Who Should Obama Choose as VP?

[Obamaman2008]

You have to consider several different options here.

Some people like to choose a candidate simply based on the ability to WIN the election, but without regard to who the President will govern.

I have considered several of Obama's options. Here are the people I think he should consider:

Top of my list:

Bill Richardson:

This guy is the exact opposite of Obama, he is an experienced governor and foreign relations. He is does not overshadow Obama, and would help with the Latino vote in the Southwestern states, and Florida.


Gen. Wesley Clark:

A Southern moderate Democrat. He has great appeal in the south, and has a great deal of war, foreign experience, and economic experience. He is also very good with people and has pleasent good looks like JE.

Governor Kathleen Sebelius - Kansas. I think having a woman on the ticket would be AWESOME. Maybe someday she can be President. I think she would be a great asset to Obama in governoring and in helping to win in competative states, as well as the woman vote. I also like the sound of Obama/Sebelius. It has a nice ring to it.


Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio. He would balance the ticket out, and bring in Ohio. He would also be a consession candidate as he is firmly a Clintonite.


I could go one, but I would like to hear your ideas, which are?

[MadBadger]

1. 1. Richardson, 2. Webb, 3. Wes Clark

[Obamaman2008]

2. Bill Richardson seem to be on the mind of a lot of people

[Alexander]

5. I don't know why. He's a terrible debater and not friendly to gays.

If you thought the "Donnie McObama" stuff was bad, it'll get way worse if he picks Richardson.

[Obamaman2008]

7. He has experience. And intelligence. He is a terrible debater but

I don't think that means they would not be an asset.

[Alexander]

Yes but most people will just see him at the VP debate, where he'll do poorly.

Most of the time the debates are people's only real exposure to candidates. If he screws up the VP debate, it could hurt Obama's chances.

[davidinalameda]

20. Richardson isn't friendly to gays?

pray tell, where did you get that?

[Alexander]

26. He said "maricón" on Imus, equal to the f-word. He said "it's a choice" at a debate.

That's where I got that.

[Obamaman2008]

45. What does that mean?

[Alexander]

70. You know the "f-word" that's demeaning to gays?

As in, the six-letter one, not the four-letter one?

It means that.

[Obamaman2008]

81. Never heard of it before

[Alexander]

83. It begins with an F and rhymes with "Bag it".

You've really never heard this word?

[Obamaman2008]

91. Never heard Maricon, or whatever it is silly.

[Alexander]

103. Silly? The word is highly offensive. I just explained it to you.

It's one of the worst insults ever against gays - and on top of that, Richardson said homosexuality is a choice at a debate.

He would be a terrible VP pick. Kerry considered him and rejected him for other reasons, like alleged drunkenness and womanizing.

[fishwax]

134. it's the equivalent in Spanish

FYI.

[davidinalameda]

111. you need to go back and look at his record

two errors do not make him anti-gay

he's done so much for the community while he's been governor

he was against DADT while serving in congress

he also said that if had been elected president, he wouldn't have served as the honorary chair of the Boy Scouts-which even Bill Clinton did

go back and do your homework before slamming Governor Richardson

[Alexander]

130. Calling someone the equivalent of "f*ggot" is not an "error".

It's pure homophobia.

Plus there's the New Mexico election problems in 2004 and recently, which he doesn't seem interested in fixing.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. I wasn't aware of that.

Not cool.

[davidinalameda]

149. that happened back in 2006

and he's apologized numerous times for it

and what the hell does the election issues in 2004 have to do with gay and lesbian issues?

put down the fishing pole

you're not gonna get a bite

[Alexander]

150. I don't care, in 2006 he was old enough to know better. It's vile and disgusting.

"and he's apologized numerous times for it"

And said at a 2007 debate that being gay is a choice. That's some apology. No thank you.

"and what the hell does the election issues in 2004 have to do with gay and lesbian issues?"

It has to do with Bill Richardson, who brought DREs into New Mexico, which likely gave the state to Bush in 2004. Given the fiasco with the caucus this year, I can see things haven't improved much.

"put down the fishing pole

you're not gonna get a bite"

Don't bogart that joint. Pass it over here.

