OK, it's the morning after Edwards' endorsement. Who should Obama's VP running mate be?

Expanded version of a poll I posted last night. Your thoughts, now that we all have some breakfast in our system?

:hi:

I'd rather we win.

DEM gov from west for VP. There are lots of good ones:
Brian Schweitzer and Janet Napolitano top my list, both have shown great courage and skill at solving problems DESPITE gop in their state houses. Both have stood up and shown leadership to other governors. Both have stood against neocon tactics and held the ground their people wanted held.

However, if winning wasn't a factor, I would have voted for Barbara Boxer.

I was listening to Bill Press this morning, and he made a very good case for Jim Webb as VP.

And unfortunately, he also made a very good case for why John Edwards wouldn't help Obama win.


In any case, he needs a white, male, christian from a large state in the south.

Normally, that would would include Edwards. But as Bill Press pointed out, Edwards didn't even carry his own state in the primary. He won't be much help to Obama.

I hope both Bill Press and I are wrong about that.

Please convince me that's wrong?

it's a SURE thing the repukes will try and scare the voters into voting McCain. Which of these choices can counter that fear?

Yes, I know he only PLAYS a general on television. But Republicans won't know the difference.

I don't remember the details, but I do know they came up in his Senate run.

having access to Obama's strategies and having access to bring down Obama at the Clintons' instructions.

In addition, he has supported Hillary and her pig-slop politics, which, IMO, makes him unsuitable. I don't think he "gets" what Obama wants to do to chang D.C. and, since Clark has been a loyal supporter of the status-quo ponies, the Clintons, he would be a poor choice to do away with stats-quo politics in D.C.

Finally, he's done NOTHING to get Obama to the GE. In fact, his support of the Clintons have worked against Obama's getting to the GE. To reward him with the VP slot would be a slap in the face to politicians who took the risk and supported Obama.

I'm nervou about ANY military person as a VP. The military has become far too powerful in our government, and a military person would (IMO) prioriize his loyalties to the military over his/her loyalties to the military.

country before Clinton's.

That said, Obama should pick someone who shares his vision for America. NO DLCer.

Don't fear military personnel blindly. It was Dwight Eisenhower who warned us of the Military Industrial Complex.

There's no sense giving them the VP slot to advance the military-neocon agenda.

I would be interested in knowing why you assume he is an "honorable American" who would "put country before Clintons"?

A career military person of the General level, especially someone like Clark who is politically savvy, got to be General because he was willing to kiss ass and support whomever would get him to being General.

I haven't seen anything in his actions in the last four years that would make me think he would put the "good ofthe country" ahead of the good of the Clintons because he may believe that the good of the Clintons IS the good of the country. There is nothing in his actions that would make that not a reasonable conclusion from the fact that he has supported the Clintons throughout this campaign, including their racial diviseness.

I think it's really easy to glamorize military heroes and easy to see the as larger-than-life figures. But, IMO, we need to assess all politicians based on their ACTIONS and not just what they appear to represent or what they SAY they will do.

to his commander

Also has a son who's active duty military and served at least one tour in Iraq. Two problems with Webb, though: one, he's a sitting senator from a barely-blue state (VA); if we give up his seat, there's no guarantee we'll get it back. Two, he's a highly alpha Dem, and might end up competing with Obama for the spotlight (although he currently does not appear to be a grand-stander, by any means). Additional plus: he hates Bush on a personal level. Also, I think he'd make a good president should the unthinkable happen. Onn the other hand, Richardson pulls millions of latino votes away from the Republicans and hands a generation of latino voters to the Democrats. So there's that.

How will that play out with the Hillary supporters (who supported her because she was a woman)?

I believe the issue was that as Navy Secretary he opposed letting women serve as active-duty personnel along with men. He has since revised that opinion, I believe. It's very old news and not in any way a disqualifier, IMO.

not what you or eye may think. I like Webb and I think he has a solid backgroud. However if his selection only further antagonizes the Hillary people, I think it would be a bad idea.

Hillary people. And since when do the supporters of the losing candidate get to dictate who the VP will be? Anyway, Webb's "issue" with feminists is very old news, as I said. I don't think it will matter at all in the GE.

if she makes it clear she doesn't want that position, then I don't think so. Although admittedly there are some extreme Hillary supporters that are completely consumed with anger and hate. That group will hate Obama and anythig associated with him. That group is a lost cause and so they should pretty much be discounted.

And I don't think it's going to be offered.

Which would signal she wasn't passed over for the position.

That's why she's still in the race. Which is obvious to anybody who's paying attention.

A consistent voice against the Iraq War, and a harmonious ticket would eliminate Obama's "Appalachia" problem. Webb wrote the book on Appalachia! Webb's conservative past will calm the center as well.

