NY Times: No Veep Announcement Before Wednesday

The New York Times reports Obama's campaign says there will be no Veep announcement Tuesday. The Times thinks it's down to Kaine, Bayh and Biden.

The spin for those who don't like the Veep pick will be that Veep picks don't really matter.

“Vice-presidential candidates can make a marginal difference,” said Matt Bennett, the co-director of Third Way, a Democratic advocacy group, “but they rarely matter in terms of winning a state or region — as Mike Dukakis and John Kerry found out. And a weak candidate doesn’t really drag the ticket into the drink — as George H. W. Bush found out.”

Tell that to George McGovern -- Thomas Eagleton, anyone?

< Late Night: The Silver and the Gold | L.A. Murder Case Dismissed, Cop Gave False Testimony >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't care what the spin is, (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:54:59 PM EST
    the VP choice matters to ME!  

    It will have a lot to do with how I vote in November, that's for damn sure.

    You and millions of other voters (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:07:18 AM EST
    I'm so tired of his games that I don't honestly care who he picks. I wonder if they will ever release the number of people who fell for the "be the first to know" trickery.

    Maybe the long delay after pretending the release was going to happen 10 days ago is because only 3 people showed enough of an interest to give them their cell phone number.


    But waiting for Veep Announcement.... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Key on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:55:56 PM EST
    Waiting for a V.P. announcement adds a lot of suspense, draws attention away from McCain, and may ultimately, lead some to feel disappointed.

    Not to worry though, as I seem to recall reading that McCain has plans to announce just after (a day or two?) Obama does to "steal" Obama's thunder.

    If Obama's pick is a huge shocker (Clinton) then McCain can't steal that thunder.  If Obama's pick is more along the line of "meh", or worse, downright horrible, then it could make McCain's pick a big steal.

    Other than Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:15:06 AM EST
    Are there any plausible non-"meh" Veep possibilities for Obama?

    Kaine vs. Bayh vs. Biden is so low-voltage that even among junkies, who can pretend to be interested in these guys for two minutes, let alone two months?

    I strongly suspect you're right and that McCain's got a decision ready to rip, meaning that Obama blows the one pre-convention burst he could have possibly gotten.


    Well.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Key on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:38:06 AM EST
    Other than Clinton?  Oh, I suppose in my mind Clark would not be a "meh" pick, but looks like he's out.

    Um, Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be a non-meh pick, although there's never been any talk of her.  For that matter, any woman other than Clinton would be a buzz maker as it would look like a major slight to Clinton.

    Wish he would pick Clinton....


    Latest is that McCain is going to (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:04:39 AM EST
    announce his on the 29th.

    I Also Expect That (none / 0) (#42)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:36:01 AM EST

    CNN is reporting the same thing...

    It would be the best possible day to a dampner on the warm glow that everyone will be feeling, especially Obama, as they leave Denver.


    Obama's veep pick will (none / 0) (#47)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:50:43 AM EST
    be announced Wed. McCain countered with his pick will be revealed Aug. 29th, the day after Obama's acceptance speech. I don't believe McCain is "stealing Obama's thunder" as the dem. convention will be over and McCain's will be starting that coming Monday. Welcome to politics. McCain could have "stolen Obama's thunder" by announcing during the dem convention,but he's using protocol as he's been around and is being courteous!~

    I think it's genius (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:54:15 AM EST
    Brilliantly played by McCain.  Had Obama announced earlier, it would have led to some excitement buildup that might have carried through the weekend.  Now, Obamapalooza will be over and the media will move on to McCain's VP announcement.

    I also heard Frank Luntz put forth (none / 0) (#49)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:01:54 AM EST
    a brilliant idea for McCain's acceptance speech at
    his convention. No prompter, just sit in the middle of the stage, town hall style, talk to the people there and take questions, saying something like, my whole life's experiences have led me to be president and I am ready. Humble, real, not overblown! We'll see what happens.

    Ahhhhhhhhh (none / 0) (#62)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    The politics of contrast. Why is it the GOP "gets" it but the Democratic party can't? why do we always have to play french vanilla to the GOp's vanilla anyway?

    One of the many reasons (none / 0) (#51)
    by Faust on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:31:59 AM EST
    he needs to pick her.

    I think that the VP is very important... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:56:12 PM EST
    because the "heads" of the two tickets both leave so much to be desired.

    It also should suggest who the "party" sees as the next heir apparent.  And so far, with the Dems, that's projects to a pretty bad future.

    Enough already! Pick a damn veep! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by catfish on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:04:44 AM EST
    They did this in the primaries. "Obama says he will come out swinging against Clinton." Three weeks later another report would say the same.

    The Democrats made bad VP choices in (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:04:56 AM EST
    2000 and 2004. I don't really expect this year to be any different.

    This is Insanity! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:04:45 AM EST
    Why can't he just announce the dang choice?!  This is getting SOOOO old.  

    McCain announced a date that he will give his choice for VP.  It's August 29th.  He will announce his choice on that date.  Period. No games, no silly text message gimmicks, no suspense.  He'll just do when he says he will do it.   How sane.  How rational.  How normal.  How grown up.  How like a leader.  

    Meanwhile, our candidate continues to drag it out, make everyone guess when he will announce.  How silly.  How infuriating.  How juvenile.  

    Message to Obama, grow up.  Make a decision and announce it, before you turn off even more voters with this ridiculousness.  It's not impressing anyone.  

    Obama's VP games.... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:00:35 AM EST
    With (IIRC) 49% of Americans already tired of hearing about Obama, I don't think his efforts to keep the spotlight on him and his campaign by playing games with the VP pick are likely to have their intended effect.

    This is especially true given that whoever he picks (it ain't gonna be Hillary -- that boat sank a while ago) will be anti-climatic.

    I personally think its going to be Bayh.  A Kaine pick has the potential to burst the unity bubble at the convention because of his anti-choice inclinations.  I don't think that Biden wants the job -- it would be a step down for him with no real opportunity to step up (he'll be 74 in 2016) and the only way I see Biden accepting the nomination is if he expects Obama to lose, and wants to use the VP nod in order to be taken seriously for a final run at the presidency in 2012.

    That leaves Bayh, or some dark horse.  (Personally, I think that Rendell would be a brilliant choice.  Rendell is an urban version of Bill Clinton with some bad table manners.  But Rendell is the kind of personality that would reveal the inadequacies of Obama himself -- Rendell is the real deal, Obama just a poseur.)


    Agree! (none / 0) (#64)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:22:11 AM EST
    Rendell is a MUCH better choice than Biden, Kaine or Bayh.

    facinating (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:27:12 AM EST

    a couple of months ago it seems like there were an embarrassment of choices. Now with Obama as a nominee options seem so limited.

    Is Obama so tight in his cocoon he thinks he is the Chosen one instead of the Barley Chosen One? Maybe he looks at this fund raising number, all his celebrity supporters and the cheering crowds (of non voters) in Germany and thinks things are great and doesnt realize how close things are.

    If he plays it defensive he goes for an older experienced running mate who can shore up the ticket, because if the Russian Georgia thing is a shooting war in October people arent going to be chanting "yes we can" but "what were we thinking"

    The offensive play would be Richardson- using his current calculation that he can blow off existing voting blocks if he brings in enough new ones. Kaine is also a cocoon play because he thinks he can get just enough votes to tip a critical state. To do this he'd have to be able to control the tone of the campaign for the rest of the way. Russia or another terror event are out of his control and would cause him a huge problem.

    Probably the safest play would be John Kerry. McCain wont attack his buddy and the guy already seems presidential. Sure there is a whiff of a loser about him but the Obama spin machine wipes that away.