[plastichallway]

105. Regis

Somebody he'll be intellectually compatible with.

[mcctatas]

11. Any of those would be great...

especially Webb

[Alexander]

3. 1. Feingold, 2. Napolitano, 3. Sebelius

[Obamaman2008]

4. Why Feingold?

[Alexander]

6. He's an experienced, ethical liberal from a swing state, and a great debater.

[Obamaman2008]

But would he add to Obama or just double up votes. I thought the

point of a VP was to add something. Was Feingold one of the Keating 5? Not sure, just asking.

[Alexander]

16. He outpolled Kerry in WI in 2004. He's a maverick. He's half of McCain-Feingold.

He wasn't even in the Senate during the Keating 5 scandal, and ethically he's clean as a whistle.

[Obamaman2008]

28. So he doesn't hurt, how does he help? What does he offer Obama?

I think he has to offer something to Obama that he doesn't already have.

[Alexander]

33. Experience, 100% integrity, good debate skills and negates McCain's campaign finance issue.

That's McCain's biggest issue. I think Feingold is a particularly wise decision when running against McCain.

[Obamaman2008]

42. But Obama is all those things too I think that

Obama needs someone that is going to not be the opposite, but a good compliment to him. The VP needs to be someone he is not.

[Alexander]

71. I think Feingold gives him experience, ethical, CFR and foreign policy cred.

Feingold is a good compliment to him. He's not even close to the opposite of Obama.

[usregimechange]

43. Damn, why not Feingold?

[Obamaman2008]

46. I think he would anger Republicans and Moderates and not add

anything of particular value to Obama. Two liberal senators from the Midwest, not a good balance.

[Alexander]

73. Republicans and moderates voted to re-elect him in droves.

Do I need to repeat that he outperformed John Kerry in Wisconsin in 2004?

After he voted against the PATRIOT Act and the IWR?

[Obamaman2008]

82. When was the last time Wisconsin voted Republican?

[Alexander]

87. 1984. But Kerry and Gore won by less than 1/2 of a percentage point.

We lost Iowa in 2004. I'd like to keep both of those in the blue column, and Feingold would help with that.

[Obamaman2008]

90. See, so Obama will carry it anyway, because he is a stronger candidate

than either one.

[Alexander]

104. Not necessarily, the midwest has been trending Republican lately.

I'm also concerned about Iowa and other places.

And as I said, Feingold has debate skills that are nearly unparalleled. He would stomp whomever McCain's VP is.

[SKKY]

110. Janet Napolitano...

...that's an interesting choice. I heard her on NPR the other day, and she's quite funny. They commented on the fact that Arizona is the only state in the country that doesn't have a Governor's Mansion, and she replied, "Yes, it's true. I have the only Gubernatorial Condo in America." You think she has a shot?

[Alexander]

131. If she isn't VP, she should be the Attorney General. She's a great Governor.

I've met her in person. She's charming and intelligent.

[SKKY]

133. She certainly seemed engaging.

I'll have to put her on my radar.

[chyjo]

116. Dream Ticket

And the Governor is a democrat so we don't lose a Senator, and young enough to run for president in eight years........... question: who will we run in 2024 when President Feingold's second term is ending?


Obama/Feingold -- that I could get used to hearing.

[Alexander]

132. It's a great ticket for many reasons.

In 2024, maybe Chelsea or, more likely, someone we've never heard of will run.

[catgirl]

121. Feingold's my choice too

They would make a great team.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. Ditto.

Dodd would be a good choice, too.

[ingac70]

8. Gen. Anthony Zinni. n/t

[BringBigDogBack]

9. Edwards, Biden, or Dodd

would excite me.

Sebelius, Napolitano, or Boxer would be amazing as well. :thumbsup:

[Obamaman2008]

19. Biden would be a problem, do you know he would be a big problem?

Because he plagerized a speech the first time he ran for office. And we know, that Hillary's charge that Obama plagerized would bring lots of fodder to the Republicans.

[Angela Shelley]

117. Biden rocks!

[Alexander]

143. Obamaman makes a good point though.

Having two candidates accused of plagiarizing, with one flunking a law school class over it, would not go over well.

[jackson_dem]

147. That was bull. He got taken out by the msm and Dukakis

He quoted that part of a British politician's speech numerous times and always gave credit. Except once and the Dukakus oppo research team pounced.

[Alexander]

151. Then why did he flunk a law school class?

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Dodd, for sure. I'm sure Biden's on Hillary's short list, not so sure about Obama's.

I agree Joe would be a good choice, despite his propensity for putting his foot in his mouth. And there was that idiotic RAVE act he wrote..

Dodd has really proven his integrity in recent weeks. He was my pick during the early primary season, even though I knew he wouldn't get any traction.

Boxer-- that would be wonderful.

[washingdem]

10. Tim Kaine

Young, reinforces the "change" theme because he's still a fresh face, he can't run for another term in 2009, he's governor of a red state that is capable of going blue, etc.

[Obamaman2008]

25. Good Point! I think bringing in old blood while trying to tout new change

might be seen as a problem.

[Colobo]

12. Clark, Kaine, Webb or Sebelius

In that order.

[Obamaman2008]

39. Good Thinking, Sir!

[Horse with no Name]

13. He don't need no stinking VP

He is Superman and Spiderman and Captain Marvel all rolled into one. :eyes:

[Obamaman2008]

24. Yeah, but he has to have one anyway. Besides, even Batman needed a

sidekick buddy to fetch the tool belt. :)

[Thrill]

14. Jim Webb or Sherrod Brown!!

[Obamaman2008]

15. Not Wes! I am shocked! Simply Shocked! LOL

[Johnny__Motown]

17. Those are all great candidates for V.P. I would love to vote for any one of them

If I need to pick just one I would go with Strickland just to try and guarantee Ohio

[Obamaman2008]

21. I think you might be right. if you wanted to play the safe card

[MrSlayer]

18. Clark, Richardson, Biden or Warner.

Now I've already stated that Clark is most likely out of the question due to his Clinton ties, same with Richardson but you asked who "should" he pick not who "will" he pick. Biden would also be great for his foriegn policy experience but he did vote for the war and that hurts the ticket. Mark Warner might be the best available choice.

[davidinalameda]

22. Mark Warner is going to be the junior senator from Virginia

he's not available

[Obamaman2008]

23. Do you think he would rather be junior Senator or Head Senator?

I think he is running for Senator because there isn't anything else he can run for at the time. All the cabinet positions are full, and the Governor spot is not allowed to run for. VP is Head Senator.

[liberalpragmatist]

51. There's no way he's going to drop his Senate bid

With him in the race, Democrats are virtually guaranteed a pickup. He was heavily courted, is heavily funded and if he goes, while the Dems could still win the seat given the weak opponent (unpopular former governor, Jim Gilmore), it will be a LOT harder.

Plus, you're wrong about him running for the sake of running. If he really was gunning for VP, there's no way he would have run for the Senate. He could have instead waited to run for governor again in 2009 (Virginia allows second and third terms, just non-consecutively), which would have given him time to instead run for VP if offered. He instead chose to run for the Senate.

[Obamaman2008]

58. I disagree with your reasoning, here is why. . .

He cannot run in 2009 because Kaine will be running. Second, why run for a spot you already served in. Third, he can run for both VP and Senate at the same time. Finally, if he gets the VP spot, Kaine can appoint another Democrat to fill the newly vacated spot giving Virginia double the power.

[liberalpragmatist]

65. No he won't

Virginia does not allow consecutive gubernatorial terms. Hence, Warner only served one term, 2002-2006 and Kaine will only serve one term, 2006-2010.

Secondly, check if he can run for both senate and VP at the same time -- not all states allow that. Even if Virginia does, it's EXTREMELY poor form to run for the same two offices unless you're an incumbent and your reelection is a foregone conclusion. Basically, it's only done when the VP nominee is a well-established incumbent, like LBJ, Lloyd Bentsen (in '88) and Joe Lieberman in '00.

