Hillary's VP choice

[LVZ]

external Hillary's VP choice poll



Assuming Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, here is my take
on potential Vice Presidential running mate choices:



Joe Biden - I really like the guy (more than Hillary), but as another northeastern
politician and another Senator, he brings no advantage to the ticket.



Michael Bloomberg - as a nominal Republican, being Jewish, and a very successful
businessman and New York City mayor he could likely appeal to more independent,
results-oriented voters. However, as another New Yorker, he is prohibited by the
Constitution from being on the ticket and could not add regional balance.



Wesley Clark - as a former four star general, his presence may add military credibility
to the ticket, he could help the Dems pick up his home state of Arkansas. Downside:
in 2004 he showed that his political instincts are poor. As just the VP candidate,
that may not be so important.



Chris Dodd - another ho-hum, aging northeastern Senator



John Edwards - did not help carry any southern states in 2004, seems to have
burned his bridges with the Clintons, unlikely choice.



Rahm Emanuel - my top choice, young, energetic, telegenic, a tough political
fighter from Chicago, and former senior political advisor to Bill Clinton. He adds
midwest regional balance. His Jewish heritage should help with states like
Florida. His youth will offset the Clinton "yesterday's generation" tag.



Chuck Hagel - a fairly conservative Republican from farm state Nebraska, yet a
sometimes critic of the Bush administration and very publicly anti Iraq war. He
would certainly provide cover for moderate Republicans upset with the direction
of their party. Downside: my guess is that retiring Senator Hagel has lost his
zeal for politics and wouldn't want to abandon his longtime party, even if it has
in many ways abandoned him.



Barack Obama - both Hillary and Barack have "cool" personalities, just not as
extreme as Democratic loser John Kerry. This may work in the northeast and
parts of the midwest, but most of the country prefers a warmer, personable,
less academic persona. Since the Republicans are already attacking Hillary
about her lack of "executive" experience, adding another one-term Senator
doesn't make much sense.



Colin Powell - would be my second choice. He got burned by the Bush
administration and needs to restore his formerly good reputation. Who could
speak more to the lies and misrepresentation about the Iraq war and other
Bush excesses than an insider. His military background and White House
experience would add gravitas to the ticket.



Bill Richardson - as a governor and Clinton cabinet member, he adds
more experience to the ticket. He would ensure that the Dems win his
home state of New Mexico and might energize latino turnout in Colorado,
Arizona and Nevada. As a moderate border-state Governor, he could bring
direct experience to the illegal immigrant issue.



Jim Webb - being a conservative Democrat, Webb could offend a lot of
more liberal Democrats, but what would be their alternative, if selected?
Webb proved in beating an incumbent Republican Senator that he is a very
capable and aggressive campaigner. Webb would very likely ensure that the
Dems win his typically Republican state of Virginia (13 electoral votes). Since
Virginia also has a Democratic Governor, Dems still retain his Senate seat.

[Skip Intro]

1. I'm liking the idea of Webb as VP

I think he would help the ticket whoever the nom is...

[...of J.Temperance]

5. I don't think Webb has enough experience, he's only been in The Senate two years

What's his other experience?

[terrya]

7. Wasn't Webb at one time Secretary of the Navy?

I believe he was.

[...of J.Temperance]

11. And that's ENOUGH experience?

Two years in the Senate and a brief stint as Secretary of The Navy....I'd rather keep Webb in The Senate.

[TwilightGardener]

14. I agree--Webb should stay in the Senate. My preferences--Obama and Clark.

[terrya]

15. I agree.

I'm just mentioning his experience besides the Senate.

I'd personally think Bill Richardson would be a good choice.

[...of J.Temperance]

26. No that's cool

And I like Bill Richardson as well, he'd be a really good choice....a very talented man.

[LVZ]

76. Never as President, but VP - hey, why not?

This guy is way too conservative for my tastes. However, as a VP he would only have as much influence as Hillary and Bill wanted.

Webb is exceptionally feisty and that would be a great asset to the too "cool" temperament of Hillary's own style. Picking up 13 electoral votes from Virginia is certainly a major consideration.

Republicans would both hate and and probably fear Webb. He has no trouble mixing it up in the predictable environment of mean-spirited hostility of Republican attacks.

He would be one of my top choices for the campaign.

[TwilightGardener]

87. 3 wives.

[LVZ]

112. The GOP has made this irrelevant this time

Too many examples among leading GOP candidates of multiple marriages.

[TwilightGardener]

124. I don't think it's irrelevant--with Clinton marital history, why pick a Veep

who can't seem to get his own personal shit together? She needs someone who's controversy-free and squeaky clean. Clark would fit that bill.

[LVZ]

130. Clark may or may not be a good VP candidate - but nobody is free of controversy

And every candidate should be prepared to be "swiftboated" by the GOP and others.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/11/17/031117fa_fact
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0340,schanberg,47436,1.html
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Sept2001/0901clark.asp
http://www.oilempire.us/clark.html

[FrenchieCat]

174. All of the dumbshit's been addressed..........

long ago! Any smear on the General has been responded to by those who know him and understand the nature of politics of personal destruction. He's clean, and "they" know it...which is why they have to make shit up! In the end, this is the General who fought and won a war without losing a single American soldier....and even with high altitude bombing was able to keep civilian casualties to a minimum and negotiated a peace treaty which has stood for a decade....which is more than can be said about the experience of any of the GOP and/or Democrats running as well as the current administration! :)


1. The Peter Boyers article in the New Yorker--Debunked
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/the_new_yorkers_general_clarks.html


2. The VillageVoice Article asking why Wes Clark, without proof should have talked more about the 7 nation Neocon plan BEFORE Iraq happened- Clark did. He was called a "Crackpot" by the press over and over again, including in the New Yorker article by your source above, Peter Boyers (see my last cite for #2).

General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/10/02&ID=Ar00100

Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory
The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan.
by Matthew Continetti

Yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition," for example, Clark said--not for the first time--that the Bush administration's war plans extend far beyond Iraq.

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes in his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."

Clark's proof? None. He never saw the list. But, the general recently told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "You only have to listen to the gossip around Washington and to hear what the neoconservatives are saying, and you will get the flavor of this."

You probably get the flavor of what Wesley Clark is saying, too. It tastes, as THE SCRAPBOOK pointed out three weeks ago, like baloney. And sometimes, as in the case of yesterday's interview with Blitzer, it tastes like three-week-old baloney.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/445cqeal.asp

Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to implement Iraq invasion plan
Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece. Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.

Clark's central contention-that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Saddam-has been part of the public debate since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank that had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003

#3- The article that you cite provides the backup evidence that Clark was against High Altitude bombing in Kosovo because of high civilian casualty possibililities......and he insisted but never got low altitude flying Apache Helicopters and boots on the ground in order to minimize innocent deaths and to better pinpoint legitimate and approved bombing targets.