    I wasn't impressed (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:40:39 AM EST
    I saw Obama's trip abroad as a distraction and that it was very bad to campaign abroad.  The whole trip was a huge campaign event with non-American citizens.

    even worse (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:53:10 AM EST

    Its probably a minus. Americans dont like foreigners telling us how to vote if you remember that Guardian letter campaign in Ohio.

    He should stick to campaigning in front of people who have votes.


    Richardson would be a (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:59:06 AM EST
    TV breaker for me.

    "whiff of a loser" (4.50 / 2) (#34)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:20:46 AM EST
    I like it!  

    The Dems play wiffleball while Rome burns.


    Democrats don't go with losers (none / 0) (#20)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:31:18 AM EST
    But then Obama is a NEW kind of democrat.  Right?  

    Tom Ridge for VP (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:35:45 AM EST
    There goes PA, OH and IA

    Ridge VP for McCain of course (none / 0) (#24)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:36:27 AM EST
    Hm? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:41:30 AM EST
    It is not clear to me that Iowa values Tom Ridge as VP above all other considerations.

    Ridge will connect very well (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:42:38 AM EST
    with Midwest voters.

    Shrug (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:57:53 AM EST
    I spent 27 years in the Midwest and there is nothing about Tom Ridge that makes me think "oh well, there goes Iowa."  Could he help?  Sure, why not.  But even back home folks pretty much regard those color-coded terror alerts as a punchline.

    The reason the VP choice seems to (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:22:29 AM EST
    matter so much is because people realize Obama comes up short on his own merits, and given that he has deficits in a variety of areas, we bounce between this possibility and that possibility because there is no one who can fill in all of the gaps - except possibly Clinton, and that tends to remind people that the ticket just might be upside down.

    Would we be saying the same thing if Clinton were at the top of the ticket?  I don't think so.  I think we would be looking at someone for the usual reasons - geographics or democgraphics - but not everything from foreign policy to the economy to women's issues.

    As it is, the long delay in naming someone seems guaranteed to produce disappointment, or to provide the GOP with all kinds of fodder to ridicule the Obama theme of Change.

    There comes a point where teasing seems less like good-natured fun and more like mean-spirited abuse, and I think Obama has pushed this about as far as it can go before people decide they aren't interested in being manipulated and managed for Obama's benefit.

    Media excuses already? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    No announcement but the media over-protection is already coming?  soooooo... I'm guessing NO ONE polled well.  pfffft.  

    So then maybe it will be tomorrow! (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:51:52 PM EST
    I agree with BTD, out of these three, it's Biden. If not Biden, then Hillary is the wildcard. (Choosing her, BTW, will prove that Obama and co. do care about what the polls say).

    What red states (none / 0) (#11)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:02:41 AM EST
    could Hillary bring into the blue column? As we all know it is about winning states. Would she bring in Ohio? Or Florida? If so , it is something to definitely consider. But I don't think Hillary wants it anyway.

    the question that occurs to me is (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by sancho on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:09:57 AM EST
    how many blue states can obama get. i can see him not matching kerry's performance. indeed, kerry's electoral count seems to me obama' best case scenario. which may be why kerry picked him. and the rumors of a obama/kerry ticket just make me giddy with anticipatory schadenfreude.

    i still think kaine but have no idea, really.

    is michelle out?


    If you're serious (none / 0) (#16)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:09:01 AM EST
    Looking at competitive states where the Clintons won thrice (he won in '92 and '96, she won in 2008), I see

    New Hampshire
    New Jersey (stretching competitive a bit)
    New Mexico
    Nevada (going by 2008 votes instead of delegates)

    Less competitive three-win states would include Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and California.  I'm not saying she'd bring all those states, but I'd like to see any other VP pick match that!


    Any democrat will carry (none / 0) (#22)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:35:40 AM EST
    MA, CA, NY, and RI.  It's not probable that Obam will carry KY, TN, AR, or WV.  BUT, with Hillary, one or more of those  could change, particularly AR, WV and KY.  Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine are not going to help Obama carry those southern states.  

