The great undiscussed question: who gets the VP nod?

[DFW]

I originally posted this as a response to another post, but wanted to put it
up for discussion on its own, as the choice of VP could end up being a deciding
factor in many people's minds as to whether to support the Democratic ticket or not:

The choice of VP. While most speculation has settled on Wes Clark being Hillary's
choice (a logical one, if not the only one), very little public speculation has been
devoted to who might be the choice of Edwards or Obama if they should win, and if Joe
Biden wants to make some extra headlines for himself, he could come out with an inspiring
VP choice early, himself.

Although Wes Clark is a logical choice for Hillary, he would not, as has been pointed out, mollify
the progressive wing of the party that will be grumbling at a Hillary nomination in the first
place. He would appeal to Republicans more, and this is a double-edged sword--are moderate
Republican votes a satisfactory trade-off for lost progressive wing Democratic votes? I don't
think there's a poll out there accurate enough to really tell us this. She could always
blow us away by making the surprise choice of, say, Howard Dean or Russ Feingold, but I
don't see it.

Russ Feingold or Wes Clark would fit, in my opinion, comfortably in the VP slot for any of
the candidates, even Joe Biden, or even (I know, it ain't gonna happen) Al Gore.

The "necessity" of geographical diversity was blown away when Clinton/Gore won twice, so
I don't see an Obama/Feingold ticket as detrimental to the chances of such a ticket. A little
ideological diversity is more interesting, although it was a disaster for Al Gore. A Hillary-
Feingold ticket would ignite a few more sparks here on DU, but might not play in Peoria. We
are faced with the unpleasant prospect of having to choose what we want against what we think
will win, but as a Republican win in 2008 is just not acceptable under ANY circumstances to me,
it is a choice I am willing to face.

Besides "I will never vote for ---- under any circumstances" any other thoughts on this?=

[saltpoint]

1. Max Cleland and Bill Bradley would be interesting choices, IMO.

And Kathleen Sebelious should not be counted out.

If he is not the top-spot nom, Gov. Richardson deserves very serious consideration for our veep nom.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. I live in Kansas and I do think you can count out Sebelius

There is a scandal involving the state AG, who she supported. He switched from Republican to Democrat to run. He is resigning Jan 31.

Anyhow, the local blogs are reporting her approval ratings are down and she needs to stay here to help the party win more seats in 2008.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

2. I thought Clark was pretty progressive, he was my 2nd choice after Dean in '04 nt

[zalinda]

3. If Edwards gets the nomination

and I haven't thought of any of the others. I would like to see him pick a woman or a person of color for VP. I could totally get behind Barbara Boxer as VP.

zalinda

[emanymton]

4. Edwards For President - H. Clinton For VP.

[emanymton]

5. Imagine Cheney's Face Having To Hand Over His Secrets!!

[earthlover]

6. Wes Clark was among the most progressive of the 04 candidates

He was endorsed by Michael Moore and George McGovern alike. McGovern called him a "Democrat's Democrat". When progressives of our party get to know him and look beyond his former uniform, they will be pleasantly surprised.

Clark would certainly help any ticket he would share. He gives foreign policy experience and makes our ticket stronger on "security".

The key thing is he is not a militarist, even though he has been in the military. He, as much as anyone, believes war should only be at the last, last possible resort.

He would greatly strengthen Obama, Clinton or Edwards. So would Biden, for that matter.

I think Clark or Biden are in the top tier of VP candidates.

[cali]

7. I'm expecting to be surprised by the VP pick

no matter who the nominee is, but I really don't see a two Senator ticket.

On edit: I wouldn't be surprised to see Jon Corzine courted by someone.

[Adelante]

8. Clark will be on any nominee's short list, I would think

If it's Hillary, I disagree with the point that the "progressive wing" will be even more pissed off if she puts Clark on the ticket. They were pissed off that he endorsed her, yes, but because they felt he betrayed their own sensibilities. The thing they forgot, imo, is that Clark is not an ideologue, never was, so words like "progressive" can fit in terms of actions and beliefs of his, but will not on every single decision he makes or interpretation he brings to a situation. Very many also feel that her choice of him as VP would mollify the situation, those who think having him on the ticket will make her more palatable. I personally doubt she would pick him in the end, because she already has a commander in chief in the house, if she feels she needs bolstering on that score. Anyway, there are always hundreds of reasons a nominee has sorted through before making a VP determination. There is no way to know ahead of time which of those reasons will carry the most sway.

[CK_John]

9. Gov K Sebelius is the most obvious choice. n/t

[alfredo]

10. Wes Clark or Chuck Hagel. Hagel would make the pukes shit their diapers.

[DFW]

11. I have met Sibelius, and agree she is a powerful choice

I don't know if the country would go for two women, but if ever there
was a second woman (in the case of a Hillary nomination) on the ticket,
Kathleen Sibelius would be it, and she would be a strong choice for any
male Democratic candidate as well. She is a very commanding presence, and
quite a strong intellect in her own right.

Clark should indeed remain on all short lists. Hagel would make Democrats
gag with disgust almost as much as the opposition. Except for his independent
stance on the Iraq invasion, he is as right wing as the rest of them. You
would be better off asking Lieberman again, as he is closer to us on some social
issues (unless he has abandoned them as well in preparation for his party
switch on Jan. 2, 2009), and there is about as much chance of Lieberman being
asked as there is of Hugo Chavez showing up in a boat in Miami asking for asylum.

[TwilightGardener]

13. I doubt Hagel makes anyone except the most diehard partisan Dems (like those on

this forum) "gag with disgust"--just raise some eyebrows, at the most. McCain and Lieberman might be a ticket, and except for the war, they don't have much in common on domestic issues either, and yet no one seems to think that ticket is a crazy pairing. Hagel would be an interesting pick for "heal-the-red/blue-divide" Obama, if Obama decides not to go with Clark, Dodd or Biden (all good choices too) for personal reasons, and he wouldn't be able to do much damage as VP. Sebelius is out for both Obama and Hillary--too much groundbreaking on one ticket. We DO want to win this time around, not push it with too much historical precedent. Now Lieberman...GAG! (note: disgust). I don't like Richardson for VP--unexciting workhorse as he is, not a good campaigner and gaffe-prone.

[peoli]

14. whoever it is will be a useless figure next to bill clinton

Which is why it will so hard for Hillary to find. Which is yet another reason not to vote for her.