Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line: Get Ready for Obama-Clinton?

From the moment it became clear that Hillary Rodham Clinton would come up short in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, the talk of whether Barack Obama would pick her as his running mate began.

VP Watch

Groups were formed to raise money for ads to urge Obama to tap Clinton, and hours of television time were dedicated to discussing the relative merits of a unity ticket. A new wave of excitement erupted last night when word leaked of a "secret" Obama-Clinton confab in Washington.

All of that happened, of course, before Clinton formally left the race -- an event that won't come until tomorrow in Washington, D.C.

At times in politics, a deep breath is required. And Obama seems more than ready to take one -- hedging his answers when asked about whether he must put Clinton on the ticket in order to heal the party.

"We just completed this arduous process," Obama told CNN's Candy Crowley on Thursday. "It's only been two days, and I think it's not just in my interest and Sen. Clinton's interest, but in the Democratic Party's interest and the country's interest to make sure I make this decision well."

One Democratic consultant not aligned with either Obama or Clinton told The Fix earlier this week that the presidential nominee only gets to make one "executive type" decision during the campaign -- and that's selecting a running mate. For Obama to have that one decision essentially made for him would undermine the idea that he is ready for the most important job in the world.

Obama said as much in a chat with reporters on Thursday in Virginia. "There's no decision that I'm going to make that's going to be more important before the November election," he said.

All of that is to say that Obama isn't likely to pick anyone (including Clinton) any time soon. (Thank God for that; the Veepstakes is one of the most fascinating guessing games in politics and it only comes around once every four years.)

Below you'll find our ranking of the five candidates most likely to be selected for either party's VP nomination. The Line is based on conversations with operatives from both parties, public signals offered by the candidates, and, frankly, a little bit of Fix gut instinct.

As always, the person in the No. 1 spot is the one most likely to be chosen as their party's vice presidential candidate. To the Line!

DEMOCRATS

5. Hillary Rodham Clinton: On one level, this makes all the sense in the world. Clinton got nearly 18 million votes in the primaries (as she is fond of reminding voters and reporters) and showed considerable strength in a series of states -- Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida among others -- that Democrats must make competitive in order to get to 270 electoral votes in the fall. On the other hand, putting Clinton on the ticket would be crazy. It runs directly counter to Obama's central message (i.e. "change only comes by sending new people to Washington") and opens up the possibility that Clinton would see the vice presidency as an opportunity to set up her own political base for future endeavors. And then there is the "Bill" factor... (Previous ranking: 3)

4. John Edwards: If you believe the conventional wisdom that Obama needs help courting rural working class voters, then Edwards could be a nice fit. Edwards perfected his populist pitch during the primary season, and his roots in the South (not to mention his accent) would nicely balance the ticket from a geographic perspective. There are two central questions about Edwards when it comes to assessing his prospects. First, can he legitimately make the claim that he can help Obama win North Carolina? (With Edwards on the ticket in 2004, Sen. John Kerry lost the Tarheel State by 12 points.) Second, is Edwards's resume deep enough to help Obama answer questions about whether he is experienced enough to be president? And a final question: Would Edwards want to run for VP again? (Previous ranking: N/A)

3. Kathleen Sebelius: It's hard to know whether Obama can (or, more importantly, would) name a woman whose name is not Clinton. Clinton's most ardent supporters would almost certainly see such a move as a final indignity in a race they believe has been chock full of them. But it's hard to believe that the average Clinton backer would be so offended by such a move that they would walk away from the ticket. Sebelius would affirm Obama's call for new leadership in the party. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. Jim Webb: It's worth noting that on his first full day of campaigning as the Democratic presidential nominee, Obama was in Virginia. Obama believes very strongly that he can compete in the Commonwealth and win it, becoming the first Democrat to carry the state at the presidential level since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Putting a Virginian on the ticket could help, and of the three regularly mentioned -- Webb, Gov. Tim Kaine and former governor Mark Warner -- Webb seems to make the most sense. Webb has impeccable military credentials as a decorated Vietnam veteran and, like Obama, was opposed to the Iraq war from its start. Webb is, however, unconventional in every sense of the word, and may not be comfortable with the relentless message discipline required of a Veep. (Previous ranking: N/A)

1. Ted Strickland: Obama may not want to put Clinton on the ticket (see above), but he and his campaign know that the best way to unify the party behind him is to offer an obvious olive branch to her supporters. Strickland, who was elected governor of Ohio in 2006, accomplishes that task, as he was one of Clinton's most prominent backers during the primary season. Strickland is also extremely popular in his home state, hails from the conservative southeastern reaches of Ohio and has a deep religious background -- he was a Methodist minister -- that would help Democrats close the "God gap". (Previous ranking: 2)

REPUBLICANS

5. Joe Lieberman: Yes, we know Lieberman is an (Independent) Democrat. But in the few days since Obama sewed up the Democratic nomination, Lieberman has emerged as McCain's leading attack dog. It's no secret that Lieberman and McCain are personal friends -- a not insignificant factor given the deeply personal nature of the Veep pick -- and Lieberman has already been vetted by the national media twice given his run as Al Gore's vice presidential nominee in 2000 and then his own presidential bid four years later. (Previous ranking: N/A)

4. Charlie Crist: Crist was one of a trio of vice presidential hopefuls invited to McCain's Arizona ranch over Memorial Day weekend, a trip that seemed to serve as the official kickoff for the GOP Veepstakes. Crist is doing all the right sorts of things to make sure he is in the mix -- his fundraising work for the Republican Governors Association earlier this week is a perfect example. And his popularity in Florida, almost certainly a battleground state, is a major plus. Still, the buzz around Crist seems to suggest he will be a finalist but not ultimately the pick. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. John Thune: The junior senator from South Dakota is straight out of central casting, but he may be too conventional for McCain who, if The Fix's sources are to be believed, is looking to think (and pick) outside the box. If McCain wants to make a safe pick, Thune could well be the guy -- he's in his late 40s (a nice contrast to the septuagenerian McCain), showed his readiness for the national stage by beating the Senate's top Democrat in 2004 and, well, looks like a president. (Previous ranking: 2)

2. Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor keeps climbing The Veepstakes Line thanks to his seemingly unending willingness to do what McCain asks of him. Romney has been tapping into his fundraising network frequently and effectively on McCain's behalf and has emerged as a prominent television surrogate for presumptive nominee. Most importantly, McCain (and his senior aides) may be softening a bit in their negative opinion of Romney as the former governor travels with them. It appears as though Romney is, dare we say it, human after all. (Previous ranking: 5)

1. Tim Pawlenty: "T-Paw," a.k.a. the two-term governor of Minnesota, remains in the pole position this list for the second straight month. Sure, Pawlenty isn't perfect (talking about your wife's reluctance to have sex with you isn't exactly the smartest move), but he has more going for him than anyone else on the list. As we wrote yesterday, Pawlenty is working to build his national profile with GOP donors and activists -- a complement to his close relationship with McCain. And his resume includes two statewide wins in Democratic-leaning Minnesota. Plus, he's got the best nickname in the field. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 6, 2008; 8:15 AM ET
Categories:  The Line , Veepstakes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: The Campaign That Was...
Next: McCain's First General Election Ad

Comments

Obama/ALF

The cats might not like it. Our toilets would get a lot of attention and there'd be a lot of great music!

Posted by: GoAlien | June 19, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

And Edwards is a non-choice. I like John, but he waited too long to endorse, and didn't do anything for Kerry's candidacy - couldn't even carry his own state.

Posted by: Brian | June 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised we don't hear more mention of Bill Richardson as a VP option - Latino, excellent foreign policy credentials - especially with respect to negotiation rather than military action, from a southwestern state, has chief executive experience as governor and is charismatic to boot.

If the man does not snag the VP slot, he should be a top option for Secretary of State....

Posted by: Brian | June 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I would be shocked to see someone currently on the McCain list actually be on the ticket. Consider a few names: Whitman (NJ would definitely be in play then), Condi Rice (great experience, African American, woman, and California option to boot), and John Warner (would just about kill the Obama chance of winning Virginia and probably end the race for the Presidency for him).

As for Obama, I would be in shock at this point if he doesn't take Hillary or at a minimum offer her the job. He is starting to run out of potentials. I had heard Carl Levin's name mentioned (Jewish and from Michigan with loads of National Security Experience) and Ben Nelson (another mod Dem with national security experience and a chance to bring Florida with him). I would be shocked if either takes it, which probably means he takes someone who doesn't offer much.

Which makes this election look more and more like 1988....

Posted by: dctk | June 12, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

For Obama:
1. Pelosi (why not ask for the best?)
2. Sam Nunn
3. Christine Gregoire
4. Jimmy Carter
5. Biden

But never Hillary. Just look at the anger over the discussion of that possibility in this post. The Clintons would be in the spotlight too much, and get in the way of the Obama presidency. Too much drama.

Posted by: Sunshine | June 10, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat, but I can tell you Kathleen Seblius is not ready for prime time. She repeatedly puts her foot in her mouth (see her comments about not having enough national guardsmen to handle Greensburg tornado...or compairing Missouri highwayways to 9/11...or even making fun of Kansas wineries, which may be true but you don't say it when you are governor.) Her two prominent crossovers from the GOP (Lt.Gov and AG) have been busts, with the AG forced to resign in a sex scandal and the Lt. Gov. not even seriously considered as a candidate to beat Sam Brownback, who is coming back to run for Governor in 2010. Maybe a cabinet post, but Kansas will go for McCain handily even with her on the ticket.

Posted by: Kansas thinker | June 9, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillery was the say anything do anything canidate. Obama said "Change" and there is Hillery saying change while surrounded by old time Dems. He has better judgement than Hillery.

Posted by: Brinny | June 9, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA/BIDEN '08

This would be a logical ticket. We need Joe Biden to counter-balance Obama's inexperience - especially when it comes to foreign policy. What makes Biden stand out from the rest is simple - he's experienced/qualified, he doesn't take crap from anyone (despite some beliefs that he often speaks mind too much...we need that), he's "vice-presidential", loves his country and is great to listen to. He not only owned Rudy early in the race, every other democratic candidate repeatedly praised his knowledge and input ("Joe is right"). Nothing would make a greater event than to watch Biden in the spotlight during a VP debate - especially if it could be against Mitt Romney. He may have not had the funds to continue against history-making candidates (that being an African Amercian and a woman), but he can clearly draw attention when given the chance to speak his mind. And the best part is - everyhting he says makes sense. Despite having 18 million supporters, Clinton would be too polarizing for the country and Obama will be percieved as weak for choosing her. Despite being diplomatic, Richardson is a wimp and non-vice-presidential. Biden clearly deserves top consideration for the VP spot and if (god-forbid) he does not get the job - at least Secretary of State. Your thoughts?

Posted by: Canadian Samy | June 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

If Senator Obama asks Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be his VP, he signs, seals and delivers his defeat in November to John McCain. Not because Governor Sebelius is not an excellent politician, but because in his arrogance and smugness he feels comfortable enough to simply 'brush off' and 'dismiss' the one candidate who won the votes and hearts of millions and millions of American women. He cannot win the Presidency without 54 percent of the general electorate. And, needless to say, we're not very happy right now with how things turned out!

Posted by: mpwynn@spro.net | June 9, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Nah! Obama's running mate will be none of those mentioned. It will be a non-Establishment, non-DC person: Jesse Ventura.

Posted by: Bernie in VA | June 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

My pick for Obsma's VP: Chuck Hagel - military background, mid-west values, straight-shooter reputation, anti- Iraq war, ability to draw independents and Republicans, no known scandals, demonstrates Obama's "reaching across the aisle"

Posted by: chancher | June 9, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs a consiguliere (counsel) who can take on a big bipatisan issue. Dick Lugar comes to mind as he and Obama have worked hard together on Nuclear proliferation. Moderate Republican and would really provide an example of how he would do things differently.

Posted by: IndianaJerry | June 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is a leader that needs to lead something. It seems that VP, though it may be prestigous, is not the best place to showcase her talents.

Posted by: IndianaJerry | June 9, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

It may have been said above, but I don't know how Webb could be VP with some of the comments he has made in the past about women, not to mention some of the fictional passages in his books. I think Webb is great and his comments are probably a part of his salty Marine background, but can't see him getting past those comments to be VP.

Posted by: IndianaJerry | June 9, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

How about Christie Todd Whitman for Obama? Woman. Moderate. Republican. Environmentalist. Only downside: NJ isn't really a help.

Posted by: bsengel1 | June 8, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

As a independent voter in one of the western states I would take a serious look at either a Obama/Webb ticket or a Obama/Biden ticket. Webb and Biden both have gained my respects in how either of these two persons handle themselves with their knowledges, fortitude and integrity. Webb can counterbalance McCain (Defence) and Biden has intensive knowlege in foreign affairs (I also like his conservative more middle of the road type of view). If something happened that they had to be placed into the highest office in the land I would feel comfortable in knowing that either could handle the office. I like McCain also but I worry he will become another Bush. I will not make a chose until I see how Obama and McCain handle themselves on the environment, education, forign conflicts and relations to other nations, the economy and on health care. Picking the right VP will be a critical chose in the candidates success of failure so I hope that both Obama and McCain will choose wisely.

One more thing about the candidates will be the big question that beg attention and that is: How well can the new president reach out to the other side of the isle (so to speak) to have a working compromise toward a true common goal on all issues that now confront this nation.

Posted by: Mike | June 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

It will be Tom Ridge all the way.

Posted by: Mitch | June 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

As whole hearted supporters of the civil rights movement, isn't it strange how the Clinton's went after "white, working-class voters" to deliver Hillary the election. They should be glad & proud that more blacks voted in this primary than ever, as this is what they stand for...right? What the Clinton's didn't count on is that black voters have more sense than they think. The first year they voted in record numbers...they threw the bums out! As a conservative Republican, this makes me smile. The Clinton's losing on what they thought would always be their saving grace. Talk about justice! Now the Clintons can claim the Republican & black smear campaign is the cause of her loss. The Clinton's are so fake and I am so glad Clinton didn't win the Democratic primary.

McCain vs. Obama vs. Barr vs. Nader. By the way, those of you who believe Georgia is in play must be on something heavy.

Posted by: reason | June 7, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I support Obama, but I would feel better if he had a vice president who could say to him, "It's time to make up your mind"...or "Let's not re-invent the wheel"...or "This ain't beanbag". That would be someone like Joe Biden. He tamed his motormouth during his own campaign, too.

Posted by: pheena | June 7, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

While it's fun to speculate it doesn't matter. McCain is unelectable as he supports an unpopular war and is tied by supporting Bush's economic polices to the economy. And then the endless lying, like telling people in New Orleans that he had voted for every Katrina bill, which is true except for ALL OF THEM! He just looked at those people and lied to them. He is unelectable.

Posted by: DavidKnows | June 7, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

many hannity listeners on this thread, sharing his racist obsession with obama to the exclusion of clinton's own many scandals.

Posted by: steve hansen | June 7, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Obama should choose Michelle Obama as his running mate. At any rate, come November, no-one will really care who the running-mates are. They will choose whom they LIKE for president. Most likely McCain will win the election, handily. Actually, Hilary would have been the stronger candidate against McCain. This is why the Republicans strategized to cross-over temporarily to vote for Obama, so as to keep Hilary from winning. If Hilary had won, she would do extremely well among women of all ages and races, among minorities, and some liberal-minded men. McCain, would be shaking in his boots. Now with Obama, I am afraid that it will be too easy to defeat him. If any little thing goes wrong, the voting will be white against black, and he could lose by a landslide. So, good job Republicans for successfully eliminating the would-be stronger opponent to McCain.

Posted by: BeingReal | June 7, 2008 4:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
If McCain is going "outside the box," we need to go outside your list: I say Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the surprise pick.

Posted by: Scott L. | June 7, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse


Trolls and Trojan Republicans. It seems to me that most of the people engaging in mindless attacks on either Obama or Clinton are really Republicans trying to stir up trouble.

The most interesting thing about this as a tactic, is that it seems to suggest that rather than making a case for a McCain presidency, some people feel that the only hope for victory is to create mistrust and hatred within the Democratic Party (which usually is quite capable of doing so on its own!!).

Curiously such folks don't seem to consider that any true "moderates" or people who are "undecided" are likely to be turned off by their tactics, and to vote the opposite viewpoint.

I did note that at one time during the primary the attacks in Clinton by Obama supporters made me inclined to vote for her, while the attacks on Obama by Clinton supporters made me inclined to vote for him.

Maybe some of you should be attacking McCain???

Posted by: PatrickInBeijing | June 7, 2008 2:22 AM | Report abuse

Obama will be fine and doesn't need Clinton to win back the demographic. In fact I would be very upset if he did put her on the ticket and so would so many other of his supporters and donors. Here is a name to ponder - Dick Gephardt. Yeah he's an old hand but does alot for working class blue collar voters - will help shore up support in Missouri which is going to be a tough state - has been through the whole run for President game many times before - and is an expert on how to work th Hill. Just something to ponder for the next line. I don't think Obama will bother to bolster his foreign policy creds with anyone, hes going to go with a white male who is a populist.

Posted by: PoliSciGuy | June 7, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wanted to mence fences with Hillary he SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE HE USED RACE IN A CAMPAIGN THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE POST-RACIAL.

He should have thought about that before he made false charges of "offensive remarks" against Bill Clinton in South Carolina.


Obama was never offended.

He should have thought about what would happen down the road BEFORE he made false charges of "offensive remarks" against Gerry Ferraro.


What a pathetic man Obama is.


NOW Obama wants the country to vote for him because he has better "judgement" than McCain.


What kind of "judgement" did Obama show in South Carolina??


What kind of judgement did he show when Obama voted to fund the war???

What kind of judgement did Obama show bringing his children to Rev. Wright's church week after week, year after year???


WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show making a real estate deal with Resko after he was elected to the US Senate?

WHAT kind of judgement did he show making friends and hanging out with William Ayers, a terrorist who bombed the Capitol Building and the Pentagon ? (younger people do not know about that)

WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show when he actually thought that NO ONE would point any of this out ???

.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

It is a sorry state that we are in when our candidate does not win and we blame the candidate that does!

I personally do not see any similarities between the policies that Clinton and McCain profess, but so be it if Clinton supporters do. I personally am voting to end the war such that their grandchildren and children will not spend their youth wondering about whether or not they will serve 'cause given the exhausted state of our voluntary army I would imagine with an extended war, the draft is not to far away.

An Obama-Clinton ticket would be a disaster, not because I dislike Clinton, she is a competent politican but simply because of her campaign strategy against Obama and the Republicans are organizing her public attacks against him already. I can imagine what these ads would look like and imply if she was the vice-presidential candidate. Her attacks have just been too destructive.

In addition, given the fact that as far as I know, Clinton not even in her speech on Tuesday has ever said anything whatsoever positive about Obama and his competencies, suggest that it would be difficult to believe that her support is genuine.
I found this disrespectful and I am sure this absence has not been lost on her supporters.

I have not read or seen anything to suggest that Obama has been sexist in his interactions with Clinton. This is like the old scenario - the boss gives you a hard time and then you go home and give your spouse a hard time and so far down the line - it's misplaced aggression.

Obama studiously avoided integrating race into his campaign (in fact, he was criticized for this), and when he did, it had nothing to do with his campaign against Senator Clinton. In fact, it was associated with his ex-pastor, a remark he made about his grandmother's stereotypic views, and his "bitter" comment. In fact all of this had to do with questions about his possible racial bias. In fact, he did not even criticize Bill Clinton's remarks in South Carolina as playing the "race" card. So it puzzles me when this accusation is made.

I am deeply sorry that Clinton'supporters are suffering her loss of the democratic nomination. Yes, they do have the power to "change" the course of this election. However, they need to decide what kind of change they are willing to live with because it could mean that thousands of people will suffer. This is not a game, this is a process that affects the lives of millions. The people you are angry with will not suffer, just like the person who comes home from work and screams at his/her spouse does not affect the live of the person who screamed at him.

Posted by: Peacefulmusings | June 7, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

*** like how she married her way into getting any recognition.****** whoa now! if you want to smear her marriage lets be fair & share for bamaracist. "bama sr. never divorced his first wife in Kenya, therefore he was not legally married by U.S. law & so 2nd (bamas mom) & the 3rd marriage were null & void..divorces in these kind of cases aren't worth the paper they're printed on. So every one of his U.S. bred children were born out of wedlock(which includes bama). His father totally deserted these children, went back to Kenya & had more children with the first wife. Deserted them also & was getting ready to marry a 4th woman when he was killed in the car accident. Speaking of the accident (which bama won't tell the truth of)bama sr was a mean drunk..first accident caused by him being drunk was when he lost his legs....the second accident that took his life...he was also drunk.....matter of public record just research bama sr on web! This is the sainted father he writes so glowingly about in his books......stop reading just bama's words & lies & find the truth...his books have been documented as full of lies, innuendoes & mistruths (events never really happened... he now states that he changed the original names to protect the people he wrote about.. his schoolmates state that events he wrote about his school years were mistruths & never happened. Did you know that bama was NOT the first black man to be EDITOR of the Harvard Law School PAPER was a true black man some years before bama came to Harvard. The title of "editor" was changed to "president"...by whom???? bama WAS the first Arab to get there.....BTW bama stated that when he married Michelle he married "up".....in my opinion that means if she hadn't had lots of money or political connections he wouldn't have married her, but someone else who was better connected!..HIS WORDS..not mine! & isn't it a funny coincendence that after bama became a senator, Michelle's salary almost tripled.....nice way to go bama, feathering your own bed as they say!

Posted by: CarolTate2 | June 7, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

[][][]---[][]---[][]------[][][][][][]------[][][][]-------[][]
----[][]---[]----[][][]---------[][]----------[][]
[]-----OBAMA-LEAHY '08--[]-[][]---[][][][]--[][]----[][][][][][]
---[][]----[][][]----[][][]------[][][]----[][]----[][]---[]
[]-----[][][]-----[]------[][][][]----[][]-----[][]-------[][][]

There is a war going on, there is only one Senator that fought for the constitution.... Patrick Leahy. Every candidate you mentioned does not help Obama on the war. They were all quiet when Leahy systematically fought the repugs. Webb has major problems with Women's groups.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | June 7, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Yes Hillary got closer to 18 million votes than 17m.......I am one of those supporters. Hillary knows how we feel about two-faced bamaracist & that most of us will NOT VOTE for him in any way!..already millions of us have left the dem party & bama is only putting up a smoke screen cause he needs us to get elected. It will never happen...Hillary has to keep her word & save her political career..we have nothing to lose. We want the best candidate to be president. The only person that fits that bill is McCain! So here we are.......bamabots called us "B"s & every filthy name in the book, oh yes I'm now a racist (cough, cough) cause they are not willing to face the real truth...hey bamabots you will see just what a "B" I can be...I have too much of true information on this jerk & I'll be posting it. Republicans are not the stupid jerks you think them to be.....NEVERBAMA! McCain '08 the only commen sense & logical
choice to keep America & us a free people!

Posted by: CarolTate2 | June 7, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse


Chris:


AT this point, the Washington Post really should hold Obama personally responsible for these kind of attacks on other posters - there is reason to believe that this is a group very close to Michele Obama - Many many people have complained - today the Obama people have shown their true colors


***************************************


This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM


,

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse


Chris:


AT this point, the Washington Post really should hold Obama personally responsible for these kind of attacks on other posters - there is reason to believe that this is a group very close to Michele Obama - Many many people have complained - today the Obama people have shown their true colors


***************************************


This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM


,

Posted by: Anonymous | June 7, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wanted to mence fences with Hillary he SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE HE PULLED HIS RACE BAITING IN SOUTH CAROLINA.