Problem: Both are freshmen Senators. McCain can paint them both as inexperienced (although Webb's got executive branch experience). Webb's conservative past could alienate the Obama base. Webb says he's not interested right now (probably because he's a freshman Senator).

Bill Richardson is another great choice. Strong executive skills, another minority can get behind the Obama ticket. There are potential problems with a two-minority ticket, though. (Not with me! I would love it!)

Which brings us to Wesley Clark. "Appalachia" problem solved. Executive experience (head of NATO, anyone?). Conservative enough for the center, yet clearly a Democrat.

Clark might be a better choice all around, but if Obama can get Jim Webb to sign on, McCain won't know what hit him.

Shut up Wesley!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX8NsJn_KpM

And this..

Star Trek - TNG "Shut Up Wesley"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqZ1FMnx1ZU

Or, god help us, this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB7RXzIKuc8&feature=related

Or... (OMFG!) this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCDIBqVsjek&feature=related

And each attempt went down in flames.

How would that play with the feminist Hillary supporters?

Richardson's demographics and foreign policy experience are killer. Webb brings a serious dose of national security bad-ass to the table. Both would be great picks.

Noting your non-inclusion of Hillary as both fitting and hilarious.

Off the top of my head, I can think of five reasons why Wes would be best:

1) NOT a Senator - Obama is a fine candidate from the US Senate. We don't need a second candidate in that category. An ideal VP will complement Obama and complete the team, rather than just bringing more of the same.

2) Could bring a lot of Clinton support in, without bringing Clinton back into the Whitehouse. Obama is promising a new kind of politics, and I hope he means every word of it. But achieving such with Clinton as VP would be nigh impossible I fear...

3) Stellar national security and foreign policy credentials - These two areas will be hyped by the MSM/freepers as Obamas weak sides. Clark on the ticket could end these arguments right quick.

4) Rather a different demographic - As a white-guy, southern, rural, not at all wealthy, Obama-supporter, I defy the stereotype that the MSM has been slinging for months now. But I can still realize that (in the aftermath of all this MSM nonsense), the Obama campaign is going to have to hustle for the votes of other southern white guys. I'm willing to hit the streets and do my part to get out the Obama vote 'round these parts, but I am sure that this will be easier if the ticket is Obama/Clark.

5) Will greatly defuse the gun issue - We southern white guys like our firearms, and are nervous about the cockeyed policies dreamed-up by some Democrats (Diane Feinstein, etc.). It could be argued that Wes Clark supports the Second Amendment more than does John McLame.

-app

What has Clark said about Obama?

It would be a shame if his words undermine the reasoning I outlined above. :-(

-app

actually worked against him.

Choosing Clark would be a slap in the face to all the politicians who took the risk and endorsed him.

Besides, Clark's loyalties are to the Clintons. Why not just put Carville in the VP slot and be done with it, if the goal is to establish a pipeline to the Clintons so they can bring down Obama.

in an administration that everyone seems to be looking for in the VP choice?

And ... :) remember folks on the Left Coast and HI, we haven't had breakfast yet!! :)

and shares many of the goals and style of reaching out that Obama has.

..they looked awesome together last night. I was in Grand Rapids--people all around were chanting "V P, V P". And if asked, you know he'd do it. Also just the mention of Elizabeth got a huge ovation--she is very much loved...

she would be a great influence.

Has the military cred of Clark without the creepiness.

I've learned from Obama supporters that he's an
"American hero" and "speaks the truth"

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

I think I'd better start my own thread about this, because I'm getting tired of retyping it. The quick summary:

turned a 1 $ billion deficit into a $1 billion surplus in her FIRST year as governor. WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.

Has passed (Republican) cuts in both income and property taxes, and STILL delivered a balanced budget every single year she has been in office.

Increased spending on education, healthcare, daycare, and other vital things - spending has risen about 6% annually without the need for more taxes. Regards education as a vital long term investment.

Super strong on border security - first in the nation to get approval to post the National Guard along the southern border. Also a strong advocate of fair immigration reform. this is a huge issue to me and she has shown that it's possible to address the real security concerns of a leaky border and still fight for immigration rights without hostility towards immigrants.

Opened nations first counter terrorism training center. Helped prosecute for the Oklahoma bombing as a US attorney.

Great communicator, really down to earth personality that knows how to work a crowd but it also a lovable fun gal. The very opposite of elitist. Even my GOP friends think she's a genius. She's a natural speaker, whether in congress, on cnn, in campaigns, or her gubernatorial addresses. Check her out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM-yjHIhMAw

She is sure future presidential material, a woman, 100% self-made, knows all McCain's weaknesses, and could bring us 3 or even 4 terms of a Democratic White House.

Finally, will make pantsuits cool again.

Perhaps Richardson...