etc.

    In reality, as even Nancy Pelosi acknowledged, speaking schedules are trivially easy to change.  And unless we're supposed to believe that all of the DNC flunkies who are involved in setting the logistics of the speaking schedule know who the VP will be - in which case it would have leaked out by now - then I have to believe the two processes are happening on two entirely separate tracks.  If Obama announces Hillary as the VP, for example - not saying it's gonna happen! - then the schedule just gets shuffled a little bit.  It's not like the order of speakers is written in stone.

    What about Pelosi for VP? (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:59:14 PM EST
    She now thanking God for us being blessed with BO (that's for the fundies); she hates Hillary; she has recently flip-flopped on off shore drilling; she's been buying SD with her PAC; and she's a women that the blogs love.

    *I* think (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Jeannie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:58:40 PM EST
    it could be Howard Dean. After all, Howard got him to this place - payback...?

    I still have a sinking feeling (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:05:31 PM EST
    that if it's not Kaine it will be Kerry.



    Ooooooh. (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Jeannie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    That's even worse. Imagine two elitists who can't answer a question on the ticket.

    Imagine TWO people on our ticket with NO (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:27:39 PM EST
    Experience!  Tim Kaine is the only person who is certain not to outshine Obama since he has even LESS experience, only ONE  year as Governor of Virginia.  He knows even less than Obama about how to run a government, foreign policy, economics, women's issues, everything.  I didn't think that was even possible.  

    Obama and Kaine will be the 'not really' candidates.  They're pro choice, but not really.  They're against the death penalty, but not really.  They are against raising taxes on the middle class, but not really.  They are two people who no one knows where they stand on anything.  Lovely.  


    All mccain would need to do is (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by kenosharick on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:56:55 PM EST
    pick a veep with a little bit of experience. Imagine the commercials- and how they would match up, especially if there were real foreign policy crises like the recent Russia/Geogia conflict.

    As someone who (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:11:16 PM EST
    finds inspiration in a candidate with experience, I'm hardly encouraged by the prospect of a VP with no international resumé and no record of accomplishment on the national level.

    My concerns about an Obama presidency will be magnified if he picks someone like Kaine (or Sebelius).  

    Well, who is he? (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:18:39 PM EST
    "His supporters have enthusiastically endorsed him for who he is, not what he has done."

    Generally, we know who people are by judging what they have done.

    What has Obama done?

    If he were to choose Clinton as his running mate, at least he would have done that.

    Only Tim Kaine has done less than Obama (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:28:24 PM EST
    It's beyond comprehension... (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:22:05 PM EST
    I am sick of the notion that conservative democrats are more important than the democrats who have been working for democratic values for decades:  where do people like Kaine, Webb and the other choices of Obama stand on the ERA, gay and lesbian rights; working people and unions.  Instead he is pandering with Kaine to the religious community.

    Saturday at Saddelback was stupid and even worse, scary.  Americans are being led like sheep and their answer is to follow.  I cannot believe how much the so called progressive blogs are defending the alignment with the religious commuity.  

    And today, I sent a nasty e-mail to Cafferty at CNN. When Hillary was mentioned in the VP stakes, the old jerk literally smirked and snarled in such an unprofessional way, I wanted to kick the television.  Why are these abrasive good old boys allowed to get away with this crap.  If anyone had snarled at Obama they would be called a racist. If they snarled at McCain they would be called unpatriotic.  But the good old boys do this every time Hillary is mentioned.  They remind me of little boys (in old bodies) who are angry because a girl tried to come into their clubhouse and they make faces, and spit and snarl.........

    I cannot believe we are in the new millenium and the television boys behave like it's 1954.

    lol...you are bringing back memories (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    of The Little Rascals' Wimmin Haters Club....difference is, they were cute and didn't know better.

    YEP I remember (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:31:12 PM EST
    The whole primary campaign brought back memories of my frustration as a little girl during those times....
    wanting to play Little League and being told NO.....I remembered crying and my Dad trying to console me.  I could play as well or better than the boys I played with every day.
    I remember their clubs with NO GIRLS ALLOWED SIGNS.

    As I got older I used to laugh at it and then when I became a young woman it was no longer funny to be told "NO" even if the ways were more subtle.
    I remember guys who were incompetent getting leadership positions and the women being ignored.  It was the late sixties and STILL......but surely by 2008 things should have changed!!!!


    "The television boys.." (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:32:37 PM EST
    are like a pack of schoolyard bullies who bond by teasing and terrorizing the girls on the playground.  Cafferty is one of the worst.

