I just want to say ugh to the idea that Obama needs a white male running mate with

a crew cut and heroic military service from a red state. Please. That's just crap.

Obama needs a running mate who he can work with. He needs a running mate who is an articulate and agressive attack dog. And with one caveat, gender and ethnicity don't matter. The one caveat of course, is an AA running mate.

But all the crap about how he needs Webb or Clark or some general, is offensive to me. And I don't think it's a requirement. We can beat McCain without it.

I guess that rules out Obama's asking McCain to consider being on the ticket.

.

Obama needs a strong, established white male to alleviate concerns about his inexperience and to attract more white males to his message.

Any woman (other than Hillary) or minority male would be too much change for certain white people on the fence. I know a lot of you guys don't have a problem with it and are above the fray, but trust ME, you cannot underestimate the many others that have this little thing in their minds that is waiting for tiniest of excuses to NOT vote for Obama. Any sense that he is too radical or is rejecting the "mainstream" of America will scare these people off.

It sounds bad, but Obama needs to continue being the "safe black guy".

Case in point. As I type this Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC wondering why the polls are so close when there is so much disdain with the Republican brand. You wanna know what I think? Its mostly white males who are wavering because Obama is black. They aren't thrilled with McCain but he feels better in their gut than Obama. These are the people we need to convince that Barack is "okay". He is an American, he loves the country, he is not a black radical, he has your interests in mind.

My VP picks: Joseph Biden or Wesley Clark. Bill Richardson might work too even though technicialy he is a "minority".

Obama has done everything he can to be the 'nonthreatening negro.' It is what all this reject, denounce, and qualified stuff is all about.

The latent racist needs a reason to be for Obama beyond his politics. Carter said to some he is not white enough. I agree with Carter. He is too black. I think Carter means no harm to AAs when he states what I think most Americans understand to be socially true no matter how politically incorrect it is.

Technically, HardBop, Richardson is half Mexican and half white which is why his name is "Bill Richardson" and not something Cuban like Cameron Diaz (no offense to Cuban Americans intended). It is all about aesthetics to the euphemistically named low information voter with a crocodile brain. I think Richardson would be the ideal Dream Ticket candidate, Cali.

:scared:
I'm glad we are FINALLY BEING HONEST with ourselves and each other about the uncomfortable topic of race. Obama has been the ideal race neutral candidate :thumbsup: and he is going to grief all the way to the WH and through his administration from a race conscience country.
:dem:

So be it.
:grouphug:

... They're each half white, so that's like having a whole white guy, a half Hispanic guy, and a half black guy! That should give them reassurance we're not moving too fast away from white guy as president syndrome.

Are you mad?

Of course a repuke on the ticket would divide our party in a big way, but you knew that, right?

Powell once was a respected man, but he sold his soul to the Devil. His agreement to lie has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. He has much sad blood directly on his hands.

Those honest Americans, would those be the same honest Americans that twice voted in a monster like Bush? The ones who voted for him AFTER it was clear how devastating her really is? Those people?

I think we have plenty of good Democrats to fill the VP slot. We don't need to go looking inside the worst Administration this country has ever known.

like torture. Powell was part of the White House group who determined how we could torture detainees.

Obama probably doesn't want to be saddled with that.

:wtf:

Who cares if he's a white male. I'm not going to hold that against him.

I said that Obama shouldn't feel constrained to choose only a white male with a military background.

Biden would be great. He has more experience than any of the Democratic candidates this year. He is a pro on foreign policy. Even though, a weakness for him is he supported the IWR.

Clark would also be great. Clark is much more than a general! He is probably the most progressive candidate to run for president in decades! The guy is brilliant, was an economics professor, valedictorian at West Point, Rhodes Scholar, is the most decorated officer since Eisenhower, war hero, even risked his life in his fifties to rappel down a cliff to try to save some lives. He is not a Washington insider, we don't have to give up a Senate seat, he has a trustworthy and earnest impression, he is right on all the issues. Like Obama, he has strong appeal among independents and cross-over Republicans. And he can, from a position of authority, rip to shreds McCain's attempts to talk foreign policy. With Wes Clark, we don't just get a general to defend against the Republican attack mode....we get someone who can actually turn foreign policy into an issue favoring US!!!! We can defeat McCain at his own game! And....foreign policy is the only game McCain has left.