In-depth information here on this exact subject. The article you cite is part of the debunk at the link I am providing: http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/11/wes_clark_wanted_boots_on_the.html


#4- Below are the links that debunk the Counterpunch's smear job on Wes Clark, from "He could have started WWIII" to "Bombing of the Television Station" stories, etc.....with numerous cites from legitimate progressive sources rather than extremist Counterpunch gang!
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/10/smear_debunked_clark_would_hav.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/03/facts_on_the_1999_rts_tv_stati.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/gen_clarks_band_of_brass_opini.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/kosovo_was_about_genocide_not.html

Any smear on the General has been responded to by those who know him and understand the nature of politics of personal destruction. He's clean, and "they" know it...which is why they have to make shit up! In the end, this is the General who fought and won a war without losing a single American soldier....and even with high altitude bombing was able to keep civilian casualties to a minimum (500+ reported) :)

[WCGreen]

146. Webb was just elected in 2006...

He hasn't even been a Senator for a full year...

Boy, people should really try to check facts...

[LVZ]

147. Maybe you should check your facts - Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb

[WCGreen]

148. Did I say he wasn't....

Don't you read...

[Gidney N Cloyd]

2. Rahm Emanuel is "telegenic"?

He's the scariest looking guy in the whole bunch.

[...of J.Temperance]

6. Rahm Emanuel is a very charming person

And an excellant politician.

I don't think having a Congressman for the Veep choice is very logical though myself.

Better with an experienced Senator or Governor....or an experienced Senator AND Governor ala Senator Evan Bayh.

[LVZ]

90. Not logical? Exactly why?

I don't think having a Congressman for the Veep choice is very logical though myself.

And that logic would be ... ???

Rahm Emanuel is very well connected to the Clintons and a highly respected political strategist.

Congressman Gerald Ford was Richard Nixon's 2nd VP
Congressman John Garner was Franklin Roosevelt's 1st VP
Congressman Alben Barkley was Harry Truman's VP
Congressman James Sherman was William Taft's VP

[surfermaw]

106. Can't remember all of FDR V.P

I do know Wallace of Georgia was one, then he picked Truman, I remember because I was a Georgia Student, we had the hopes of Wallace if something happened to FDR.

[...of J.Temperance]

115. He has no Executive experience

As I said I like Rahm Emmanuel....I'm a DLCer, you'll find that I'm only one of a HANDFUL of people at DU who LIKE and RESPECT Rahm Emmanuel.

But he's got no Executive experience....I like the idea of Senator Evan Bayh or Governor Bill Richardson, BOTH have Executive experience.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[LVZ]

122. Executive Experience - like George W Bush, Dick Cheney ?

[...of J.Temperance]

125. I expect MORE from our Presidential candidate and Veep candidate

Than those two doofus'

That means that I expect a QUALITY Veep, one with Executive experience ie. a former Governor or a current Governor....ie. Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson.

[LVZ]

150. By that "executive experience" logic, Hillary, Biden, Obama, Dodd, Edwards, Webb are not qualified?

[MrMickeysMom]

167. He may be an "excellent politician", but aren't we trying to turn this country around?

Rahm Emanuel is as empty a change agent for this country as (and I'm sure you will not agree) Hillary Rodham Clinton would be. I think I've entered the DLC zone, so light the torch and flame. Frankly, I think it's a disaster. Emanuel as first choice? Colen Powell as second??? :o ...huh?

I guess if you want more of the same, something this country c a n n o t afford to risk, then by all means, get yourself an excellent politician.

[LVZ]

74. Telegenic, not photogenic

He looks and performs quite well in political TV interviews,
while I admit that he is sometimes not particularly "photogenic".

[Gidney N Cloyd]

98. I know what telegenic means. The guy LOOKS like he could star in "Chertoff: The Early Years."

[LVZ]

101. Must be a personal thing ...

Here is a Daily Show clip, Rahm Emanuel and Jon Stewart:

http://www.ifilm.com/episode/17702?startsWith=2801119

[dflprincess]

116. And he's DLC all the way

If Clinton is the nominee and he's the VP choice, it's going to make it that much harder for the left to vote for her.

[...of J.Temperance]

126. There's nothing wrong with ANYONE being DLC all the way

The choice is that the Left either vote for the Democratic Presidential ticket, EVEN IF BOTH Presidential candidate and Veep candidate are DLCers....or the alternative is that the Republican's win the GE and get into the WH for another four years.

It's as simple as that actually.

:)

[dflprincess]

133. If the both the Democratic presidential & veep candidate are DLCers

then the Republicans get the White House for another four years regardless of who wins the election or what letter they put by their names.

[William769]

3. Obma was never a choice IMHO

As much as I liked Edwards, after this week I would write him off also.

[...of J.Temperance]

9. William I agree

Edwards COULD have been in the running, but after his staggering attacks on Senator Clinton,he cooked his own goose....there's no way Senator Clinton would pick him now.

Barack Obama, is only ever going to be a Senator, that's as high up as he's going in the political ranks.

[surfermaw]

109. I wouldn't be to sure

after all Edwards is a lawyer and a good one, Hillary is going to need someone to attack Republicans, because they will give her hell... I choose Edwards or Biden, of course an Edwards and Biden ticket looks good to me,

[...of J.Temperance]

114. Will Senator Clinton and John Edwards be able to

Bury the hatchet? I mean Edwards' attacks on Hillary have been rather personal.

[LVZ]

117. What is the logic with an Edwards VP choice?

I like John Edwards. At the start of this election season, he was my favorite.

However, as a VP candidate in 2004 he did not help carry any southern state, and by most accounts he lost in his debate with Dick Cheney.

So, the "southern" thing, while helpful as a Presidential candidate, seems meaningless for a VP choice. Even if he had not burned his bridges with the Clintons, I think there are much stronger choices for Hillary's VP that are more likely to increase electoral count.

[...of J.Temperance]

120. None, that's why I want either Bayh or Richardson

John Edwards was my candidate in 2004....he was my original candidate for 2008 as well....until I switched to Hillary.

I LOVE John Edwards, as a HUMAN BEING, I think he's a GREAT person....but I'm very disappointed and actually rather upset that he's gone so low as to launch attacks on Hillary, to the degree that his attacks have been rather personal....I'm so disappointed in him.

In 2004, John Kerry was the problem, not John Edwards....that ticket SHOULD have been Edwards/Kerry not Kerry/Edwards....Edwards wanted to get out there and start smacking the Bush Baby....and Kerry HELD him back....WTF?

Edwards is a Smilin' Assassin, he's GOT the killer instinct, which you NEED to win an election....Kerry NEVER had the killer instinct, he was too wimpy during the 2004 campaign....the Bush Baby was SO easy to take down and demolish and yet Kerry acted like a wimp.

But yeah, Bayh or Richardson:

Clinton/Bayh or Clinton/Richardson....if Hillary picks Bayh, then Bill Richardsn would make an excellant Secretary of State.