    Prediction (none / 0) (#14)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:06:06 AM EST
    Wednesday, in Virginia.  You can fill in the rest.  


    Jeralyn, there are weak (none / 0) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:07:11 AM EST
    candidates, and then there are flat-out disasters.  Eagleton was a disaster.

    Not McGovern? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:24:47 AM EST
    I think Eagleton was emblematic of McGovern.

    Yes, that whole campaign was a mess (none / 0) (#19)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:29:39 AM EST
    Even though I LOVED McGovern, worked hard for him, as did my entire family.  I was crushed when he lost, but, he ran a terrible campaign.  

    I am hearing hoofbeat echos and I don't think it's zebras.  


    McGovern supporters (none / 0) (#21)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:32:26 AM EST
    were like Obama supporters.  I understand that most members of the House of Representatives were not given delegate status.  In the end, they did not support the nominee.

    Echo, Echo, Echo......................... (none / 0) (#25)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:36:50 AM EST
    I've got to stand up for McGovern here. (none / 0) (#37)
    by tree on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:01:38 AM EST
    I worked for McGovern's campaign as a kid. I don't remember it being about change or dump the grownups. or post-partisan shinola. It was about the Vietnam War and Nixon and feeling that McGovern, who was well-respected by Bobby Kennedy, had picked up the torch after his death. There was also a feeling that the Conventions didn't represent the average Dem voter. Too many old white men, not enough youth, women and minorities.  

    The Convention was kind of a mess, but so was 1968. Between the Vietnam War and Bobby Kennedy's death, Democratic politics were reeling. As I recall, McGovern's acceptance speech, which was very good, was pushed back out of prime-time because of some Democratic squabble that took too long to resolve. Things weren't heavily scripted like they are today. And of course, as we found out later, Nixon and his dirty tricks put a heavy hand on the primaries. McGovern probably wasn't a   a very good  candidate, but he wasn't an Obama. He had a long distinguished career in the Senate and fought hard for withdrawal from Vietnam while in the Senate. I think  "Clean Gene" McCarthy in 1968 is the closer comparison , in terms of attitude and youthful followers. But then McCarthy had a much longer record in Congress than Obama. Frankly I don't think you can realistically compare this year to any other.



    The press in Missour knew all about Eagleton (none / 0) (#41)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:55:33 AM EST
    but protected him just as they did JFK because they really likeable him. Should the story have been printed earlier is debatable.

    I'm either skeptical or naive (none / 0) (#32)
    by rghojai on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:11:46 AM EST
    Or maybe I'm both... or letting hope drive thinking. For some reason, I have doubts that it will be Bayh, Kaine or Biden, that there is some hope for B.O. picking someone else, someone less conventional.

    I'm either skeptical or naive (none / 0) (#33)
    by rghojai on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:11:58 AM EST
    Or maybe I'm both... or letting hope drive thinking. For some reason, I have doubts that it will be Bayh, Kaine or Biden, that there is some hope for B.O. picking someone else, someone less conventional.

    For a candidate of change these 3 names are not (none / 0) (#35)
    by suzieg on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:43:33 AM EST
    exactly inspiring....

    Take this for what it's worth (none / 0) (#38)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:40:47 AM EST
    I live in Northern VA.  As I was watching the news this morning and then listening to the radio, the indications seemed to be that Kaine's star was falling.  Big news is that he has announced state cuts - I don't think he would be doing that if he was going to be the VP nominee in a couple of days.  The more this goes, I think it's going to be Biden.

    Arlington? Alexandria? (none / 0) (#44)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:38:16 AM EST
    I'm in DC, and I heard the same thing on WTOP as I was driving in to work.

    Alexandria (none / 0) (#45)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:40:49 AM EST
    work downtown

    BTD - re the Florida Clinton delegates replaced (none / 0) (#43)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:36:20 AM EST
    ... replaced by delegates chosen by Obama.  You said you didn't believe it.

      I couldn't reply to that thread as it's over 200+ so am doing it here.

