How about Brian Schweitzer (D-MT governor) for VP?

He brushed off talk of being Obama's running mate (saying that he already has "the best job in the world") but they all say stuff like that.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

There is an impressive list of possible VP's.

He brought up the idea on MSNBC on Tuesday night.

someone posted here yesterday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUr48lg9Ocs

He sure sounds like a good fit message wise with Obama.

I'm on a Schweitzer for VP binge.

I can't think of one negative. He is the perfect compliment in every way that I can see.

right behind Richardson. The advantages either one could bring to the ticket have some overlaps.... both are Western governors with energy backgrounds and knowledge of the Middle East.

He doesn't have the gravitas of some of the older, established choices...but he can appeal to rural America better than McCain can. He's smart without sounding "elitist"...and he has some great ideas.

No, he wouldn't lend the perceived needed "experience" to the ticket, but I think people want somebody who they feel understands them more than they want "experience".

Schweitzer would be an amazing choice.

:thumbsup:

and make them know he is the real deal, now would we? :eyes:

Think beyond state borders for crying out loud. THINK REGIONS and the electoral votes in REGIONS, not just states. One VP candidate, one state, or one VP candidate and whole vast regions.

Get over thinking state and think NATION.

I would love to keep Schweitzer here in Montana for one more term, we still need his leadership here, but the nation is even worse off and his kind of leadership, of guiding people to do better for everyone would sure as hell help the nation.

And the nation is who he appeals to. He happens to be pretty good in all those Governor Groups, other state executives look to him and he has managed to get more of them moving forward too. What is wrong with that?

Region. Nation. It isn't just about what single state has the most electoral votes so we should flatter that one. PICK A PROVEN LEADER who gets things done by getting people behind him.

Schweitzer could be a very strong asset to Obama, the party, and the nation... if he can be convinced to move to D.C. for a few years. THAT would be the only real problem. Montana is a pretty tough place to leave.

Not good electoral strategy to put a western governor from a small state as second on the ticket.

I have nothing against him, based on what I know. Perhaps a good cabinet post, like Interior.

. . . is a fallacious method for picking a VP. We Democrats have wrung our hands over which governor can carry such-and-such big swing state, etc., while the GOP has picked VP's for the purpose of strengthening their message and appearing to have gravitas/authority/a common touch/etc. According to your argument, there's no way the Bush/Cheney ticket could've beaten the Kerry/Edwards ticket in '04, since we had a VP who would ostensibly deliver a major southern state with significant electoral votes, while the other side only had someone from a tiny (population-wise) western state. The VP's home state matters less than the VP's temperament and ability to a.) appeal to a broad swath of voters, and b.) effectively attack the other side, forcefully but without vitriol. That's Brian Schweitzer in a nutshell. He is, by far and away, the best possible choice that the Obama team could make.

And, yes, VP's do matter. The fact that our 2004 ticket consisted of two thin, well-kept men-- Kerry clearly bore the traits of privilege, which many Americans think of as weak and unmanly, and Edwards looked like a Ken doll-- only reinforced the right wing's hateful meme that a vote for the Democrats was a vote for "the gay agenda." Homophobia is always the last-ditch weapon that the GOP has up its sleeve, so it is imperative that Obama chooses a VP who cannot be feminized, no matter how hard the right wing might try. Granted, there are several options on the VP list who fit that description-- Jim Webb and Wes Clark jump to mind-- but each of them carries certain baggage. Webb has made some very controversial comments about women not being fit to serve in combat, and, while those comments were made in the distant past, don't think for a moment that they wouldn't come back to haunt us if Webb were on the ticket. Picking him would be the wrong move in terms of bringing disillusioned female voters back from their disappointment in Hillary's loss. And as for Clark, well, he's got a great resume, but he has always had trouble as a campaigner. Furthermore, he is not viewed favorably by many members of the Pentagon brass (and I don't mean the Army Band!) so there might be some material out there that could get him swift-boated. Granted, Clark wouldn't be a bad choice-- he's my second-favorite to get the nod-- but Schweitzer could bring so much more to the ticket in terms of vision. He is as adept at politics as he is at policy, and can appeal to the very demographics with which Obama has had the greatest challenges-- rural, working-class, white, and/or Catholic voters. Schweitzer would be able to connect with voters of those demographics in every region of the country. So, he wouldn't just be giving us Montana. He wouldn't even just give us the West. He'd bring many, many voters on board in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin . . . New Hampshire, Maine . . . Virginia, North Carolina . . . you get the idea. Maybe he wouldn't help us that much in Florida . . . but he'd tighten things up in damn near every other swing state! With enough of a push, his presence on the ticket could even force McCain to fight in Arizona. Granted, there's no way we'd actually win there, but Schweitzer could tighten the margin enough that McCain would have to spend precious time and resources defending his home turf.

Okay, I've rambled enough. To sum things up: anyone who looks at Schweitzer and merely sees the governor of a state with very few electoral votes, has not seen Schweitzer in action. Both Hillary and Obama should thank their lucky stars that Schweitzer didn't run for the presidency this year; he truly could've given them both a run for their money!

Democratic and Republican electoral strategies differ. What applies to Democrats (requiring a southern moderate, for example) and Republicans (requiring Diebold seems to be enough these days) is going to necessarily differ based on demographics, etc.

Sorry you expended so much well-meaning energy to rebut me, but seriously, the Democrats can not win the White House putting a nationally unknown western governor on the ticket, no matter how swell of a guy he may be. The Republicans have different state weaknesses, and therefore, have a completely different approach to choosing running mates.

Thanks for the laughs though, when it comes to what Schweitzer's chances would have been against Clinton or Obama. He wouldn't have had an ice cube's chance in a tea kettle.

But yeah, he could probably serve well in the cabinet. We need all the good Democrats we can get in the White House.

for him as V.P. On both Rasmussen Markets and Intrade Prediction Market he is not even listed on the main V.P. list for speculating. He is listed however on an alterntive list at a 6.5% chance of becoming the nominee.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

http://markets.rasmussenreports.com/

But here is the post I made before on why Brian Schweitzer would be my first choice:

(my apologies to those who have read already my post on this)


The Democratic Party's weakest points in a general election is in small towns, rural areas and mid size cities. In the state by state counting that Obama would need in order to win a general election this would play out very differently than exclusive Democratic Party caucuses and primaries in places like Wyoming or North Carolina. For Sen. Obama to win I cannot see how he can do it without broadening his appeal in the West, the South and border-states and making a respectable showing in small towns, rural areas and mid size cities. So from my point of view, the V.P. candidate needs to be a populist Southerner or Westerner or border stater who appeals to small towns, rural areas and mid size cities.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm





From the actblue website: "Brian Schweitzer is a different brand of politician who has earned our support based on his willingness to speak truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

A businessman first, he understands Main Street issues at his core, fighting for lower taxes, better health care and education, and the creation good-paying jobs.

A soil scientist by education, Brian lived in Saudi Arabia for seven years, speaks Arabic, and created the largest dairy farm in the Middle East.

As Governor, he has become the nation’s strongest voice for sensible energy policies in an effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while protecting the environment from the dangers of global warming.
Brian understands that energy security will create new jobs and technology for export, expanding our tax-base, reducing our trade deficit, and saving our
environment.

An opponent of the Iraq invasion from the start, he further understands that you can’t win a war when you’re funding both sides of it."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14856809.htm

the link might be dead...