He should have thought about that before he made false charges of offensive remarks against Bill Clinton.


Obama was never offended. He should have thought about that BEFORE he made false charges of "offensive remarks" against Gerry Ferraro.


What a pathetic man Obama is.


NOW Obama wants the country to vote for him because he has better "judgement" than McCain. What kind of "judgement" did Obama show in South Carolina?? What kind of judgement did he show when Obama voted to fund the war??? What kind of judgement did Obama show bringing his children to Rev. Wright's church week after week, year after year. WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show making a real estate deal with Resko after he was elected to the US Senate? WHAT kind of judgement did he show making friends and hanging out with William Ayers, a terrorist who bombed the Capitol Building and the Pentagon ? (younger people do not know about that) WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show when he actually thought that NO ONE would point any of this out ???

,

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

I do not believe 18 million people voted for Hillary Clinton.

Many of those voters were from Operation Chaos, and many more, unfortunately, were simply voting AGAINST Obama, thanks to the "HUSSEIN, MUSLIM, WRIGHT, REZKO, AYERS, BITTER" connections (in other words, he's black).

Unfortunately, and I'm an Obama Supporter, I don't think Much will be different in the General Election. Sure, if Hillary can convince her hard core supporters to get behind Obama, it will help.

BUT,

until I see different...

"Red States" are another way to say "White States"

I hope I'm Wrong. I really do.

But if McSame wins, I for one will know the REAL Score.

Posted by: Race War, Race War ! | June 6, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

You are actually going to put Webb, the former republican or Hagel, the conservative republican on the Obama ticket and leave HRC off out of spite....? Wow- the two of them are far more conservative than HRC. HRC's policy proposals are more ambitiously progressive than BHOs- so if you are saying she is too conservative- than why do you put forth these other names? Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD-

Anyone who would vouch that would be lying- dude-- I am a civics geek/political junkie--been so since I was 13. I am a pragmatic leftist who works and voted Democratic because they were closer to what I believe in- although not even near the level of progressive I believe we need. I wanted HRC because she could get it dont- and her well defined policy proposals were simply more ambitious than his. But I also got on his mailing list, read both of his books and followed his speeches and campaigning carefully, as I did hers. Neither campaign was perfect- but his seemed based more on the fact that he wasn't her than any other factor. He really did not outline his policies well at all. He speaks only in broad strokes in his campaigning, refusing to commit to a policy or plan in anyway. Vague promises get candidates in trouble (see Clinton, Bill) during their first years in office.

Don't tell me I'm lying because I frequently visited his site. He presents one thing and does something else- he is a politician. Perhaps you should read more or investigate more. Just "talkin' pretty" doesn't make him a great man- if he is going to be a great man- which I hope, since I am being forced to vote for him as the other choice is right wing rule- than he needs to try to live up to the hype and rhetoric.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE SURPRISED IF HILLARY'S "ENDORSEMENT" OF OBAMA COMES OFF AS BEGRUDGING, REPLETE WITH POLITICAL DOUBLE-SPEAK, OBFUSCATION AND BARELY DISGUISED EQUIVOCATION.

THE REASON: SHE STILL BELIEVES THAT OBAMA CAN'T WIN AND RISKS BEING NEUTRALIZED BY FORCES DETERMINED TO KEEP AN INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL ELITIST FROM WINNING THE WHITE HOUSE.
.
The reports of an abrupt, awkward tete-a-tete last night between Hillary and Obama do not auger well for party unity. But what the star-struck mainstream media refuse to understand is that more than political ambition may be involved in the equation.

As stated here before, Bill and Hillary have been there. Hillary reaffirmed her belief in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in her biography, "Living History." Both Clintons know well the damage that can be done. They believe they have been among the victims of a vicious campaign aimed at preventing any significant alteration of the "new world order" that began in ernest under Richard Nixon and was later advanced under Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush.

It's a fair bet that Hillary has tried to get through to Obama on this very point, but that he either refuses to listen to her, or thinks her entreaties stem from political ambition and not a sincere desire to spare the society from another national political defeat/trauma.

The Clintons do believe that Obama will either be co-opted or destroyed. They do sincerely believe that the only way to avoid this ultimate defeat is for them to continue to subvert Obama's candidacy and to prevent his nomination at the convention. Their unstated hope is that the Obama candidacy will wither under the intense scrutiny of the general election campaign -- fueled by new revelations that cast aspersions on Obama's choice of associates, and on intemperate remarks by a certain key family member.

Of course, she can't and won't say this. She will feign support of Obama while working behind the scenes at a last-ditch attempt to prevent him from gaining sufficient votes to win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention. The first stage of her continuing coup attempt involves holding onto her delegates, ostensibly so that all women of the world can hold their heads high as her name is placed in nomination on the first ballot.

This is totally disingenuous. Hillary's candidacy already has proven the possibility of a woman competing for the nation's top job. What more need she prove?

That's where the second stage of Hillary's coup kicks in. Unbeknownst to Obama and the party rank and file, Billary will have worked the backwaters, seeking to convince a hundred or more superdelegates to abstain from voting on the first ballot. The motive: to prevent either Obama or Hillary from securing the nomination the first time around.

After the first ballot, a rumor spreads like wildfire across the convention floor: The indeterminate first ballot vote was a reaction to adverse reports yet to publicly surface about Obama, his associates and his family members.

In the midst of the convention session, the "real story" behind the first ballot vote breaks on the internet. The panic among the delegates spreads; Obama protests "internet lies and gossip" but the delegates believe the damage has been done; this time, they buy the premise that Obama has become unelectable, if not radioactive.

At that point, the third and most audacious stage of the Hillary coup comes to pass: Hillary calls an impromptu press conference, stating that in response to the renewed doubts surrounding the presumptive nominee, Hillary is advising her delegates that she is withdrawing her endorsement of Obama and will decline to release her delegates on subsequent ballots.

But at that juncture, a fourth stage erupts. Delegates activate the "Draft Gore" option that they've kept in their back pocket the whole time, since well before Obama supposedly "clinched" the nomination. On the second ballot, Al Gore's name is placed into nomination by former supporters of Hillary Clinton. The vote is taken; and once again, no one candidate secures the votes required to secure the nomination.

It is at this stage that Obama, realizing that his historic but meteoric candidacy has come to an end, instructs his delegates to vote for Al Gore on the third ballot. They do, and the nomination goes to Al Gore.

The next morning, Gore convenes a press conference with Obama at his side. Gore announces somberly that Obama has turned down Gore's offer of the vice presidential slot, out of recognition that his political capital has been severely diminished. Obama then takes the podium to give his unequivocal endorsement of Al Gore, and he elaborates on his decision to turn down the vice presidential offer.

Gore goes on to take the White House, with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as his veepee. Hillary returns to New York, where she will lose her party's nomination for her Senate seat to a protege of Rep. Charlie Rangel.

She is later named a Supreme Court justice designate by President Gore.


THE ABOVE SCENARIO DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT WHAT WILL HAPPEN... BUT IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF HILLARY REFUSES TO RELEASE HER DELEGATES PRIOR TO THE CONVENTION.

Posted by: scrivener | June 6, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

I am still aghast at Michelle Obama's liberal use of tyhe term "whitey". How wou;d she like it if I refered to her as "yard ape" and her children as "nigglets". I abhor these terms but she insists on playing the race card.

Posted by: Sandy | June 6, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

An appeal to all Democratic supports and voters.

Date: 07th June, 2008.

My dearest American brothers and sisters,

Well, as a staunch supporter of Democratic Party and an impregnable supporter of Hillary Clinton I feel very sad. It's very unfortunate that she lost to Barack Obama.

Now, what do you want to choose as your destiny? End of the world? Heralding 666 into this world? Second coming of Christ?

Here is reproduced an e-mail letter received from Barack Obama's camp:

"Ivo Oscar --

I'm about to take the stage in St. Paul and announce that we have won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

It's been a long journey, and we should all pause to thank Hillary Clinton, who made history in this campaign. Our party and our country are better off because of her.

I want to make sure you understand what's ahead of us. Earlier tonight, John McCain outlined a vision of America that's very different from ours -- a vision that continues the disastrous policies of George W. Bush.

But this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past and bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

It's going to take hard work, but thanks to you and millions of other donors and volunteers, no one has ever been more prepared for such a challenge.

Thank you for everything you've done to get us here. Let's keep making history.

Barack"

Now kindly analyze this letter. Firstly, a Muslim claiming that he has taken stage in St. Paul! Why didn't he go and take a stage in front of a Mosque and say "Allah?" Secondly, add two horns and a tail to the real Barack Obama or his photo. What do you see? Please read The Prophecies of Nostradamus and also read the Bible. Can you foresee/read the time and the political situation in today's world?

Therefore, today I feverishly appeal to all Americans not to support the Democratic Party if their candidate is Barack Obama. Instead go out in numbers and vote for Republican Party, no matter whomsoever their candidate maybe.

God Save America and the world.

Yours truly,
---Sd---
Ivo Oscar Faleiro.
Goa - INDIA.

Posted by: Ivo Oscar Faleiro | June 6, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I was wondering why no one is talking about Ed Rendell for VP??

Posted by: robert | June 6, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse


Strickland remains the obvious choice for Obama (I did not know about him being a former minister, but that is just one more point in his favor). A popular Ohio governor? Should be a no-brainer unless he flunks the exam.

McCain is trickier. I still lean towards a female for him. It gives him a clearer shot at the die-hard Clinton fans (and those who keep posting insults about Obama should read their postings aloud, record them, then listen to them when (if) they are feeling rational). Otherwise, Pawlenty is a good pick.

Webb won't get it. He has too much lose cannon potential, and by now we should know that Obama runs a careful well planned campaign.

Romney won't get it. In a weak year for Republicans, he brings part of the base, but alienates another part. Not his fault, but the way it is.

The other fix choices seem unlikely to me. No great strengths for any of them. McCain could go for a female senator.

His boldest move would be to publicly offer it to Clinton with a promise that he would only serve one term...

THAT would be interesting!

Posted by: PatrickInBeijing | June 6, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Mary: I selected this quote from your comment "I believe McCain can SUCCESSFULLY get us out of Iraq." I would suggest then that you will believe anything. How can the word success be used in the context of the Iraq debacle. The appropriate word is "Catastrophe" brought about by McCains friends - Bush and Cheyney. And as for getting out, the only way will be to beat a retreat as was done in Vietnam. There is no way out and this should have been anticipated from the onset. History has plenty of examples of these disastrous situations. Never mind, Bush can wash his hands of the problem in January whilst young Americans must continue to die in the name of this insane adventure. No more war, no more Iraq, no more McCain and the like

Posted by: aredee | June 6, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Chuck Hagel is the perfect person for Veep. He and Obama would be compatible. No dysfunctional administration with this duo.

Clinton is at the bottom of the list...NO, she is not on my list...and I strongly urge Obama to remove her name if she is on his list.

Wesley Clarke may function well with Obama...and would give the ticket balance re NATO and life experiences. I am concerned, though, he may be inclined to work toward a 2012 possibility for another Clinton run.

My vote is for Obama to rely heavily on the commitee he has set up to vet possibilities and then choose the person he would be pleased to have as president after he serves for 8 years. Someone he can share a great deal of decision making with. Someone he can talk with...talk over the day and what is ahead of him that will include the Veep.

Posted by: wilkes336 | June 6, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted:
Yeah, right. A McCain Woman WHITE DEMOCRAT, eh?
LOL
By any chance you was a "Reagan [small government] Democrat" as well?
A Dixicrat as well?
LOL

Answer:
Yes - I am one of those WHITE women that Obama and his supporters delight in taunting and insulting.
No - I never voted for Reagan
No - I am not a Dixicrat as I am from Nebraska

I am a McCain Woman Democrat as he and his campaign has resonated with me while Obama's campaign has not - and clearly the above response posted to my comments only makes it clear that WHITE people who reside in the south should not align themselves with a candidate who thinks so lowly of them.

McCain Women Democrats 2008

Posted by: Mary | June 6, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Mary wrote:

"McCain resonates with me."

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

Mary, you need to go to an Emergency Room. Try to stay calm. If someone there can drive you, that's best. When you get to the Hospital, just tell them what you just wrote... That McCain resonates with you.

They will take it from there, OK?

For now, just try to relax. Everything is going to be OK.

Posted by: Dr. McSame | June 6, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

On Clinton, George Will goes lunar:

"Clinton, having risen politically in her husband's orbit, is a moon shining with reflected light. Were Obama to hitch himself to her, he would reduce himself to a reflection of a reflection."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503

^^ ha ha ha that's straight out of plato isn't it?

Posted by: Platoon | June 6, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

"....frankly, a little bit of Fix gut instinct." (The Fix's gut instinct is innately anti-Hillary.)

Chris's unnecessary side comment," as she is fond of reminding us," is just one more clue to his anti- Hillary fixation.

Three Pinocchios for biased reporting Chris.

Posted by: VAMMAP | June 6, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Hell yeah! Jim Webb would make an awesome VP-- the perfect answer to the chicken hawks!

Posted by: Anyone but Hillary | June 6, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Hell yeah! Jim Webb would make an awesome VP-- the perfect answer to the chicken hawks!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Even if she DIDN'T say "Whitey," which I don't care, either way, it's not the point.

All of these "suggestions" - Ayers, Wright, Pleger, Whitey, Bitter, etc, etc...

Are just placed out there to give the racists a REASON to use, other than Racism, to vote for George W. McSame.

No sane, clear thinking person, except for those making over $250,000 per year, would have any reason to vote for McSame.

This election will be about Race. Period.

"Experience, War Hero, Bi Partisanship" are all valid reasons, attractive reasons for Republicans and NRA members, but the White House will be won or lost based on what percentage of the population is still Racist.

I am not optimistic.

We'll see.

Posted by: W (it stands for Whitey, you know) | June 6, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama campaign's contiually insults women, white people, and Clinton supporters.

I am a McCain Woman Democrat not because I am "irrational".
:::::::::::::::::::::
Posted by: Mary | June 6, 2008 9:27 PM
++++++++++++++++

Yeah, right. A McCain Woman WHITE DEMOCRAT, eh?

LOL

By any chance you was a "Reagan [small government] Democrat" as well?

A Dixicrat as well?

LOL

Posted by: Her Lao | June 6, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

"Ask Not... What your country can do for You...

Ask What your country can do for Israel."

(Bomb Iran, Anyone?)

George W. McSame - before AIPAC earlier this week

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

"The Economy is Strong. Very Strong."
(why not? he's got nine mansions)

George W. McSame - yesterday, on the economy

Posted by: W (it stands for women, you know) | June 6, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Get a grip, please! Mrs. Obama never used that word, and it's one of those instances of "if you say it often enough, people will begin to believe it." This is pathetic, people. I'm not even a partisan (voted for Bush in 92, Clinton in 96, Bush in 2000, and in 2004 had grown so disillusioned with Bush and the ridiculous Kerry that I didn't vote for anybody). Let's not fall prey to stupid internet rumors.

I don't know who I'll vote for yet in November, but you can bet that these internet rumor tricks won't work. I think Ross Perot called it the "Republican Dirty Tricks Committee" back in '92.

Posted by: Carl | June 6, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I am still aghast at Michelle Obama's liberal use of the term "whitey".
======

That is hoax.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza just said on Hannity and Colmes that Obama's nomination fight with Hillary has prepared him to be the President. I have not heard anything more dopier or stupid since Obama said there were 57 states!

Posted by: charko825 | June 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wanted to mence fences with Hillary he SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE HE PULLED HIS RACE BAITING IN SOUTH CAROLINA.


He should have thought about that before he made false charges of offensive remarks against Bill Clinton.


Obama was never offended. He should have thought about that BEFORE he made false charges of "offensive remarks" against Gerry Ferraro.


What a pathetic man Obama is.


NOW Obama wants the country to vote for him because he has better "judgement" than McCain. What kind of "judgement" did Obama show in South Carolina?? What kind of judgement did he show when Obama voted to fund the war??? What kind of judgement did Obama show bringing his children to Rev. Wright's church week after week, year after year. WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show making a real estate deal with Resko after he was elected to the US Senate? WHAT kind of judgement did he show making friends and hanging out with William Ayers, a terrorist who bombed the Capitol Building and the Pentagon ? (younger people do not know about that) WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show when he actually thought that NO ONE would point any of this out ???

.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama campaign's contiually insults women, white people, and Clinton supporters.

I am a McCain Woman Democrat not because I am "irrational". I have followed this campaign closely and voted for the strongest and most capable candidate - Hillary Clinton. I did not vote for her because she was a woman but because she reached out to all the party and I believed she could get us through these tough times.

Now I am left with two candidates. McCain resonates with me. He will take the hard stand in the best interest of the American people. He has a long history of bipartisanship. And while I vehmently protested the "surge" and McCain took a lot of heat for promoting it, the surge has worked and Iraq has stabilized. I believe McCain can SUCCESSFULLY get us out of Iraq.

Obama's speeches have not resonated with me. I keep listening and waiting for him to say something - but all I hear are a lot of unrealistic promises and math that doesn't add up. Worse yet his main change is changing his position all the time...on his church, his pastor, NAFTA, and Israli ownership of Jersualem (just to name a few).

I know that it is easy to categorize me as an "angry" and "irrational" Clinton supporter - just a much to say I am a white racist uneducated hick for not being an Obama supporter. But the truth is that I made a deliberate and concious decision to split with the DNC in the election.

Posted by: Mary | June 6, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse


It's just a question of whether he wants to be taken seriously as President.

The Clintons simply have too much baggage, nice though the gesture would be.

Webb is the man. Like Obama, he has a functioning brain.

Posted by: wardropper | June 6, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to read the article about Jim Webb, but, as usual, the wapo techies have messed up the link to that article. Could you please fix it? Thanks!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I am still aghast at Michelle Obama's liberal use of the term "whitey". How would she like it if I refered to her as "yard ape" and her children as "nigglets". I abhor these terms but she insists on playing the race card.

Posted by: Sandy | June 6, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

I love all of these irrational Hillary fans who are threatening to vote for McCain.

They didn't get their gal into the White House, so now they want to turn to a 70+ year old white man??

Seems like that would be a far bigger blow to the feminist movement than voting for Obama. But that's just me...

PERHAPS SOME OF THESE HILLARY FANS NEED TO BE REMINDED THAT JOHN MCCAIN:

-Is pro-life
-Opposes universal health-care
-supports an open-ended iraq war


Posted by: MBW | June 6, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl wrote:
We're not split in my home. If Hillary Clinton doesn't get the nomination, we're voting for McCain.

We're not black, but husband grew up in a black neighborhood and likes blacks more than he likes whites. He's a successful manager, but he thinks white people are boring and dishonest and naive. He's gone up against other managers who harass and bully minorities on his team and won a national company award of excellence for catching and confronting a racist bully manager and getting him fired.

There is absolutely no split between my husband and myself when it comes to our perceptions of Obama. As a woman, I can tell when some shiny guy with nothing substantial to offer is just spouting Mr. Right stuff. That's how I see Obama, as all talk and hype with nothing to back it up. I mean the guy voted for not taking controversial stands by abstaining ("present") 130 times in the Illinois senate and then claims he'd have bucked the near-unanimous Senate vote on the Iraq inspection resolution and stood bravely against the possibility that its wording might be used by the President to go to war?

My husband, who works closely with white executives and leaders and managers his own team (he's a rising star himself) and who still prefers black people to white people, sees Obama as a phony trying to play to the ideals of both sides. He calls Obama a "face man". As pragmatics who see what is happening in the economy and its infrastructure, we are "experience" voters.

Posted by: AsperGirl Redux | June 6, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Clinton is so crafty; why does she continue to taunt that she is the only one who cares about the people that voted for her; she is a liar. Making the kind of taunting comments (in USA Today) about her voters rights will continue by her until she has her way all the way to the convention. She has boasted herself to be bigger than the Democratic Party and they let her. The Party will survive without Hillary if she lets this "my voter need to be respected" farce go. If she feels that the tension between herself and Barack is at a point where she has to use a broker, then that's evident enough that trust is not mutually exclusive between the two. One cannot have a team without trust. She does not respect him. She's not letting this VP request rest. She's an extortionist.

Posted by: Vonnie932 | June 6, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

It makes NO sense! I supported Hillary for President, not to be demeaned in the #2 spot under a second rate candidate like Obama. I will vote for McCain over Obama whether Hillary is on as VP or not because I will be voting for a President, not a Vice President, and I don't want Obama anywhere near the White House. If Hillary accepts the VP slot, then she does not have the dignity and good sense with which I credited her. The only reason I would want her as VP would be to make Obama miserable, because I'm sure he doesn't want her and will only nominate her if he is forced to. heh, heh, heh. Then he'll see how it feels to have to accept a candidate you don't want and don't trust instead of the good one you had in mind - Precisely how I feel about him! Go McCain!

Posted by: lhen | June 6, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Webb was a lifelong republican until 2006, so he would help pull in the independent vote. His conservative record makes him the best choice.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is still going strong, right here in this blog.

Posted by: Jim | June 6, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Clinton is so crafty; why does she continue to taunt that she is the only one who cares about the people that voted for her; she is a liar. Making the kind of taunting comments (in USA Today) about her voters rights will continue by her until she has her way all the way to the convention. She has boasted herself to be bigger than the Democratic Party and they let her. The Party will survive without Hillary if she lets this "my voter need to be respected" farce go. If she feels that the tension between herself and Barack is at a point where she has to use a broker, then that's evident enough that trust is not mutually exclusive between the two. One cannot have a team without trust. She does not respect him. She's not letting this VP request rest. She's an extortionist.

Posted by: Vonnie932 | June 6, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Oh nameless one: If Barack has anything compared to many older politicians he has CLASS - no question about it. Now you are right about respect - can't imagine how you little old whiteys could tolerate a black man who has the audacity to run for President and live in the "White" House. These people just don't know their position in life do they ? It was obviously better in confederate days, then we could teach em respect. YOU IDIOT

Posted by: aredee | June 6, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


AT this point, the Washington Post really should hold Obama personally responsible for these kind of attacks on other posters - there is reason to believe that this is a group very close to Michele Obama - Many many people have complained - today the Obama people have shown their true colors


***************************************


This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

If Obama and the Obama campaign had any class they would stop these attacks which have been going on for months - instead Obama is letting this go on - in fact there are reasons to believe this is a group very close to Michele Obama, including their relatives and friends who are engaging in these disrespectful and inappropriate attacks - everyone at the Washington Post should take note of this behavior.


*****************************************


This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

The reasons why Obama is not qualified to be President are below - he AND his supporters have no class - they do not understand what RESPECT is - and they are completely pathetic and out of control


These people are giving Obama a bad name, not that his racist behavior toward Gerry Ferraro and Bill Clinton and his fraudulent behavior toward his own campaign themes mean anything to these poeple.

*******************************************


This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

OK the giddiness of these people is a joke - we are prepared to tear you apart.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 6, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

OK the giddiness of these people is a joke - we are prepared to tear you apart.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 6, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

OK the giddiness of these people is a joke - we are prepared to tear you apart.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 6, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

OK the giddiness of these people is a joke - we are prepared to tear you apart.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 6, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Is this supposed to be sarcasm? I hope so. Otherwise you are a babbling idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson : Bill Richardson will make one of the finest Secretaries of State this country has known. Don't propose him for a cul de sac position like VP

Posted by: aredee | June 6, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Why not me for the Dem VP?

Posted by: Bill Richardson | June 6, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will NOT be VP. Oil and water. Plus what to do with Bill. Forget about it.