    If you haven't already found this site, you might give it a look:



    Cafferty and the others (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:31:58 PM EST
    Have fallen in love with Obama.  They will be snarky about anyone who is not the object of their affections.  It's all emotional, their love for Obama, and their reactions to anyone who doesn't support him.  They will beat up anyone who says anything against their love interest.  

    what about that Edwards guy that Pelosi hyped? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:27:52 PM EST

    Chet Edwards from TX (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by stxabuela on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:28:49 PM EST
    He's a moderate Congressman from Waco.  I like Chet, he votes as far to the left as he dares in his Republican district, but he's a total unknown.  The other negative is that Edwards is the only Democrat who can win in that district--we'd lose a House seat for sure.

    OK - thanks (none / 0) (#121)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:33:04 PM EST
    His other negative is.... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Shainzona on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    that his last name is Edwards and he has no brand recognition...so guess whose brand he would be saddled with?

    Fertilized Egg-operated Phonebanks are awesome (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:37:39 PM EST
    ... for getting out the massive Unborn Vote.

    If there's any truth to these rumors, that's another huge Konichiwa, B!tches to those pesky voters of any stripe who fastidiously like to keep certain institutions -- like church and state -- separate. (FWIW, I also prefer the separation of Guns and Ammo, but what's the shredding of the lesser amendments among friends?)

    Speaking for my Pro-Choice Catholic Self only, appointing a No-Choice deadbeat as VP instead of one that's pro-Constitution is making my choice of Independence all that easier.

    I like to flex choice whenever and wherever possible to keep it strong so some d0uchebag doesn't do it for me.

    (If I were on Team Obama, I wouldn't make assumptions that Catholics appreciate having govermnent micro-manage their personal life decisions and morality  in general. Something about Free Will and Determinism ... yadda yadda, whatever.

    I recall it coming up in catechism back at the Holy Flying Crap!! Academy for Easily Startled Girls back when I was a yoot.)

    I may (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by chrisvee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:50:52 PM EST
    have to print this out and frame it.  I also need a tee-shirt that says Flexing My Choice.

    Combined with Obama's answer re: abortion at the Faith Forum, Obama/Kaine doesn't make a very appealing pro-choice ticket for me.  It's pro-choice if the Thought Police decide it's okay.


    The new pro choice (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:09:15 PM EST
     will be don't have sex(or ask for it by not wearing provocative clothes or showing dare I say it CLEAVAGE) or get forced to have a kid no matter what ----There are your choices ladies. See how pro choice we all are.

    Fabulous! (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Jeannie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:14:17 PM EST
    Great post!
    "I like to flex choice whenever and wherever possible to keep it strong so some d0uchebag doesn't do it for me."

    seriously... (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST
    On a related note, he sure is dragging this out. They say in comedy, timing is everything. I'm wondering if he isn't waiting too long. I'm already past the point of suspense and thinking, can we please just get on with this?

    As for Kaine carrying virginia, Bush beat Kerry there by eight points(and about 260,000 votes), but among voters under 30 (who made up 17% of the electorate), Kerry beat Bush by 8 points.  So Obama has to do a LOT better than Kerry did with the "younger" vote.

    The other point that needs to be made is how much these voter registration numbers actually mean.  Voter reginstration increased in virginia by 300,000 between November 2003 and November 2004 -- so I don't find 202,000 new registrations all that impressive for the first seven months of this election year.  (Unfortunately, I can't find demographic breakdowns for these numbers from 2003 and 2004, but I think its pretty safe to assume that the lions share of 'new voters' were also in the younger age categories four years ago.)

    Interesting data there (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:48:44 PM EST
    and an example of why I look for your posts.  Thanks for the context, as ever.

    thanks.. (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:34:05 PM EST
    every once in a while, I like to throw in some date rather than just talking out my butt, just to keep the Obama supporters on their toes! ;)

    They are hoping Warner can carry the ticket, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:24:07 PM EST
    which frankly is their only hope.

    Why would Warner be the charm (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:36:06 PM EST
    For young voters in Virginia?  Young people are much more in love with Obama than Warner or Kaine.  But young people stand you up, every time.  They get all excited about a candidate but don't show up at the polls.  They forget, or they have to work, or they had to go listen to their friend's problems, their parents needed them to come over, they have a late class, etc, etc.  Young people don't vote at the rate the older people will vote for McCain in Virginia.  

    Kaine will make ZERO difference in Virginia.  He has NO adoring group of fans.  He's not popular in Virginia.  


    The NYTimes says (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:46:45 PM EST
    "Going into the final days, Mr. Obama was said to be focused mainly on three candidates: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware."