[Clark2008]

183. But Edwards can't bring anything to the ticket.

He's not popular in the South and mid-West with white men (we need those voters) and he's not a leader, domestically or in foreign policy.

He's white bread, like Evan Bayh. What a bland ticket Clinton/Edwards or Clinton/Bayh would be. Yick.

[Eric J in MN]

135. I'm hoping the next new Supreme Court Justice will be Barack Obama. NT

NT

[...of J.Temperance]

4. My choice: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana

He's a proven winner in Red states, and we'll need to pick up some Red states, he would help in Swing states as well.

He was a long-term, muliply elected Governor of Indiana, so he has Executive experience....he's also been a long-term, multiply-elected Senator from Indiana, so he has Legislative experience as well....he's a Centrist Democrat, so he'd play well with Swing Voters.

Also, Senator Bayh is literally my favorite Senator, aside from Senator Mary Landrieu of course.

Clinton/Bayh 2008 would be a winner....Evan Bayh is kinda cute too!





About Senator Evan Bayh:

http://bayh.senate.gov/about.html

[TwilightGardener]

13. Ack. Yuck.

[...of J.Temperance]

27. Do you have anything more....intelligent to add? Explain WHY Evan Bayh is "Ack. Yuck"

Explain why....or have you just eaten all of the rabid anti-DLC propaganda?

[TwilightGardener]

30. I watched him during the Petraeus hearings, trying to help Gen. P. undo

the damage he did to himself when answering John Warner's question about whether or not the Iraq war was making us safe or not (Gen P said "I don't know"). Instead of letting Gen P's answer stand as a damning indictment of the entire war policy, Senator Dumbass brought it up again later to let him "clarify"--either Bayh is sucking up to the other side, or he has very faulty political instincts--he ruined the big headline. Stupid.

[...of J.Temperance]

36. And that's IT? That's enough to throw Bayh in the trashcan?

There's more than ONE issue at stake here, and Senator Evan Bayh has a very positive political record as a Centrist Democrat, he also DOES have good political instincts, his talents are extraordinary and he's a nice fellow as well.

[TwilightGardener]

41. What's really funny is that I'm a fairly conservative Dem, and I

think of him as Dudley Do-Nothing. You'd think I'd like him, but I don't. He's bland, and doesn't strike me as a leader in any sense. If Hillary chose him, he'd be there to be a good-looking potted plant.

[Inuca]

52. About Bayh and more

I agree, he is bland and nondescript. I know hardly anything about him, which given that for the past several years I have been following politics almost obsessively says more about him than about me being not informed.

But the thing is that a "good-looking potted plant" (loved that :-)) with decent credentials and pollsters' approved background is likely IMHO to be exactly the kind of VP Clinton will chose. Last week or so there was an interesting discussion on Hardball about Bill's role in a potential Hillary presidency and the impact this is likely to have on those that would hold major cabinet positions and especially the VP (funerals and not much else, said Tweety, and I happen to agree). And I think it can a serious problem if people that would be extremely qualified for important positions, like most of the ones mentioned in the OP, would not be interested in serving for fear of being mostly irrelevant (and tarnishing their good name and reputation in the process). It is just one more reason I am unhappy with the idea of a third Clinton term. All IMHO of course.

[TwilightGardener]

55. LOL! You raise important points--she won't need a VP as partner or advisor, a la Chimpy--

she's got Bill as honorary VP. Whomever she chooses will just be there for surface electability and to be a warm body to fill the slot--she's not going to let her Veep have any real say or power--thus outshining her. Most of the men above (Webb, Obama, Edwards, Emanuel, Bloomberg, Hagel, maybe Clark) have big egos, forceful personalities and big ideas--I would have a hard time seeing them in a next-to-worthless VP role. Richardson would do it, he's not exactly an alpha dog. Biden might, since he might be a little tired of the Senate, but he and Hillary would end up clashing and at each other's throats. And that brings us to Bland Bayh...yep. Perfect.

[...of J.Temperance]

59. At LEAST Evan Bayh DOESN'T PANDER to BIGOTS like your guy Obama does

So you have a bit of a nerve bashing and trashing Senator Evan Bayh, he's got a GREAT record on gay rights....and he doesn't hang around with POS that screech "God saved from me homosexuality" and ALL the Cult of Obama in the audience clapped and CHEERED that comment.

I'd take a bland Evan Bayh over Barack "I pander to Bigots" Obama.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[TwilightGardener]

63. Nope--just panders to Petraeus and the GOP.

[...of J.Temperance]

77. Ridiculous, you have a one-off incident, you're clutching at straws

Meanwhile, Obama's pandering for the bigot vote, a pattern is developing....McClurkin, Kenya visit comparing AIDS to gays....

[Inuca]

60. I think it would not be a smart move for Biden

to trade his very powerful position in the Senate for the opportunity to exchange pleasantries with the Clintons. He is very smart so I hope he would not do it if the opportunity arises. I actually hope that a miracle will happen and he will somehow make it to the top spot, but that's a different story. I am also tempted to comment on your "warm body" wording, but I think I'd better abstain ;-).

[TwilightGardener]

66. Agreed. Not a smart move, maybe, for Biden. Too much talent to waste.

Your last comment: :rofl:

[Inuca]

71. I guess you got it

in spite of my oh, so ladylike, reserve ;-)

[LVZ]

165. You're right and two northeasterners provides no practical political advantage

[...of J.Temperance]

56. Senator Evan Bayh is a PROVEN winner, he's NOT the Bimbo YOU seem to think he is

Senator Evan Bayh as Hillary's Veep candidate, would put into play:

Colorado, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, Virginia....and that's for starters.

Oh and your comment about Bayh not coming across like "a leader in any sense"....he was ONLY a LONGTERM Governor of a state is all....I mean, yeah that's NOT like he's "a leader in any sense" is it? :sarcasm:

And Barack Obama is a LEADER HOW exactly? 8 years in a State Legislature and a few in the Senate....Obama couldn't LEAD his way out of a paper bag.


On Edit: Added comment

[LVZ]

58. Huh?

I have no problem with Bayh, but how do you figure that he would have any more impact than any other candidate in my home state of Nevada? Nobody knows Bayh here. And "bland" is not exactly what Las Vegas is all about. Bill Richardson, as a hispanic would have far greater impact.

[...of J.Temperance]

62. Nevada would get to KNOW Evan Bayh if Hillary made him her Veep candidate

n/t

[LVZ]

68. That did not answer my question.

Why would a "bland" Bayh appeal more than others in "non-bland" Nevada? How would he have more impact than someone like Bill Richardson or any of other candidates?

Short answer: he wouldn't.

Even so, Bayh would be a "safe" choice so that Hillary would not be upstaged - sort of like George Bush Sr's choice of Dan Quayle (also from Indiana), albeit with more intelligence.

[...of J.Temperance]

84. How would

Rahm Emmanuel have more appeal in Nevada than Evan Bayh?