Posted by: Bob, DC | June 6, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

OMG! You have to be kidding. Charlie Crist is gay! Seriously, he is a member of sausage smokers club.

Posted by: PeaPod | June 6, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

OMG! You have to be kidding. Charlie Crist is gay! Seriously, he is a member of sausage smokers club.

Posted by: PeaPod | June 6, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama is under the huge pressure to pick Hillary as his running mate. Civil rights leaders in the Obama camp is all for the joint ticket. But some in his camp are Clinton haters who are determined to block Hillary's VP bid no matter what. The latest CNN national poll showed that Obama is just slightly ahead of McCain. If Obama is serious about improving his chances to win the presidency, he has to form a grand coaltion with the Clintons by putting Hillary on the ticket.

Posted by: antiwar | June 6, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

McCain/Crist as the Republican ticket would give me unending nightmares. Charlie Crist blinks too much and too hard! It makes him look dense which would be a nice pairing with the crazy old coot look of McCain!

Posted by: dre7861 | June 6, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Jim Webb would give Obama the winning ticket.

Posted by: Mike | June 6, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Anyone but Hairy Rod'em Clittin or Sore Loserman.

Posted by: Omar | June 6, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

I am still aghast at Michelle Obama's liberal use of tyhe term "whitey". How wou;d she like it if I refered to her as "yard ape" and her children as "nigglets". I abhor these terms but she insists on playing the race card.

Posted by: Sandy | June 6, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

whatever happened to Bill Richardson?

Posted by: Tb | June 6, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama gets a bounce:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows what may be the beginning of a bounce for Barack Obama. Obama now attracts 45% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. That five-point lead for Obama is up from a two-point advantage over the past couple of days. Before that, for much of last week, McCain had enjoyed a slight edge.

Posted by: Bob, DC | June 6, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Do you think the afro will make a come back when Barry Hussein assumes office?"

I hope so. I think they look great.

But I'm a little more concerned about the mainstreaming and empowerment of all those black racist hate speech artists and anti-white conspiracy theorists he has apparently spent most of his adult life hanging around with.

I think he'd be better off telling people that he's still Muslim, and skipping the fact that he converted to Trinity Church's brand of Christianity.

Posted by: AsperGirl

==========

Still bitter I see.

Posted by: Bob, DC | June 6, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"Do you think the afro will make a come back when Barry Hussein assumes office?"

I hope so. I think they look great.

But I'm a little more concerned about the mainstreaming and empowerment of all those black racist hate speech artists and anti-white conspiracy theorists he has apparently spent most of his adult life hanging around with.

I think he'd be better off telling people that he's still Muslim, and skipping the fact that he converted to Trinity Church's brand of Christianity.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans only hope is if McCain drops dead bdfore the convention and they can draft a legitimate candidate.

Posted by: Hope4Change | June 6, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I love the tone of this post -- let's give Barack Obama as much space as possible in making this important decision so as to enhance his executive presence and enhance his chances in November!

Posted by: skwid | June 6, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

First. What it it that makes you think Lieberman is an "independent Democrat" Last I saw, everything he supported was a republican agenda, and has been for quite some time. That's why Democrats dumped him... I hope Grandpa McSame does pick him--It'll only make Obama's landslide victory even bigger.

As for Obama, you've overlooked Joe Biden and Tom Dashle. No Hillary doesn't belong on the list. Obama wants/needs an honest person with personal integrity--Clinton falls short on both counts.

What strikes me as odd is all this punditry commotion about Obama's running mate while McSame has been his party's nominee for ages--why isn't the press all over that one? Yes I realize he is a candidate that no one cares about, but none the less, as long as your going to waste peoples time on mindless chatter for which there is no basis in fact, why not?

Posted by: yakmon | June 6, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman must be a joke. Can you imagine McCain/Lieberman? They might get 50 votes.

Posted by: Hope4Change | June 6, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman again? Heavens Forbid this happening again. He simply cannot be trusted.

Posted by: truth1 | June 6, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

That is an odd list. Where did Joe Lieberman come from? Obama and Hillary would be a ticket from hell. Imagine Bill slinking around the White House, grrrrr.

Posted by: CharacterCounts1 | June 6, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Anyone but Hillary and Liberman!!!! Oh My Good!!!!

Posted by: El Dorado | June 6, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame that Chris Cillizza seems to have little knowledge of American history. He should go back and review the times when other Presidential candidates had VPs "forced" on them by unique circumstances, and think long and hard about whether their VP selection truly made them appear weak, as he claims. ...Ah, yet more sexist anti-Hillary nonsense from the Washington Post.

Posted by: cali-snowboarder | June 6, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

When you seek old John McCain ............................................................ .
As your numbing Novocaine ............................................................
You may be finally going off track ............................................................
By closing your minds to Barack ............................................................
Who is the real cure for your pain! ............................................................

..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................

Keep spewing the venom Hillary / McB supporters ... let it out ... let it all out. God Bless.

Posted by: Orion101 | June 6, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Email from Wes Clark to Hillary supporters:

There has never been a more important election in my lifetime -- with a war waging, gas prices at record highs, our health care in crisis, and our nation's standing around the world severely diminished. I spent the last year traveling across the country talking to great Americans in Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas, South Dakota, Indiana and many other places. They all agree on one thing: This country needs new leadership, and it's time for change.

Many of you in the Clark community answered the call. Some of you worked tirelessly for Senator Clinton while others poured hours into Senator Obama's campaign. You did this because you were willing to sacrifice your time and energy to bring the change we so desperately need. I can't thank you enough for all you have done.

Now I am asking you to come together and make sure Barack Obama is our next president. This is a critical mission.

Hillary Clinton ran an amazing race. She inspired millions. Our party is a better party because of her campaign, and our nation is a better nation because of her service. She is and will always be a friend whom I admire.

I congratulate Senator Barack Obama on securing the nomination. His historic campaign has touched lives and his message has moved people in every corner of America. I believe he is not only ready for the challenge but will be a great President.

It's time our party comes together to stand behind Senator Obama as we move forward in this election season. I look forward to doing everything I can to help Senator Obama's campaign. While I respect John McCain's service, I know exactly what he stands for -- Bush's third term. America is a great nation, and our people deserve more. We need Barack Obama to be our next president.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

=======

Sounds like he's working the VP slot. I think he would be great but I still prefer Webb.

Posted by: Hope4Change | June 6, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

The Pied Piper from Illinois,
or Barack Obama & his followers
They ran merrily after,
These wonderful speeches with shouting and laughter.
Of all the pleasant sights he had them see,
Which the Piper promised even me.
For he led us, he said, to a peaceful land,
Joining the town and just at hand
Where waters gushed and fruit-trees grew,
And flowers put forth a fairer hue,
And everything was strange and new
or was it real change,
or time for a change,
the tune he blew.
Hillary stick around, we may desperately need you...even as VP. We are being led down the path to calamity,

Posted by: Frank | June 6, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

caprin: "McLame doesn't have a snow ball chance in HELL"

If you read Dante's "The Divine Comedy" or Milton's "Paradise Lost", you'll discover that a snowball has a 50/50 chance in Hell! It's all a matter of perception. :-D

Posted by: Eric | June 6, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

T-Paw and Gram-Paw a perfect losing combination.

This thing's gonna be a blow out folks!

Posted by: Tom | June 6, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Do you think the afro will make a come back when Barry Hussein assumes office?

======

Will the pacemaker become fashionable if Senile McLame becomes POTUS?

Posted by: Hope4Change | June 6, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain should pick Charlie Crist. Locks down FL and is young and healthy.

Posted by: Hope4Change | June 6, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Do you think the afro will make a come back when Barry Hussein assumes office?

Posted by: Sandy | June 6, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Edwards are out. What about Richardson or Wesley Clark? I think Webb is the best of the bunch. Tough, smart, military creds, conservative, former Repub, will be great attack dog on McCain.

Posted by: armchair | June 6, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Biden or Hagel stand out well above the rest. Confused as to why anyone would think Biden would need to rehabilitate his image. Have had a Jim Webb sticker on my bumper since I heard Del McCoury endorse him at a bluegrass show, which was well prior to the Senate primary, but don't think he would make a good pick as VP this time--however, would not mind a bit to see a bunch of old white guys running the show with Obama -- Biden, Hagel (at Defense), Zinni (National Security Advisor), Holbrooke (State). Wes Clark in there as well somewhere, Bob Kerrey... It's character, judgement, experience, and the ability to play well together.

-aj


Posted by: justicat | June 6, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The poster at 6 35 I certainly do not believe is the person named


this person is getting harassed by the Obama people.


Chris we have to do something about the Obama people - their rude conduct is out of control.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse


NOT Hillary!

What kind of leader would Obama be if he was bullied into putting Clinton on the ticket? There is also just WAY too much baggage that would come with it, and he owes her nothing.

The Hillary supporter who are STILL threatening to vote for McCain if they don't get their way should really just shut the f*ck up. We're tired of your threats and bullying.

Posted by: Dave | June 6, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

My picks are Romney and Rendell - both make sense at this point.


For Obama, Strickland is probably better however he is going to stay in Ohio.

That is a wise move for Strickland - if Strickland stays away from Obama, he is Presidential material, if he doesn't he might be toast - Ironic but true.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | June 6, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Biden or Hagel stand out well above the rest. Confused as to why anyone would think Biden would need to rehabilitate his image. Have had a Jim Webb sticker on my bumper since I heard Del McCoury endorse him at a bluegrass show, which was well prior to the Senate primary, but don't think he would make a good pick as VP this time--however, would not mind a bit to see a bunch of old white guys running the show with Obama -- Biden, Hagel (at Defense), Zinni (National Security Advisor), Holbrooke (State). Wes Clark in there as well somewhere, Bob Kerrey... It's character, judgement, experience, and the ability to play well together.

-aj


Posted by: justicat | June 6, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"How would using a quote from TV be proof of anything? I stand by the fact that the Clinton e-mails were not about Obama- they were about Clinton, and many Obama e-mails I got were negative about Clinton. Addtitionally- ever check out the two websites- attacks on Clinton were on the main page of Obama's (you had to go through a sign-up page to get in)- where HRCs homepage had no direct info on Obama- you had to link to "fact checker" to find any thing the campaign had to say about Barak."

Not everyone relies on sound clips from TV. We both know perfectly well that he was not throwing his grandmother under the bus. In fact, he specifically said he could NOT disown her.

And you're lying about Obama's main page having attacks on Clinton. I'm sure plenty of people on this site can vouch for that.

And the fact that you brought up Clinton's emails with no prompting pretty much indicates you're lying about that too. You also lied about Obama's emails being mean spirited. I got those emails. You're lying.

What you gain, I don't know, but hopefully you got it.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

The best pick for VP is Sen Jim Webb of VA.
Why Jim webb? He can deliver Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
He can appeal to the folks in West VA and Ohio.
Obama will deliver the North East
and Califonia and the College Educated White Folks PLUS 98% of the Black Vote.
Why only 98%? He will not get the votes of Condi Rice, Armstrong Williams and Lynn Swann. But he will get all the rest.
The Trump Card is Black Folks will be coming out of the wood work to register.
Churches , The NAACP,SCLC, The Deltas, the AKA's The Alpha's the National Council of Negro Women , All the Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's) , man they will be registering folks all summer long
Thats a network the Republicans can't compete with.
That influx of new voters will put Obama over the top in Electoral Votes.
The McCain team looks very lame.
Mitt? Rudy? Fred Thompson? Chris? that will be one lack luster ticket.
The Republicans only hope is to fight dirty--smear, smear, swift boat tacticts. Taking pages out of Jesse Helms playbook.
If they run a clean campaign Obama will clean their clock
When you have a President with a 21% Approval rating , a falling dollar, $4.00 a Gallon Gas Prices
Rising Foreclosures all across the country, falling House Prices( You paid 500 for your House now its worth 350) People are Pissed... ...what a record to have to defend?
MCLame does not have a snow ball chance in HELL.

Posted by: Carprin | June 6, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!

Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Pawlenty is not especially popular in Minnesota; he just barely won re-election against a fairly weak Democratic opponent, and Obama is hugely popular in the state. Most polls show Obama with a 10-12 point lead over McCain, and I doubt it will even be a real swing state come November. Considering that Pawlenty very likely can't carry his home state and almost no one outside of Minnesota has ever heard of him, it's hard to see that he adds anything to the Republican ticket. I think it's Romney, who gives McCain a real boost in Michigan, a genuine swing state and an important one.

Posted by: Brad K | June 6, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Jim Webb is at best fourth, and that only because you have Clinton at fifth.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | June 6, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I could never vote for Obama since he has renounced his Muslim faith. Is he ashamed? Probably not. He is only interested in what will get him votes in November.

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | June 6, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse


Leon: "Congratulations, Moron, you are officially a shill of the right wing Hope all your mysogyonistic Hillary hating does you well jerk."

Well, Leon, as usual, you get it wrong. You can't debate, so you simply parrot the Clinton line and attack people personally.

Have some real history: The plant in Sudan had no nerve gas as verified by multiple reliable, independent sources.

His attack on Bin Laden's tent didn't deter him much, did it. He had left hours before the strike.

The retaliation for the USS Cole never happened.

Every time he packed up the transport ships American troops and sent them across the Atlantic, he turned them back around at the last minute. They made some nice pronouncements and called his bluff. His weakness put Bin Laden in a position of strength throughout the Arab world.

I remember each event clearly. I voted for Bill Clinton and that was the last time I will ever vote for a Clinton.

Posted by: Thuff | June 6, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD-

How would using a quote from TV be proof of anything? I stand by the fact that the Clinton e-mails were not about Obama- they were about Clinton, and many Obama e-mails I got were negative about Clinton. Addtitionally- ever check out the two websites- attacks on Clinton were on the main page of Obama's (you had to go through a sign-up page to get in)- where HRCs homepage had no direct info on Obama- you had to link to "fact checker" to find any thing the campaign had to say about Barak.

Dude, reality sucks that way but maybe it is more than the perception left by miniature soundbytes and rhetoric.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

If I were a Democrat I would pick Wesley Clark for Obama. If i were a Republican I would pick Colin Powell for McCain.

Posted by: gcbfred | June 6, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Here is my answer to Hillary's claim that she brings 18 million voters with her if she is chosen as VP.

I Am Not a Bargaining Chip, I Am a Democrat - 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/i-am-not-a-bargaining-chi_b_105133.html

Hillary has intelligence, strength and work ethic for sure, but instead of gumption make that gall: as in "the gall to fail to congratulate the winner but instead make the speech mostly about what Hillary wants." All her excellent characteristics are used to promote "me, me, me." She says she wants her policies to have a hearing. Most people note how close the policies of the two are--so, what is her point ? -- Just let ME tell you what our policies will be while Barack sits quietly in the background agreeing with me.

Posted by: Kristin2 | June 6, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, [Given that there's no end to your electioneering tactics]

The ferocious pursuit of your PERSONAL DREAM has awakened us all to the reality that meanness, greed for power, trickery, viciousness are gender-neutral traits ... and missed the opportunity to demonstrate that positive attributes are.
.....
So, wake up and grow up HRC ... and take a long (a very, very long) vacation!

Obama,

I know you are smart enough to realize that any horse-trading with Hillary will only taint your candidacy with HRC's legacy -

1. RULES are for suckers - agreeing to them and then changing them mid-game is the NEW WAY.

2. If you cannot win on merit, whine, backstab, spread rumors / untruths until victory is yours.

3. Threaten to scuttle the ship if you are not made captain. That shows your deep love for the ship.

You WILL DO WELL without this baggage - notwithstanding the venomous threats of some disgruntled (or scorned women).

All the best.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I know the unstable, venomous Hillary supporters are the natural counterparts to the extreme right wing nut jobs (though funnily enough they rarely realize that!) and may offset the venom from that side - but I believe the nation is tired of both these loose ends.

...........................................

For the other reasonable HRC supporters, I encourage you to read some of the better written articles analysing the 2 campaigns - and the reasons behing their success / failure. Here is a good one from the LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/64rmfq

Posted by: Orion101 | June 6, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I think Michelle Obama's "whitey" comments are shocking. She reminds of those sisters in the grocery store who stand in the middle of the aisle and refuse to move becuase they have a sense on entitlement. Like they are still owed reperartions for slavery.

Posted by: Sandy | June 6, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"How very Rovian of you, flownover."

Ouch! The most unkindest cut of all, Karl.

Wait a minute... Karl?!? KARL?!?!?

Nah... couldn't be.

Posted by: FlownOver | June 6, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

MCCAIN-BUSH (POLICIES OF FAILURES) HAS A LOT TO ANSWER FOR:

WAR FOUGHT ON THE PREMISE OF UPROOTING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT WERE NEVER FOUND,

THE FAILURE TO CATCH OSAMA BIN LADEN,

MCCAIN-BUSH DISGRACEFUL PROCLAMATION "MISSION ACCOMPLISH"

MCCAIN-BUSH ASSUMPTION THAT WE WOULD BE GREETED AS LIBERATORS AND NOT INVADERS

MCCAIN-BUSH INVASION OF OUR WHITE HOUSE (AMERICA HOUSE)

TURNING IRAN INTO THE "GREATEST BENEFICIARY" OF THE IRAQ WAR

MANIPULATING THE PRICE OF OIL FROM $24.00 A BARREL TO $145.00 A BARREL. WHOSE INTEREST ARE THEY LOBBYING FOR? MCCAIN-BUSH POLICIES ARE NOT IN AMERICA'S INTEREST.

PLANS TO KEEP AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ FOR 100 YEARS

PLANS TO INITIATE THE DRAFT TO SECURE ENOUGH TROOPS

These are just a few of McCain-Bush policies of failures that must stop.


AMERICA needs change now in a better direction.

Harvard Scholar Barack Obama will demonstrate how McCain-Bush has hurt OUR COUNTRY.

THE WORLD IS WATCHING HOW A SELF PROFESSED CHRISTIAN MORAL NATION HANDLES ITS PIVOTAL POINT IN HISTORY DURING THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

EUROPE IS LOOKING FORWARD TO RENEWING FRIENDSHIP AND COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES THROUGH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.

THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE VOTING FOR BARACK OBAMA

THE WORLD IS WATCHING ONE AMERICA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Republican McCentury McCain is a weak nominee and lack the intelligence to receive the 3:00 am call from Monica calling for Bill.

Americans are tired of corruption from Bush, Clinton and the old ways of McCain-Bush.

Super capitalistic privileged C- students with no business running a hotdog stands are illegally placed in the highest positions because of their ill gotten wealth.

Greed and stupidity are destroying Our Country and it must stop.

America must get back to moral decency, family values, respect, honor, scholarship, and service to the general Public.

America is about Public Service and not private greed.

Change is happening and America, Europe and the World welcome cooperation.

We The People Are Voting For Change.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MCCAINED-BUSHED-HOODWINKED BY THE REPUBLICAN LOBBYISTS AND LIARS PARTY

Posted by: Republican McCain-Bush Hoodwinked America | June 6, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD- how is that evidence that I was lying about the e-mails- ????

I absolutely was not lying about the e-mails

The throwing Grandma under the bus line comes from television-

Stop playing gotcha and investigate your candidate a little more.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

My short list:

3. Bob Graham: As someone from Florida, I can tell you that he is held in high regard and does have the executive experience to undertake the job. What was said before about being against the war from the beginning is, of course, a plus.

2. Jim Webb: One of Kennedy's main problems was that he was not experienced in dealing with the military and its advisers, so they led him down a bad path with the Bay of Pigs. He was better by the time the Cuban Missile Crisis came to pass, but with a country already at war, and the POLITICAL stature of many of the military brass these days, Obama will need someone to advise him on dealing with these issues. Jim Webb would be a great man for this job and would not back down in the face of whatever the hawks might throw at him. Presents a good counter to McCain's military service, and I see it as a bonus that he worked under Reagan since much of Obama's message is about building a post-partisan era.

1. Wesley Clark: In the arena of military advising, he would be able to play the same role as Webb, but to a greater degree because of his experience as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. This should help to silence those who see Obama as lacking in foreign policy credentials (which, I think, will be the main method of attack for the Repub machine this year and the reason that I did not add Sebelius, McCaskill or some of the other names that have been thrown around). Intelligent, but he will not upstage Obama, and he is a Hillary supporter, as was stated before.

THE VP NOMINEE WILL NOT BE HILLARY CLINTON! People need to stop being so short sighted when considering the nominee and think about the way in which Obama will govern beyond November. A Hillary match will bring about too much division in the WH, and I do not believe it would be on the ballot again in 2012. As a student of history, I will tell you that we tried installing the runner-up in office as the VP with Adams and Jefferson. Both were brilliant men and governed well in their own right, but while Adams was in office, they merely sought to undercut each other every chance they got. This is not the way to run a country, and I believe that Senator Obama is smart enough to realize this fact.

Posted by: dixielandpunker | June 6, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I am really surprised that Evan Bayh is not on this list. He was a 2-term GOVERNOR of Indiana, not a very blue state, and is now a senator. Maybe he has privately said no.

We NEED a GOVERNOR to balance the ticket. I think Sebelius would be perfect. But again, she may not want the job.

Richardson would be an insult to Clinton supporters, and I think the country is SO not ready for a half-black, half Hispanic combination.

Posted by: NMAIF | June 6, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"I believe Sen. Chuck Hagel is an excellent choice as Obama's running mate
1. He's an authentic decorated Vietnam vet (the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge)
2. Unlike McBush, he is against the fake war in Iraq. In July 2007, Hagel was one of three Republican Senators who supported the legislation proposed by Democrats to require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days
3. On immigration, Senator Hagel supports a "pathway to citizenship" and a "guest worker program" for illegal immigrants.
4. Sen. Hagel is a principled man, who honored his pledge to retire from the Senate after two terms. He's retiring after his term ends.


Posted by: Obama '08"

You also have a point. I suppose for some reasons you mentioned, I found him of interest myself. I'm a fan of Sebelius!

http://www.ksgovernor.com/ShowPage.asp?page=HealthCare.asp

I like Webb. As one posted, I'd have to read up on sexism behind him. I am pleased with his stance on the war and veterans though. I could see Clinton, but I only worry about consistency. I would be excited, personally. We have to have strategy here though. We have to get it right this time around. Some posters mentioned some outside of the list...interesting. I will have to look into it.

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 6, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Clinton is so crafty; why does she continue to taunt that she is the only one who cares about the people that voted for her; she is a liar. Making the kind of taunting comments (in USA Today) about her voters rights will continue until she has her way. She has made herself bigger than the Democratic Party. The Party will survive without Hillary. If she feels that the tension between them is to the point where she has to use a broker, then that's evident enough that trust is not mutually exclusive between the two. She's not letting this VP request rest. She's an extortionist.

Posted by: Vonnie932 | June 6, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Karl asks
Why is Obama called black when he is half white?

Same reason as Tiger Woods is called black when he's half (or more than half) Asian -- skin color.

Posted by: mnteng | June 6, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"What about jumping back from people (throwing them under the bus when necessary) as important in his life as the grandmother who raised him "

Ah, so you WERE lying about those Hillary emails. You're definitely lying here.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Why is Obama called black when he is half white?

Posted by: Karl | June 6, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse


Obama will be upstaged by any male politician he chooses. He perhaps should pick a woman like Sibleius or someone who has fewer years of experience than he has.
Deval Patrick Gov of MAss comes to mind. Otherwise he will be seen as weak by comparison.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Looking for bombshell michelle obama?
Find More Information about bombshell michelle obama on isvhs.com!