It should not be offensive that we pick the candidate best able to demolish McCain in November. There are lots of reasons Clark was endorsed by Michael Moore and George McGovern in 04 besides his uniform. I think it is sad that some Democrats overlook all Clark has to offer because all they see is his uniform.

As a bonus, he is from the South, and he supported Clinton so his nomination would have some unity appeal to it.

I don't think Obama has this election in the bag. I think we would be foolish if we under-estimate how important national security still is in the mindset of the general election voters.

Why is McCain even in the running? With everything that has gone wrong in the past 7 years of Republican rule and the polls showing the Republicans way down...why isn't OBama at 60% in the polls against McCain? Answer: because, in spite of the fact that voters would prefer Democratic policies, they still feel safer with someone like McCain, and a lot of it has to do with this security issue.

If we nominate someone like Clark, we give voters some reasons to relax about security, believe they will be in good hands with Obama and relieve their fears. That way, the voters can vote for the candidate they would like to vote for on the important issues facing us: and that would be OBama!

McCain's only hope is to wrap himself up in the flag, in his military service and call Obama inexperienced and question his judgement on foreign policy. And don't think this isn't coming!! Clark trumps this in a heart beat. And allows us to focus the election on other issues, like the economy, health care, getting out of Iraq, etc.... I hope we won't have another election where these issues get side-stepped. The best way to prevent them from being side-stepped is to nominate Clark.

vp choices don't make much of a difference. Regarding Clark, I am not a fan, and I certainly don't see his as some great progressive. Furthermore, he's a lousy campaigner. I'd hope Obama doesn't choose him for that reason, but if he does pick Clark, again, it won't make or break the ticket.

He was more progresive than ANY of the candidates in 04 including Dean.

Hell, the other candidates were afraid of the word "liberal" in 04!

Clark was the only one to use the word liberal, call himself a liberal, and say that America was founded on liberal values.

If the other candidates are afraid even to use the word liberal, what does that say?

I really am not trying to knock any of the 04 candidates. Only trying to make a point. Clark demonstrated his progressive credentials over and over. McGovern called him a "Democrat's Democrat" forchrssakes. Nobody would challenge the progressive credentials of any of the 04 candidates (except Lieberman). Yet, because Clark wore a uniform, and some of us have a prejudice about people in the military that equates those in the service with conservatism, people don't see him as a progressive. Some may have even forgotten that he made the most progressive proposal to reform the tax code (making it more progressive, less regressive) in decades, much more progressive than that trotted out by the other candidates. (Clark's proposal would have ENDED ALL fed taxes for family of 4 under $50,000 income and this would be financed by raising the taxes on the top 1-2% of income. Nobody's plan at the time, or since, has been as progressive, and that includes Obama. Over the decades our "progressive income tax" has become less and less progressive.)

And as for being a campaigner, he didn't start until September and still did as well as Edwards. His big mistake was skipping Iowa, and if he hadn't, things could have turned out differently. Also, in 06, he campaigned for more Democratic congress candidates than anyone. We should all be thankful to Clark for the election of Jim Webb in VA, as just one example.

In 08 Clark could be the ultimate attack dog VP. He has the stature in foreign policy to rip McCain to shreds. Who is in a better position to calmly, from a position of authority, refute whatever McCain has to say on defense and to defend Obama than someone with Clark's credentials?

08 is not 04. Clark get better and better in the debates since he started. He would be the perfect choice for VP in 08 in my opinion. We do have other good choices, but Clark would seal the deal and prevent McCain from being able to distract the electorate away from the important issues facing America by trying to exploit Obama's lack of foreign policy credentials.