      It was written about by newspress.com of Fort Myers, Florida - author Bill Cottrell from its Capital Bureau on June 14, 2008.  

      The newspress.com site went through "restructuring" so the google link for the original page for that article doesn't work anymore, but here is the google cache of it.
    That may disappear too, so I've kept a copy of it but here is
    the Google-cached story.

    Biden (none / 0) (#46)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:41:21 AM EST
    The Page is reporting it's going to be Biden

    Biden?! (none / 0) (#50)
    by chel2551 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:30:14 AM EST

    There's some Hope and Change for ya! (none / 0) (#54)
    by davnee on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    Whatever happened to new politics?  

    Hey at least now McCain can double down on the plagiarism accusations.  Oh and wasn't Biden one of the ones that pushed for McCain to be VP in 2004?  


    Chuck Todd suggested (none / 0) (#53)
    by Faust on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    this morning that the announcement will not be until the weekend or even later. He almost seemed to suggest it might be at the convention.

    In my personal hallucinatory fantasy that I like to tout Clinton gets announced as VP at the convention so every day that passes without an announcment is actually a good thing.

    If they delay into the weekend or beyond (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by davnee on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:37:25 AM EST
    I'm going to start thinking it just might be Clinton after all.  And if it is Clinton, then I have to believe the Obama campaign is really starting to sweat.  

    I suppose (none / 0) (#56)
    by Faust on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:00:24 AM EST
    it all depends on when you believe that the decision was made. Since there is no way to know it can be interpreted any way you like.

    Personally if he does choose Clinton I don't interpret it as sweating. I interpret it as being smart.

    Quite frankly if he does choose Clinton the campaign is going to go into seroius overdrive and they will blow McCain out of the water.


    Picking Clinton would be brilliant (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by davnee on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:10:24 AM EST
    But if the Obama camp was interested in doing the smart thing they would have picked her ages ago.  If they do pick her, I will interpret it as desperation - doing the right thing (that they had no prior interest in doing) because they no longer had any choice.  Face it.  They need her now.

    But it is still a long shot.  My guess would be Biden or Kaine.  But why delay?  Except either to hold off to see if they absolutely have to pull the Clinton lever, or to downplay the non-Clinton pick because they know whoever they pick isn't going to light the world on fire?


    My interpretation (none / 0) (#60)
    by Faust on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    is that if they ARE going to pick her the way to do it is at the last possible moment because that way you get maximum effect.

    Imagine it, it's at the convention, they do their whole song and dance with Clintons name on the balot, Clinton releases her delgates, Obama gets the Nom and then in the name of party unity picks her as VP. Explosive. Short of announcing a major diety as his VP McCains pick would be burried.

    Fantasy? Yes. But a fun one.


    Myabe they won't annoucne it at all (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:01:17 AM EST
    and a name will just show up on the ballots. That's how much they are trying to downplay it.  But at the same time the delayed announcement and repreated trial balloons build suspense.

    Meanwhile the trip to Wurop backfired, and Obama is continually sinking in the polls. They have done a masterful job of backing themselves into a corner where they have to choose Hillary.  Fine with me.

    Uh, that would be Europe (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    not the lost continent of Wurop.

    Act III (none / 0) (#61)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    Looks like Biden will be playing Cheney to Obama's Bush.  We are getting the Biden take on the Russia/Georgia conflict, which, in turn, is the same as the Bush/Cheney (McCain/?) take, just as an example.  

    This won't win him any votes (none / 0) (#63)
    by chopper on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    Barack Obama chooses Kathleen Sebelius for Vice President
    August 18, 2008

    I just saw this at an ad agency site.  They said it is a rumor based on the domain name being registered to Obama and talk at the ad agency that handles Obama's work.

    If this is true I can't see him gaining any votes by backstabbing Hillary like that.

    Women want Hillary, not any old pantsuit.

    Women want her experience, knowledge, good judgement, and record of accomplishments, not just anybody with a vagina.

    That would be a really stupid move.