    Sleepy, Dopey, and Grumpy.

    Sorry for the bile.
    I'm just appalled.

    Well said! (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:39:37 PM EST
    You've nailed it.  

    I don't want Grumpy Gramps with foot in mouth disease.  Nor do I want the conservative guy just because he has John Edwards hair.  And I sure don't want my unpopular governor with the strange, wide ranging, eyebrow.

    Can we choose 'none of the above', and start over?  


    i wouldn't put much (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    emphasis on where anyone's schedule says they will be on any one day.  Two weeks ago everyone jumped on the Bayh wagon because Obama was going to be in IN and Bayh cancelled a baseball game.

    Here's my theory.  Obama picks Clinton.  And Clinton's spot to speak on Tuesday night is given to Donna Brazile, Arianna Huffington and KOS.

    It's been the plan all along, but they put out the Hillary speaking Tues info just to throw everyone off the trail.

    There's a trail? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    oh, who knows (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:26:42 PM EST
    but, it seems like every day there is a completely new set of FACTS/CLUES that point to who it is going to be and the next day it is all new again.

    If where Obama is scheduled to be on a certain day is what determines the VP, Then Bayh would have been named two weeks ago.


    Yep. These are (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:34:11 PM EST
    people who probably grew up playing Clue as kids.

    Or something.

    We could put them in charge of the next Treasure Hunt...that outta work.


    my "couldn't happen" mpment (none / 0) (#68)
    by rise hillary rise on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:36:19 PM EST
    would be Bill introing Hill as VEEEP.
    it's the only thing that would  make me vote for the O, but I doubt it will happen. Obama is way too convinced of his own infallibility to pick a VP that would outshine him.

    That's it exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Jeannie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:07:09 PM EST
    When the two of them are on the stage, certainly MY eyes go to Hillary. He looks like a boy, waiting for mother to speak. I can't imagine he would choose this, unless their polls show that there is no way he can win without her. Then, I would be very disappointed with her if she goes for VP. She is much to good for that secondary job.

    I agree, (none / 0) (#127)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:41:01 PM EST
    Hillary is too smart to agree to be his VP.  No way.  

    I think it is going to be Biden (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:01:21 PM EST
    even though Obama wants to pick Kaine.

    If Obama does pick Kaine, if I were McCain, I would make sure to pick an experienced VP to highlight the "riskiness" of the Dem ticket.

    If it's Kaine (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:06:51 PM EST
    that should define the new borders of the Democratic Party.

    Gonna need a lot of new registered voters who don't care about 'choice' and women's reproductive rights to make up the loss.

    Kaine would be a huge mistake...an anti-choice Democrat a heartbeat away from the presidency?


    Sure (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM EST
    But I think McCain's political resonance will not be by picking a Ridge, it will split his party in 2, but in the "riskiness" theme.

    Yep. Agree. (none / 0) (#35)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:14:21 PM EST
    No win situation for pro-choice voters.

    Kaine is such a joke (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:15:46 PM EST
    Obama seems like a sharp customer.  Could he possibly be silly enough to want the guy who goes around doing bizarre things like giving Obama credit for fixing the situation in Georgia?

    Kaine is just too much of a risk (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:24:03 PM EST
    It's going to be Biden.

    I know you love Biden, but he (none / 0) (#48)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    carries lots of risks.  He doesn' tend to think before speaking and he's too wedded to his own ideas.

    I HATE Biden (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:38:27 PM EST
    Can I offer political analysis that does not reflect my personal preferences?

    If I had my druthers, General Clark would be running for his second term.


    Well, I think there are a lot of pitfalls with (none / 0) (#105)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:16:38 PM EST
    Biden, but people vote top of ticket.  The bottom spot has more to do with motivating activists.  

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:26:55 PM EST
    Biden is worth quite a few votes, in my view.  Still, there's the issue that Obama seems pretty fanatical about message control.

    Well... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    ...I don't think Biden is worth any additional votes the way Clinton or Powell would be.

    No one in America will vote for Obama/Biden that wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. Biden doesn't have a non-engaged following.

    However, it will stop some criticism and stop the negative two-week-out anti-bounce against the VP candidate (such as if it were Kaine).


    I disagree (none / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:33:24 PM EST
    Biden would win over many older Dem and Ind voters who are concerned about Obama's lack of experience.

    Hillary would do it better, but there's a lot of folks who really just want to see a familiar name in the mix to allay their concerns.


    He wouldn't win over any (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:35:56 PM EST
    who watched the Clarence Thomas hearings.

    For sure, he wouldn't get my vote.


    I guess I just feel... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:37:31 PM EST
    ...that among those who feel Biden's name is a household one, well, they're already voting for Obama.

    Really? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    You don't think there are any senior Dems who see Biden as an elder Dem statesman who's been around a while, but have their doubts about the new guy?

    I mean, there are members of my own family who fall into this category, but I'm surprised you don't even acknowledge that the category exists.


    Ok, just to be perfectly clear... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    ...I know of no Republicans or Independents who are enamored with Biden.

    Been around 35 years (none / 0) (#124)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:39:04 PM EST
    in the Senate. It's appears a little too needy if he picks Biden.

    Forget about FL or OH (none / 0) (#109)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:21:38 PM EST
    It'd be terrible to lose DE.

    Really? Who? (none / 0) (#130)
    by jb64 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:44:37 PM EST
    Is there some kind of populist wave for Joe Biden? Do independents just love the guy? I know the conventional wisdom gurus will think it's the right move, right before they cast him as the gaffe machine, plagiarizing blowhard from a state nobody goes to. This aint Dick Cheney gravitas here, republicans loved ol' Dick. I don't see the same "true Believer" status applied to Joe. '

    He's from Scranton (none / 0) (#172)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:34:01 PM EST
    He'd probably save Paul Kanjorski's Bacon.

    Ahh (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:46:50 PM EST
    It's going to be Dukakis/Bentsen all over again. People are going to wonder why Obama is on the top of the ticket when the obviously more qualified candidate and better speaker is on the bottom.

    Kaine is even worse than you think (none / 0) (#113)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:25:17 PM EST
    He's becoming quite the joke around VA. And recently becoming disliked for some nasty budget things he's been doing. And if he either is not around much because of campaigning or worse, steps down so a horrible repub can take over, I can tell you VA will be a problem.

    Biden to help with carrying............. (none / 0) (#129)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    What state?  What does Biden bring to the ticket?  Which voters would he bring in?  

    Which voters would Biden bring? (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by miriam on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:31:38 PM EST
    Those who don't mind creativity-stealing plagiarists. And those who have endless tolerance for wordy blow-hards and egoists.  Biden and Obama are therefore a matched pair.  Double the pleasure, double the fun.

    cant be Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by AlSmith on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:30:46 PM EST

    it cant be Kaine because if there is a shooting war in Georgia in September/October then the O&K team will get killed at the polls.

    If Obama is still doing his Hope/Change gibberish when Russian tanks are the first thing on the news every night we are dead.


    Oh, jeez, I just realized (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08:10 PM EST
    that an Obama-Kaine ticket would be the "OK" ticket, and I can already hear/see the cheesy 1950's-type slogan: "It'll be okay if you vote O-K!"



    O'Kaine versus McCain (none / 0) (#128)
    by DFLer on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST
    Makes me long for some... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:47:52 PM EST

    Feeling a little punchy - can you tell?


    In-dentured servant? (none / 0) (#178)
    by DFLer on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:03:54 AM EST
    Absolutely... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:19:41 PM EST
    ...and Kaine isn't even the best VA Gov to pick!

    I would be disappointed with Kaine for the reason you give.

    Despite the perversion of the ideal seen in Bush/Cheney, the P/VP combo should reinforce itself without undermining itself.

    I think Kaine is simple a far, far, far less impressive Obama.

    Clinton, Biden, Reed, or potentially (and here I'm expressing an opinion that frankly I have no real interest in using up my time defending to the point that it would require) Powell would be a better choice.

    I'm still hoping for Clinton as the electoral safe choice.

    Biden would be the safe choice "politically."


    Biden is the best choice (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:23:34 PM EST
    POLITCALLY of thos ehe is considering.

    He has the reputation as a real FP expert. Bayh brings absolutely NOTHING.

    Kaine is from Virginia and is not of Washington, so he would help in that way but he is utterly without national experience. His choice would be indefensible imo politically.

    Since Obama is not choosing Hillary (or Clark of course), Biden is the one who makes the most sense
    poltically. Broder and Co. will love that pick.


    I believe (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:31:10 PM EST
    that the "not of Washington" argument is totally valueless as far as real voters are concerned, unless it's someone like Daschle who directly undercuts all the things Obama says about lobbyists.

    The biggest change election of the last 50 years, and maybe much longer, was 1960.  I find it hard to believe there were many voters who said, "Gee, I used to think Kennedy represented change, but then he picked that insider Johnson as his running mate..."