Three days after the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Aiham Alsammarae, the former electricity minister convicted of corruption in Iraq, put up $2.7 million in property to help raise $8.5 million to free Tony Rezko from jail in Chicago, the Times reported that Alsammarae had contributed six times to Obama's presidential campaign.
The April 29, 2008 report also noted that before he escaped from jail in Bagdad in December 2006, and returned to Chicago, Obama's US Senate office had sought information about Alsammarae from the State Department on October 16, 2006 on behalf of Alsammarae's family while he was being held in jail in Iraq.
As usual, when busted on the contributions given in January, February and March, the Obama camp said it would donate Alsammarae's money to charity and his spokesman, Ben LaBolt, put out the standard line that Obama does not ever "recall" meeting Alsammarae.
The money missing due to Alsammarae's corruption in Iraq during the two years he served as electricity minister between August 2003 and May 2005 is estimated to be $2 billion.
The Operation Board Games investigation revealed that Alsammarae signed contracts worth $200 million that benefited both Rezko and the Iraqi-born billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, who ended up with Riverside Park, a 62-acre lot in the Chicago Loop estimated to now be worth $2.5 billion.
As noted previously in this series, understanding the connections between Auchi and Riverside Park and all the players is the key to understanding Operation Board Games. Financing deals in the Chicago real estate industry were the focus of the investigation from the start and the financing deals involving Riverside Park specifically.
On September 29, 2005, Crain's Chicago Business news reported that General Mediterranean Holding, "a Luxembourg-based conglomerate headed by Nadhmi Auchi, is buying Riverside Park, a yet-to-be-built development on a prime 62-acre parcel on Roosevelt Road," quoting Michael Rumman, the director of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services, as a consultant on the project.

scoop.co.nz

Posted by: Iowatreasures | June 6, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Clinton is so crafty; why does she continue to taunt that she is the only one who cares about the people that voted for her; she is a liar. She has made herself bigger than the Democratic Party. The Party will survive without Hillary. If she feels that the tension between them is to the point where she has to use a broker (Senator Feinstein), then that's evident enough that trust is not mutually exclusive between the two. She's not letting this VP request rest. She's an extortionist.

Posted by: Vonnie932 | June 6, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Coolrepublica wrote

I choose Sarah Palin for McCain VP. I have been reading up on her and she is mighty impressive to me. She is a maverick in her own right and knows how to take on big corporation like Exxon Mobile. She is anti BS in government and unlike Obama has a record to show that she takes reform and change seriously. To her these words are more than campaign gimmicks.

My Comments:
No chance. She sabotages far too many of McCain's arguments.

Argument One. McCain has a lot more experience than Obama.

The problem. She is younger than Obama. She has been a governor for two years of a very small state. Her only other elected position was as a Mayor of a town of less than 10,000. How can McCain argue that Obama doesn't have enough experience when he wants to put someone with far less experience one heart beat from the Presidency. Add to this her relative lack of education and you have a real mix for trouble.

Argument Two (Silent Argument). Obama was a drug user as a youth. Drug Users are bad.

The Problem. Palin has freely acknowledged using Marijuana. She said she didn't like it, but she acknowledged using it.

Argument Three. McCain's a "moderate".

The Problem. Palin's very conservative. She opposes any type of choice.

Add to this the current family stresses (Palin has a Child with Down's Syndrome that's less than 2 years old) and the fact that she really hasn't been "vetted" in any kind of National level campaign (Alaska's got a population of under 700,000 or just about the size of a single Congressional District) and you have a potential Eagleton moment if you pick Palin.

Posted by: Palin??? | June 6, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Barak Obama is not going to want to share the spotlight with anyone. He will pick a Mr. Milquetoast. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | June 6, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Clinton is so crafty; why does she continue to taunt that she is the only one who cares about the people that voted for her; she is a liar. She has made herself bigger than the Democratic Party. The Party will survive without Hillary. If she feels that the tension between them is to the point where she has to use a broker, then that's evident enough that trust is not mutually exclusive between the two. She's not letting this VP request rest. She's an extortionist.

Posted by: Vonnie932 | June 6, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm not inherently a Wes Clark fan, but I think he looks like a darned good running mate for Obama for all the reasons others have mentioned. Great counterbalance to McCain's military bona fides.

Posted by: Jeff | June 6, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Edwards announced today he is not interested, and I presume Hillary will make same announcement tomorrow. Which leaves Strickland, Webb, and Sebelius, in that order. All are excellent candidates, but I would put Webb first, as "ready on Day One"; also because Obama singled him out for special praise in his Virginia speech.

Posted by: bodo | June 6, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I choose Sarah Palin for McCain VP. I have been reading up on her and she is mighty impressive to me. She is a maverick in her own right and knows how to take on big corporation like Exxon Mobile. She is anti BS in government and unlike Obama has a record to show that she takes reform and change seriously. To her these words are more than campaign gimmicks.

McCain has my vote, but with Palin I think he will attrack way more women than he ever dreamed.

Posted by: coolrepublica | June 6, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Bob Grahm is an excellent idea if it isn't going to be Hillary

-makes Obama competitive in Fl
-shores up Foreign policy and executive experience
-against the war from the start- but actually in senate to vote against it so more real
-kind, endearing manner
-popular with older voters
-good advisor, won't diefy Obama
good suggestion Murphy!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I just do not get why a Joe Biden or Webb or most of the others are not considered like Hillary Clinton] "runs directly counter to Obama's central message (i.e. "change only comes by sending new people to Washington")"

Who is new? What does new mean?

Obama is new enough.

I am one for the Obama/Clinton ticket. It would keep the race energized.

Posted by: Kathleen | June 6, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

All that remains is for Obama's visage to appear on some petrified Mayan bagel.

Posted by: kp | June 6, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama's biggest problem now is winning over Hillary supporters. Putting Hillary on the ticket is out of the question for the reasons outlined above. Webb has a well-documented history of sexism so picking him would only further anger women who supported Hillary. It may initially upset her supporters and may be seen as tokenism, but I still think Sebelius would be his best option. Not only does she bring executive experience, she's consisten with Obama's message governing Kansas the way he's been talking about governing the country. She would appeal to many of the groups that supporter Hillary. Female, older, and Catholic. Women supporting Hillary see her as a symbol and are angry because they think they'll never see another woman come this close to becoming President. Having Sebelius on the ticket would give these women renewed hope. If Obama wins and serves 8 years, women would have 2 women to choose from in 2016. Hillary and Sebelius.

Posted by: DennyCrane | June 6, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl - you write beautifully and you are right in your long post about Hillary. Comments made by people about you on this board are absurd and being made by people who don't know how to communicate.

I agree with everything you wrote, but it's over and the best thing we can do is vote against McCain.

I think that Hillary was inspiring in this election and I have ignored the ignorant rantings of the uninformed learned hate spinners, and encourage all women to find ways to change our communities locally. I am an advocate for domestic violence victims in a program that is unique to my area. You have the articulation to be able to do something like that, you have drive and you inform yourself. You go girl, you should be the VP pick. Barak needs someone who won't always kiss his derierre.

Posted by: lucci8 | June 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

How is it putting a woman on a ticket (ANY WOMAN) not change?


That makes no sense to me.

Posted by: toby | June 6, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

choska, what specifically is wrong with Ted Strickland, in your opinion?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 6, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Jesse-
Look, I'm supporting the guy, now- but don't diefy him
Obama not a politician? Are you high?

Obama set up the whole strategy for winning based on taking large margins in the unrepresentitive caucuses and his campaign fought revotes in Fl and MI- not very democratic.

How coordinating or at very least standing back as your advocates used created the most nasty, false, mysogynist narrative about a candidate ever?

What about jumping back from people (throwing them under the bus when necessary) as important in his life as the grandmother who raised him or the reverand he called a guide and spiritual mentor, 18 year friend and the guy who blessed the campaign, did his wedding ceremoney and baptized his kids- when it was politically convenient to disrespect these people or distance himself.

What about the fundraising? 52% from bundlers, many of whom are corporate or special interests- then claiming he doesn't take money from PACS/lobbyists who are capped by McCain-Fiengold and amounted to <1% of HRCs money.

How about sending your representative to Canada to say "just kidding" about NAFTA?

Allowing your shill, Donna Brazille (who was more responsible than any other party for the awful Gore campaign of 2000 and the resultant 8 years of W) to play the race card about the word "fairytale" in a speech, along wiht a whole host of others branding the Clinton's racist despite a history of actions to the contrary and the fact that these were interpretations of what the words meant- designed to continue to create the narrative.He used this to run up ridiculous margins in GA, ALA, MS, LA, SC, NC and VA- allowing him to have the delegate lead- although not the popular vote lead

In other words- he is not just a politician. He is a superb politician- he knows how to play all the angles- hopefully that serves him well to win vs. McCain- but he is no innocent.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I know he's not on the list, but what about Wes Clark?

a) He's been vetted
b) Strong Hillary supporter, so it would be seen as an olive branch
c) Impeccable military credentials
d) Experience

Posted by: Ryan | June 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

How about if we all concede that Obama won the Demo Primary, and, therfore, he holds the power to select his Demo VP running mate, not Hillary and her acolytes, Chris, Joe Blow, Suzy Jones or anyone else.

Obama has laid our a reasoned approach to weigh the merits of candidates for VP to guide him in making his decision on this matter. In the meantime, everyone else is well-advised to take a deep breath, hold it for ten hours, and expel, if you are still standing!

Posted by: Forrest Gerard | June 6, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I believe Sen. Chuck Hagel is an excellent choice as Obama's running mate
1. He's an authentic decorated Vietnam vet (the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge)
2. Unlike McBush, he is against the fake war in Iraq. In July 2007, Hagel was one of three Republican Senators who supported the legislation proposed by Democrats to require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days
3. On immigration, Senator Hagel supports a "pathway to citizenship" and a "guest worker program" for illegal immigrants.
4. Sen. Hagel is a principled man, who honored his pledge to retire from the Senate after two terms. He's retiring after his term ends.

Posted by: Obama '08 | June 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

To those who threaten to vote for McCain because Hillary is apparently not going to be the Dems' nominee, I can only point out that Hillary and Obama positions on most issues were near identical. McCain's on the other hand are far different. How can you contemplate voting against your own principles because your woman lost? This strikes me as a childish snit.

Posted by: honestman | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I think this is a realistic list, but I could also see Obama choosing someone like Bob Graham of Florida. He'd fill the same shoes Cheney did for Bush - too old to run for president but all the political chops anyone could ask for. He was wildly popular as both a governor and senator and could put Florida into play like no other person could.

Posted by: Tmurphy | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for. Your insults are the reason why Hillary is where she is: in the losing column. Your racist rants do not belong here. They are even extreme compared to the crazy kook views that show up on this page from time to time. What a painful reminder that racist people like you still exist.

Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"Has anyone looked at Chuck Hagel's record which is generally to the right of McCains? Do you really think he wants to be on a Democratic ticket as the two-man?
Remember, Kerry asked McCain to be his VP first last cycle...
Leon"

You do have a point.

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 6, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Biden is a little too in love with the sound of his own voice; he'd be too likely to become a distraction on the campaign trail.

Obama/Bill Bradley? LOVE IT.

Posted by: u heard it here | June 6, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't agree with the assertion that "Webb can do more good in the senate." then as vice president.

his reputation and ties in the senate will help legislatively and he would be in a more powerful, and helpful position as top adviser working inside the administration top who could also work with the military and would be good on foreign trips.

plus he's a honest, genuine, intelligent guy like obama, not a "politician", was a vietnam vet, a true patriot, has a son serving in iraq, he's a guy who could be president and would be a great vice president

Posted by: Jesse Rakusin | June 6, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone looked at Chuck Hagel's record which is generally to the right of McCains? Do you really think he wants to be on a Democratic ticket as the two-man?
Remember, Kerry asked McCain to be his VP first last cycle...
Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Ted Strickland?! Are you high? He would do nothing for the ticket and nothing for the Party.

My guess is that Obama goes with Schweitzer. The Party needs to get him on a national stage. He has, to use a baseball recruiting term of art, a MUCH higher ceiling than any one on Chris' list.

Posted by: Choska | June 6, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Whomever was dumb and historically ignorant enought to say:

Remember Bill Clinton killing a tent and a couple camels with billion dollar missiles and remember him bombing a baby food plant to keep our minds off "That Woman"?

You do realize that Osama Bin Laden had been in the one tent and that they were aiming at his weapons plant in the other...it was the Republican "wag the dog" strategy to accuse Clinton of being distracting-

Congratulations, Moron, you are officially a shill of the right wing

Hope all your mysogyonistic Hillary hating does you well jerk.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

On the Democratic side, I really don't see how any of the 5 on the list would balance the ticket. I would think that Obama needs someone with: (a) executive experience; (b) foreign policy experience; and (c) the elusive "gravitas". Each of the 5 is lacking.

It seems to me that Bill Richardson and Evan Bayh would be the best picks for Obama, especially Richardson. I'm baffled why he wouldn't be in the top 5.

On the GOP side, the best possible choice for McCain would be Jeb Bush - if his name were Jeb Smith.

Posted by: Boomer | June 6, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Thanks youngstudent.

I agree wholeheartedly. We need a debate on the real issues, not the media circus issues. This isn't a football game where you root for one side. It's a debate about our (your) future and the future of our (my) children.

But part of the debate needs to be a way to solve the problem of climate change. Your comments about gas prices being too high is something that needs to be addressed. In this case, the high cost of gas has given rise to 50% increase in mass transportation ridership and 4% less driving. That's a pretty big start on reversing climate change. a real debate will put truths in the spotlight.

If we only focus on the horse race that the media covers almost exclusively, we all lose.

Posted by: thuff7 | June 6, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I just want him to make a good decision. He should make it based on what''s best for him and the party and the U.S. people. I think Hillary was being a bit selfish. If the tables were turned, I think Barack would have embraced Hillary and brought the party together a lot quicker once the final results came in. But we'll never know. Plus from what I know Senators aren't as active in their states as Governors are, but what do I, know. I'm smart enough to know, I don't know more than what I read and hear. I like YoungStudent's point, let's listen and relax a bit. Who really has the nation's best interest at heart. I don't think war until 2012 is anything good. I can't even imagine what our economy and our foriegn relations will be like. We as the voters don't have an easy decision, but let's not make based on assumptions. That's how we got to this point.

Posted by: Realist | June 6, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

u heard it --

Right on both counts. Graham would be a good pick for McCain.

And also about Webb and Kaine here in VA.

I think Obama needs somebody seasoned for VP, somebody who knows the Washington ropes and can shepherd his program through Congress. Some foreign policy/national-security chops wouldn't hurt, either. Biden?

Posted by: jac13 | June 6, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"leadership image"

it's only an image and only obama fanatics buy it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"[Hillary Clinton] runs directly counter to Obama's central message (i.e. "change only comes by sending new people to Washington") and opens up the possibility that Clinton would see the vice presidency as an opportunity to set up her own political base for future endeavors."

I don't think Clinton should be Obama's VP because I don't think that's good for her. But your reasoning is unsound in the comment above. Obama's supporters aren't swing voters. They will vote Democratic ticket or no ticket:

(1) The kids attracted to the pop-idol political personality cult rationalize away anything. They're mainly in this for the narcissistic politics social movement rush, and recite talking points with little understanding anyways. They're easily the most programmable of the Obamabots. At minimum, with no other rationale, they can be told that VP doesn't really mean anything, and they'll shrug her off.

(2) Blacks who don't even know what a latte is in Mississippi and Philadelphia voted for Obama. They're not going to run away screaming from Obama because a Clinton is on the ticket.

(3) Ivory tower left wing white liberals. This is the toughest demographic in the Obama base because they always hated the Clintons. In fact, they comprise the demographic of the group of Democratic Party players who have been pulling for and patronizing Obama, out of deep dislike for the centrist, Southern style Clintons. But they're deeply intellectual, not actually smart in a fundamental or pragmatic sense. Dealing with reality is not their strong suit and given enough time they can rationalize anything. If nothing else, all Obama would have to do is give one of those speeches the media love so much, and explain how important it is to reach across to those who are most different to appreciate their real qualities, unite the party and let those of all races and classes know they have a home under the big tent, etc. Even the Clintons and their grimy, blue collar, senior, female and brown majority voters.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Alright Young Student!!! (Standing Ovation)

I cannot express how happy I am that your segment in society is paying attention. We SERIOUSLY needed you before the rest allowed Bush and TWICE. I find this country has some percentage of dependency on you, when other "adults" can't seem to get their issues straight with themselves in these seriously important times. God bless you. Stand Ready to help this country turn from its current direction! Unlike SOME others, have a say in where YOU would like this country to go. You are the future. Vote where you envision this country going. Absolutely. You get the nod! Reading your reasonable post, I have hope despite those whom are pessimistic. There's no time for that. This is not a game. We are serious, and we want different results this year!

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 6, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I hereby nominate; I guess suggest is more appropriate to say Barbara Boxer as the democratic VP. She has the record and temperament to be a VP and would bring the support of important constituent groups.

Posted by: BobBrown | June 6, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

The VP candidate needs to be a person of integrity, honesty and trust. Not someone with an undermining agenda.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Kathleen Sebelius!

http://www.ksgovernor.com/ShowPage.asp?page=default.asp


Or Webb, Clinton, Hagel, etc...


Posted by: Obama2008 | June 6, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"It's a good thing he's running and not the people who support him. These supporters are far too divisive!"

We're also dumber, less eloquent, and REALLY ugly.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

its amazing how much people lose track of real issues. people are so filled with prejudice that its almost disturbing. why ar epople LOOKING for reasons to hate someone. Pick who represents your feelings based on whats best for your life. That means Obama being a certain race and Hillary being a certian genger shouldnt having anything to do with the election. One of the biggest problems with us as Americans is that we ASSUME EVERYTHING just because its easier to do that then listen and develop an opinion based on the issues, not whether Hillary represented all women in the world or if Obama likes to be around billion dollar politicians. The fact that people hold Obama responsibile for EVERY negative spec on the Democratic radar is a little ignorant in a way. Obama can't control what a local Democratic organization is saying to people, the same way none of us can. Instead of allowing anger, bitterness, bigotry and negative thoughts and assumptions to run our lives, sit down, take a deep breath and listen. One of THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTIONS OF ALL OF OUR GENERATIONS shouldn't be decided based on what people other than the candidates say. For people to assume Hillary was in it for all the women of the US is naive. She was in it for herself the whole way through. Instead of fading into the backround like so many other former candidates did with class and respect for the BIGGER picture, she wants to drag it out even more. She said she wants to see what the American people say first. That's crap. She wants the opportunity to use "our voice" against Obama to force him to choose her because "that's what the American people want." No other candidate is either party did that. The american people wanted her to bow out some time ago (a morjoity anyway) why didnt she follow "our voice" then.
I'm not taking sides, I'm simply saying, lets get over our prejudices and listen to what McCain and Obama have to say. All the childish s**t should stop b/c gas is way too high thanx mostly to an never-ending war that now we all are being told wasn't even threatening enopugh to be wagedand that too many of friends are in, too many people are losing their jobs, my tuition is way to expensive, to be worried about what some pastor said, or what money troubles some random guy has that "associated with" a candidate, or how black or old someone is.
We need to grow too, not just our technology or our pocket book. Lets grow as people and be the example we want the world to think we are.

Posted by: youngstudent | June 6, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I think the rabid Hillary supporters should settle down a bit...Take a deep breath...Let the Democratic nominee handle the due diligence to pick the right VP candidate to support the ticket!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Jim Webb can do Obama more good in the Senate; Tim Kaine is probably better suited for an appointive office. It's great that Virginia is electing Democrats again, but they need to stay in place long enough to ensure that their election is as much about party as it is personality.

Posted by: u heard it here | June 6, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"My wife and I went down to our local Pierce County party headquarters two days ago and offered to help in anyway we could. WE WERE TURNED AWAY AND TOLD THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED ANY FORMER CLINTON HELP AND THEY TOOK OUR TELEPHONE NUMBER. I WATCHED THE LADY THROW OUR NUMBER IN THE TRASH! I experienced it because I was there!"

So, does anyone believe this story?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I am pretty sure Hillary will not be asked to be vice. The reason is Michelle, Obama will not want to hear from Michelle every night about Hillary this and Hillary that, ending with , "why did you pick her for Vice-president"?
No, it will probably be a governor, and of a state that is absolutely critical, such as PA. I like Ed Rendell. He also helps in NJ and FL. Jewish.

Posted by: Mahan | June 6, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Jesse,

Webb would be great, but he is needed in the Senate. Without allies in the Senate, it will be difficult to collect the votes he needs for the great changes he envisions. Biden, Dodd, etc. for the same reason. Even Clinton is needed where she is.

Mark Warner is out for the same reason (he will be a senator in 7 months.) He is wise to go with a governor that can help him widen his base.

Posted by: thuff7 | June 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Fortunately I like Obama but I REALLY do not like his followers. Talk about a bunch of whiny hypocrites. It's a good thing he's running and not the people who support him. These supporters are far too divisive!

Posted by: Kathy | June 6, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

JIM WEBB < -- why is this not obvious?

he trumps mccain, fixes complemets all of obama's shortcoming, experience, national security, rural tough guy's , virginia

strickland has nothing on jim webb

i can't believe how often commentators neglect to even mention webb

plus he probably is the best guy for the JOB

which is why i think obama who believes he will win will pick the best guy
Jim Webb

so. i called the giants in pre season football, i've been for obama since the begining and i'm calling jim webb

obama/webb

Posted by: Jesse Rakusin | June 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Okay here's my list for each nominee.

McCain
1. Mike Huckabee
2. Charlie Crist
3. Bobby Jindal
4. Tim Pawlenty
5. Joe Lieberman

Obama
1. Bill Richardson
2. Joe Biden
3. Chris Matthews
4. Chuck Hagel
5. Tim Kaine

Posted by: Austin Redmon | June 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

McBush has been his party's nominee for some time now and nobody seems to be rushing him on a VP pick.

If I were Obama I'd wait for McBush to make the first move.

Posted by: elmerg | June 6, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

It's unfortunate that there are so many "screamers" taking up space on the comments page. I've decided to stop reading it.

Posted by: dcampbell1 | June 6, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Lindsey Graham

Posted by: u heard it here | June 6, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"Remember Clintons success with the red phone ads?"

Remember Bill Clinton killing a tent and a couple camels with billion dollar missiles and remember him bombing a baby food plant to keep our minds off "That Woman"?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

As mentioned before...where are the Dems military/foriegn affair strengths??

Clinton is it for your list.

Dems will get slaughtered by Republicans if they don't have a VP with experience. Remember Clintons success with the red phone ads?

Posted by: Eric | June 6, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

"Lyndon H. LaRouche was born on September 8, 1922. There is some evidence that he was sane for several years following his birth."

Hah, that lasted until they realized he could dirty a diaper from both ends at once! Hah!

Posted by: Thuff | June 6, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Dems

Obama/a Woman - Any woman and Obama might be too much change for this country... unfortunately.

**Obama/Webb - I think is the best fit. But as you said maybe Webb is too much of a gunslinger... unfortunately.


GOPs

McSame/Lieberman - Jeez the GOP would stand for Geriatric and Old Party. Plus I don't like Lieberman, he is the greatest of Flip-Floppers. I'm a Democratic, I'm an Independent, I'd pay money to Kiss GWB at the county fair.

McSame/Pawlenty - the guy whose bridges fall down because he vetoes highway spending bills.

**McSame/Dole - Libby Dole. Would be a feeble attempt to show that McSame is Change-Crazy.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | June 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

What about Chuck Hagel as Obama's running mate???? He could seal the deal for both sides, and help with those republican war freaks.. and more.