Even though Clark didn't get the nomination, he and Howard Dean were the best media surrogates for Kerry and Edwards during the 2004 GE campaign. He's learned a lot since his failed presidential bid. I think he'd make a fantastic VP.

black man in America and that choice will still be difficult for some, and also people don't know him well so who he chooses will reflect something about who he is. I agree it's not a deal breaker, but I think it will matter more than in previous years. Because this is a historical race, I don't think you can use history as a barometer in the same way as past years. I don't necessarily think we need a red-state-military-white-guy, but I do believe that if there's too much change and difference in the ticket this year, we're taking a risk.

He's been working his ass off campaigning for Democrats across the country for the last several years.

And he did a hell of a lot better campaigning last POTUS cycle than John Edwards because he manage to win a state.

Furthermore, Clark kicks ass with the Mediawhores on tv. I can cite a number of examples of his prowess on Youtube.

The only time he hasn't been that great lately is when he had to spew crap defending Hillary and frankly that says something about him- HE WASN'T INTO DOING IT.

I think people care less about foreign ploicy experience than they do about having a candidate they feel understands them.

Brian Schweitzer speaks intelligently without sounding "elitist" and he has an energy program that would make us energy independent in 15 years. I think people would love him.

there? And the VP is important to me because they normally have the automatic go-ahead after 8yrs of success are up.. so, its got to be someone we want to see there in 8yrs, or the repigs will organize and bash us back into the last century.

I think he is more needed in that Senate seat. If Obama picks a Senator he needs to make sure they are from a SOLIDLY Dem state and won't put the seat in play during the next election.

I would rather see him pick someone with some foreign policy experience that leans more towards the diplomacy side rather then the military side.

further, since Hillary and Bill's behavior eliminate her from serious consideration ANY other woman is also out. It'd be seen as a slap at Hillary to nominate another women and it'd piss off her female supporters.

So while I agree with the "military" credentials not being key, political reality says a woman must not happen this time.

I know Edwards has already said he's out but he'd be perfect, imho.

he needs someone can pull him from the center.

Seomeone who knows the military, and knows that its power should only be used as a very last resort gives the administration a level of credibility in foreign affairs. I don't think a true democracy should have any military influence outside a secDef but unfortunately it is the way of the world we live in at the moment. Even if we completely retreated from the world stage in every aspect, there would still be violence and a need for people who know of military ways.

He needs the PERSON who HE feels will be BEST to take over in case something happens to HIM...

Don't get sucked into the cable news talking head bullshit

jeez...

But that's not to say that I don't like Wes Clark.

Bill Richardson may not have military experience, but he has a lot of foreign policy experience that I think would work very well with Obama. Richardson's foreign policy experience was not "Let's go kill people who disagree with us", but instead "Let's work this out". He was an ambassador, he knows how the UN functions, and we are really going to have to work hard to redeem ourselves with the UN after eight years of Bush and our country going unilaterally against Iraq.

I think Wes Clark is a good guy, but I think it would be better for Obama to have a running mate that was more well-versed in diplomacy than military action.

Thats a pretty big voting block, last I checked.

He could very easily win with the right woman, Hispanic or whatever.

woman and if she's the right VP for Obama.

coming back to Richardson as VP.

but no matter what, he should be in the cabinet minimum. I think that this means that Hillary shouldn't be V.P. since she has so much bad blood with Richardson.

It's not like he won't have a Secretary of Defense or a National Security Advisor.

I have no opinion because Obama's been doing a darned good job of convincing me and others that he knows what he's doing.

Obama doesn't have to triangulate the position of VP.
I'm kinda excited about finding out who he eventually chooses, tho'. I don't think he'll choose a VP based on tawdry credentials.

I know, we have to play down our expectations of Obama because he's going to be dealing with an enormous momentum and the rot is decades deep. We can't expect instant results.

However, one thing I truly enjoy about Obama's message and his campaign - that his campaign is ground up, that he depends not on multi-billionaire individuals and corporations but on grassroots donors and campaigners, on grassroots strategists. That doesn't put him under anyone's thumb, but it does hold him accountable to a grassroots progressive movement. And I enjoy how Obama's campaign has been universally understood to be groundbreaking, to be the wave of the future.

:thumbsup: