Can we AGREE on Basic Facts that should drive the V.P. Selection?

[Sensitivity]

A futile, and potentially destructive discussion rages regarding the Vice Presidential selection. I don’t have a choice I am committed to but I am concerned that as passionate activist Democrats we agree on the basic FACTS of the Presidential election landscape on which a good choice should be determined. Can we agree on the following:

1. Obama is perceived as Strong on vision for the future, but WEAK ON NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERIENCE. This perception based on fact and is enforced by the contrast with John McCain and is double-buttressed by the deprecating rhetoric of the Hillary Clinton campaign. The importance of the national security credential is deeply rooted in American history in which military experience has been often viewed as a requirement for the Presidency. With the nation engaged in 2 wars it is simply DELUSIONAL not to see adding national security as the 1st priority in a Vice Presidential pick.

2. In the general election match-up, unlike in the primary contest, Barack Obama’s gender challenge is WHITE MEN. Even more than in past elections, the Democratic platform and Obama’s policies on taxes, choice, health and education are generically attractive to women more than to men. The polls show that White Men, who constitute 40% of the electorate, are presently the most skeptical of Obama’s candidacy and supportive of McCain’s. If the choice of a Vice President can move this perception and result in just a 50/50 split of the White Male vote, the Democrats will achieve a landslide victory. Achieving better acceptance by the White Male electorate is the 2nd priority for a Vice Presidential pick.

Those are the two most important priorities for the Vice Presidential choice. The question is not which candidate we like the most but which candidate best fits the real requirements of the Obama Presidential Ticket.

[ingac70]

1. Capturing a battle ground state...

If it ends up being a close election, one state can make all the difference.

Ultimately the VP is going to just be the one who goes to funerals and shit like that. We aren't gonna have a Dick Cheney, so his/her prior experience isn't really going to matter.

[Sensitivity]

4. But is this the priority this year? Has not the primary fight highlighted CREDENTIAL AND EXPERIENCE

of the ticket headed by Obama as the most serious challenge?

[ingac70]

5. Repukes may try to frame it that way...

but that isn't what it is going to be about. Hillary tried that and failed.

Republicans have some nerve talking about experience after what they put this nation through the last 7 years.

[Sensitivity]

21. This is not republican or democrat. It is about political leadership in the real world

[blm]

52. Except it's pretty likely that Bush invades Iran before fall.

.

[question everything]

45. Having someone with a strong national security will capture these states (nt)

[Sensitivity]

47. Most powerfull point: Strong Credentials of the Ticket achieves geographic goals

[napi21]

2. I think Barack will be able to bring the woman/nen votes to his side.

He has experience and plans for domestic policy. His weakness is in foreign policy and military experience. I've heard several times today that the name Biden is the strong one...this week. All the talking heads were sure to say that was THIS WEEK's info, but I hope it sticks. Joe is very strong with both of Barack's weaknesses, and he's also very good at smacking down any debate opponent! We'll see what happens.

[Sensitivity]

43. Obama is already doing well with the WOMEN vote even though many dk McCain is Anti-abortion

[TahitiNut]

3. No Drama.

:shrug: Past, present, or future.

[gcomeau]

6. Apparently we can't.

I disagree with pretty much your entire post.

Obama has no need to prop up his national security creds for one simple reason. The national security debate is currently completely dominated by Iraq. Both Obama and McCain have already presented clear formulations of their plans and they are easily distinguishable and understood... Obama gets us out, McCain leaves us in. And most of America wants the hell out. Debate practically over, Obama wins. All the people hand wringing about the big scary war hero beating Obama up on national security are panicking over absolutely nothing, McCain is already getting his ass handed to him on that subject and it's just going to continue. The longer Obama and McCain go head to head on that subject the more the numbers will move Obama's way. Obama needs to strengthen his economic creds far more. Far, FAR more.

In the General election matchup Obama's challenge is getting a higher percentage of the vote in a bunch of states with the electoral weight to give him the presidency and it doesn't matter one little bit what demographic it ends up coming from to be perfectly blunt. I don't care if he pulls the extra 2% he needs in any given close state by slightly swinging the numbers among white man, or white women, or latinos, or asians, or a combination of every demographic group you can put a name to as long as he pulls the necessary votes from somewhere. You pick the VP who has the ability to make the largest impact regardless of where they make it.

Which leaves me answering "none of the above" on your poll.

[Sensitivity]

12. Reasonable discussion, but based on the premise "win which ever way" which is not

the Obama or democratic mandate. Obama has campaigned as inclusive and seeking a broad mandate.

[gcomeau]

17. So... which is more consistent with that?

Micro targetting white males, or picking the VP who just plain brings in the largest number of votes and who cares what demographic they come from?

I'm thinking the latter is the approach consistent with democratic ideals myself.

[Sensitivity]

20. Hate to say it. But White Males are not a "micro target"

[gcomeau]

22. Compared to "American voters" they are.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. Wes Clark or Jim Webb.

[Sensitivity]

50. Why do you think Gen James Jones has been pushed in Congressional meetings???

[JanusAscending]

8. None of the above !!

I voted for Obama. I campaigned for Obama. He is the Nominee. I trusted him enough to vote for him, and I trust him to make the right choice in a running mate. It's his decision to make, and I would never.......attemt to second guess him. Others may do the vetting, but he will make the choice. Whoever that may be is fine with me!! Don't ya'll trust him? Hasn't he run a smart (brilliant) campaign up to this point? Chill out......he knows what he is doing.

[Sensitivity]

9. Obama is rational, just like most of his supporters, who want to rally behind a rational vetting

and selection process.

[rove karl rove]

11. no, all of the above - the best

he can be advised on his decision, that's NOT second-guessing it. There's no guess yet.

[XemaSab]

10. I think what we really need is a VP who is seen by the American public

as being a GOOD person, and maybe a bit of a Washington outsider. :shrug:

Everything else will fall into place. :)

[Hippo_Tron]

13. No, I fundamentally disagree with your #1

First of all, history does not back up your claim that one needs prior experience to have a sound foreign policy.

Lincoln had zilch in the way of military experience and said that he spent most of his time in the national guard fighting the mosquitoes. He fought a war just fine.

Woodrow Wilson had absolutely no foreign policy or military experience either and while you can argue that we should have never gotten into World War I, we entered only at the very end resulting in few US casualties compared to European countries and if Wilson's 14 points had been adopted at Versailles, World War II may very well have never happened.

Eisenhower had all of the foreign policy experience in the world and we have him to thank for the current regime in Iran. If Kermit Roosevelt and Winston Churchill hadn't talked Ike into Operation Ajax, Iran would be a functional democracy today. Take a moment and ponder just how different the middle east would be if that were the case. Also don't forget that the Bay of Pigs was planned under his watch.

Secondly, John McCain DOES NOT have foreign policy experience. Getting beaten in a prison camp does not make you qualified to be commander-in-chief. Yes I know that sounds horrible but that's the truth. I respect Senator McCain's service in the military but he IS NOT a foreign policy expert even though he claims to be one. In his decades in the Senate he has never sat on the Intelligence or Foreign Affairs Committees. He graduated 5th to last in his class at the Naval Academy which means he only got in because his dad was an Admiral.

Third, after 8 years of Bush and Cheney the absolute LAST thing that Obama needs is the appearance that he will run to his Vice President every time there is a crisis. Yes I know Cheney added "gravitas" or whatever to the ticket and made Bush more viable. That may have worked once but people saw how it turned out to be a complete disaster in office. If Obama is perceived as picking someone to make up for his lack of foreign policy experience then he will look weak for doing so.

Obama needs to assure the country that he is ready to lead by going blow for blow with McCain in a foreign policy debate. And IMO he's certainly up to the task.

"I may be weak but my VP knows what he's doing" is not the message that Obama wants to send but that is the one that the MSM will talk about nonstop if he picks a military person for VP. The only exception is Richardson because it will be seen as Obama picking him to get the Hispanic vote and he can subtly tout Richardson's foreign policy credentials without him looking like he's dependent on them.

[Sensitivity]

15. Only ten times in the fifty-two national elections since 1789 has a completely civilian slate run

for the U.S. Presidency. Obama may choose to be the 11th and win even in a time of war, but why deliberately snub American tradition.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_1/milsvc_I.html

[Hippo_Tron]

46. I'm not saying he should deliberately not put someone on the ticket who served in the military

I just wouldn't put someone who is career military like Wes Clark. It would be seen as leaning on the VP for something that he lacks. If he wants to pick a Governor or Senator who served in the military, that's fine.