Posted by: Jackie V | June 6, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't count on it Tater2.

I think a lot of her so-called 18 million voters took a powder after she went on her nutter Tuesday night (provided they stuck it out through sniper fire, assassination plots, fuzzy math, her Zimbabwe/Civil Rights/Suffragist bender and her other lunatic rants).

Posted by: Thuff | June 6, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

LaRouche Warns of McCain Defeat of Obama
\by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Lyndon H. LaRouche was born on September 8, 1922. There is some evidence that he was sane for several years following his birth.

Unfortunately, he has not been sane for at least the past 60 years -- and now may be dead -- just propped up in a chair and playing the dummy for his much younger but equally nuts German wife's ventriloquist act.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The worse thing about Obama's VP selection process is how the committe is integrated: by a trio of inadequate characters for the job!

Posted by: Caronte | June 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

It wouldn't be a presidential race without Lyndon LaDouche yammering on about his latest paranoid visions. His campaign has always served as a magnet to attract all the fruitcakes out of the real race where they could really do some harm.

Posted by: Thuff | June 6, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"The poll that only includes Dems either overlooks or underestimates the incredible get-out-the-vote effect it will have for the Republican party."

That argument is much weaker when the alleged target of this massive get out the vote effort is the number 2 person on the ticket.

Besides, if the ticket also leads to an incredible get out the vote effort for Dems, that will swamp any get out the vote effect on Repubs, since there are now millions more of the former.

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

A Note to Start-Ups From the Obama Playbook
TheStreet.com - 4 hours ago
If, when the Democratic primary season began over a year ago, Barack Obama were a business, he would have been a cool Internet start-up: unknown and under-funded, but with a killer app that made the management team believe it was potentially on to ...

=================
Obama was NEVER UNDER FUNDED!! He is a phoney! His campaign is total SHAM!!!

"How Soros Financed Obama's Campaign"

May 30, 2008 (LPAC)--In late 2006, George Soros, the British empire/Wall Street gatekeeper of the Left, vetted Senator Barack Obama's potential Presidential candidacy on behalf of financier oligarchs. Soros then introduced Obama to a selected financier group, and Obama soon afterwards announced he would seek the White House.

Soros's involvement with Obama's brief national political career had begun two years earlier with Soros fundraising for Obama's campaign for U.S. senate, and continued through the 2007 Presidential campaign launch with huge fundraising operations by Soros and his circle.

SOROS AND OBAMA - A Preliminary chronology

2004: The London-Wall Street axis singled out Obama, then an Illinois state senator, as their "Rising Star" in U.S. politics. The Rockefellers' family political agency known as the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Obama in the Democratic U.S. senate primary, ran TV ads on the Rising Star theme, and directly funded Obama's national career manager, consultant David Axelrod.

Obama's opponent in the Democratic primary, Blair Hull, was a self-financed millionaire, so Obama used the "millionaires' exception" to the campaign finance law to take $12,000 each from donor, six times the ordinary limit at that time. Thus nearly half of his $5 million primary funding came from 300 donors.

George Soros raised $60,000 of this Obama funding, with his own donations and those he procured from his family. Soros reportedly met with Obama first in March -- a mere state senator, Obama was the only candidate in the country with whom Soros met personally during the 2004 election cycle, according to Soros spokesman Michael Vachon (quoted by CNS News, July 27, 2004). On June 7, 2004, Obama was in Soros' New York home for an Obama campaign fundraising event.

December 4, 2006: Obama met with George Soros in Soros' mid-town Manhattan office. After an hour interview, Soros took Obama into a conference room where a dozen plutocrats waited to talk with Obama. Key among them were UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland/Swiss Bank) U.S. chief Robert Wolf, and hedge fund manager Orin Kramer.

December, 2006, a week later, Robert Wolf had dinner in Washington D.C. with Barack Obama to map out campaign strategy.

Early January, 2007: Obama announced his Presidential candidacy. The New York Times announced that candidate Obama had nailed the support of two highest-level Democratic fundraisers: George Soros and Robert Wolf. By mid-April, 2007, Wolf had raised $500,000 for Obama.

Mid-January, 2007: Wolf ran a dinner for Obama in Washington, with potential bundlers Jim Torrey, Brian Mathis, Jamie Rubin, and (again, from the original Soros meeting) Orin Kramer.

Early March, 2007: There were two fundraisers by Wolf and one by Edgar Bronfman, Jr.

Mid-March, 2007: George Soros began a staged dance with Obama. Writing in the New York Review of Books, Soros denounced the rightist Israeli lobby, AIPAC.

March 21, 2007: Continuing the dance, the Obama campaign rebutted Soros (as in, "Obama distances himself from Soros"), and denounced the Hamas movement.

April 9, 2007: An Obama fundraising party for the New York elite was held at the home of financier Steven Gluckstern, the former chairman of George Soros' Democracy Alliance. A photograph of the event, published (April 16, 2007) in New York magazine, showed George Soros seated immediately next to the standing, speaking Obama. Soros was enthroned as the only one in the room seated, stationed between host Gluckstern and Obama. Two months earlier Soros's Mr. Gluckstern had been quoted in the New York Observer saying he MIGHT be raising "well over a million dollars" for Obama.

May 18, 2007: George Soros hosted an Obama party at the Greenwich, Connecticut palatial mansion of Paul Tudor Jones, who runs the giant hedge fund Tudor Investment Corporation. They collected $2,300 from each of the approximately 300 attendees, the local newspaper Greenwich Time reported.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Atten: Mr. Cillizza. Re: Your column of 6-06-08. V.P.choice. It would be very wise for Mr. Obama to choose Gov. Ed Rendell as a V.P. candidate.
1.0 He would get the Democrat vote of Pa. A substantial volume.
2.0 He would obtain a man of proven experience in managing the huge City of Philadelphia, and the huge state of Pa.
3.0 He would obtain the great vote of those of Jewish extraction.
4.0 He would place the Iranian government
on notice that we have a huge bias in
the fate of Israel.
5.0 He would be assisted in his own election, by the huge, genial, proven, vote getting capacity of the Sitting Governor of Pennsylvania.
6.0 He would silence any complaints of inexperience about his own candidacy.
Wishing him well: Cyrano.

Posted by: Kenneth B. Smith, P.E. | June 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza's article is full of the tired old cliches, and meaningless statements.

"a deep breath is required. And Obama seems more than ready to take one" - spoken like a true person-in-the-tank-for-Obama. I would expect this of Eugene Robinson, not you Chris!

Hedging the answers on Vice Presdiential quesries is an age old device. Obama didn't invent this as you seem to suggect. Nor does it bestow some indeterminate sagacity upon him to do so.

However, I notice one thing in his response. He says "but in the Democratic Party's interest and the country's interest to make sure I make this decision well"

And it was in the party's interest and the country's interest that the super delegates, and the convention "take a deep breath", not be rushed into falling in line for Obama as so many lemmings. Yet, they were pressured from so many directions to do so, and they did.

"One Democratic consultant not aligned with either Obama or Clinton told The Fix earlier this week that the presidential nominee only gets to make one "executive type" decision during the campaign -- and that's selecting a running mate. For Obama to have that one decision essentially made for him would undermine the idea that he is ready for the most important job in the world."

Balderdash. The nominee gets opinions from a variety of people and finally makes a decision. It is neither an independent decision (JFK was rather forced to pick LBJ), not the greatest decision (pappy Bush immediately rued over his Quayle shoot), not even a decision when Adlai let the convention choose his Veep.
Time to get your gut checked.

Posted by: Krishna | June 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

proud:

I'm having trouble getting into the other site as well. I've e-mailed you a fix that seems to work for me.

Posted by: mnteng | June 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

LaRouche Warns of McCain Defeat of Obama
\by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

June 4, 2008 (LPAC)--I warn that as matters stand right now, the ham-handed actions on Senator Obama's behalf by financier circles aligned with Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, are handing the general election of the next U.S. President of the Republic to the candidacy of Senator John McCain. I therefore denounce the Democratic National Committee Chairman, and his accomplices such as London stooge George Soros, for conducting a flagrantly fraudulent operation against the vital interests of the United States and civilization generally.

The evidence, thus far, is that an Obama nomination at the August Democratic convention would virtually guarantee a massive victory of Republican candidate John McCain over Dean's choice, Obama. Whereas, trend analysis shows that Senator Hillary Clinton would almost certainly sweep a current election against rival Senator McCain.

Chairman Dean may control those top Democratic circles which Soros' and other money, or fear of bullies could buy. Thugs may muscle or buy weak Democratic delegates and others into shameful capitulation to an Obama nomination, but the majority of the citizens from the lower eighty percentile of income brackets have vital interests which Senator Clinton has addressed, and Senator Obama's campaign has not only failed to address, but which involve vital issues which Obama has either chiefly ignored, or has gone in a directly opposite direction. The best estimate of seasoned experts is that the McCain machine would virtually eat a Presidental candidate Obama alive--a fact which may help to explain the help to Obama's pre-nomination campaign from Republican forces, which will be backing McCain in the November general election.

Dean and company have conducted what must be assessed as a fraud- packed operation against the vital interests of the U.S.A., particularly against the interests of those Americans in the lower 80 percent income-brackets, who have voted, at current account, overwhelmingly for Senator Hillary Clinton, because they view her as the only candidate running who has been addressing the life-and-death issues that concern them the most.

Between now and the time of the Democratic convention in August, the country is going to be hit with crises beyond belief. The entire financial system is coming down, and nothing is being done about it--certainly nothing is coming from the Bush Administration. By November, the crisis will be far worse. This is reality. Voters would have been betrayed, and would react at the polls with massive political punishment of a Democratic Party leadership, a party which will be viewed by citizens in the lower eighty percentile of income-brackets, and many others, too, as a party to be punished at the polls. It is more than merely possible, unless the Dean policies are reversed dramatically and profoundly during the two and a half months preceding the August Convention. Without that change, the Democratic Party, whose Congressional body has done virtually nothing for the nation or its people since the November 2006 elections, could find itself virtually destroyed as a major party through the reactions by an angered citizenry.

At the International Level

As bad as the Obama candidacy looks when viewed from the standpoint of the probable coming November election-results, it looks far, far worse when attention is turned to the already dangerous effects that Obama's candidacy is having on the strategic position of the United States in the world at large.

Think of the effect of the internationally known fact, that London's boy George Soros and his Democracy Alliance of billionaire speculators, are literally attempting to buy up the Democratic Party on behalf of a foreign power. They are attempting to force Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race at precisely the moment of the greatest popular support for her candidacy. This is a London-directed operation against the United States, and no patriotic American who sees this disgusting conduct can can tolerate it.

LPAC is now preparing a dossier on Soros' crooked operations, for immediate release. This will document the operations through MoveOn and other Democracy Alliance conduits, to buy off Democratic delegates, directly against the will of the people. LPAC will call on Senator Obama, as a matter of conscience, to save his sullied personal honor, by denouncing this action by MoveOn, a representative of a foreign agency, that in an action which has thus sullied Senator Obama's personal honor, and that of the party whose officials have gone as far in corruption as they have in this way.

This fraudulent operation by Howard Dean, George Soros, et al. is a copy of the same operation that was attempted against Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the 1932 Democratic Convention in Chicago, on behalf of a foreign power, the United Kingdom. This is the same United Kingdom which is intervening now, to control our political parties, top-down, and is attempting to seize control over the Presidency of the United States.

This is a threat to our nation which every patriot must act to defeat, a threat by a foreign power to take control over the Presidency of the United States. This attempted betrayal of our nation must be struck down now, while we still have a sovereignty to defend.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"If you weren't paid by Obama to blog and shill . . (rant, rave, rant)"

Does anyone know where I can sign up to get paid for this? I could use the money. I need new tires.

I would do it for free, but if there is pay in it, let me know how to get those checks.

Posted by: Thuff | June 6, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I am impressed on how Obama is taking one of his most personal and important decisions!
It shows his real personality and qualifications for the job!
Any Washington standard politician that doesn't have a clue on how to solve a problem or which one is the best choice, creates a committe!
A hell of a start kiddo!

Posted by: Caronte | June 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Hard to believe that Tom Daschle isn't on that list. His chances are slimmer since Obama didn't win in South Dakota, but he has been the man behind the campaign curtain for a while now.

Posted by: ATB | June 6, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"a new poll shows that a majority of dems want obama to pick clinton. the link is over on yahoo"

That's why we have a representative form of government, not one that operates on polls.

The poll that only includes Dems either overlooks or underestimates the incredible get-out-the-vote effect it will have for the Republican party.

He needs a governor for VP, not a senator. Senators are needed where they are to implement his programs so he can get off the ground running.

Posted by: Thuff | June 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

To Senator Obama, Dana417, and the rest of the True Color Democrats. I am a loyal but really mad Democrat who has 7 voting family members. We campaigned energetically for Senator Clinton, but now we want to do the same for Senator Obama, but calling us "You angry Dems who vote McCain are Morons" does not heal but promote Senator Obama's true colors of racism and division. My wife and I went down to our local Pierce County party headquarters two days ago and offered to help in anyway we could. WE WERE TURNED AWAY AND TOLD THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED ANY FORMER CLINTON HELP AND THEY TOOK OUR TELEPHONE NUMBER. I WATCHED THE LADY THROW OUR NUMBER IN THE TRASH! I experienced it because I was there! Is that the kind of healing that you Obama elitists want? So much for Obama's Message of the "Change" Agent! www.hillarysupportersforMcCain.com Go McCain '08..........

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Oprah is another possibility if he wants to get international notoriety and add more colored karma to the picture!

Posted by: Caronte | June 6, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

a new poll shows that a majority of dems want obama to pick clinton. the link is over on yahoo.

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 6, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

>>GandalfTheGrey wrote: "AsperGirl - your candidate LOST --Give a rest. Besides, she is not that smart. ...She is an unremarkable human being - swept into the spotlight of national attention by her marriage decision --"

How dare you say that. Gandalf, you're a paid Obama blogging shill, programmed with his campaign's talking points and paid to blanket the Internet with his smears and slander against Clinton while he talks "new politics" and pretends to be respectful.

(then several paragraphs from Hillary's website)

Not only is his a racial preference candidacy, he has spent a great part of the millions of the money that poor hopefuls have poured into his campaign paying blogging shills like yourself to spread the smears and sexist slander of the female opposition around the Internet and media world, like how she married her way into getting any recognition.

Obama is a fraud, a phony and a hollow, empty talking suit who will not be able to run the country in a time of war and economic disruption. He can't even quit smoking and has been clutching his Nicorette like a compulsive addict for months.

There are many, many reasons why Clinton supporters will ignore her expected endorsement and encouragement to vote for him, and why we will support the more experienced and capable McCain instead. Even if that man were 90, he'd be more competent professionally as a President than your candidate.

If you weren't paid by Obama to blog and shill this kind of sexist belittling of Clinton all over the Internet, this campaign wouldn't have been the mysogynist nightmare for so many women.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 1:48 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AsperGirl --

There are folks on this thread and most others in the WaPo who seek to engage in an informed, fact-based conversation.

Expressing one's opinions is what these blogs are all about.

Unfortunately, most of your conversation consists of repeating chants about Hillary - inconsequential chants about skewed interpretations of her life as a starry-eyed supporter of the Black Panther causes of the 1960's, etc.

Then, you launch into attacks on whomever has challenged the veracity of your posts.

Personal attacks based on nothing --- the "paid shill" attacks are getting so foolish and incoherent that you continue to erode your own validity and value as a communicant - by making them.

Why don't you step back a pace - and think about the cause to which you seem fatalistically dedicated. Do you think that posting your rants and sprinkling them with false accusations about other bloggers is somehow a way to legitimize your point of view?

Go take a long walk and think about how your characterization of others - of whom you know nothing - is detracting from any genuine interest you have in making a claim for your hopelessly flawed candidate.

Perhaps, you should seek out an anger management professional to help you set things in proper perspective.

Let us know how we can help you cope with the rejection and failure that you seem to have accepted as your own problem.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | June 6, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
you shouldn't dismiss his closest friends!
How about Rev.Wright to name just one?

Posted by: Caronte | June 6, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Hack no to Clinton!

Posted by: Vonnie932 | June 6, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Don't ignore Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius! =)!

I like Webb too. I wouldn't mind Hillary if he chose. I definitely believe Hillary would do work. I just worry of consistency.

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 6, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Visnovsky for McCain - I am frankly surprised that you received that kind of treatment. I hope you got the name of the person who treated you in that manner and will take the time to send the Obama campaign an email.

That is not the position of the campaign and with millions of volunteers it is not always possible to control the actions of rogue volunteers.

Posted by: crazyv | June 6, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Soros Bankrolling MoveOn in Last Gasp Move To Steal the Nomination for Obama
Increase Decrease

June 3, 2008 (LPAC)--Millions of dollars are being conduited through a George Soros front organization, in a desperate effort to buy up superdelegates for Senator Barack Obama, according to well-placed Washington sources. ``They suddenly have a nearly bottomless pool of cash,'' one Washington insider reported.

MoveOn was launched in September 1998, at the peak of the drive to impeach President Bill Clinton, ostensibly to counter the impeachment drive with a more ``modest'' demand for Clinton's censure by the U.S. Congress. This occurred at exactly the moment that President Clinton was promoting the need for a ``new global financial architecture,'' and at the same time that the LaRouche movement was leading the Committee to Save the Presidency, by going hard after the Mellon Scaife and neocon network behind the impeachment drive. Whereas the Committee to Save the Presidency assailed then-Vice President Al Gore for his collusion with Joseph Lieberman, in attempting to force Clinton to resign, MoveOn has been a big booster of Gore for years. Gore and Howard Dean both promoted MoveOn after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

By Autumn 2003 at the latest, MoveOn had been gobbled up by George Soros, and his inner sanctum of billionaires, like Cleveland insurance magnate Peter Lewis, and Phoenix University founder and CEO John Sperling, both of whom had colluded with Soros throughout the 1990s to promote drug legalization, via the Drug Policy Foundation. At the initial meeting in Autumn 2003, between Soros and the co-founders of MoveOn, San Francisco IT execs Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, Soros, his son Jonathan Soros, Peter Lewis, and Peter Bing kicked in over $6 million. By various news accounts, based on FEC and IRS filings, by 2006, MoveOn had received more than $30 million from Soros and Lewis.

``Grassroots'' organization MoveOn has other billionaires among its benefactors, including two members of the Rockefeller family, who have been funding the group since 1999. Laurence Rockefeller and Wendy Rockefeller, both big boosters of the League of Conservation Voters and other radical Malthusian environmental outfits, have given undisclosed amounts of money to MoveOn. The Pritzker family of Chicago (Penny Pritzker is treasurer of the Obama for President Campaign) are big contributors to MoveOn, with Linda Pritzker, a billionaire Tibetan Buddhist, transplanted from Chicago to western Montana, having given a reported $4 million alone to the Soros group.

Now, Democratic Party sources report, that pool of cash is being targeted towards buying up superdelegate endorsements for Barack Obama. Former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards signed up for the Obama campaign one day after his antipoverty group received big financial backing from a string of other Soros-bankrolled groups, including Center for American Progress Action Committee and ACORN. Both groups are on the short list of ``approved'' organizations, funded by Soros' Democracy Alliance, an organization launched by Soros in 2004, and made up of 70 billionaires, who agreed in 2004 to pool their funds, to take over the Democratic Party.

Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized that the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, which created and owns British agent George Soros, has no intention of actually allowing Barack Obama to be elected President. His sole mission is to stop Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination. There is good reason to believe that George Soros is totally aware of, and in on, this plan. Soros has been a major financial backer to John McCain, according to a variety of published reports. When McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold were pushing their McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill through the Senate, Soros front groups gave a reported $18 million to the effort to mobilize support. And more recently, Soros' Open Society Institute was a major donor to McCain's Reform Institute.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl you are so dumb and naive that you should vote for McCain, you'll blend right in. Pick up a political science book or any book...or can you even read? Because your writing skills are definitely not that great. And for the final time, no one cares that you vote for McCain...so try and get a job or something and find something to do with your time.

Posted by: D in VA | June 6, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

It's Already Begun: Obama Nailed for AIPAC Hypocrisy
Increase Decrease

June 5, 2008 (LPAC)--Less than 24 hour after he emerged as the presumed Democratic Party nominee for President, Barack Obama is already being slammed in the media for the very kind of hypocritical behavior that he got away with for months--just as Lyndon LaRouche has been warning.

Obama didn't help himself one iota, when he showed up on Wednesday at the AIPAC annual convention in Washington, and delivered a speech that could have been written by the authors of ``A Clean Break.'' Dana Milbank, the Washington Post columnist devoted a half-page article today, to mocking Obama for his flip to the Israeli radical right. Under the headline ``It's a Mitzvah'' (``blessing''), Milbank began, by mocking Obama's campaign slogan: ``Now here's a change we can believe in. A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday--and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner.''

Milbank continued, ``He promised $30 billion in military assistance for Israel. He declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force has `rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.' He used terms such as `false prophets of extremism' and `corrupt' while discussing Palestinians. And he promised that `Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.'

``Vowing to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, the newly minted nominee apparent added: `I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused.'

``How could they be confused? As a pandering performance,'' Milbank continued, ``it was the full Monty by a candidate who, during the primary, had positioned himself to Hillary Clinton's left on matters such as Iran. Yesterday, Obama, who has generally declined to wear an American-flag lapel pin, wore a joint U.S.-Israeli pin, and even tried a Hebrew phrase on the crowd.''

To make matters even worse, Milbank added, ``Obama even outdid President Bush in his pro-Israel sentiments. On the very day that Obama vowed to protect Jerusalem as Israel's capital--drawing a furious denunciation from the Palestinian Authority--Bush announced that he was suspending a move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.''

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Rezko Scandal Already Blowing Up In Obama's Face
Increase Decrease

June 5, 2008 (LPAC)--Yesterday, on the same day that Barack Obama became the presidential candidate presumptive of the Democratic Party, Chicago businessman Tony Rezko - who was Obama's earliest fundraiser going back to the 1995 campaign for Illinois State Senate - was convicted in federal court on 17 counts of political corruption. The Chicago press, and the Republican National Committee (RNC), were quick to draw the implications for candidate Obama.

Chicago Tribune political columnist John Kass, led off his column today (otherwise devoted to the Republicans involved in the Rezko case) with the question, whether Obama will announce that if elected, he will not pardon "his fundraiser and personal real estate fairy," Tony Rezko. After discussing the RNC Chairman's response, Kass let it all hang out: "As most adults know but pretend otherwise, Obama is backed by the Daleys of Chicago, yet he's run a personality-cult campaign tied to the idea that he's the archangel of political reform. The national story line has been all about Camelot and Obama as the boy king, knighted by Ted Kennedy, a story too full of mist to be believed except by children. Yet finally, with the Rezko verdict, the focus is on the real Chicago, not the fairy tale."

A writer on the Chicago Sun-Times Washington Bureau blog, "The Swamp," wrote yesterday, that Obama could "expect to face dark Republican ads likely featuring a narrator whose voice conjures up something sinister, that refer to the senator from Illinois's one-time relationship with the convicted businessman. Expect to see, for instance, ads with Obama South Side Chicago house and that infamous side yard he purchased from Rezko's wife. It will all be part of an effort to dull Obama's sheen of novelty and portray him as a regular Cook County Democratic politician, as someone with the requisite dirty laundry that comes with that territory."

Sure enough, the RNC put up a website devoted to Obama's relationship with Rezko, which features a YouTube video produced by the RNC, featuring Obama saying "nobody had any indications" that these problems might exist about Rezko, and contrasting a raft of Chicago newspaper articles on just that issue. RNC Chairman Robert Duncan is quoted in various media, "On the day Barack Obama hoped to unite his party after wheezing over the finish line and claiming the Democrat nomination, a jury in his hometown of Chicago convicted his longtime friend and fund-raiser Tony Rezko of multiple felonies. Today's verdict and Obama's friendship with Rezko raise serious questions about whether he has the judgment to serve as president.''

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

LOUD and DUMB - why do you EVER bother responding? It is always just the same old angry, ignorance.

Posted by: krazy keith | June 6, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

How Soros Financed Obama's Campaign
Increase Decrease

May 30, 2008 (LPAC)--In late 2006, George Soros, the British empire/Wall Street gatekeeper of the Left, vetted Senator Barack Obama's potential Presidential candidacy on behalf of financier oligarchs. Soros then introduced Obama to a selected financier group, and Obama soon afterwards announced he would seek the White House.

Soros's involvement with Obama's brief national political career had begun two years earlier with Soros fundraising for Obama's campaign for U.S. senate, and continued through the 2007 Presidential campaign launch with huge fundraising operations by Soros and his circle.

SOROS AND OBAMA - A Preliminary chronology

2004: The London-Wall Street axis singled out Obama, then an Illinois state senator, as their "Rising Star" in U.S. politics. The Rockefellers' family political agency known as the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Obama in the Democratic U.S. senate primary, ran TV ads on the Rising Star theme, and directly funded Obama's national career manager, consultant David Axelrod.

Obama's opponent in the Democratic primary, Blair Hull, was a self-financed millionaire, so Obama used the "millionaires' exception" to the campaign finance law to take $12,000 each from donor, six times the ordinary limit at that time. Thus nearly half of his $5 million primary funding came from 300 donors.

George Soros raised $60,000 of this Obama funding, with his own donations and those he procured from his family. Soros reportedly met with Obama first in March -- a mere state senator, Obama was the only candidate in the country with whom Soros met personally during the 2004 election cycle, according to Soros spokesman Michael Vachon (quoted by CNS News, July 27, 2004). On June 7, 2004, Obama was in Soros' New York home for an Obama campaign fundraising event.

December 4, 2006: Obama met with George Soros in Soros' mid-town Manhattan office. After an hour interview, Soros took Obama into a conference room where a dozen plutocrats waited to talk with Obama. Key among them were UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland/Swiss Bank) U.S. chief Robert Wolf, and hedge fund manager Orin Kramer.

December, 2006, a week later, Robert Wolf had dinner in Washington D.C. with Barack Obama to map out campaign strategy.

Early January, 2007: Obama announced his Presidential candidacy. The New York Times announced that candidate Obama had nailed the support of two highest-level Democratic fundraisers: George Soros and Robert Wolf. By mid-April, 2007, Wolf had raised $500,000 for Obama.

Mid-January, 2007: Wolf ran a dinner for Obama in Washington, with potential bundlers Jim Torrey, Brian Mathis, Jamie Rubin, and (again, from the original Soros meeting) Orin Kramer.

Early March, 2007: There were two fundraisers by Wolf and one by Edgar Bronfman, Jr.

Mid-March, 2007: George Soros began a staged dance with Obama. Writing in the New York Review of Books, Soros denounced the rightist Israeli lobby, AIPAC.

March 21, 2007: Continuing the dance, the Obama campaign rebutted Soros (as in, "Obama distances himself from Soros"), and denounced the Hamas movement.

April 9, 2007: An Obama fundraising party for the New York elite was held at the home of financier Steven Gluckstern, the former chairman of George Soros' Democracy Alliance. A photograph of the event, published (April 16, 2007) in New York magazine, showed George Soros seated immediately next to the standing, speaking Obama. Soros was enthroned as the only one in the room seated, stationed between host Gluckstern and Obama. Two months earlier Soros's Mr. Gluckstern had been quoted in the New York Observer saying he MIGHT be raising "well over a million dollars" for Obama.

May 18, 2007: George Soros hosted an Obama party at the Greenwich, Connecticut palatial mansion of Paul Tudor Jones, who runs the giant hedge fund Tudor Investment Corporation. They collected $2,300 from each of the approximately 300 attendees, the local newspaper Greenwich Time reported.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Go Caroline! Bring us some solar power satellites!

Posted by: GalileoRad | June 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Repeat after me: Obama-Richardson

Posted by: Tex | June 6, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse


Also: John McCain is older than the ballpoint pen. Believe it.


http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/


Posted by: Christian in NYC | June 6, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Because of Caroline Kennedy, wonder if Obama will pick billionaire NYC Mayor Bloomberg for VP? Obama sure surrounds himself with lots of billionaires and their inner circle of millionaires--Oprah Winfrey, George Soros and Mike Bloomberg. Caroline Kennedy is not known to be poor either! Will Caroline coincidentally pick Bloomberg because she works for him in one of his companies, both wealth are managed by same circles and or because of the Anglo-Dutch oligarghy's agenda to the privatization the US government for profit?? The reason is because their wealth is threatened big time given worldwide economic downturn/depression thus the desire to loot our country. Bloomberg has been pushing this 'privatization' theme calling it "privatization/partnership" projects all over the country with Arnold Schwarzneggar as a body guard....

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

What about Colin Powell for Obama's VP? He knows he messed up, and maybe he's ready to tell the truth for the other side? Plus, two African Americans would be pretty "audacious."

Posted by: partisan rhetoric | June 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama would have to be an utter fool to put Hillary in as VP.

It would be a fundamental backstab to his supporters, would make a lie of everything he's talked about.

The fact is, these Hillary complainers can complain a lot about their "treatment" or whatever, but the fact remains that HRC lost a nomination she really should have won. So, hold up that mirror, folks and take a look.

Also, Hillary never got it on Iraq. Frankly, I don't want her anywhere near the White House. She's shown disastrous leadership instincts throughout this primary and on the most important issues of our time. Good riddance to her, I say. We're moving on with some fresh blood and new people.

Posted by: Christian in NYC | June 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Blah, blah, blah. All this VP chat filling the atmosphere with gas.

Senator Obama has formed a committee to vet prospective VP candidates. He said the next time you hear from him about VP selection will be when he is ready to announce it.

So, folks, isn't there something better to do than speculate on nothing. Or, speculate that Senator Clinton will be the choice.

Senator Clinton has to much baggage and so does her husband. Her divisive campaign (from the inexperience thing to the assassination fear-mongering) made her an inappropriate and less than trustworthy person to be VP.

As far as her supporters are concerned, most will come around and vote for Obama no matter what they say now. A few will act against their best interest and stay home or vote for McCain or write in Clinton.

Truth is that the supporters lost considerable value the moment Senator Obama passed 2118 in the delegate count. Just like a new car depreciates substantially the moment the contract is signed, so does the supporters as a group.

An polling example may be today's Gallup summary of polls which show Obama taking 62% if the Hispanic vote and McCain taking only 29%.

And, now on to the rest of my life.

Posted by: Peter | June 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

zouk: Had I known that krazy keith was another of your countless sock puppets, I wouldn't have bothered responding.

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

It ain't gonna be Hillary.

From an article in the N.J. Star Ledger:

Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, disclosed he received a phone call shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary from a top member of Clinton's organization and that the caller explicitly discussed a strategy of winning Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.

"There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me," Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the U.S. Senate nomination. "Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/superdelegate_says_clinton_cam.html

Posted by: Amy | June 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

It ain't gonna be Hillary.

From an article in the N.J. Star Ledger:

Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, disclosed he received a phone call shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary from a top member of Clinton's organization and that the caller explicitly discussed a strategy of winning Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.

"There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me," Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the U.S. Senate nomination. "Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/superdelegate_says_clinton_cam.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

To Senator Obama, Dana417, and the rest of the True Color Democrats. I am a loyal but really mad Democrat who has 7 voting family members. We campaigned energetically for Senator Clinton, but now we want to do the same for Senator Obama, but calling us "You angry Dems who vote McCain are Morons" does not heal but promote Senator Obama's true colors of racism and division. My wife and I went down to our local Pierce County party headquarters two days ago and offered to help in anyway we could. WE WERE TURNED AWAY AND TOLD THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED ANY FORMER CLINTON HELP AND THEY TOOK OUR TELEPHONE NUMBER. I WATCHED THE LADY THROW OUR NUMBER IN THE TRASH! I experienced it because I was there! Is that the kind of healing that you Obama elitists want?

Posted by: Visnovsky for McCain | June 6, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Vice presidential choices have almost no bearing on the subsequent election results. My opinion is that the choice should reflect the modest chance that the VP might become the President in unfortunate circumstances, and should also take into account the VPs ability and good grace to "know his/her place" and not be a Cheney. Maybe Mrs. Clinton would qualify on those counts, maybe not.

How about the Husband, and the staff? I think not.

Posted by: Bill Mosby | June 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

To Senator Obama, Dana417, and the rest of the True Color Democrats. I am a loyal but really mad Democrat who has 7 voting family members. We campaigned energetically for Senator Clinton, but now we want to do the same for Senator Obama, but calling us "You angry Dems who vote McCain are Morons" does not heal but promote Senator Obama's true colors of racism and division. My wife and I went down to our local Pierce County party headquarters two days ago and offered to help in anyway we could. WE WERE TURNED AWAY AND TOLD THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED ANY FORMER CLINTON HELP AND THEY TOOK OUR TELEPHONE NUMBER. I WATCHED THE LADY THROW OUR NUMBER IN THE TRASH! I experienced it because I was there! Is that the kind of healing that you Obama elitists want?

Posted by: Former Senator Obama Supporter | June 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

McCain Man - As a political novice, she won a Senate seat and was easily re-elected. She also took down national figures(Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Edwards) before finishing second by about 5% of the delegates

So, your statement should read that when she had to do it on her own, she succeeded and succeeded and just barely failed. This time.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | June 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Haven't seen this mentioned stateside - but apparently Edwards has ruled himself out of the VP stakes: http://www.rte.ie/news/index.html

Pete

Posted by: Pete B | June 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"All of that is to say that Obama isn't likely to pick anyone (including Clinton) any time soon. (Thank God for that; the Veepstakes is one of the most fascinating guessing games in politics and it only comes around once every four years.)"

The pretty much sums up the shallowness of the media and tons of stupid personalities that comprise the so called media.

Posted by: The stupid media thinks its a game. | June 6, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Thank you tydicea...clearly getting caught up in the Charles Keating S&L scandal didn't hurt a certain Senator from AZ from becoming his party's nominee for President.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

You mean the same Mccaim who dumped his first wife who he abused. Then married this wife who he lived off of and whose father bought him his political career? The same Mccain who has been a do nothing senator all his career and is lucky he is still a senator? That Mccain, yea, we really need this idiot for president.

++++++++++++
To all you Hillary fans: Always remember that Hillary got to where she is today because she married a man who carried her along with him. When she had to do it on her own, she failed, failed and failed.

Now come and vote for McCain. He will give you comfort and love and direction.

Posted by: McCain Man | June 6, 2008 2:32 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Is there some skeleton that we don't know about that keeps Richardson off of most Veep lists?

If memory serves correctly, he was forced to step down as Energy secretary during the Clinton administration. It didn't seem to be an impediment in his run for governor.

Posted by: tydicea | June 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm not going to "get over" my disappointment with Obama. I'm supporting McCain.

Posted by: AsperGirl

Who Cares?

Posted by: knockyourselfout | June 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Is there some skeleton that we don't know about that keeps Richardson off of most Veep lists? A 61yr old,Hispanic Gov, former Secty of DOE, former UN ambassador, former diplomatic negotiator would seem to be exactly what a newbie 46yr Senator would need to balance out a ticket. Maybe I am naive, but I would rather court the Hispanic vote than the Reagan Democrat, blue collar, non-college graduate, older woman voter as a path to the White House.

Posted by: pr945 | June 6, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

""Dan Quayle II" Thune"

Already taken "Dan Quayle II" Obama

57 states, afghan and Iraq speak the same language, etc.

although I personally prefer
"Jimmah Cartah 2" Obambi


Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | June 6, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

To all you Hillary fans: Always remember that Hillary got to where she is today because she married a man who carried her along with him. When she had to do it on her own, she failed, failed and failed.

Now come and vote for McCain. He will give you comfort and love and direction.

Posted by: McCain Man | June 6, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Great list for McCain to pick from:

"London Bridge" Pawlenty

"Closet Fudgepacker" Crist

"Dan Quayle II" Thune

"Roofdog" Romney

"Sore Loserman" Lieberman

I'm sure that lineup has Obama quaking in his boots.

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm liking the idea of Bill Richardson as Obama's VP pick more and more. Solid experience and he's popular in a state/region that Obama hopes to bring to the blue side. My only reservation would be that a lot of Clinton backers seemed to consider Richardson a "turncoat" of sorts when he endorsed Obama, so he might be divisive among her supporters. Also, I tend to buy into the idea that he may need/want to go with someone from Virginia, Ohio, or Pennsylvania.

I also like Webb.

Posted by: emk1029 | June 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

FYI, I am still trying to figure out which end of the bowling ball is up? Please help. Next week I am scheduled to become a huge NASCAR fan. I need to get my shots first I am told.

Posted by: snObama | June 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I think if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton not to take the position of VP in Sen. Obama's administration, then I think Obama should give the VP position to Caroline Kennedy, although she endorsed Obama at a critical time in the campaign. Obama is an inspirational leader like her father Late President John F. Kennedy.!!!!!

Posted by: Akber A. Kassam. | June 6, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

look sweetie, there was no arugula there and when I ordered my double half caffe super no foam latte, they looked at me like I was Italian, you know, like, who needs them?

Posted by: snObama | June 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Tpaw's LTGOV was the head of DOT when the bridge fell. We also have a couple others that are now closed. He won last time by less than 1%.

Would Webb help with the Reagan Democrats?

Posted by: Vlad | June 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

For the Dems, I agree with previous bloggers that it has to be a governor. Certainly, he's not going to pick a swing-state senator like Webb, unless he were pretty sure he could replace him with another D., which he could not be in VA. Also, governors bring executive experience and a greater probability of carrying their own state. I think Bill Richardson has got to be on that list. Not only would he bring all that, but would help with hispanic voters across the board--probably even put Texas into play at least to the extent that the Rs would have to put resources there. Also, of course, he has the foreign policy experience that few others would bring, without going to a real eminence gris like Nunn (and remember how well that worked out last time, with Benson). I also find it peculiar that Hillary supporters would consider Sibelius a slap in the face. I guess the whole Hillary campaign really was just about the Clinton dynasty, and not about empowering women, after all! Hillary herself would bring absolutely nothing to the table, with a 60% disapproval rating and a history of bizarre behavior on the campaign trail. I wonder if her die-hard supporters who claim that they will vote against Obama unless he chooses Hillary realize that John McCain is a pro-life conservative Republican.

Posted by: Michel de Montaigne | June 6, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

For Obama:
Richardson - because he has the best resume for an experience deficit candidate. I don't think Latinos will be a problem, but it is a bonus.
Strickland - because of all the D governors, his state is the biggest possible switch and because I heard Rendell is out.
Easely - unless he is disqualified for some reason I am unaware of, because he is a Southern Governor.

For McCain:
Crist - because he's from FL.
Jindahl - the shake it up pick.
Tommy Thompson - because he has implemented Republican friendly domestic policies in a D state: McCain has no domestic policy claims.

Posted by: muD | June 6, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I think if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton not to take the position of VP in Sen. Obama's administration, then I think Obama should give the VP position to Caroline Kennedy, although she endorsed Obama at a critical time in the campaign. Obama is an inspirational leader like her father Late President John F. Kennedy.!!!!!

Posted by: Akber A. Kassam. | June 6, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

which end of this gun do you point when you fall on your knees and pray for more government? I really need to know.

Are these the kind of guns the military uses in their losing effort over there? how could anyone possibly shoot one of these things at another human being? I really need to know.

how come you flyover bitter fools don't yell your agony in church every sunday like we do? I really need to know.

Posted by: snObama | June 6, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD writes that conservatives "have never set foot in a rural town and claim to know what people are thinking"

Again, this doesn't comport with the facts. Why did Obama, a very liberal D, not win in PA, KY, WV, SD, etc??? These are largely rural states. Why didn't his message resonate there?

It is Obama and the progressives who don't know or care about rural folks. The progressive agenda is so appealing to the ivory towered big city latte libs, but not so much in Lead Hill, AK.

I saw Obama in North Dakota, fyi. He didn't even know which end of the hockey stick is the business end, ok, so don't lecture me bub.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 6, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

ddawd, with advocates like you, who needs enemies?

Posted by: loony libs | June 6, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden!
Choosing a Vice-President is serious business. It is first and foremost how you will be defined as a candidate for President of the United States by your very first decision. Does the person chosen as Vice-President have the necessary domestic and foreign policy experience and judgement? Mr. Obama can look far and wide in both political parties and could not make a more shrewd, wiser choice than Joe Biden as Vice-President. Clarity. Experience Judgement. Joe Biden!

Posted by: Gary Thomas | June 6, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"Why did Obama keep losing races right up till the end? No one wants to answer that question. You dems have on your hands a candidate who is disliked by a large protion of your base."

Obama won more races than he lost, obviously. Right until the end, he was facing a candidate who had a large base of support and near-universal name recognition, and was still actively campaigning.

So what's McCain's excuse? 30% of SD Republicans voted against him, even though he's the nominee. Huckabee gets double digits in most Republican primaries despite having dropped out 3 months ago, and Ron Paul isn't far behind. So which party has a candidate disliked by their base?

Posted by: Blarg | June 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

No Clinton. It would discredit Obama thoroughly as a "change agent" and set up the narrative that Obama somehow needs "training wheels".

They need to see this is as the critical re-aligning election it is and act consistently with that. Otherwise it will easily be seen as disingenuous, and in fact it would be the same ole bu00shi# in a different suit, just worn by some young opportunist from Chicago. No falling all over the Old Guard or the Pentagon for the Vice Presidential Nominee.

John Edwards or Claire McAskill would be safe bets. Bobby Casey, Jon Tester would be signal new blood. If you really want bold move that would respond to Working women, Catholics of all stripes including Hispanics , the Jewish community....Caroline Kennedy could be asked to withdraw from the Vice Presidential Search then offered the Nomination.

Posted by: TooMuchBubbaDooDooOnOurNewShoes | June 6, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

For McCain, he needs to excite conservatives to the polls & pick someone of an economic background & that will excite social conservatives that can raise/or has money. These qualifications leave out Thune & Lieberman. McCain is already liked my moderates & winning South Dakota won't be an issue. The short list propably goes:

1. Tim Pawlenty
2. Charlie Crist
3. Mitt Romney
4.Mark Sanford
5. Newt Gingrich

Newt is my wildcard, as he is drawing much praise & criticism for his American Solutions ideas. Especially that on energy independence. Rob Portman is mentioned alot, but he's likely too close to the Bush administration to be picked by McCain in my opinion.

For Obama, he already is black and he doesn't need to pick a woman to make the ticket totally unique. Obama does need someone to sway small town American's who love guns & God...especially as the "bitterness" comment will be broadcasted in every American small town during this election season. It will be very tough for Obama to muster, and he needs a VP friendly to guns, God & with foreign policy experience. The list:

1. Ted Strickland
2. Jim Webb
3. Tim Kaine
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Kathleen Sebelius

If the nominees get what they need most & want, it will likely be:

McCain/Pawlenty vs. Obama/Strickland

Posted by: reason | June 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I forgot to add to my 1:48 p.m. post that Obama has spent most of his adult life networking with and being close to racists and hate speech artists and he's been lying about that.

I'm not going to "get over" my disappointment with Obama. I'm supporting McCain.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman can be scratched off the list right now. He was the losing running mate for AL GORE, remember??!! Al Gore, the far left retired politician. Watch Obama walk into the White House with that one. Obama on the other hand should not choose Bill Richardson b/c, as others have mentioned, that's a double-minority ticket. And he shouldn't pick a woman for the same reason. Even though women aren't a minority in numbers, that would still be considered a double-minority ticket. The prejudiced will come out of the walls to elect McCain.

Posted by: dcp | June 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"Or did you forget when Obama let slip that he believes town Americans "cling to their guns and their religion and antipathy toward people who aren't like them...out of some sense of frustration"?"

It's funny. The people who attack this line clearly have never interacted with people in rural areas. They act as if Obama is deriding going to church once a week and hunting for sport.

Anyone who has ever spent time in a small town area knows it can go much deeper than that. You meet people who are ardently against REGISTRATION laws because they think the government is planning to take their guns away. You meet people who somehow tie everything the government does into religion. Why the hell do you think Bush got voted in twice? I've talked to people who think that the Dems want to end the Iraq war so that they can halt the movement of Christianity into the middle east.

Conservatives love to attack comments like this. They have never set foot in a rural town and claim to know what people are thinking. You noticed that they first attacked the use of the word bitter. That is, until it became clear they ARE bitter.

Now the conservatives are focusing on the clinging part.
I've got news, people DO cling to guns and religion.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"the fact that [Webb's] an accomplished writer might help"

Yeah, especially if your aiming for the pedophile/mysoginist crowd. He's written some great stuff. really great. pick him, please!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"college educated liberals"

I doubt many college educated people read Jim Webb's corny fiction. Our reading list of meaningful books is too long already.

Posted by: Thuff | June 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Disaster for McCain is choosing Condi, because she was a shiller for the Neocon delusion of invading Iraq; the worst national security advisor and secretary of state in history - the Dems will tag this as a Bush move.
Second disaster for McCain is to choose Romney. Pro-torture!, Corporate Greed in a time of recession, his Bain Capital will be thoroughly investigated as a leveraged buyout
hedge for his Mormon money, off-shore and tax-free. The Dems would love to sink their teeth into Romney, let alone Patrick Fitzgerald. His on record in soundbites and films for swearing allegiance to the things he allegedly hated a year ago, and continually lied above everything from his own father and King marching, and his personal "convictions" re life issues, where Pro-Family groups in Mass were betrayed. A complete Carbetbagger who casts a dark aura with a Colgate smile - an Amway cult salesman. What appears disingenuous on the surface can be cultist in reality and a dark day for America. Beware America!!!!
Disaster 3: Lieberman. He has no charisma, who when he speaks he whines - he puts people to sleep he's so bad. He may be a decent human being, but McCain needs more charisma and youth on the ticket than the ex Democrat Joe Lieberman.
Smarter moves for McCain: Chuck Hagel. A reconciliation would be stunning and would represent the dynamic shift to Realism that McCain needs to win - anoth er Maverick that makes McCain look good.
A woman on the ticket (other than Condi!) Carly Fiorina has been outstanding on the stump, such as her interview with Russert on MSNBC. She shows an ability to answer questions better than 99% of traditional professional politicians. And she brings economic knowledge and experience, youth and attractiveness.
And if not Carly then some other appropriate woman like Sarah Palin etc.

Posted by: Johnny B Good | June 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama was not having a "Racial" problem with "hard-working, uneducated Whites" until"
...he went behind their backs and denigrated their faith and values while hobnobbing with fat cats in San Francisco.

Or did you forget when Obama let slip that he believes town Americans "cling to their guns and their religion and antipathy toward people who aren't like them...out of some sense of frustration"?

The voters haven't forgotten. Why do you think Obama lost a primary on the very last night of primary voting by 15%, to somebody who had already been counted out?