    True (none / 0) (#131)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:44:52 PM EST
    No one really cares who the VP is, as long as he doesn't hurt the ticket.  As long as he doesn't turn off some group of voters, it doesn't matter.  People vote for the person the top, not the bottom.  That's why Dan Quayle was once Vice President.  

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:55:50 PM EST
    You can't compare Obama to Bush I in resume terms.  Bush had completely different problem areas than Obama does.

    So what? (none / 0) (#142)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:01:37 PM EST
    My point is, almost no one votes based on the VP.  If it did matter, Dan Quayle would not have been vice president.  

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:21:04 PM EST
    Quayle was an important pick to the people who cared about what he brought to the ticket.  Choosing a strong, up-and-coming conservative was important to shore up Bush's credentials with the base; he didn't need to pick a VP to appeal to swing voters because he was already viewed as a moderate.

    I simply disagree with the perspective that Quayle was an unalloyed negative, just because people like you and I think he's a total doofus.

    Also, many people may not have cared as much about Bush's VP because they were already comfortable with what they were getting at the top of the ticket (Reagan's third term), but it doesn't follow that every VP choice is equally unimportant.  Obama has to deal with the baggage of being the new guy.  McCain has to deal with the age issue which makes the choice of successor more important.


    100% right... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    If the idea is that Obama needs (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by FemB4dem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:35:20 PM EST
    someone to shore him up on foreign policy, Biden is the one who makes sense.  My guess is Obama disagrees and has too large an ego to pick Biden, who will outshine him at every turn when foreign plicy issues arise.  Remember, back when he was insulting us bitter folks, Obama was also telling the world that the area in which he needs the least help from a VP, and in which he was certain he knew more than McCain or Hillary, was foreign policy.  His ego is too large to pick Biden, or do anything else that would help the party, like pick Hillary.  Because for some reason I don't quite understand Obama is absolutely fixated on Virginia, it will be Kaine.  

    Comments with nothing but (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:03:30 PM EST
    insults and attacks on Obama have been deleted. This is a thread about his vice presidential pick.

    Please go elsewhere to vent against Obama. He is the nominee and this site supports him and does not allow personal attacks against anyone.

    I still think it's going to be Hillary. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Lysis on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:10:36 PM EST
    Just this past week, I ran into a woman with a Hillary sticker, just after she'd been talking to our local, low-level Democratic leaders.  He asked her when she was putting on an Obama sticker.  She said, "I'm waiting to see who he picks as his running mate.  If it's not Hillary, I'm not voting."

    This is a woman who has voted Democratic her entire adult life.  There are millions others like her, and they're not all women  and they're not all middle-aged.  He has to know by now that the only way to get them is to put her on the ticket.

    I think his desire to win will lead him to the right decision.  I just can't believe he'd have her campaigning for him while he's on vacation but not put her on the ticket.  

    Then again, few have lost bets underestimating him.

    Great post but... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by mogal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:19:16 PM EST
    since learning that Obama knew ahead of time he would be asked to name three people he would turn to for advice and he chose to name Sam Nunn first;
    I think the VP could be Sam Nunn.

    Nunn was part of the Bloomberg group who considered forming a third party last spring. Maybe that's why we old democrats are so upset--it's a third party.

    I though it was MO, and his grandma (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:21:11 PM EST
    and Kennedy?

    It seems that the delegates (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Coldblue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:19:24 PM EST
    prefer Hillary when polled.

    No one else is even close. Maybe he will (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:30:18 PM EST
    wait and announce Wed when Bill introduces her. Yeah right. Does he not realize he would dominate all media coverage until the election and also reassure voters who preferred Clinton? Does change mean more to him than winning and having the chance to change anything?

    This is just such a no brainer. I just saw Claire on TV and she was raving about Obama going around the Senate hugging the new Republicans elected in 2006. She said you had to be in the Senate to believe it. No, Claire, I believe it.


    If it was Hillary (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeannie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:19:49 PM EST
    it would suck up all the attention, and the convention would no longer be about him, it would be about Hillary. Would he do this? Doubtful, unless desperate.

    Very telling (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:32:25 PM EST
    that a mere 3% of Obama delegates prefer Hillary.

    If the situations were reversed, is it even conceivable that only 3% of Hillary's delegates would want Obama as VP?  Says something.


    It may not matter (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:24:29 PM EST
    given this:

    via Ian Urbina, The New York Times: "Flaws in voting machines used by millions of people will not be fixed in time for the presidential election because of a government backlog in testing the machines' hardware and software, officials say. The flaws, which have cast doubt on the ability of some machines to provide a consistent and reliable vote count, were supposed to be addressed by the Election Assistance Commission, the federal agency that oversees voting. But commission officials say they will not be able to certify that flawed machines are repaired by the November election, or provide software fixes or upgrades, because of a backlog at the testing laboratories the commission uses."

    Dem congress could have funded this.  They didn't.  Too busy fixing votes in the primary, I guess.

    Paper ballots in Florida (none / 0) (#144)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:04:55 PM EST
    we gave up Hillary to get fair elections. :-(

    Won't matter there, (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:23:35 PM EST
    for without Hillary, Dems have no chance to win Florida whether you count the ballots or not.

    In defense of American (none / 0) (#174)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:40:10 AM EST
    liberty, justice and the voting booth, I think Florida is one of the few states to legislate a paper trail for every vote.

    At least when we vote for MCain, it will be legitimate. :=)


    Thursday (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by mkb662 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    Write it down.  The pick will be on Wed. or Th. Obama is in VA on Wednesday with Kaine and company.  Sen. Clinton is campaigning for Obama in FL on Th.  It's either Clinton or Kaine.  I heard Obama speak in New Mexico and say "under the Clinton administration average income grew 6,000 dollars under George W. Bush income went down 1,000 dollars."  You got tobelieve that he realizes what an asset having a Clinton as VP would be.  That said, the Kaine staffers I know --2 -- are acting like their guy is VP but I think that the people that know, aren't talking and those that are talking don't know.  Finally, I think the only reason it might not be Sen. Clinton is b/c in this campaign cycle her confidante have reporters on speed dial so if she told any of them it would be out in less than one hour.  Heres hoping he picks Clinton and we can guarantee victory in Nov.!

    So someone read Krugman huh? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:42:33 PM EST
    You're right. He read it. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by mkb662 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:44:20 PM EST
    I heard that, too.... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:49:59 PM EST
    finally.  First time he mentioned Bill Clinton with credit for that...



    I think if it were Hillary it would have already (none / 0) (#78)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:48:00 PM EST
    been announced, and there wouldn't be such a big discussion about putting her name in nomination.  It will NOT be Hillary, IMO.

    Rebut -- (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by mkb662 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:51:54 PM EST
    a few points: the longer he waits to pick a VP, the bigger of a deal it becomes.  By waiting for so long, we are expecting someone big, like her.  Second, according to the NYT, the candidate he will ask to be VP does not even know it yet. Maybe thats because he knows the Clintons cant keep a secret. ha!
    Finally, Bill Clinton will be speaking. There will be a roll call vote on Thursday. Hillary will speak, currently on Tuesday. I just think that by asking her to be VP this becomes much less OBama vs. Clinton and more of a celebration of both.
    I want her to be VP so I may be delusional. Ok, no more losing sleep over this.

    I'm not so sure (none / 0) (#91)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:58:26 PM EST
    I wouldn't doubt for a second that Obama and his campaign would go to such lengths to convince the world it wasn't Clinton, just to get the biggest possible splash when the announcement came.

    I'm not saying I think he'll pick her; if anything, I think the stars are aligning for Biden.  But I'm not betting against any of the top-tier possibilities at this point.


    yeah (none / 0) (#94)
    by mkb662 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:00:32 PM EST
    thats a good point.  might as well not announce that its clinton until the convention.  that will keep the ratings up!  it will be like some west wing episode with former rivals uniting.

    This is funny. (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:51:54 PM EST
    There was a supposed-to-be-secret focus group held here recently. Warner and Kaine the focus. They like Warner all around but didn't like Kaine's lack of accomplishment and they said Kaine kisses up to Obama too much. The Obama supporters here are sure that is a knock on Kaine(whom they ridicule)-they would never consider that the possible reason is because the participants don't like Obama.

    if obama were to select (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    a virginian, as vp, he'd do well to pick mark warner, not kaine.

    warner can give him economics cred, something obama is sorely lacking (witness his latest reverse, double-twist on social security), and warner has shown a succesful business man's knowledge of, as gov.

    warner is also pro-choice, and anti death penalty, positions that should be basic planks in the democratic national platform. as well, he's a much more compelling presence than kaine.

    except he'd lose VA if he took away Warner (none / 0) (#132)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:47:45 PM EST
    from the Senate seat he's pretty guaranteed to win. IMO. VA's like Warner and want him in the Senate. The horrible repub alternative we'd get would be a sore point.

    Warner declined (none / 0) (#143)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:04:17 PM EST
    Being a Senator is much better than being a VP candidate who might lose.  As a Senator, Warner can run for President later.  

    AMEN! (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jen on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:57:10 PM EST
    On a related note, he sure is dragging this out. They say in comedy, timing is everything. I'm wondering if he isn't waiting too long. I'm already past the point of suspense and thinking, can we please just get on with this?

    and hallelujah! (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:10:37 PM EST
    Hmmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Idunn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:05:46 PM EST
    If the choices come down to Sleepy, Dopey and Grumpy, I'm gonna have to go with Grumpy on this one.

    Get on with it (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:17:48 PM EST
    I am over it.

    They can't seem to make up their minds, going from this one to that one, back again.

    The entire drama is beginning to be just plain silly.

    interesting given all the news today (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    about Kaine. He's shredding the VA budget and everyone in VA hates him right now. It was a full day of news today about it here in the state. Of course that's local and what do the DC deciders care that everyone in VA hates Kaine right now.

    nite guys. If the big announcement comes, I'll (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:26:28 PM EST
    leave my cell # for one of you to let me know. :)

    I'm struck by how your comment about (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:27:20 PM EST
    voter registration in Virginia ties in with the previous post, which suggests that there is more emphasis on beating the bushes for new registrants than on courting the ones that already exist. What better way to drive voter registration than by choosing a native son of the state in question?

    It reminds me of a software vendor from whom we bought an estate and gift tax program about 10-12 years ago.  The president of the company did a masterful sales job, but once we bought the program and started working with it, we found it was chock-full of glitches, and that the back office support was unable to respond as we needed them to.  It got to the point where we formed a group with several other firms who were using it, so that we could identify all the issues and work together to get them resolved.

    What we soon realized was that this company, which could not address the glitches and other issues to anyone's satisfaction, was able to stay in business because the sales team kept the pipeline stocked; as long as there were more new customers than existing ones who were bailing out, they had a positive bottom line.

    This seems like the Obama Plan to me: keep trying to get new voters to replace the ones who are waking up to the truth of Obama's shortcomings.  What amazes me is that he could be winning new voters AND gaining ground with former Clinton supporters if he would realize that a lot of this is about issues, not inspiration.

    It comes down to this not being about us, and what he can do for the country, but about him and what we can do for him.

    It's why he's really screwing up this whole VP thing, I think; this may be one of those cases where, after all the foreplay, the main event is going to be a huge disappointment.

    who's the native son? (none / 0) (#136)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:49:16 PM EST
    Kaine was born in Minnesota and Warner was born in Indiana.

    I should have put quotes around it (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:15:56 PM EST
    to emphasize that it's just exactly the kind of thinking I've come to expect from Obama - not bothering to see the kinds of details that could make a difference to, for example, the voters of Virginia, who would not necessarily be so awed and impressed by Kaine that it would spur new voter registration.

    Short-sightedness is something the Obama campaign has in far too plentiful a supply, in my opinion.


    Kaine is not a Virginian (none / 0) (#147)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:03 PM EST
    And he's only been Governor for a year.  Young people don't know him and he's not exactly popular in the state.  His approval rating is around 40%, if that high.   He will do little to help carry Virginia.  

    It will be a big disappointing sigh............. (none / 0) (#148)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:13:24 PM EST
    Unless it's Hillary.  Short of that, his VP choice will be a snooze fest.  Young people will looking at their cell phones, scratching their heads, shrugging their shoulders, and deleting the message.

    I'm sticking with my projection that he is (none / 0) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:59:37 PM EST
    going to pick someone out of left field.

    I hope so. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Lysis on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    I'd like to see him go deep into left field to find his running mate and get the heck out of right field.

    I agree (none / 0) (#54)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:29:52 PM EST
    Richardson is my bet.  Sorry if that drives folks crazy, but Hispanic, foreign policy experience, close state, and West.  That's a lot.

    He was SO slimy towards Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:35:29 PM EST
    downright nasty. Even made a catfight remark. Doesn't he have "women issues"?

    Richardson is a better choice (none / 0) (#149)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:14:32 PM EST
    than Sleepy, Dopey, and Grumpy.  

    Wasn't he with Richardson today? (none / 0) (#162)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:31:38 PM EST
    Obama was in New Mexico today.  If it's Richardson, wouldn't he have announced it today?

    If nothing else (none / 0) (#164)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:36:12 PM EST
    Richardson is a Gawd-awful campaigner. Really terrible on the stump.

    Obama/Richardson = Fallibility/Gaffability.


    if it's Kaine - (none / 0) (#11)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:26:40 PM EST
    would the Repub Lt. Gov become governor if Obama wins?

    Yup, republicans in Virginia would be jumping (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:48:18 PM EST
    with joy.  Kaine as VP would be a real gift to the republicans in Virginia.  It would mean a republican Governor for the next 5 years, including the year that the state is redistricted.  It just doesn't get much better than that for Virginia republicans.   But I don't suppose Obama cares about that.  

    and VA dems will not be happy (none / 0) (#137)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:53:26 PM EST
    if either Kaine or Warner are taken. And I have a feeling it will effect voter turnout in VA. Which is why I don't think it can be either Kaine or Warner.

    Warner is out, he doesn't want the job (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:15:38 PM EST
    But Kaine may want it.  Obama cares about getting elected, not the democrat party of Virginia.  :(  

    He's been gov since 2004- (none / 0) (#150)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:15:07 PM EST
    only 1year 5 mos. left of 6 year term.

    Kaine? (none / 0) (#157)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:21:46 PM EST
    Kaine was elected in 2005 and became Governor in January 2006,  one four year term.  He cannot run again.  If he leaves this year, a republican, Bill Bolling becomes Governor.  He would run for re-election next year, 2009.   Another republican, the current AG, becomes Lt. Governor.  Conventional wisdom in Virginia is that Virginians will elect Bill Bolling Governor next year to avoid having 3 different governors in slightly over a year.  

    Republicans in Virginia are beyond thrilled at the thought of Kaine leaving to run for VP.  


    yep, so no worries there (snark) n/t (none / 0) (#126)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:39:51 PM EST
    Depressingly (none / 0) (#22)
    by Faust on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:49:56 PM EST
    I agree with your feeling.

    I have no idea...... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:17:25 PM EST
    ....I've given it altogether too much thought, that's all I know. Plus I know it won't be Clark or Hillary.

    groupthink and control (none / 0) (#138)
    by Tim V on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:55:19 PM EST
    talk about groupthink and control. my comments are immediately deleted. why ? this site is censored. your moderators will only allow you to view what "the party line will tolerate"

    comments with all points of view (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:19:03 PM EST
    are welcome. It's how they are expressed and a few other things, read the comment rules.

    If your comment was deleted, it contained a personal or character attack or insult, shilled (rather than expressed your view) or contained overly long urls.

    TalkLeft is not the Government. Commenters must abide by comment rules or they will be banned. It's not group think, it's my think .


    Since everyone is speculating (none / 0) (#145)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08:29 PM EST
    A screenshot of a story that CNN supposedly pulled.  Full story here.  I think it's probably a hoax, but if not - then it's Obama-Bayh.

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:22:27 PM EST
    That can't possibly be for real.  It's full of typos, in addition to other clues that are all over the page.

    Not to be found (none / 0) (#160)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:30:29 PM EST
    Can't find it in a search.  400 people keep a secret?  Not.

    What about Ed Rendall (none / 0) (#154)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:20:00 PM EST
    He hasn't been talked about much but he might bring PA.

    Rendell...sorry (none / 0) (#155)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:20:56 PM EST
    He has a pretty impressive resume

    Sinking feeling............ (none / 0) (#163)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:34:41 PM EST
    That there's a reason Kaine was Obama's spokesman on MTP yesterday.  Couple that with Obama being in VA on Wednesday, it's Kaine.  Kaine on Wednesday or Bayh on Thursday.  

    Color me underwhelmed.

    I guess that color would be (none / 0) (#166)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:41:30 PM EST
    beige, then.  Or ecru.  Or off-white.

    Funny, because I always think of Bayh as "Beige" Evan Bayh...



    Hahahaha, Bayh is VERY beige, very blah (none / 0) (#175)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:07:44 AM EST
    I heard tonite on tv a pundit say (none / 0) (#165)
    by athyrio on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:38:24 PM EST
    that an inside Obama source said that they were going to chose Bayh and at the last minute Michelle put the kabash on it and said Obama needs someone he is close to .....whatever that means....

    then it's Biden (none / 0) (#171)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:21:23 PM EST
    if that's true. But who knows. I guess we'll know in a day or two. So the real question is (snark alert ahead of time...) who will Hillary's pick as a VP when she runs against McCain in 2012. OK, big snark and I shouldn't have. :-)

    Hillary would choose (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:17:59 AM EST
    Wesley Clark.  No doubt about it (for me).  It's be Clark.

    Kaine is on record (none / 0) (#170)
    by kredwyn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:14:44 PM EST
    now talking about a second round of budget cuts that are going to be even more painful for VA than the last round.

    That was all over the radio today.

    I really can't imagine him being more popular after that...