And IMO with the emergence of the all-volunteer military that number of tickets with no military experience is going to go way up. It's also inflated because during the mid-1800's both parties had a strategy of deliberately running Generals on the theory that they would be popular since Andrew Jackson was popular.

[Barack_America]

19. Agree on all points.

:thumbsup;

[Undercurrent]

14. Both national security strength and white guys.

[Barack_America]

16. Executive experience. Economy trumps Iraq. nt

[cottonseed]

18. If it looks right. It flies right.

I think there's so many angles they can take with this VP selection there's just isn't one that is overwhelmingly important. I just want to visualize some of these guys together and if it looks right, it's probably right. I think Edwards would be great, I love Scwheitzer, and I think Wes Clark would be great. Once I see it, I'll know it.

[newmajority]

23. Executive branch experience to balance Obama's legislative experience

Or in other words, it's gotta be a governor, not a senator. Unless he can talk Al Gore into it. And that's not likely.

Foreign policy experience comes in a very close second, and along with that, familiarity with the Middle East, which is obviously going to be a big headache regardless of when we end the Iraq quagmire. Richardson and Schweitzer both fit the bill here as far as knowledge of the region, though in different ways. Richardson's in an official capacity, and Schweitzer lived over there and speaks Arabic.

Call me crazy, but I think a President who knows the religion and a Vice President who knows the language might send a positive message to people who might otherwise think of us as "the Great Satan" thanks to the misadventures of the Bush Crime Family.

[Sensitivity]

24. Which Governor is perceived as ready to be Commander In Chief. That's the question

Like Bill Clinton, Governors often do not have N.S. strenght. Some do.

[tkmorris]

25. OK. Gotta be Chuck Norris then

Sucks but what can ya do?

[Barack_America]

26. Nope. He's a Huckabee supporter.

Seriously.

[Sensitivity]

27. Chuck does not have National Security credibility. Too bad

[MrSlayer]

28. Having a strong National Security guy on the ticket brings in enough men to win.

The women will come to Obama on their own considering McCain's horrible record on women's health and reproductive issues.

Wes Clark would be a great choice for VP.

[Sensitivity]

29. Was surprised he was not reported on the LIST

[knight_of_the_star]

31. Gen. Clark would be perfect

He would DESTROY anything the GOP could TRY to say about "lacking national security experience". I doubt McLame could top a four star general and former SACEUR in terms of said experience.

[knight_of_the_star]

30. National Security

Obama talks a good game and can fire people up but in all honesty his resume when it comes to foreign policy and national security matters is a bit on the light side, we need someone to add weight and heft to that.

[dansolo]

32. Attracting rural voters

This election offers the Democrats a golden opportunity to finally convince the rural voters that the Republicans have never been looking out for their best interests, and have been pandering to them just for their votes (while not delivering) for decades. If we can swing the rural voters over to the Democratic side, the GOP will never recover. While White men primarily make up this demographic, that shouldn't be the focus. This is not a national security election, and even with the media propping him up, McCain cannot continue to make gaffes day after day. National security credentials are nice, but not essential.

[paulk]

33. Bush won the white male vote over Kerry by 20 points.

You don't need a 50-50 split for a "landslide", you need only a percentage point or two. But even that is hard to get, since that demographic has always leaned conservative. The important demographic is white women - it tends to be more fluid. When Democrats win this demographic, they almost always win the election. Bush beat Kerry among white women by 9 points, which is why Kerry lost.

You've left out experience as a criteria. Experience drives judgement, and Obama is already being attacked by the Republicans in this area, what with his poor choice in picking that Jim Johnson fellow for the VP vetting process. Lack of experience, IMHO, is Obama's biggest weakness.

----------------

I'd put three criteria on the list - national security, white women, and experience.

[Sensitivity]

34. Obama is WINNING WOMEN. It is the lack of Experience in NATIION SECURITY poses great danger

since it leaves open the huge risk of a realor phony "event" turning the election for
the Republicans.