I like Mark Warner too. I think he'd have been the obvious running mate for Obama, if he weren't running for the Senate. But he's taken himself out of consideration for VP this year with his Senate run. No Democratic presidential nominee is going to deny Democrats their strongest Senate pickup opportunity, the DSCC would go apeshit, and the party would be scrambling to find a successor who would require them to poor far more resources into the state. Not gonna happen.

[Obamaman2008]

86. I know, so he could not run in 2009. Kaine is there.

I think Virginia would vote for him for Senate and VP. He is popular enough.

[liberalpragmatist]

100. No. Kaine cannot run for reelection

Kaine is currently governor and is barred from running from reelection in 2009. Warner is eligible, but he opted to run for the Senate instead.

Warner is not going to be the VP nominee this year. He won't run for both Senate and VP -- and for all we know, Virginia might not even allow that (not all states do).

[davidinalameda]

113. see my response to the other post in this subthread

he's a shoo-in for senator

he's young and he can position himself to run in 2012 if we lose in November

[MrSlayer]

29. Has he set up a Senate run?

When does that election happen? Do you think he would turn down the VP slot in favor of the Senate run?

[Obamaman2008]

34. No Way! He wanted to Hillary's VP so bad

I think he wants to be VP. I always thought that was what he was running for in 2004. I really wanted him as Pres, or VP at least.

[davidinalameda]

112. the election is in November

unless something drastic happens, he's a shoo-in for the seat

why give up a sure thing

[Obamaman2008]

36. Clark voted FOR the war? How? He is not a Senator or Congressman

Just curious what you mean by this.

[MrSlayer]

38. Read it again.

I said that about Biden. I'm a hardcore Clarkie, I know he didn't vote for the war.

[Obamaman2008]

40. Oops, sorry, good to see another Clarkie!

[jaysunb]

27. ME

I like to travel. Funerals don't bother me--- if it's not a relative.

I like to be out among the people ( malls , golf courses, race tracks, theaters and so on )

We could save money by renting out Blair House, as I could be on call from my own home here in California. (Blair House West ? )

You'd be getting 2 for 1....a young Black man and an old one.....vision + wisdom. Both scandal free. ( the last few years, anyway. )

Barack and Jaysunb 08 the DREAM TICKET !


:evilgrin:

[Obamaman2008]

30. What state are you from?

[ellisonz]

108. He's Golden.

[ellisonz]

107. Obama/jaysunb 20008!

:woohoo:

[lligrd]

31. Barbara Boxer

They get along great and she is a true progressive.

[Obamaman2008]

32. What would she bring to Obama?

[lligrd]

47. Well, She's A Woman, She's Smart, She's Tough

and she sticks to principles. She also has a lot of experience.

[Obamaman2008]

55. true, But I still think 2 senators are a bad idea, but I do like

Feinstien. My problem with her is that is a part of the old establishment we are trying to get away from and she is also over 70 years old, and too feircly pro-abortion.

[lligrd]

59. No, No, No On Feinstein

She has voted for everything * has asked for.

[Hieronymus]

52. She's great, but Arnie would appoint a Republican to replace her.

[Egnever]

54. ugh!

Well you just pooped on that parade

[Obamaman2008]

60. Good Point!

[lligrd]

61. Double Ugh, Hadn't Thought Of That nt

[Egnever]

53. That would just rock the house!

talk about wonk !

I would like Biden but I know that aint gonna happen. I would take Barbara in a New York minute!

[Raine]

35. Clark

would be my choice, he can bring in the Hillary supporters and he has military experience. I am a former Clarkie so I can't say I'm not biased in his favor. :-)

[Obamaman2008]

37. I was a Clarkie too :)

I love Wesley Clark. I had a Yahoo Group, website, all that, but he dropped before he got over here to the West :(

[Raine]

41. I'm glad

that we both ended up supporting Obama! :hi:

[Obamaman2008]

44. Hopefully, everyone does :)

[liberalpragmatist]

48. Sen. Jack Reed

Hear me out. Reed isn't that well-known outside Washington or Rhode Island, but he's considered a Senate powerhouse. He is a two-term senator (first elected in '96) who previously served in the House. Though he isn't way up there in seniority, Senate Democrats have given him seats on TWO powerful committees -- Appropriations AND Armed Services. In fact, he's been slated as next in line for chair of the Armed Services committee should Carl Levin retire at some point.

And why is Reed considered a go-to guy on national security? He's a graduate of West Point and served in the army for 12 years as a squadron leader and paratrooper. He's often been touted as a possible Def Sec in a Dem administration.

He also comes from a working-class background, has a solid liberal voting record, an easy demeanor and he voted against the Iraq War.

He's 59 years old, recently married and has a young daughter.

Downsides: He's very short. He and Obama would make sort of an odd visual contrast.

More importantly, he doesn't swing any states off the bat and he's from the liberal Northeast.

However, I would argue that his strengths outweigh his weaknesses. Running mates rarely swing states. Johnson in '60 was the exception and occurred in an era of political machines that has long since passed. These days, the running mate is more important for how well they can perform as a campaign surrogate, how well they perform in debates, how well their received at their "rollout" around the convention. I would argue all these things are better measures of a successful running mate than whether they can flip a state, something that should be considered but which, in the end, only helps at the margins.

And Reed would fulfill these tasks very, very well. He has experience, he has credibility on defense and foreign affairs, he voted CORRECTLY on the Iraq War and he's older than Obama.

Why should Obama pick Reed over red state figures like Sebelius, Webb, or Kaine? I'd say Sebelius is a good pick too, but she doesn't have any foreign policy experience and a woman and a black man on the ticket might be a little *too* much diversity for some voters (unfortunately). I think Jim Webb is a fantastic senator and better to keep him there -- he's a bit of a loose cannon and would probably feel stifled in the running mate's role and as VP. Kaine would be better, but isn't that dynamic, also doesn't have any defense or foreign policy experience and, if the ticket wins, Virginia gets a far-right wingnut as their governor (the current Lt. Gov.). Wes Clark is better, but he doesn't have as much domestic political experience either.

All around, I think Reed merits a LOT of consideration.

From WP: "Jack Reed: Key Democratic Player on Iraq" http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/09/jack_reed_key_democratic_playe.html

From ThinkProgress: Jack Reed taking on Bush's "war czar":
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/07/reed-lute/

[Obamaman2008]

50. Do you think 2 Senators on a same ticket is a good idea?

I think balance is a better way. I think a governor would be a better way to go. Two liberals senators are probably not a good ticket if you are trying to actually win over moderates to win the office.

[liberalpragmatist]

56. I don't really think it'll be a problem

The truth is, there aren't that many Democratic governors right now that have the experience or the resume to be great running mates. A lot of good Democrat governors were only elected in 2006, for example.

I also don't think this matches the behavior of most voters. The truth is that the VP doesn't really have a major effect on the ticket. They can help on the margins, but only that. I really don't think that many voters -- esp. low-info swing voters -- are going to turn away from voting for a ticket because there are two senators on it, versus one senator and one governor.

And Obama has stated he wants his VP to have experience in foreign policy and defense. While these are areas Obama is strong in, the perception of him (given his inexperience and compared with McCain) is that he's weak in those areas. Picking a governor won't really help him because governors typically have very little FP or defense experience.

Also, historically, note that EVERY Democratic ticket since 1944 has had a sitting senator as the VP nominee with only 2 exceptions, 1972 (Sargent Shriver) and 1984 (Rep. Geraldine Ferraro). And even in '72, the initial running mate WAS a senator, Tom Eagleton, who was dropped from the ticket after his shock-therapy treatments became known. There's no guarantee this has to stay that way this year, but I'd rank the odds reasonably high.

[Obamaman2008]

64. I think you make a good case for Richardson and Clark but still

not any good reason for your guy. With Senators, they have to be from states with Democratic Governors, or we lose the senate off the bat. Which could be a problem.

[liberalpragmatist]

67. Well, Rhode Island's Republican governor does pose a problem

Reed is up for reelection in '08. If he were picked, Democrats could easily field a replacement who would win. But if Obama loses, then Reed's out of a job, so that's a choice he'll have to make. If he can run for both positions consecutively, fine, but then, you're right, he'd probably be replaced by a Republican.

Richardson is not a good choice for several reasons. Firstly, for all his vaunted "foreign policy" experience he actually doesn't know that much about foreign policy. His track record on Iraq is terrible, full of conflicting statements and he routinely gets major foreign policy questions wrong (there was a good piece on this in the New Republic last spring). He's a good negotiator, which is why he has been dispatched to several countries as an emissary, but he's not some foreign policy wonk.

He also is an uneven campaigner, a terrible debater, and prone to making major gaffes. The VP should "do no harm," and since most people's only major exposure to the running mate is in the debates, his poor performance should count as a major red flag.

Thirdly, he's Hispanic. I do wonder if a black man and a Hispanic man on the same ticket is really a good idea electorally. I wish it wouldn't matter, but I do think it could lose the ticket votes among white men.

Clark is a much better choice and I would happily support an Obama-Clark ticket. He did endorse Clinton, but that shouldn't stop Obama from picking him. Still, someone with some actual elective experience and someone with experience working with Congress is, in my view, a better bet. Hence, Reed.

[MagickMuffin]

49. Scott Ritter

He could turn the security matter on its head.

He's smart, intelligent and knows a lot about WMD. No matter who the Rethuglicon's VP choice, Scott would clean their clock.

[Obamaman2008]

63. Scott Who?

[MagickMuffin]

75. Scott Ritter, UN weapons inspector

William Scott Ritter, Jr. (born July 15, 1961) is noted for his role as a chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and later for his criticism of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the US invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, Ritter publicly argued that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). He became a popular anti-war figure and talk show commentator as a result of his stance.

In 1980 he served in the U.S. Army as a Private. Then in May of 1984 he was commissioned as an intelligence officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served in this capacity for twelve years. He initially served as the lead analyst for the Marine Corps Rapid Deployment Force concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq War. During Desert Storm, he served as a ballistic missile advisor to General Norman Schwarzkopf. Ritter later worked as a security and military consultant for the Fox News network.

There is a lot more at link

Wiki is your friend

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

[Obamaman2008]

93. I don't think a UN inspector is qualified for VP

[TheWatcher]

57. This guy is available.

[Obamaman2008]

62. Yeah, but he couldn't win his own state, and I don't think he wants it again.

[cboy4]

66. Yes, Richardson. The guy who's not sure being gay is

a choice or not.

That would definitely solidify teh gay vote.

Not that anyone on the Obama side is particularly concerned about that.

[Obamaman2008]

72. You think gay people are going to vote for McCain because

Richardson is on the ticket? Even so, the 60% of the moderates would throw off that number.

Maybe Richardson doesn't know is Homosexuality is a choice, maybe it is for him.

[cboy4]

79. You're the epitome of some Obama supporters. Instead

of addressing this concern, you blow it off.

And then make excuses.

Tragic.

[Obamaman2008]

89. It is imaginary on your part, nothing to address

I don't know of any gay bashing being done by Richardson. It seems more like a side issue. I think most US people, and Hispanics, are not overwhelmingly pro-gay. So if it is criteria that a candidate must be strongly pro-gay, you will not have a candidate that can win the general election. He is not Rick Santorum.

Clinton fired people for being gay, refused to integrate the armed forces, and created this "don't ask don't tell" that has hurt the military AND gays and lesbians that could have servered in the forced when we needed them.

[cboy4]

102. I'm not accusing him of doing any gay bashing. Why

would you write that?

But Obamaman2008, even some of the dumbest people I know can concede that nobody in their right mind would choose a life of discrimination.

Bill Richardson had a look on his face as though someone wanted him to build a bridge to Neptune when he was asked whether homosexuality is a choice.

Hillary, by the way, is not my candidate.

You people seem to think you have the White House wrapped up, when the truth is you need every possible vote you can scrape.

[Alexander]

145. As I said, Richardson used the Spanish equivalent of "f*ggot" on Imus.

That's some major gay bashing right there.

[MethuenProgressive]

124. Barney Frank forgave him for that gaff, and pointed to Richardson's strong record on GLBT issues.

Read all about Barney Frank's remarks and Bill Richardson here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x126086

[mythyc]

68. The one major thing you're all leaving out is 2016

and that whomever he chooses will need (1) to be a very strong presidential candidate in 8 years and, correlated with that, (2) be a strong figure capable of continuing Barack's legacy and building on both his work and vision.

it will be essential that he makes the selection based not on short term election strategy (honestly, barring some major controversy he's a lock to beat McCain) but on long term. a 16 year plan is far more plausible to achieve the widespread, whole scale change he and we want not just politically (which takes time and work enough) but ideologically (which, on the epochal level, will take massive work).

my two cents anyway. along that lines neither Edwards not Biden nor Dodd nor Richardson can carry that major onus of stepping into his shoes. They'd all make excellent cabinet members, don't get me wrong, but the VP selection will need to demonstrate the potential of assuming the mantle of Obama's vision, leadership, innovation, inspiration, acumen, integrity, ingenuity etc. Who that is... I don't know, but hopefully that's what he and his team are prospecting for. Any suggestions?

[Konza]

69. Al Gore!

Think about it! Can he be VP? Hell yes, he WAS Vice President!
Could he be President? He WAS elected President!
Distinguished statesman. Foreign Policy experience. Knows Washington. Knows the World.

But there is no way in hell he would do it. But imagine the campaign if he did.......

[mythyc]

76. God I wish! but

But Gore has made it clear a number of times that he has no intention of assuming any office less than the highest one, if that even. Nice to wax poetic about it though eh? Obama/Gore, does that ever sound perfect....

[Konza]

78. true. true, but

I was going through all of the stuff, thinking of the best person for the job, then remembered: Al Gore!
I mean, is there a more qualified person around capable of stepping into the presidency at a moments notice?

But it'll never happen, and I can't say I blame him.
That said I believe Obama/Gore 2008 against McCain/Random Dumbass would be a thrashing of biblical proportions.

[MagickMuffin]

77. I don't think so

If Al didn't want the major prize, I don't think he would settle for the second place spot.

[Egnever]

74. Howard!

[Obamaman2008]

95. The one person that would cause me to stay home, Howard on the ticket

I could not even stomach that one.

[Seabiscuit]

80. How about Oprah? nt

[bridgit]

84. Ding! She's vetted & invested...

:thumbsup:

[Recursion]

85. If a classical education has taught me anything...

...it's that there's never anything wrong with tempting fate.

:sarcasm:

[Matteon]

88. Wow

I was talking to a friend of mine about this earlier, and my thinking was also Richardson.

Here's why I think he's the best choice.

First, he is a single-issue candidate (primarily anyways) which is bad for running for president but grea for the VP. His main issue, immigation, is huge right now, and, since he is Gov. of NM, which faces this problem square on, he carries legitimacy on the issue.

Second, the fact that he is a governor brings some executive-branch experience to the ticket.

Third, New Mexico is an important state in November.

Fourth, Obama needs help with Latino voters.

Fifth, He's pretty clean, so the attack machine will have some trouble sticking things to him.

Sixth, He's not a beltway insider, so Obama is not opening up his core campaign theory to attack, which he would be doing if he brought in someone who has been in Washington for even more than just a few years. He really needs a running mate from outside of Washington.

[Obamaman2008]

97. Good Thinking! nt

[jlake]

92. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry or Gary Hart.

[Obamaman2008]

94. Hope you are joking.

[jlake]

96. No. Just what the ticket needs.

[Obamaman2008]

99. Why not just put Dukakis or McGovern? Kucinich?

[jlake]

101. 3 more excellent choices.

[Alexander]

144. If you want the ticket to lose.

Which wouldn't surprise me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

122. Gary Hart is an old friend of John McCain

He actually served as a groomsman in McCain's wedding in 1980.

[Fox Mulder]

98. Edwards.

[candymarl]

106. Ralph Nader

:hide:

[Kitty Herder]

109. Somebody that everyone hates as assassination insurance.

Seriously. What with the reports of lax security at his rally in Dallas, all the Kennedy comparisons, and his being black, he needs assassination insurance.

Nobody would want to kill Bush because that would mean Cheney would become President. Obama needs someone that heinous (but far, far less ambitious) as VP.

BTW, yes, I know I'm crazy.

[JPZenger]

118. "That's not funny, that's sick"

Yes, if you have a VP everyone hates, it also helps to protect you against impeachment. In addition to the current situation with Cheney, it also helped for a little while with Nixon while Spiro Agnew was his VP.

Then Spiro got nailed for corruption, one of whole series of infamous people who served as Maryland Governors.

[Kitty Herder]

128. It wasn't meant to be funny. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

After the reports of the secret service standing down at Obama's rally, I'm getting a little scared for him.

My comment about me being crazy was because I know most of you WILL think I'm crazy to suggest a running mate that no one likes because it will hurt his chances for election.

And I'm only throwing the idea out there, not saying I necessarily think it's the best thing to do.

The point is, they damn well better start protecting Obama with everything they can. There are people in this country who would want to kill him just for his skin color. And it makes me sick at heart.

[busymom]

114. Hillary Clinton

[Angela Shelley]

115. Rachel Maddow

She´s honest, educated, willing and able to find out the truth, and she always does great in interviews.

[JimGinPA]

119. Al Gore - He's Tanned Ready And...

Environmentally sound.


:rofl:

[CK_John]

120. IMO, Obama already has a deal with Bloomberg for VP. n/t

[Iktomiwicasa]

123. I go with Bill Richardson

Bill is from a state with a large native population, he understands native issues and is well regarded by indian people.

[MethuenProgressive]

125. Bill Richardson!

Read all about why Bill Richardson should be VP here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x126086

[peoli]

126. 1. Bono 2.Ellen Degeneres 3. Michelle Obama 4. Deval Patrick 5. Will Smith 6. George Galloway

[Warren DeMontague]

140. Clinton.

[dysfunctional press]

127. bob graham, bill richardson, or joe biden.

any one of those three would be fine by me.

[dansolo]

129. Bob Graham or Gary Hart

Bob Graham has the foreign policy credentials, voted against the war, and will help out with Florida.

Gary Hart basically predicted the 9/11 attacks, and his recommendations, if they were followed, possibly would have prevented them.

Either one of them would be great, because they are going to hammer Obama about his experience, and both of these men would help to negate that attack.

[Hutzpa]

135. This is an attempt to sabotage

the Obama campaign, Richardson and Wes are all Clintons people, thats DLC, and no

DLC are not going to destroy it this year, as they have done with Kerry and Gore.

[thatsrightimirish]

136. Maybe Dave Fruedenthal

Recently reelected as Governor of Wyoming, could win Wyoming, would help us win Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. He could also help us win the white male vote which is vital.

If not him I suggest Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. She is young, moderate, and with a southern accent. And could Obama/Lincoln signs really hurt us?

[Warren DeMontague]

137. Richardson would be the sensible choice, but I'd like to see Feingold.

Either Russ, or Chris Dodd.

[OnionPatch]

142. Wes Clark!

He's got that military experience that we're going to need to get out of all our recent military blunders, and he stands for the kind of military we can be proud of. He's older, highly credentialed and successful in his career, a southerner and has an honest and endearing personality. I think he'd be perfect.

[malik flavors]

146. Would Collin Powell be too much?? He'd be perfect, but America probably isn't ready for that one.

But he's a highly respected military hero. Maybe even more respected than McCain. Obama needs a true blue American war hero as his VP with foreign policy experience. Colin Powell would be great if he wasn't black, but since he is I'd say Wesley Clark might be a decent choice.

[jackson_dem]

148. If we want to look at it in purely electoral terms it should be someone from Ohio or Florida

Bob Graham? He has every kind of experience, including executive experience as a governor and he voted against the AUMF.

[thoughtcrime1984]

152. I was thinking Clark, but I am warming up to the idea of

Feingold! Against the war from the start, very progressive, could lead to 16 years of Democratic Presidencies. I would hate to lose him as a Senator, though!