Why did Obama keep losing races right up till the end? No one wants to answer that question. You dems have on your hands a candidate who is disliked by a large protion of your base. How do ya like them apples? lol

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

i think the GOP line is spot on, but i think webb should be #1 for obama. webb's "two purple hearts, union card and three tattoos" might make him attractive to "Hillary Democrats." and the fact that he's an accomplished writer might help re-inforce obama's base of college educated liberals. not to mention his foreign policy credentials, military chops and his VA geography.

Posted by: against the DLC | June 6, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

It has to be a governor.

Jim Webb will be a much-needed ally in the Senate. Mark Warner is 7 months away from being an ally in the Senate. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and even what's her name will be needed in the Senate. Otherwise, his platform won't be enacted.

Ohio makes sense. Rendell won't run. Sebelius would be great for the mountain states, but risky.

Posted by: Thuff | June 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"I think I've been placed on probation again on the other site. can't get on."

that site doesn't have probation; try emailing the admin for help.

Posted by: bsimon | June 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

>>GandalfTheGrey wrote: "AsperGirl - your candidate LOST --Give a rest. Besides, she is not that smart. ...She is an unremarkable human being - swept into the spotlight of national attention by her marriage decision --"

How dare you say that. Gandalf, you're a paid Obama blogging shill, programmed with his campaign's talking points and paid to blanket the Internet with his smears and slander against Clinton while he talks "new politics" and pretends to be respectful.

Hillary Clinton was a student of politics all her life, even in high school. Her valedictory address at Wellesley was so brilliant it was covered by Life Magazine in 1969. She didn't go to Harvard Law, she went to Yale, where she was editor of the law review. She was an associate with the prosecution team in the Watergate proceedings against Nixon, made partner in her law firm and was named a Top 100 Influential lawyer in America. She suspended her career to become First Lady, and immediately after Bill's 2-term Presidency, she became a 2-term senator from New York who's very well thought of as a bipartisan and hardworking lawmaker. She saw New York through 9/11 and some of its toughest times ever.

What has your candidate done. We won't talk about his "misspent youth" and cocaine habit. Apart from having great academic skills, he's underperformed everything he's done. He has zero professional accomplishments.

He was unemployed for 2 years after getting his Bachelor's degree, then admittedly got nowhere as a community organizer and went back to school. With his ivy league law degree, he went to a small law firm, and he didn't even make partner there. Finally, he was patronized and mentored into politics by a woman he later turned around and backstabbed. He's never won a real election against a real opponent, but all his opponents were disqualified, imploded or were never viable. He's accomplished nothing notable as a politician yet, having angered his Illinois senate colleagues by voting "present" 130 times and claiming he pushed the wrong button other times, mostly on controversial or tough issues. As a U.S. senator, he's spent 2 of his 3 years campaigning for President.

Obama is probably the only politician in the U.S. who accomplished exactly nothing professionally with an ivy league law degree before going into politics and who has accomplished nothing as a lawmaker before running for President.

Not only is he the professionally and legislatively underachieving product of Affirmative Action, the only compelling argument for his Presidential candidacy is racial.

Not only is his a racial preference candidacy, he has spent a great part of the millions of the money that poor hopefuls have poured into his campaign paying blogging shills like yourself to spread the smears and sexist slander of the female opposition around the Internet and media world, like how she married her way into getting any recognition.

Obama is a fraud, a phony and a hollow, empty talking suit who will not be able to run the country in a time of war and economic disruption. He can't even quit smoking and has been clutching his Nicorette like a compulsive addict for months.

There are many, many reasons why Clinton supporters will ignore her expected endorsement and encouragement to vote for him, and why we will support the more experienced and capable McCain instead. Even if that man were 90, he'd be more competent professionally as a President than your candidate.

If you weren't paid by Obama to blog and shill this kind of sexist belittling of Clinton all over the Internet, this campaign wouldn't have been the mysogynist nightmare for so many women.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

krazy keith is a typical repuke

krazy keith is king of zouk

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"an unsolvable problem"

I refuse to see the truth, just like Obama. the war is already lost and the surge is already a failure. no facts can convince me otherwise.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | June 6, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"the RINO-DINO ticket"

LOL! Good one, mnteng.

I agree that Palin would be great. Less name recog than Jindal at this point, but the gender pander is tempting. I doubt Obama will go for Hillary, so that makes a solid female selection almost too good to pass up.


CC should replace Thune and Pawlenty with Jindal and Palin.

I really like the idea of McCain/Crist too; we need Florida. Hey! they could borrow a handle from Disney: Grumpy and Happy.


p.s.(I think I've been placed on probation again on the other site. can't get on.)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"Repubs confront the problem at the solvable stage and avert the problem."

Exactly. For instance: invade Iraq before non-existent al Qaida in Iraq assassinates Saddam & turns Iraq into terrorist safe-haven. Problem averted!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

we did expand the government, hollow out the military, increase inflation, spend lots of money, accomplish nothing and so forth. so we have tried, but we failed.

Posted by: we libs | June 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

krazy keith is a typical repuke.

these are the people who say things like "no attacks since 9/11." too bad there was one attack since 9/10.

unfortunately for krazy keith, and the rest of us, there was no "solvable problem" in Iraq, but now there is an unsolvable problem, thanks to our idiot president.

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 6, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

Interesting dark horse pick ...

Posted by: mnteng | June 6, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Again going back to the 40s. Have you Libs done anything since then? It has been a very slow century for you.

Posted by: krazy keith | June 6, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Repubs confront the problem at the solvable stage and avert the problem."

Yes, yes, of course. See, e.g., how the Repubs confronted "the problem" before 12/7/41.

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 6, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

turn a little regional conflict which is pretty much won into a big, consequential war.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Actually, this is pretty much how all those big wars get started. Libs refuse to see the gathering storm and hide under the bed.

Repubs confront the problem at the solvable stage and avert the problem.

Posted by: krazy keith | June 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Bad mistake. I wish everyone would shut up about Hillary as if she is some Great White Hope. Obama was not having a "Racial" problem with "hard-working, uneducated Whites" until Clinton created the slogan. It was her who first told the media, and the media perpetuated this slogan during the Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky races to use as an edge to promote Clinton. Obama only need for Clinton to reverse the negative slogan she created and move on to whatever endeavors on her list that DOES NOT involve the the Presidential race. She created this problem, so let her suffer. You know just like I know, she will never be Obama's VP.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

The D-list is okay. Lacks Richardson, Webb is way too high, but Ted Strickland makes perfect sense. For those who care, Randell has made it clear OVER AND OVER he is not interested. On NPR a few months back, he talked about how BAD of a VP he would be.

The R-list is confused as the Republicians are on who should be their VP choice. You should expand the field to about 10 or 15 viable candidates and you might get it right.

Posted by: Youforgotme | June 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

This 18 million votes logic is beyond reason. Most of those votes were cast long before Clinton went off the deep end. Give them credit for having a brain and not belonging to the die-hard Clintonista cult.

They saw her lunacy in moving back the goal posts every week and making claims that became more and more insane as her campaign dragged on and on and on. They will long remember her goofy ride up the river in Egypt on Tuesday night (de Nile).

Obama is going to wait until the news media--led by her head cheerleader Cillizza-- will get tired of writing about her. She'll go out with a whimper. Then Obama will pick someone else who is living in the land of reality.

Posted by: Thuff | June 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama cannot pick Hillary Clinton...as Ed Rendell said, the party's Presidential candidate cannot have terms dictated to him. I think picking Hillary, with the baggage of Bill Clinton and her connection to a previous way of conducting politics would hamstring Obama and make him weak in the general election.
I think Clark would be the strongest pick for Obama - excellent military and foreign policy experience, from a swing state (Arkansas) and is a Clinton loyalist.
All past sins will be washed away now that the primary is over, so his bashing of Obama will be forgiven.
I don't think McCain can pick Lieberman, he is already un-trusted by the hard-core conservatives in the party, so picking a Dem (even a Democrat-lite) would be a major mistake. I also think it would give the Democrats some great fuel: McCain couldn't find any Republicans worthy of being VP, so he had to ask a Democrat!
Bobby Jindal would be a better choice for McCain...he would represent real conservative values, an appeal to Catholics, and would do much to remove the historic nature of Obama's victory.

Posted by: Tyler | June 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Is Jack Kemp too far out of politics to be a viable running mate for McCain?

Posted by: bsimon | June 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

proud:

Clearly, CC hasn't yet caught up on his sleep.

Crist (and his baggage), but not Jindal? Thune, but not Palin (for the telegenic vote)? And what's Lieberman good for -- the RINO-DINO ticket?

His D list isn't any better. Strickland, but not Rendell? Edwards (who already said he didn't want it), but not Biden? The Clintons?

Sigh. Back to hibernating.

Posted by: mnteng | June 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza is correct, Strickland is the most obvious choice because he is the safest choice. I have made peace with the idea of Hillary as No. 2, but that would require a vetting of everything Bill is doing in regard to fundraising for his library and foundation PLUS Bill would need to agree to coordinate (that is, clear) his activities with an Obama White House. Anyone believe he would be willing to do any of that? Me either, so Hillary is automatically eliminated because her husband will resist the vetting of his activities.

Veeps seldom help a ticket much, except in perhaps their home state. Of all those mentioned, Stickland can help in a state in play with the most electoral votes. If helps the campaign with messaging to blue collar types, that's just a little extra.

One final item in Strickland's favor. he is 66, which means he would not be an obvious successor to Obama in 2016, assuming everything goes according to plan. That means the 2016 Democratic nomination would be wide open, giving Hillary one more shot if she chooses to take it. That would be an extra incentive to her to help the ticket with everything that she has.

Posted by: Scott | June 6, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama might need help with Latinos, but Richardson's "zipper problems" are notorious.

What about Gov Brian Schweitzer of Montana? Western Gov, maverick, outsider... Seems like a good choice to me.

Or how about Congressman Robert Wexler of FL? He's a passionate supporter, from a key state & would help Obama with the Jewish community.

Finally, if not Hillary, could Sen Diane Feinstein be on the list?

Posted by: Michael in Seattle | June 6, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Governor Ted Strickland is a good choice. He is marked by intelligence, integrity, and spiritual grounding, all of which will help Senator Obama connect with morally conservative Democrats, of which the industrial Midwest has a pretty good chunk. Two Roman Catholic choices with similar qualities would be Senator Boib Casey and former Representative Tim Roemer.

I recognize that Senator Obama is irrevocably attached to a woman's right to choose in reproductive matters, but he needs to reach out to those who are concerned about the prevalence of abortion. Perhaps he could take a close look at what he can support in the Democrats for Life 95-10 Initiative and take a strong approach to reducing abortion through positive programs that fit with Democratic social and economic values. Any one of the three V.P. candidates I am suggesting would help give credibility to that and would help form a potent governing coalition for addressing America's social and economic problems.

Posted by: JohnJT | June 6, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Even if Edwards hadn't removed himself from contention today, he should not have been on this list. He's a weak candidate with no coattails.

Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Sam Nunn, Kathleen Sebelius, and Wesley Clark seem like the top five choices to me. Biden in particular has really rehabilitated his political standing because of his campaign even if it was ultimately unsuccessful.

Clinton is a nonstarter. Too much risk. No need to drive up the GOP turnout by having the Republicans focus more on his veep than himself.

http://www.theseventen.com/2008/06/obama-veepstakes-defusing-hillarybomb.html

Posted by: theseventen | June 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Strickland has some troubling baggage, as even a cursory google search will divulge. what about Sam Nunn? Rendell? With Rendell, one question is whether he could hold his own in the veep debate, but he would certainly help with PA, a must-win state. Richardson brings real strengths to the table, but is the country ready for a top to bottom minority ticket? I'd like to see it but suspect it would go over like a lead balloon among the working class voters whose support Obama needs.

Posted by: Bemused | June 6, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"It seems everyone has over reacted to Jim Webb's comments made years ago about women in the military that at that time was shared by most of the high brass. "

I don't think people here actually have a problem with Webb. They are just talking about how he might be perceived by others. Its very easy to take this stuff out of context.

Although George Allen tried to do this and failed, so who knows.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps there should be a higher emphasis on governors. This year is an exception, but senators are almost never elected president. Governors, on the other hand, do well. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GWB were all governors.

Maybe the VP should be a governor too. It makes sense. Governors are closer to their people than senators are. Governors are Washington outsiders. Senators aren't. Governors aren't involved in national affairs, but have an executive role. Senators, while more involved in national affairs, aren't executives. Being a governor is more like being a president as opposed to being a senator.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

It seems everyone has over reacted to Jim Webb's comments made years ago about women in the military that at that time was shared by most of the high brass. He hasn't had the same attitude about women in military for years and has praised military women on many occasions. Jim Webb is one smart guy that won't take any bull from the GOP and knows how to make his point. In order to win over women it's a matter of setting the issue straight with as many repetitions as needed. So far he has done a great job in the Senate and pleasantly surprised many who misjudged him.

Posted by: ktodack | June 6, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Given the direction that Bush has taken the country, and McBush's enthusiam for those policies, his choice for a VP is clear - Adolf Hitler.

Posted by: GOP is the American Nazi Party | June 6, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Squinz... Is Clinton the only woman alive who counts? I seriously don't get it. NO, SHE'S THE ONE WITH THE 18 MILLION+ VOTES!

Posted by: Nan | June 6, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"but if both George Will and Ron Christie are bad-mouthing her there must be some reason to like her on the ticket. ... unless, of course, Will and Christie and the like are anticipating just that reaction."


How very Rovian of you, flownover.

Posted by: Karl | June 6, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl - your candidate LOST --

Give a rest. Besides, she is not that smart. Her foreign policy plan is Bush-light. Her domestic policies are middle of the road Democratic pro-forma.

She is an unremarkable human being - swept into the spotlight of national attention by her marriage decision --

her policy wonkishness is great -- but not dissimilar from any Hill staffer. She has no ethical backbone -- morally she is adrift - that's why she has the highest negative approval rating in the known universe.

You are backing a failed candidate. America does not trust her. What's more she is unelectable. Get a grip.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | June 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"winning big, consequential wars."

Well, I can grant you that Obama's approach to Iraq will turn a little regional conflict which is pretty much won into a big, consequential war.

Posted by: krazy keith | June 6, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I am curious: why is Sen. Feinstein not in the mix? Is it the same old stuff about her husband? She meets most of the criteria in my book -- a person of great stature/substance; a centrist; a woman; a Clinton supporter. Only issue is geographical, inasmuch as Democrats are unlikely to have trouble carrying California -- but the truth is, the running mate rarely brings his/her state anyway.

Posted by: SLO CA | June 6, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I doubt anything would unify Democrats behind Obama more than the presence of Joe Lieberman on the Republican ticket.

Meanwhile, I'm becoming bipolar about Hillary. I really resent her Rove-style campaign, and Obama would have to find a way to make her a non-coerced choice, but if both George Will and Ron Christie are bad-mouthing her there must be some reason to like her on the ticket. ... unless, of course, Will and Christie and the like are anticipating just that reaction.

Confusing, ain't it? Sort of a "Dread Pirate Roberts" moment.

Bottom line, I still like Sebelius - maybe because I get to be smug about the ability to spell her name correctly.

Posted by: FlownOver | June 6, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Some good choices, Chris.

Also, how about:

Gen. Westmoreland for Obama? He would add age, gravitas and military cred. As a Vietnam era general, he knows a quagmire (Iraq) when he sees one. He can help.

Elizabeth Dole for McCain? Angry, rural women for HRC would have a more logical reason to vote for a team that would be committed to taking away their right to chose. BTW, it would take Liddy Do' out of my Great State of North Carolina once and for all. Talk about carpetbagger!

|| -- + + + -- ||

Is there something I can spray on my keyboard to rid this comment area of Republican't trolls and these racist loonies (no, I am not lumping the two together. I know plenty of Republicans who would vote for a black man--as long as he was a Republican't)

Posted by: tony the pitiful copywriter | June 6, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should be the Democratic Vice President. That's the only way Dems will win. Who cares what the media think.

Posted by: Susan | June 6, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Well said Conservatives are funny.

Also, Keith. Consrvatives may not like to lose wars (who does?), but they sure as hell don't like fighting in them.

Virtually all of the main players in the push for war with Iraq are chicken-hawks that never served.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Another vote for Wes Clark. His military cred tops Webb's, he is a proven and disciplined campaigner, and he is a pedigree Clinton man. He may not have the ablitility to bring a state (Ark?) but he stops McCain in his tracks if he wants to criticize Obama for foreign policy/defense inexperience or naivite. His Jewish roots don't hurt either. He would be the perfect VP candidate and a great VP.

Posted by: AZBob | June 6, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Duh - once again Cillizza is myopic.

WHAT ABOUT BILL RICHARDSON!

He helps Obama with:

- national security and international diplomacy experience and talent.

- Hispanic voters

- New Mexico voters

- a well-vetted, well-investigated past

Posted by: Jim Smith | June 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is impossible because she can't pass the vetting. She and Bill would have to release records of their contributers and what they have been up to the last few years. Bill has been on an influence peddling rampage he was so sure Hillary would be president. We can only imagine what they have been promising and to who. These two sold the white house when they were there and were up to their old ways already before she was even elected yet. I don't really see how she could have even been a candidate period to be honest. Are peoples memories this short? They even tried to steal the furniture from the white house when they left. No one remembers them having to return it?

++++++
Hillary should be the Democratic Vice President. That's the only way Dems will win. Who cares what the media think.

Posted by: Susan | June 6, 2008 12:45 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Tim Pawlenty should not be #1 on the line. The voters in Minnesota have it in for him. Just look at the vitriol from one local a couple threads backs. They'll do everything they can to badmouth this ticket if it's Pawlenty. It's already starting. Doesn't matter if the facts disagree with their conclusions, they've concluded that all their infrastructure problems can be laid at the feet of Tim Pawlenty."

I see that you haven't solved that reading comprehension problem yet. Good luck with that.

Posted by: bsimon | June 6, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I agree with your Republican pick. Pawlenty's youth and residence from a battleground state makes him a great choice.

But I think Governor Kaine of Virginia is one Democrat you can believe in. I doubt Barack wants to risk losing Jim Webb's Senate seat. Kaine endorsed Barack early in the process and brought him one of his biggest triumphs. Strickland is a possibility.

Posted by: larry buchas | June 6, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should be the Democratic Vice President. That's the only way Dems will win. Who cares what the media think.

Posted by: Susan | June 6, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

bsimon's dark-horse pick for Obama:

Bill Bradley

Posted by: bsimon | June 6, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Keith.

There simply is no history of Conservatives winning big, consequential wars. NONE. NOTTA. ZIP.

Every, and I mean EVERY significant war ever fought and won by this country was fought and won by a liberal, starting with the revolution, which is THE most liberal war we have ever fought.

Now I'm parsing a bit I know, but there's method to my madness. And before you cite Iraq, stop. I don't count Iraq, either gulf 1 or gulf 2, as a 'significant' war. Why? Because Iraq is a geopolitical bit player with an economy (when it was working) about 0.1% as large as ours. Ditto Panama. Ditto Grenada. It's swatting flies with a sledgehammer. No real risk was there.

In fact, Iraq is completely typical of the kind of fights conservatives pick...one's they KNOW they'll win (although we're finding out now that you still actually have to have a clue what you're doing).

That's ok though, it's CONSERVATIVE to fight wars where you know the outcome in advance. It's also why conservatives fought to keep us out of WWI and WWII. Why take a chance?

History has shown that it's the wars you just might lose, where there is a lot at stake morally or ideologically, that conservative presidents hate and liberal ones fight. It's a tough reality, but one I am certain you won't be able to refute with anything other than indignation and name calling...just like your last post.

And I might be willing to give you that Dukakis could be a wimp, but, of course we never found out did we? But even so, what of it? If the past 8 years has shown us that we're better off with a smart wimp than a swaggering incompetent.

Posted by: Conservatives are funny | June 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl - get over it, good grief. Clinton is ALSO A JUNIOR SENATOR, Schumer is the Senior Senator from New York - get your freaking facts straight. Furthermore, Clinton has served in elected office for seven years to Obama's eleven. I, for one, appreciate Obama's adherence to evidence-based government, and yes, the opinion of economists. Remember? It's the economy, stupid?

Posted by: squintz | June 6, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Tim Pawlenty should not be #1 on the line. The voters in Minnesota have it in for him. Just look at the vitriol from one local a couple threads backs. They'll do everything they can to badmouth this ticket if it's Pawlenty. It's already starting. Doesn't matter if the facts disagree with their conclusions, they've concluded that all their infrastructure problems can be laid at the feet of Tim Pawlenty.

They call themselves independants, but most Minnesotans are just your average loon. (e.g. Jesse Ventura? Al Franken? Hubert Humphrey? Walter Mondale?) C'mon, admit it...Minnesota is no bastion of great pols.
Or sane voters.

And Bobby Jindal, not on the Line? What're you smokin' Chris Cilizza?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 6, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

What about Richardson - could bring CO, NV, NM plus has foreign policy experience plus he is Hispanic

Posted by: Phil | June 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"Mark Warner will be the next VP of the U. S."

Barring a major disaster, Warner will be a Democratic pickup in the Senate. I think this puts him out of contention.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Crist? Well, at least McCain would have someone close by to help with redecorating, entertaining and men's fashions.....

Posted by: GmcDuluth | June 6, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD - I think it's ridiculous to see her as a "token" woman"

This is not my personal view. I like her. I think a lot of the disaffected Clinton supporters will take that position, though.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain should go with Romney, and Obama with Webb.

Posted by: Shyannie | June 6, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"Truman liked to cut costs. He is the anti-Obama."

Can you name me a Republican President under who spending decreased once you adjust for inflation?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD - I think it's ridiculous to see her as a "token" woman, she's got a number of obvious strengths to bring to the ticket, and she's been an Obama supporter since long before this sexist nonsense got totally out of control. She's an extraordinarily successful Governor, and she provides a nice boring counter to Obama. Women are the majority of the electorate, as has been evidenced by Clinton's success, so I think it's a bit old fashioned to still be in the "token" mindset. As a female Obama supporter, I heard no end of the "she's a woman, you have to support her or you're a traitor" argument, so I just can't understand how these same women would be offended by the selection of a qualified female VP. Frankly, if Obama doesn't pick a woman, McCain surely will (or perhaps they both will, won't that be something?) to scoop up the disaffected Clintonistas. No doubt about it. She's a great choice, although I'm still partial to Bloomberg, but no one seems to agree with me.

Posted by: squintz | June 6, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm so glad that Obama and his media fans did such a good job belittling and pillorying Hillary Clinton's multifaceted energy-action plan. Like most shallow, self-serving political campaigning and biased punditry, Obama, his media shills and the academic economists who lined up behind him really did a good job of delaying action on the energy price problems long enough for people like me to make money off it.

Reminder of Clinton's energy action points she was trying to push before ridiculed with editorials and letters from these Obama-supporting economists into shutting up:

-- Close the Enron loophole (stop some problems now)
-- Congressional investigation of effect on speculators on oil prices (assess the causes of price spikes)
-- Gas Tax Holiday to provide approx. 18 cents/gal relief to consumers and transportation industry (e.g. stop the crashing of the trucking, airline and U.S. auto markets this year)
-- Windfall profits tax on record oil company profits to pay for Gas Tax Holiday (start assessing price structure for potential gouging and price controls)

For her long term energy independence proposals, see:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

So tell me again, what is the point of elevating the incompetent freshman senator over the competent, prepared and multifaceted senior senator in the contest (who won the popular vote)? What is the point of elevating the technically unqualified candidate over the qualified candidate during a time of multiple crises?

Oh yeah, he's black and that would make everyone feel so inspired that we have come a long way. Too bad the other half of the Democratic electorate had to be stomped on and disssed in sexist ways in order for the other half to prove what a long way America has come.