[lukasahero]

38. The only thing I ask is that women not be abandoned in that search

Women are stinging right now - trust me, I'm one of them. I voted for Obama in my primary but I still didn't like a lot of what I saw happen through the season. I agree that adding national security experience to the ticket is probably the highest priority but I'm begging people to try and do so without alienating, or taking for granted, women in the process.

Full disclosure: I have my hopes pinned to Wes Clark.

[paulk]

40. the demographic I mentioned was not "women"

It was "white women". Obama is doing better than Kerry did in that demographic, but the point is - if you win that demographic, you win the election. It's more important than the white male vote for Democrats.

National security will be an area where Obama needs to prove himself, for sure. One of my biggest worries is exactly the sort of phony "event" you mention. Obama's VP choice will have to be someone who strengthens his hand in this area. I'm not sure it's the most important thing as far as winning the election, however. In the case of a national security emergency, it's ultimately the President who calls the shots - if the Republicans trick up an event, we can only hope that Obama proves equal to it.

[Sensitivity]

41. Obama is handily winning WHITE WOMEN also. The CHOICE issue determines that.

[paulk]

42. No, he is not.

He's doing better than Kerry, but he is not "handily" winning them.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama-Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White-Voters.aspx

Jesus fucking Christ.

What is wrong with you ?

You ask for an opinion, then when you get it, you get all defensive and start SHOUTING.

[Sensitivity]

53. I think the evidence that women are now rallying is now in. Why would Hillary Women vote out Roe?

[Buzz Clik]

35. Your poll doesn't allow a comprehensive answer. You're asking multiple questions.

Yes security is important, but it isn't the #1 priority.

We probably don't want a female as the VP nominee, but that doesn't mean women aren't important.

We need a battleground state, but do we select a VP just for that one state? Don't think so.

Are working class males important? Yep.

How about other groups within the Dems that might not be happy with Obama?

Geographic balance important? Yeah. We need a Southerner on the ticket.

[Sensitivity]

37. Agree. Sorry for he sloppiness of the poll.

[Buzz Clik]

39. "Sorry" doesn't cut it. You'll need to be punished.

[onetwo]

36. More than anything, his VP needs to reinforce his message of CHANGE.

I favor candidates like Schweitzer and even John Edwards for this reason.

[crankychatter]

44. The rejection of PAC cash and perception of "Cleaning up DC" is Obama's best hope

THAT is the first priority in selecting a VP... someone that, in the public eye can credibly cosign this agenda, is our best option.

We need a squeaky clean albeit, moderate Democrat. Someone from OUTSIDE the beltway.

All I know about Napolitano is that she's a Democratic Governor in a Republican State. Although I'm told she is DLC, she campaigned on Public Campaign Financing... endorses it whole heartedly.

I'd like to know more about her... and I'm not happy we haven't HEARD more about her.

Half the eligible electorate in this country are disengaged because of justifiably perceived corruption.

I think this is our best sales point... all change proceeds from there.

So whatever "outside the box," is up on your graph... that's ME.

[pollo poco]

48. other

Obama is very likely choosing our candidate for 2016. The commitment to real change must show here.

I do not agree with your analysis. I think white men are just as sick of the war, the economy and corruption as the rest of the nation. Furthermore, everyone on the short list appeals strongly to some voters but turns some others off. And I think most people will support Obama vs McCain regardless of their personal happiness with his veep choice (I know I'm not voting McCain, even if he chooses my least favorite), so his choice should be part of a larger vision for our party.

Obama should choose for the future.

[Sensitivity]

49. Are you saying that AGE not just credentials and philosophy should be key criteria??

[IndianaGreen]

51. When was the last time a VP nominee brought a state into Democratic column?

I can only think of Lyndon Johnson.

The most important factor is that Obama feels comfortable with his pick for VP, so much so that he can rely on the VP as a trusted confidant and adviser. So whoever Obama picks in the end must fill that most important requirement. Remember that winning the election is only one factor, the most important one being can the VP nominee help Obama govern. Al Gore was a great VP, but he didn't bring his own state.

Knowing that Obama has always felt comfortable around strong women, I wouldn't be surprised if he would pick a woman as his running mate, whatever her name.

[Born_A_Truman]

54. I understand the thinking here, but I want Obama to

pick Schweitzer.

I don't think Obama has given any specifics on what his VP needs to fulfill other than what he feels is best for the country. I think Schweitzer would be that person.