I love Rahm Emmanuel, but I don't think a Veep that's a Congressman is a good idea somehow.

You say in your OP that your favored Veep choice for Hillary is Rahm Emmanuel....so Emmanuel is better in Nevada than Bayh how exactly?

[LVZ]

91. In the same way that Las Vegas is more exciting than Indiana

Let's face it, Evan Bayh may be a fine Senator, but he is not Mr. Energetic or Mr. Charisma.

[LVZ]

168. The best ticket is an energetic one - Gore/Lieberman was a snooze fest in 2000

Despite his age, Reagan as campaigner was energetic and seldom boring.

Bill Clinton was even more dynamic and charismatic.

Unfortunately, Hillary does not have the same dynamic charisma. It would help to have at least half of the ticket create some excitement or energy.

Again, unfortunately, Bill Richardson and Evan Bayh do not convey a sense of energy.

Jim Webb, Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden, John Edwards, and Barack Obama seem to have much more potential for raising the energy level of Hillary's campaign.

[TwilightGardener]

61. So...what's he known for? What's his claim to fame? Being well-liked?

Being a carefully middling centrist? Being part of a political dynasty? I'm just not impressed with the guy. Don't take it personally. She might very well pick him--a safe choice. Just not an inspiring choice, to me.

[...of J.Temperance]

79. What's Evan Bayh KNOWN for? He's known for

Being a winner....being a MULTIPLE winner....in a Red state.

The Veep nominee has got to be someone who can also appeal to Moderate Republicans of the socially liberal variety ie. the Lincoln Chaffee-type Moderate Republicans and also can appeal to the Swing Voters.

You don't win by preaching to the base, you win by reaching outside of the tent and pulling in Moderate Republicans and Swing Voters....the so-called Base, 80% of them are going to vote for you ANYHOW....so therefore you have to venture outside and expand outwards from that base....Evan Bayh CAN do that.

Proving what a naive oaf Obama is, he did it ass backwards and went and in TRUE DESPARATION pandered to anti-gay Bigots.

REAL politicians who WANT to WIN expand the base to reach out to MODERATES, not to BIGOTS.


On Edit: Added comment

[TwilightGardener]

85. Well, then--Ben Nelson for VP! Former Governor, Senator--beloved by Nebraskans--

a red-state winner! Wooohooo! Not known for anything impressive in his career, but popular! Oh wait...he's not good-looking. Never mind.

[...of J.Temperance]

111. EVERYONE already should know that Ben Nelson is my LEAST favorite Senator

That is all.

[JTFrog]

129. He teamed up Clinton and Lieberman

to battle the evil influences of those wicked violent video games. Ironically enough, the dynamic trio also believe that sending our young men and women to fight in Iraq/Iran is also a great way to keep them from being influenced by violence. :shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

131. LOL! Sounds like a real winner then.

[pokercat999]

96. That's enough to throw him a re-education camp. Where's

your Stalinist tendencies ala republican talk radio?

:spank: :sarcasm:

[...of J.Temperance]

113. What

WAS I THINKING?! Oh D'oh!

Ooooh a spanking too, fab! :bounce:

I'm getting Stalinized like ALREADY! :sarcasm:

[skipos]

31. FWIW, he wouldn't win Indiana

ANy state that was run by the KKK isn't going to vote for a Dem ticket no matter who is on it.

[...of J.Temperance]

35. Huh? Indiana elected Evan Bayh MULTIPLE times to be their Governor n/t

.

[skipos]

43. NC elected Edwards, and he didn't win it as VP

MA elected Mitt, and he won't win it if he is nominated.

Some states are too red or too blue for the other party to flip. Presidential candidates can get about a 10% boost in their homeststate, VPs @5%. North Carolina is less red than Indiana, and it was still too red for Edwards to flip it.

NC '88: Bush (57.97 - 41.71) = + 8.54% Republican
NC '92: Bush (43.44 - 42.65) = + 6.35% Republican
NC '96: Dole (48.73 - 44.04) = + 13.22% Republican
NC '00: Bush (56.03 - 43.20) = + 13.34% Republican
NC '04: Bush (56.02 - 43.58) = + 9.98% Republican (see the Edward boost?)


IN '88: Bush (59.84 - 39.69) = + 12.43% Republican
IN '92: Bush (42.91 - 36.79) = + 11.68% Republican
IN '96: Dole (47.13 - 41.55) = + 14.11% Republican
IN '00: Bush (56.65 - 41.01) = + 16.15% Republican
IN '04: Bush (59.94 - 39.26) = + 18.22% Republican

Not only would Bayh not win IN as a VP, I don't think he would win it even as a Presidential candidate.

[LVZ]

127. Good Post - a reasonable analysis

Yes, a Presidential candidate can probably expect a 10% boost from their home state.
A Vice Presidential candidate can likely add only 5%.

Home State Losses:

Presidential nominee George McGovern, South Dakota - 1972
Vice Presidential nominee Lloyd Benson, Texas - 1988
Vice Presidential nominee Jack Kemp, New York - 1996
Presidential nominee Al Gore, Tennessee - 2000
Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards, North Carolina - 2004

[faithfulcitizen]

73. I wouldn't be so sure about that...

Repubs like him here. Afterall, he was the only Dem to vote for the 2003 tax cuts. And his father was beloved here too. He also dropped out of the race right when Hillary jumped in. (Maybe they already have a deal.) :shrug:

[Clark2008]

184. Cute?

:puke:

(I'm a female, too. Give me a man, not a guy with Ken Doll hair, like Bayh and Edwards.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Wes Clark Or Bill Richardson

DSB

[...of J.Temperance]

10. Out of the choices in the OP, I'd go for

Bill Richardson....so Richardson or Bayh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. What's Wrong With The General?

It's great to have a "General" that is one of us ...

[...of J.Temperance]

32. Nothing wrong with him

My candidate in 2004 was John Edwards, my second tier candidate was Wesley Clark, sadly he didn't get much traction :(

In 2004 an Edwards/Clark ticket would have been a winner....I never felt John Kerry was a winner, I voted wholeheartedly for John Kerry, but something deep down always told me that he didn't have it in him, he didn't have the Killer Instinct to GUT the Bush Baby.

Edwards/Clark would have GUTTED the Bush Baby.

I'd like to see Wesley Clark as Secretary of Defense....I believe by January 20th, 2009 he SHOULD be eligible for that position....they have a 10 year rule, that a military person has to have been out of the military for 10 years before they're eligible to be Secretary of Defense.

I would say that Wesley Clark would also be an EXCELLANT National Security Advisor.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[Clark2008]

185. Wow, you really pushing Republican talking points, don't you?

Clark beat Edward in five of the nine races in which they both competed and beat him in fund raising in two quarters. He just wasn't running for Veep and got out of the race when it was clear to everyone that Kerry had it clinched. Edwards wanted to keep raising money for lost causes, apparently.

I hate Edwards, btw. I think he's the biggest phony in this race. That said, I don't have a declared primary candidate. I find them all rather sucky - in both parties.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Bloomberg? Powell? Hagel? I like your open-mindedness.

That would blow too many minds, however.

[rurallib]

16. Hagel?

He's against the war. I guess that qualifies him?

[TwilightGardener]

17. The OP is not the first person to suggest this--this was a "fantasy football" pairing

on some Sunday talk shows. He's respectful of Dems and comes off as very bipartisan. But he's a pro-life, hard-core fiscal conservative--would be hard to reconcile that with a Dem's agenda, even with his Democratic foreign policy views.

[LVZ]

104. No, but it helps ...

Hagel as VP could provide inside political insights to a Clinton administration without necessarily having too much influence. He, more than others, may be able to persuade fellow Republicans on future key votes in the Senate.

In the election, Hagel would provide political cover to wavering Republican voters to abandon their increasingly divisive, neocon-dominated party for a more centrist and inclusive cooperative model of government.

As long as a Democrat controls the White House, we shouldn't be afraid of competing ideas from others.

[TwilightGardener]

107. I suppose. He also brings a military-service and CEO background--

that's a plus on a ticket against someone like Rudy or Romney, if Hillary chooses for whatever reason not to go with Webb or Clark. And he's already been vetted pretty carefully (by none other than Dick Cheney). Very unlikely to happen, but an interesting what-if.

[TwilightGardener]

18. I'm torn about Obama--I'd like to see him get VP, but afraid he

would end up attending funerals and having his talent wasted. It would be an unstoppable ticket though.

[Inuca]

69. With no offense intended

I thought from the very beginning that Obama should have stayed out this time around and he would have been a top VP choice for anybody and be in a perfect position for the next round. I like him a lot, but I am afraid he may have damaged his prospects by entering the race now.Unless of course he wins, which I would be reasonably happy with. Also, I think that Obama has very few chances of being Clinton's choice. Some of the reasons I mentioned above, also I guess the pundits are likely to say that woman + black is too risky, also I think he is too strong and charismatic a personality for Hillary to want him in the background, especially after the mutual campaign bruising which I guess will get only worse from now on.

[TwilightGardener]

80. No offense taken--but I don't fault him for trying to grab the brass ring--

if he fails, he fails--I have no doubt he'll land on his feet. There are no guarantees for the future, and sometimes you have to jump when you see an opening. He might have been mistaken about the opening, but...oh well. I don't think it's likely that Hillary would choose him (or that he would accept), but I do think it would still be a hell of a ticket.

[IndianaJones]

19. Democratic loser John Kerry? nt.

[TwilightGardener]

20. Why so mean?

[IndianaJones]

21. you tell me. nt.

[TwilightGardener]

28. I don't know, "Democratic loser" just seems a bit hostile. What did Kerry ever do to you?

[IndianaJones]

29. what? nt.

[...of J.Temperance]

37. C'mon, fess up....

:P

[IndianaJones]

48. nope. nt.

[...of J.Temperance]

54. Are

You meaning something similar, to the comment I made up thread about John Kerry, when I said:

"In 2004 an Edwards/Clark ticket would have been a winner....I never felt John Kerry was a winner, I voted wholeheartedly for John Kerry, but something deep down always told me that he didn't have it in him, he didn't have the Killer Instinct to GUT the Bush Baby"


You voted for Kerry too, but deep down you knew too that he didn't have it in him?


My post # 32:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3675972#3676284

[IndianaJones]

65. no, my reason is much simpler. nt.

[...of J.Temperance]

78. Yeah?

And....the simpler reason IS?

:popcorn:

[IndianaJones]

82. its in the OP. nt.

[...of J.Temperance]

83. Is it about not being able to appeal to The South?

Louisiana here ya know :)

NONE of my family liked John Kerry....they LOVED John Edwards though, I knew then pretty much that Kerry was a really bad choice for top of the ticket.

That's why my ticket, the ticket I wanted was Edwards/Clark (North Carolina/Arkansas)

[karynnj]

110. Fine, my siblings and i grew up in the midwest in a LARGE family

and are now around the country - NOT one of them trusted Edwards - his style was way too slick and they just didn't trust him - especially the one who lives with her family in NC. Did they all like Kerry? No - but over half of them did in the summer before the convention. After the debates, the ones I spoke to were mostly happy with him - though not all of them.

The thing is that the Democrats rarely win teh south unless it is a landslide. It would be like someon from the Boston area posting on a RW board that they didn't like a specific candidate and neither did anyone in their family.

[BlueManDude]

22. Richardson.

[oasis]

24. General Clark. (nt)

[Auntie Bush]

144. Now you're talking!

[ronnykmarshall]

25. Clark or Biden.

[emilyg]

67. Yes.

[LVZ]

33. Vice Presidential Choice Photo Collage

[Capn Sunshine]

34. WEll, The Cart is all ready to go......

Now if we can just wait for them to deliver the horse.

[CK_John]

38. You list all but the best choice Gov K Sebelius. Also very hard to post with all pics n/t

[LVZ]

44. Good VP for Edwards or Obama but not for Hillary

It is hard enough to get one woman elected as Prez or VP, but two on the same ticket, however well qualified, is a bit premature in this still male-dominated society.

Can you even name one elected Governor and Lt Governor combo who were both women?

[Mz Pip]

39. Not Bloomberg

Can't have a POTUS and VP from the same state.

I like Clark but I think she'll go with Biden. Just a hunch.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[TwilightGardener]

45. No way on Biden--they would clash, big-time.

[LVZ]

51. There are other ways ...

Can't have a POTUS and VP from the same state

That constitutional prohibition was stated in the original post.

Note that there are always ways to get around it.

Obvious example: Texas residents GW Bush and Dick Cheney.

[alfredo]

40. Make a Republican Veep and the Reps would work like hell to get

Hillary removed from office by any means possible.

[TwilightGardener]

42. Then why did Kerry ask McCain to be on his ticket? He must have trusted him.

[alfredo]

46. For the same reason, to undercut the Reps. The Reps hate Kerry, but not

as much as Hillary. To them and some here, she is the personification of evil.

[TwilightGardener]

50. I beg to differ--the Repubs had NO respect for Kerry. They respect Hillary, if nothing else--

she is tougher and a better politician than Kerry. The Hillary Hatred will prove overblown as a factor in the General, I predict.

[alfredo]

53. The Hillary hatred is among the more partisan. Once the general

public gets to know her, not the false propaganda from the right, she won't be as big a threat in their eyes.

[karynnj]

72. Kerry is the one who succeeded in getting people like Elliot Abrams

indicted in the Iran/Contra scandal. Without Kerry, there would likely only have been an Iran/hostage scandal, that would be far less damning and easier to justify. Kerry, a freshman Senator, was more responsible than anyone for bringing this to light. He was then given the chair of the terrorism and drug running sub committee. He was able to amass the information that Noriega, a Bush CIA informant who was running Panama, was involved in massive drug running.

By the time that he was 2 years into his second term, he had spent 5 years on investigating international money laundering and had provided the information used to close OBL's bank. He had also written a list of things that needed more investigation including the need to determine how Pakistan evaded the non proliferation rules in building their bomb and to determine if A.Q Khan was spreading materials and technology. He was also heading what was seen as a lose/lose committee on the POW/MIA. He did a job that by almost all non- freeper accounts was incredible. Both McCain and Kerrey said that without him it would have been impossible. It was Kerry who kept the committee together and who did an amazing job getting the Vietnamese to give them the unfettered access needed to do the job. (He also was the force behind the step up in getting remains repatriated.

HRC has been a Senator for the same length of time - where are the things she has done that show that she is tougher. Kerry stood against the President, a former Democratic President and most of the Senate on BCCI. Where is HRC's big stand? Kerry's skill at diplomacy in Vietnam and in keeping the committee calm and focused (not easy with Bob Smith, John McCain and Bob Kerrey!) was impressive and led to a Clinton foreign policy accomplishment. The reconciliation with Vietnam would have happened without Bill Clinton had Bush won. Per both McCain and Kerrey, if Kerry weren't there - because the POW/MIA committee would have imploded and without it, the reconciliation would not have happened.

[alfredo]

93. If he was running, I would be on his team. Both Kerry and Hillary are

intellectuals, and that makes it difficult to speak to a nation that has been (for decades) sold on the idea of anti intellectualism.

[LVZ]

95. American political reality: people vote on emotions, not logic, and not practicality

I certainly hope that Hillary's most recent debate snafu about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in New York will wake her up to American political reality: people vote on emotions, not logic, and not practicality.

It took the Democrats decades to finally concede that publicly supporting gun control was political suicide, except in very rare situations. Personally I prefer the common European model of outlawing all guns except for hunting and legitimate law enforcement, to include tough penalties for any illegal gun possession. As a candidate in the gun-religion culture of the USA, however, you'd have to be a blinded idiot to not realize that such advocacy would neither get you elected nor ultimately further the cause of even modest gun control.

Illegal immigration is the new "hot button" emotional issue. Just like guns, for many it is a black and white topic, practical interim and partial solutions be damned.

Whoever wins the "which issue is most important" war in 2008 will determine the outcome. If Democrats can make the issue ending the disastrous and costly war, Hillary wins big time. If Republicans can shift enough attention to "fear and prejudice" (their specialty) about illegal immigration, they win. That is, of course, unless the Democrats suppress their overly idealistic tendencies, and get ahead of this "emotional" issue. After the election, they willl have a better environment to thoughtfully address practical solutions to complicated problems.

[alfredo]

100. She's a policy wonk. She needs to stop being congenial and add a bit of

demagoguery. A bit on the campaign trail is needed. It shows you are passionate about the job.

[karynnj]

64. Kerry said he did not ask him to be on the ticket

in a MA interview last week and in previous interviews. In an interview months ago, Kerry said that there was talk after Jeffords switched to independent. This was when it was thought that McCain might move as well. (This was pre- Iraq.) The key was he had to be a Democrat - and that wasn't likely as McCain was too conservative to fit.

He did trust him, they worked on veterans issues, reconciliation with Vietnam, the POW/MIA committee, raising CAFE standards, and they were both working on campaign finance reform, with Kerry preferring a more drastic reform bill that he wrote and sponsored with Wellstone. They also were both against the waste and corruption of the practice of oking each others earmarks. By 2003, they were on opposite sides on Iraq. (In fact, I would hypothesize that it was McCain's PNAC like views, as much as ambition, that caused him to side so strongly with Bush against a man that he had liked and respected.)

[Mz Pip]

47. How true

They don't care about unity, only about power. And power only for them.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[alfredo]

49. Their desire for a 100 year rule has hit a speed bump.

[jmp]

57. You left out Dick Cheney.

:eyes:

[TwilightGardener]

70. Were we headed that way?

[ronnykmarshall]

75. Yeah really

:eyes:

[racaulk]

81. I will never support Powell as a VP of *any* ticket, and here's why:

He wasn't "burned by the Bush administration," he knowingly lied to the United Nations about our rationale for going to war with Iraq. I will never trust him, ever, and having someone like him as the VP on a Dem ticket is the only thing that will make me vote third party next year.

Otherwise, I like the rest of your post and I appreciate your open-mindedness, but I just couldn't bring myself to support Powell. Ever.

:puke:

[TwilightGardener]

86. Yes, Powell has really screwed the pooch. He's not beyond redemption, but

not a ticket possibility.

[Carrieyazel]

88. Hillary will not win if nominated, so the possible VP won't matter.

[burythehatchet]

94. waaaaaaaa, stop bashing Hillary

:rofl:

[Tejanocrat]

89. I don't think the junior senator from New York gets a VP. I hope for Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards!

[TwilightGardener]

92. You know, looking at the photos, I'm betting Hillary will go with a good-looking guy--

She's going to want to make a perfect media image. That eliminates a lot of them right there!

[LVZ]

97. Someone post a Hillary's VP choice POLL ?

I am not a regular or full member here.

Perhaps a full member can post a Hillary's VP preference poll for this topic.

Yes, a few Republicans are in the mix, but it is still good to find out their
potential strength among Democrats. After all, we are still more of a real
"big tent" party than those on the dark side.

Please include:

Evan Bayh, IN
Joe Biden, DE
Michael Bloomberg, NY
Wesley Clark, AR
John Edwards, NC
Rahm Emanuel, IL
Chuck Hagel, NE
Barack Obama, IL
Ron Paul, TX
Colin Powell, VA
Bill Richardson, NM
Kathleen Sebelius, KS
Jim Webb, VA

[mnhtnbb]

99. The reason Clark didn't get in this year is he's been promised VP. Mark my words.

[calteacherguy]

102. In 2016 Clark will be...

not much older than Reagan was...and he's a lot healthier.

Just sayin'

[ToeBot]

103. If she's heading up the ticket, it won't make a damn bit of difference. nt

[surfermaw]

105. She doesn't need a couple of them

!.She doesn't need Oboma ...she has the Black vote, doesn't need Colin, however she is probably in debt to Clark...

[TwilightGardener]

108. Powell wouldn't be for the black vote. He'd be for the Republican vote.

[nickgutierrez]

118. If she gets the nomination, I like Richardson as her running mate.

It's a little bit of reaching out to the more liberal side of the party, and a little bit adding experience and added credibility in the southwest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. Wes Clark Would Be An Excellent Pick

He would appeal to the liberal wing of the party but his military credentials make him appealing to the rest of America...

[AspenRose]

121. My prediction is she'll pick Richardson if she wins the nomination.

eom

[TwilightGardener]

123. I doubt it. Not a great campaigner or debater--he might get

shredded in debates.

[LVZ]

128. Political Factors

There are many factors in choosing a VP. IMO, three top "political" factors are:

1. regional/cultural balance 2. Campaign skills and energy 3. Appeal to non-Democrats

Regional and cultural balance

1) Jim Webb, VA - will probably ensure picking up Virginia's normally Republican 13 electoral votes. As a conservative Democrat, he should also be a major help in West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and possibly Florida.

2) Bill Richardson, NM - as a well-known hispanic Governor, he would undoubtedly increase latino turnout in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. He would also likely help with the western states in general because of his understanding of important western US issues like water rights.

3) Rahm Emanuel, IL, besides helping with the Jewish vote in Florida, would likely be a plus in nearby Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, key battleground states. His energetic personality would work best in these states. He would likely not be a plus in more reserved Iowa or Wisconsin.

4) Evan Bayh, IN, may help in nearby states like Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan but would still likely lose his home state, Indiana. Bayh would appeal to more reserved non-flashy moderates.

Campaigning and Debating

1) Both Jim Webb and Rahm Emanuel would be the most experienced and capable campaigners and debaters. Both are pitbulls in the political area, a welcome contrast to Hillary's more reserved style.

2) Joe Biden is a very capable, effective debater and campaigner as long as he can keep in check his tendency to over explain and give lectures.

3) On paper, John Edwards should be a great campaigner and debater. However, in 2004 that was not in evidence. The trouble, as I see it, is the concept of simultaneously being the good looking "nice guy" while taking on the necessary role of "attack dog". I don't see how that works.

Attracting Independents and Republicans

1) Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell, both Republicans, would provide cover for disaffected Republicans to vote Democrat this time. The idea of a "unity" ticket may also appeal to many independents disgusted with both parties. This would be most effective in the Northeast but that is kind of irrelevant since the northeast should be solidly Democrat in 2008 anyway. Outside of the northeast, a Republican on the ticket may be most significant in battleground states Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan and western states like Colorado, Arizona and Nevada.

2) As the most conservative non-GOP VP choice, Jim Webb would be next mostly likely to appeal to independents and wavering Republicans and in the same states.

3) Bill Richardson and Wesley Clark, as moderates, would be next in that appeal.

Conclusion

My "personal" top pick would be Rahm Emanuel. However, from a purely pragmatic political viewpoint, I think that Jim Webb would best maximize electoral votes in 2008. Republican Chuck Hagel would be second, although I doubt he has much interest. Rahm Emanuel's youth, energy and aggressive political skills provide enough edge for a third place choice. Bill Richardson's western appeal and hispanic background are enough for fourth place, despite his so-so debating/campaigning skills. Evan Bayh's understated Midwest appeal would round out my top "pragmatic" choices.

[The Count]

132. Colon Bowel????I don't care as long as she doesn't force me to vote Edwards again

After the silence of the 2004 theft, I'd resent this so much, I may stay home. Also, please, no GOP-er.

[Eric J in MN]

134. I predict Wesley Clark.

As a reminder of her ties to Arkansas.

[Mike03]

136. Joe Biden?

Does anyone think she might pick him?

I would love to see Joe Biden in the next administration.

[dionysus]

137. rahm are you smoking crack

DLC wet dream though.

[JackORoses]

138. How about Dick Cheney? He'll be invaluable in her coming Iran campaign.

He'll also keep the Defense Industry contributions flowing.

[ginchinchili]

139. Chuck Hagel would by Hillary's best choice, but she'll never have the opportunity.

She won't get the nomination, and I don't think Hagel would accept the offer. I'm afraid Hillary will never sit in the Oval Office as president. She's smart and would do a good job, but we'll never see it happen.

[CyberPieHole]

140. Colin Powell?

Never! Powell has lost all credibility. :thumbsdown:

[Egalia]

141. Never Edwards

He blew his chances with his nasty attack ad. I like Wesley Clark or maybe Joe Biden. Biden would be fun because he can't stop attacking Republicans.

[Lucinda]

143. Biden or Clark would be my choices, for now

And I agree with you about Edwards

[LVZ]

145. Hmmm - who is photo #3 supposed to be?

[Lucinda]

149. Its Edwards. Who was my top choice until a few days ago.

He is now my third choice. Obama - Kucinich are in no particular order.

[LVZ]

166. Not his best photo, somehow it looks slightly sinister to me

[LVZ]

175. At first glance ...

At first glance it looked a bit like Adam Baldwin

[denem]

142. VP Clark - just about 100%

1. The Repubs are already saying Hillary is unfit / unable to be CiC (subtext - she's a woman)
2. Clark is an expert on Foreign Policy - an excellent mediator between Defense and State
3. No sharp conflicts - a good soldier defers to his CiC
4. He already gets on well with the Clintons
5. He's a man of faith from the south
6. He speaks extremely fluent Spanish

But you can bet before any decision is made, there will be poll after poll.

[IndianaGreen]

151. Joe Lieberman! Hillary and Holy Joe are joined at the hip on Iraq, Iran, AIPAC, first use of nukes

If Bush doesn't bomb Iran before he leaves office, you can bet your ass that a President Hillary will do a better job at managing Bush's criminal and illegal wars, and perhaps beat him in the bodycount.

[LVZ]

152. Not exactly a Hillary fan, but I see the wackos are already out this Sunday morn

[IndianaGreen]

154. Feigning ignorance about Hillary's chicken hawk record, or are we low-info voter?

Hillary will play the role that Nixon did in 1968. Nixon presented himself as the peace candidate, and voters believed him despite all the evidence to the contrary. As President, Nixon turned the Vietnam war from a Democratic war into a Republican war, and he outdid the criminal Lyndon Johnson in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[LVZ]

157. As I said, the conspiracy theorists and wackos are up this morning :-)

Give it a rest.

Hillary is not a megalomaniac pretend-cowboy Texan like LBJ.

Bill Clinton was not a war-monger pretend-cowboy Texan like Bush.

Sheesh.

[JackRiddler]

153. What does it matter? She will be in the grandstand at the inauguration. n/t

[Moochy]

155. Rahm Emmanuel for VP

He would have a similar presidency to Cheney. Streamline the whole corporatist agenda by allowing for a similar presidency to GWB. Let HRC be the face, and let Emmanuel work his magic in secret like Cheney!

Brilliant!

[sampsonblk]

156. I won't vote for Rahm under any circumstances

Wes Clark, on the other hand, is an excellent choice.

[LVZ]

158. So you'd prefer a Ghouliani/Brownback ticket or just be an infantile "protest" spoiler like 2000?

The USA is considerably different (worse) now because of some idiots in Florida who did not get their way on issues or candidates. I hope that the USA Greens did some soul searching and learned their costly lesson and have started behaving more like their much more successful and electable precursors, the Green Party in Germany.

Ralph Nader used to be a personal hero of mine before he became Mr. "I don't give a shit" about real world consequences - just give me more "face time".

[Moochy]

159. infantile protest spoiler?

wow. just wow.

[LVZ]

160. 2000 Election: "Gore=Bush" -Ralph Nader "A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush" -Michael Moore

http://web.archive.org/e2k/20001107173928/www.votenader.com/gore=bush.html

Real elections have "real consequences", hundreds of thousands of lives, more than a trillion dollars, and loss of our civil liberties.

In our unfortunate, non-pluralist, defacto two-party election system, the "real" fact is that when you intend to vote but choose not to or choose to support a "not gonna win" candidate in a close race, you are consenting to and in essence supporting the winning candidate.

In 2000, that winning candidate was George W. Bush, the worst President in memory. Green voters in Florida, whether intended or not, in effect voted for George W. Bush. I hope they never sleep easy about that.

[Moochy]

161. I am familiar with that argument

If Hilary wins the nomination and Emmanuel or Hoyer is VP candidate, It will be much much more painful to vote for that ticket. Emmanuel and Hoyer are exactly what is wrong with this party.

[LVZ]

162. Pain is tolerable (neither Kerry nor Gore were my choices) but political suicide is just dumb

[sampsonblk]

169. self-delete

[sampsonblk]

173. Whatever

I won't fall for that "so you'd rather have the bad guys" trick. That's short the short term thinking that keeps people like Rahm in business. They know they are free to be the scum they are, because there are some who are worse. No, thank you.

[Exultant Democracy]

172. Good, even if he isn't a repuke he acts like one. His strategy in 2006 was trashing Dean

I ran into him right after the election and told him he was a disgrace.

[sutz12]

163. I'm against choosing another Dem senator...

I don't like the idea of further weakening our majority there.

Wes Clark would be ideal, IMO.

[LVZ]

164. Not really a relevant argument because ...

Virginia has a Democratic Governor, so Jim Webb's Senate seat would be safe.
Wisconsin has a Democratic Governor, so Evan Bayh's Senate seat would be safe.
Delaware has a Democratic Governor, so Joe Biden's Senate seat would be safe.
Illinois has a Democratic Governor, so Barack Obama's and Rahm Emanuel's seats would be safe.

Only Chris Dodd's seat would be lost.

[Texas_Kat]

170. Uh, Evan Bayh is from Indiana

[LVZ]

176. Yep, I don't know how that happened

When you post in a hurry in order to get on to something else, strange blunders always seem to creep in.

[Exultant Democracy]

171. Eww your top to choices are disgusting.

[Divine Discontent]

177. some of these people chosen

would NEVER get a moments consideration, and I'm not surprised they were chosen after reading the comments under the photos. What is with the, 'Democratic loser John Kerry', wording? That was rude, and choosing a photo taken from below Edwards' chin is bizarre. Where is Feingold? Where is Boxer? I respect these are this person's choices. I am just surprised by the seeming desire to include people like Colin, who whether or not he feels bad about lying before the UN, stayed with the BFEE far too long, and Hagel, who outside of being against the way the war has been run, isn't very socially minded. I'd think Feingold would be a much wiser choice. If Hillary gets the nom, she should pick Clark, as I'm sure she already well knows, and that's why he's not running. I hope for Biden, Gore, or Edwards - otherwise I won't be watching any debates, volunteering for them, and will just show up to the ballot box and check off the Dem candidate and head home. Like the OP has their opinion, I have mine, and if we're stuck with someone most of us here don't really care for as a choice - I'll be doing a lot more reading of novels, which won't be so bad. :)

[LVZ]

178. Paranoia misplaced ?

Your analysis seems a bit misplaced. As I pointed out in a prior post to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3675972&mesg_id=3678935

At the start of this political season Edwards was my top pick. As a President, I still believe that Edwards or Biden would be best for the nation. Nonetheless, I believe that Hillary Clinton has the momentum, political instincts and political connections to maintain her path to the nomination.

Your suggestion of Feingold as VP is a good one. He might be quite a bit farther left than the general public, but, as a personality he should still be acceptable to the "mainstream" as VP.

Boxer, like Kathleen Sibelius, would be good VP candidates for Edwards or Obama, but two women on the same ticket would probably be a bit premature in this still male-dominated society. Even at the state level, there has never been a successful woman Governor and Lt. Governor ticket.

[LVZ]

179. The fix is in - Wes Clark will be the VP

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19599749/&vid=8378d9a5-8001-451f-83d6-4c07d9360048">clip from Live with Dan Abrams

When I saw fellow Arkansan Wesley Clark's defense of Bill Clinton's ridiculous "swift boat" comparison concerning Hillary's recent criticism by Democratic rivals, I am convinced that the fix is already in.

[TwilightGardener]

180. I saw that too--that was not defensible, and yet there Wes was, trying

to put lipstick on it for Hillary. Ack.

[PATRICK]

181. Holey moley

You might have added Ralph Nader in for balance.

I would think some of the second tier candidates who have shown the right stuff would be contenders. Unfortunately some have damaged themselves badly, but that is why it is a test. Obama is more than dubious and Hillary's recent statement about foreign policy experience seems a double slam against him and I would suspect is a primary gauntlet against any chance of combining the top two foe a "unity" ticket". Edwards is thus equally banned from consideration.

Dodd has proved he can't hurt the campaign at least and Clark may be in for another high post to keep his bluntness out of the mushiness sometimes expected from a Dem veep. We never have the midget pit bulls the GOP seems to like. Dodd, Biden, Richardson and maybe putting a feeler out to enlist one them dropping out and endorsing her if she needs help as sort of, well, a deal. Webb is too bluntly outspoken and new, the worst of both worlds.

The meaning of speculation during this part of the season is primarily the primaries, a whole other world than that of national politics. Picking a GOP of any type for any ephemeral desire to attract GOP votes not otherwise available, someone who will not stab you in the back, is impossible. Impeachment or assassination then becomes another easy road back for the Coup.

This issue is currently interesting in light of the recent Hillary statement which is speculatively all about the recent attacks on her.

Colin Powell. Wow.

[Clark2008]

182. I can't vote, apparently, but it should be Clark, if he'll do it.

We don't need to hemmorrage Dems from the Senate, we need someone to bring in white male voters (a general would do that) and we need someone from the South/mid-West, which is Arkansas (and, no, HRC can't win that state on her own).

[Beausoir]

186. I heard her yesterday on CNN saying very good things about Biden.

My guess is Biden or Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

187. In 2004 it was Clark's professional advisors who had poor instincts

Clark wanted to campaign in Iowa, even knowing the short time line after his late entry into the race. However since he had never run a political campaign before, when the pols who had run high level campaigns before all told Clark that he simply did not have enough time to mount campaigns in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Clark had no experience of his own to draw on to over rule their professional judgement. Clark's instincts were right, as was his belief that the voters would turn to someone who it was believed could offer strong foreign policy experience. Unfortunately for him, since he wasn't in Iowa, they turned to Kerry.