Without the knowledgeable and technically-problem-solving Clinton to vote for, we're back to the usual choice between two idiots on the ballot. We have a beloved old maverick who is spouting exhausted policies of a bankrupt party on the right and an charismatic face man freshman senator who represents the racial preference candidacy, on the left.

What a joke this all is. What a wasteland of narcissism and shallowness U.S. politics is. There was one candidate worth voting for in this year of multiple historic and poorly understood problems we face as a nation. And now she's gone.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama = Leave iraq immediately = Saudi in instability = $10-$12 per gallon gasoline

Posted by: Josh | June 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Mark Warner will be the next VP of the U. S.

Posted by: tm | June 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

But this I believe is the truth: America dodged a bullet. That was the other meaning of the culminating events of this week.

Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president. Mr. Obama may prove a disaster, and John McCain may, but she would be. Mr. Obama may lie, and Mr. McCain may lie, but she would lie. And she would have brought the whole rattling caravan of Clintonism with her--the scandal-making that is compulsive, the drama that is unending, the sheer, daily madness that is her, and him.

We have been spared this. Those who did it deserve to be thanked. May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party.

Posted by: peggy N. | June 6, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"so you don't take issue with the "Libs love to raise taxes" fact. how could you?

Can you admit "Libs love to lose wars?""

Conservatives love GW Bush.

I think that settles that argument.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I guess if you have to go all the way to 1940 to make your point then you have already lost. but then when your history of presidential victories is so thin, I guess you don't have a lot of options.

JFK liked to win wars and lower taxes. He would be drummed out of the party today, just like Liebermann. Truman liked to cut costs. He is the anti-Obama.

the modern legacy of the Lib party is Kerry, gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Dean, Carter and the sole winner of the bunch - clinton - who is now persona non-grata.

It seems you can't stand having any winners amongst your people. Barack will fit right in. And the aversion to winning extends right down to the congress (no actual laws passed yet) and could be forced on the military (lose the war now before you win).

Posted by: krazy keith | June 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

And a final question: Would Edwards want to run for VP again? "
That's really the only question -- if it includes the question of whether Edwards wants to run NOW. Edwards's stance during the primary covered enough new thinkinig to keep with Obama's message of change.
He deeply resonates with the blue collar base that Obama lost to Clinton.
My favorite would be Feingold, but I doubt that he's even on the short list.
Clinton decided that she wanted the VP slot too late. Had she not gone negative in the primaries, it would have been possible.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | June 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Most likely: After Hillary's gracious speech tomorrow, momentum will build for an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Could happen sooner than you think.

Obama-Gore next most likely possibility. Gore is a two-fer. (1) would cause a lot of excitement and enthusiasm, and (2) so boring would not overshadow Obama.

Posted by: Fred | June 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I think Webb would be problematic, especially in this election trying to regain strength with Hillary's women. Webb has said and written some pretty controversial stuff about women in the military, etc. During his Senate campaign my daughter canvassed for him and this was a frequent question. Fair or not, he is not seen as a proponent of feminism.

Posted by: Sharon | June 6, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"I am having a really hard time understanding the idea that picking Sebelius would further piss off the Clinton supporters. If they've been arguing against some "sexism" than it would be totally insane to turn around and get offended when another woman is named as VP."

Because they could make the reasonable argument that she is just there to pander to the women voters. Picking someone to be a token woman is pretty insulting in itself. I'm not saying she's unqualified, but a lot of people would just see her as a token woman.

Personally, I think this is a good enough reason not to pick a woman running mate. Both feminists and sexists will team up against her.

Which is unfortunate. I like her.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Could never be Webb. He is too much of a loose cannon to be Number Two.

If you want foreign policy/military bona fides, why not Clark, Zinni, David Boren, Nunn (though maybe gay & lesbian backlash kills that one), Richardson (though a little loose cannon-y as well), John Spratt...

Posted by: Joey | June 6, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

It's got to be Kathleen Sebelius in my opinion. She's a popular two-term Governor of a red state and she's a native of Ohio. Oh yeah, and she's a woman.

Obama-Sebelius does sound like a Harry Potter character though!!

Posted by: Jerry | June 6, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann, who spotlights misbehavior nightly with his "Worst Person in the World" recognition, owes New York state for unpaid business taxes, according to a tax warrant notice..."

Sounds like Olbermann, under a tax warrant, should be paying his taxes instead of pushing the highest-tax candidate this year (Obama).

Is there a "Worst Pundit in the World" prize?

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I like your thinking, Chris, with the exception of BILLARY Clinton. She is one ASSURED way for Obama to lose, plus why would he choose a spitting COBRA as a White House room mate?

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 6, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

We've learned Mr. Obama's weak spot is, as expected, national security. His backpedaling on which dictators he'd engage is one example. His attacks on Mr. McCain for being inflexible on diplomacy, even as he inflexibly calls for troop withdrawals - no matter how great the Iraq success - is becoming another.

Posted by: Kim s. | June 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"These picks are too serious. We need levity. Both candidates need to shore up weak points. McCain amongst voters who are under 70 and have been to college. Obama amongst voters who are over 70 or have not gone to college."

Maybe they should just choose each other. Winner takes prez, loser takes VP.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Remember Obama said that the Constitution is stained

How about Obama being stained by Rezko,

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Obama's pick is going to be Evan Bayh. So, why don't you start focusing on him a bit? Bayh, with his strong executive as well as foreign policy experience, complements Obama's resume very well, while also being consistent with his message. He's a "red state" politician that draws votes from people of all stripes, including "hard working" blue collar folks, moderates, Republicans, etc. And since he is only slightly older than Obama at age 52, he doesn't detract from the generational change image that Obama will want to project. In addition, a team of Obama and Bayh will have a strong chance of winning Indiana, which has been fairly favorable to Democrats of late, plus also helping sure up Ohio and Michigan and the midwest as a whole, which will be a major battleground of this election.

Posted by: Kevin20 | June 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama picks Eliot Spitzer; McCain chooses Larry Craig.

Posted by: CapitalCat | June 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

@11:31

(intransitive) to move, go, or proceed forward; to advance

They progress through the museum.

Posted by: smartinsen | June 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris


WHY isn't Tony Rezko on the list for Obama - good friends for a long time, reliable relationship.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Pawlenty?! Still?! By all means, take him. He won MN only because of a DFL and a Green party candidate running neck and neck. Even then, he barely won. 35W bridge collapse won't help him. Heck, he couldn't even get MN to vote for McCain.

Docwatson . . . I'm not sure what you're smoking (McCain is a liberal dem), but whatever it is, I want some!

Posted by: Mpls Dem | June 6, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Krazy Keith wrote:

Can you admit "Libs love to lose wars?"
________________________________________

LOL!

You mean like FDR and WWII?

oh no, wait, we won and he was a liberal.

Do you maybe mean Wilson and WWI?

oh no, wait, we won and he was a liberal.

Maybe you mean Lincoln and the Civil War?

hmm, well, ending slavery was pretty liberal for a republican.... oh and he won!

Ok, I'm stumped!

I'm waiting for those great conservative warrior-kings to be listed Keith. Maybe we could count Reagan. He kicked but in Grenada! Or maybe Nixon and Vietnam...oops... bad example. Oh, no worry, you'll come up with SOMEONE, I'm sure... ;)

Posted by: Conservatives are funny | June 6, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Let's look at needs: First, Obama needs someone who has foreign policy experience and appeals to Reagan Democrats. My picks, using this model, would be Biden, Nelson, Dodd, or Webb.
McCain needs someone to shore up his image of not being conservative enough, young, and maybe with strong domestic-policy credentials. My picks would be J.C. Watts, John Thune, Rick Santourium, or Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Posted by: afam 212 | June 6, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Everybody seems to be overlooking Obama's best choice -- Ed Rendell. A gifted politican who could really help deliver a key state, popular with Clinton supporters, a "grown up" white male. Perfect.

Posted by: Dan from Texas | June 6, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I think that Obama is far stronger than his numerous and highly vocal detractors are willing to recognize or admit.

One - He will tear McCain up on foreign affairs (which subsumes defense policy - not the reverse) because he is much smarter and is not tied to the failed politics of the "Ready - FIRE - Aim" crowd that surrounded Bush and launched the ill-fated democratize the Middle East debacle. Here, Hillary would be absolutely no help -- she had not one original thought regarding foreign affairs -- she was Bush-light.

What was lacking from America's foreign policy under the George Bush crowd was intellectual coherence ---there really is no foreign policy now -- just regional strategies. -- and most of them are wrong.

But, under McCain, that is where the Republicans are locked it and that's where Obama will draw clear, understandable distinctions for moderates and independents.

Two - domestic issues - especially economic issues. Here, Hillary's domestic issues are the same as his -- it is in foreign affairs that he towers above both McCain and Hillary.

If I'm correct, then Obama will do well to choose a running mate that delivers the domestic agenda that Hillary might have been able to pull off -- in other words, Hillarty was far stronger running AGAINST Obama than she would have been running against McCain -- she ignored foreign policy and focused on getting out the vote for populist issues --- jobs, healthcare, education, rising costs of everything.

But, Hillary has no track record of managing any of the domestic issues.--- she has no hands-on executive experience. She is a brilliant policy wonk -- knows both sides of the issues and should manage the agenda from the Senate.

Obama needs to bring a serious and powerful former governot to the Vice-President slot -- someone who can handle domestic policy and who can work hand-in-glove with Hillary and the Congress. Obama needs a former Clinton-backer and governor to be his Vice- presidential running mate.

There are several from whom to choose.

Here is the list (not rank ordered):

Janet Napolitano
Bill Richardson
Kathleen Sebelius
Ted Strickland
Ed Rendell
Tim Kaine

There are several others and a long shot -
Bob Kerrey, former Governor of Nebraska, former U.S. Senator, University President (in New York), Clinton backer and Medal of Honor recipient.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | June 6, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't you, you are a Republican aren't you?

++++++
I would be very dissappointed if Hillary quits the fight, so giving satisfaction to all her haters and hypocrites! But will be the most serious political and moral trouble for Hillary Clinton any support, endorsement or association with Barack Hussein Obama !I have supported Hillary until now, but here is a turning point in my commitment ! Even if Clinton is on VP spot of this ticket, my family and a lot of friends will vote for McCain in November 2008. We can't imagine to vote for a spoiled and "empty" political person or for some fake programs !
Regarding Hillary, my family was so sorry how "the first lady", as woman, mother, wife or daughter, was treated by Obama and his "Chicago gangsters" all along this campaign !!! She and his family was blamed, denigrated and humiliated ! And now these beasts with human faces are looking for reconciliation or forgiveness !!!???....Wake up, Hillary !!!!

Posted by: GTX13 | June 6, 2008 11:42 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

When it comes to the inner-workings of the parties I'm pretty ignorant. But that doesn't stop me (or anyone else) from having a nose . . . errr opinion.

I imagine a portion of the Barrack/Clinton interview to go something like this:

Barrack: "So do you think you'd like to live at the Naval Observatory and limit your vocabulary to 'Yes Mr. President?'"

Hillary: "Can I run workgroups, seminars, public events to help you with policy?"

Barrack: "No, the policy comes from the White House and is received by the vice-president. There's ample gardening opportunities at the Naval Observatory."

Hillary: "I think I'd be happier not being your vice-president."

Barrack: "I thought so. So who would you recommend?"

PS - Picking a VP for the _overt_ reason of pandering to a locality would run counter to the '50 state' message. Doth they walk their talk?

Posted by: NoOneImportant | June 6, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

I would be very dissappointed if Hillary quits the fight, so giving satisfaction to all her haters and hypocrites! But will be the most serious political and moral trouble for Hillary Clinton any support, endorsement or association with Barack Hussein Obama !I have supported Hillary until now, but here is a turning point in my commitment ! Even if Clinton is on VP spot of this ticket, my family and a lot of friends will vote for McCain in November 2008. We can't imagine to vote for a spoiled and "empty" political person or for some fake programs !
Regarding Hillary, my family was so sorry how "the first lady", as woman, mother, wife or daughter, was treated by Obama and his "Chicago gangsters" all along this campaign !!! She and his family was blamed, denigrated and humiliated ! And now these beasts with human faces are looking for reconciliation or forgiveness !!!???....Wake up, Hillary !!!!

Posted by: GTX13 | June 6, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Sam Nunn would be a mistake. His selection would immediately raise a howl from the lesbian and gay community, since Nunn was the homophobe-in-chief who was largely responsible for the hated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military. At one stroke Obama would alienate himself from an important Democratic constituency.

Posted by: BZ | June 6, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Strickland is certainly high on the short list, for the reasons given. But I think it is going to be Jim Webb, to judge by the rousing super-praise Obama gave him in Virginia.

In last night's meeting, he perhaps wanted provide Hillary with an opportunity to tell her supporters tomorrow that she is "not interested" in the vice presidency.

@ A-Train: You are right, the trio Biden, Dodd, and Richardson will no doubt get cabinet posts, but perhaps not the VP job. They are important specialists, but perhaps not prepared to take over on Day One.

Posted by: bodo | June 6, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

He doesn't really have to win them back. By election time this will all be ancient history. It will all be about issues and none of those women are voting for a guy who is against their right to choose. Wants to kill their children in a war. Has no interest in their children's health and well being. Wants to privatize SS. It will not even be a close by then. people vote their own interest. This guy is the biggest enemy women have and he wants their vote? Why do people think women are so stupid they will just vote from emotion? Women know something about the issues. That is really insulting to women. Hillary thinks they are just some kind of hormone driven dopy drones that will just follow her around?

===============
Obama will not win back a single one of those Clinton-supporting women by choosing Webb. He may have his military/defense credentials, but he's a misogynist.

Obama should focus on Dodd, Biden or Sebelius.

Posted by: DBK | June 6, 2008 11:12 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse


Even as a former Senator Clinton supporter,

NOT GONNA HAPPEN !

Posted by: Hello | June 6, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

McCain's the RETRO candidate so how about McCain-Nixon '08???

Posted by: McCain VP Choice? | June 6, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I am having a really hard time understanding the idea that picking Sebelius would further piss off the Clinton supporters. If they've been arguing against some "sexism" than it would be totally insane to turn around and get offended when another woman is named as VP. Is Clinton the only woman alive who counts? I seriously don't get it. I think it would be a great olive branch to Democratic women to select Sebelius, in addition to being a much better pick than Clinton. I mean, he's a junior senator, she's a junior senator, he has no executive experience, neither does she. A hugely successful female Governor from a red state fits the bill, in my opinion, why is Clinton the only option? I just don't get it at all.

Posted by: squintz | June 6, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

so you don't take issue with the "Libs love to raise taxes" fact. how could you?

Can you admit "Libs love to lose wars?"

Posted by: krazy keith | June 6, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Barack cannot choose Hillary. If he does, I can see the RNC ads already featuring "Obama's own vice-president says he's not experienced enough!"

She sealed her doom when she chose to run the campaign she ran. Better to pick someone that will help the ticket, than someone who is a known pariah.

Posted by: Orbiter Dictum | June 6, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Obviously wrote:

"Obama will progress race relations in America..."

The verb "progress" is not a transitive verb; that is, it cannot be used with a direct object. Do you not have an ear to hear the terrible offense against the English language that you are perpetrating in that 'sentence?'

Posted by: spinotter | June 6, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama/Sharpton '08

Posted by: Tom, Washington, DC | June 6, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I think she shouldn't be VP--give her a real position. Make her Majority Leader in the senate.

Posted by: Laura | June 6, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Do you honestly think he even has any idea about it? People like him as well as many others have business managers and secretarys. I doubt he ever personally writes a check. I have friends who don't pay anything the bills go to their offices and a secretary pays the bills. Olbermann makes I believe 5 or 6 million a year, you think he is stiffing them for $2269.50? Don't be stupid. He may blow that much on a night out with friends. I am afraid you can't identify with people like him. I have a neighbor who own one of the largest medical billing company in the US. He is worth a few billion and he never has any money on him at all. The water to his house was actually turned off because a new secretary didn't know she was to pay it.

Petty stuff like you are writing about belittles those who write it, it is so silly.

+++++++++++++
MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann, who spotlights misbehavior nightly with his "Worst Person in the World" recognition, owes New York state for unpaid business taxes, according to a tax warrant notice.And his conservative counterparts and bloggers are making sure the debt is fodder in the ongoing political commentators' feud.Olbermann, the host of "Countdown," owes New York $2,269.50, according to a tax warrant obtained by The Associated Press.


Libs love raising taxes, they just don't like paying them.

Posted by: krazy keith | June 6, 2008 11:13 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

If you don't want to talk about Krazy keith, let's talk about Franken.

It is not an isolated incident.

Posted by: krazy keith | June 6, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Dems:
1. Strickland
2. Webb
3. Kaine
4. Schweitzer
5. Hagel
6. Sebelius
7. Richardson
8. Bill Nelson
9. Edwards
10. Nunn

GOP:
1. Pawlenty
2. Romney
3. Jindal
4. Palin
5. Crist
6. Sanford
7. Portman
8. Thune
9. Cox
10. Fiorina

So, I quite agree with Cilizza. But, in no way, Hillary will be on the ticket (the same for Huckabee).

Many more potential good choices for Obama... (sigh)
For McCain, the list is in fact a 5-name one or, rather, a 3-name one... (T-Paw, Mitt and Jindal)

I would bet for Obama-Kaine and McCain-Pawlenty.

Posted by: Horos | June 6, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

HELP WANTED
Need VP for the president to be, Baraka Hussein Obama

Qualification and requirements
-will fight for him till the end and win the Electoral College and popular votes (sorry caucuses don't count)
-strong commander-in-chief and leadership quality
- Strong in national security and military
-knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with issues such as economy, healthcare, education, housing
-knowledge, leadership and experience in foreign affairs
-knowledge, leadership in dealing with our national energy and housing crisis
- knowledge, leadership in how turn our economy around and create Green Jobs!
-must reach out to women, blue-color workers, elders, Hispanics, and low-income voters
-has high skills in speech and can deliver and articulate speeches without teleprompter
-must look presidential and handle debates regarding presidential election

For God sake who need him when we can have all that and more with Hillary.

Posted by: nancy sabet | June 6, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I often said the real "dream ticket" would be Obama-Gore, but it is such a long shot that I have not allowed myself to get my hopes up. That would guarantee Obama a huge victory in November.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | June 6, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Hey, Chris -
Given any thought to Clinton/Obama? Makes sense!
Doubts have been voiced about Obama's ability to win too many states and about his experience. Suggest to him to make a deal with Hillary. She runs for president with Obama as VP. After she finishes eight years in office at 68, Obama takes over at
54 for eight more years. Would that be good for the party Dr. Dean?

Posted by: Richard J Mullin | June 6, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

He can pick whoever he likes for his fantasy ticket. It's going to be a lot of fun role play until November, at which time the senator will be sent home to unify Illinois and bring change to Chicago and make money from peddling books on Oprah.

http://www.PresidentShe.com

Posted by: ladiesfirst | June 6, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

"MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann, who spotlights misbehavior nightly with his "Worst Person in the World" recognition, owes New York state for unpaid business taxes, according to a tax warrant notice...

Libs love raising taxes, they just don't like paying them."


Portraying Olberman as representative of all 'libs' is like porgraying Craig as representative of all 'cons'. Do you really want to play that game, toe tapper?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 6, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Former Governor and Senator Bob Graham of Florida is an excellent choice. He voted against the war, for starters. He definitely puts Florida in play. He is basically a moderate with a long and accomplished career. He is 72, so that is the only issue here.

Posted by: gerard | June 6, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Chris: All on your list except Clinton would make excellent choices for Obama's veep. I think that Strickland or Rendell would be especially effective in bringing in the rust belt blue collar voters in Ohio and Pennsy. Rendell would also play extremely well in Florida. Both of these -- without higher ambitions -- would also be good at not stealing the limelight from the younger, less experienced president.

I like the idea of Jim Webb alot, but I realize that he is somewhat of a loose cannon. He would, however, be excellent as an attack dog campaigner to go directly after the glaring hypocrisies of John McCain. Kaine is a great guy, but not the most exciting campaigner. Of the three Virginians, Warner is the pick of the litter.

I want Sebelius to campaign hard, make a major address at the Denver convention, and succeed Obama at the end of his second term in 2016.

Posted by: dee | June 6, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Clinton would do so much harm to Obama's message. I do not think the people stubborn and small-minded enough to refuse to vote for Obama because Clinton lost (thereby helping McCain be president, and really, does Hillary want that?) are going to be any more thoughtful about the implications of their stubborn-ness by voting for Clinton in the number 2 spot. In other words, adding Clinton to the ticket opens up a floodgate of negativity for Obama, both in what he will have to deal with in his campaign and in running counter to his own message of change, without bringing in too many more voters bitter over his win over Clinton. I think adding her to the ticket will turn off more Obama supporters than will bring Clinton supporters back into the fold. I am a fan of Clinton but do not think she belongs on the ticket if Democrats want to win this November. He can have Clinton play a visible role in the administration, but the VP needs far, far less baggage and an ability to bring more people to the fold than Clinton's angry supporters are likely to do. Besides, it is not exactly a trend in American history that the VP slot is offered to the runer-up for the nomination.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | June 6, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I just want to point out that I was talking about Webb before The Fix and all the other media pundits. (he was mentioned as a possible pick on CNN)

Feel free to praise me effusively. The more effuse, the better.

That is all.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 6, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

chris, there is absolutely no way that lieberman will be on the ticket with mccain. that is just silly. he would add nothing and detract a whole lot. mccain has to pick a conservative.

obama really can't pick sebelius for the reasons above. she would certainly not add more to the ticket than clinton. i say (in no particular order) richardson, edwards, strickland, rendell and clinton are the top five.

Posted by: L.A.l. | June 6, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann, who spotlights misbehavior nightly with his "Worst Person in the World" recognition, owes New York state for unpaid business taxes, according to a tax warrant notice.And his conservative counterparts and bloggers are making sure the debt is fodder in the ongoing political commentators' feud.Olbermann, the host of "Countdown," owes New York $2,269.50, according to a tax warrant obtained by The Associated Press.


Libs love raising taxes, they just don't like paying them.

Posted by: krazy keith | June 6, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama will not win back a single one of those Clinton-supporting women by choosing Webb. He may have his military/defense credentials, but he's a misogynist.

Obama should focus on Dodd, Biden or Sebelius.

Posted by: DBK | June 6, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Bayh seems like a good olive branch type pick. He'd do a lot to woo disenchanted working class whites and other moderate Dems.

Posted by: bigred | June 6, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

A balanced ticket for Obama would be Robert Byrd.

Obama is in his first term in the Senate; Byrd is the longest serving Senator.

Obama is young and black; Byrd is old and was once in the Klan.

Obama will progress race relations in America; Byrd is famous for filibustering the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.

They're both Democrats and, as Senator Clinton said, no Democrat has ever won the White House without winning West Virginia.

Obama + Byrd will equal the age of McCain + whatever young running mate the GOP chooses.

Byrd, his KKK past long behind him, endorsed Obama...and might get more appalachians to follow his lead.

Obama/Byrd '08

Posted by: Obviously | June 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I strongly suspect Obama will not raid the Democratic majority in the Senate or House. His VP and cabinet will surely come from governors or ex governors, ex senators, representives, etc.

Still, it might make political sense to early on let it be known that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State...Or whatever the heck she wants, other than VP.

Posted by: Charles Munn | June 6, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I was convinced by Nate Silver's (aka Pablano) case for Montana Gov Brian Schweitzer.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/on-brian-schweitzer-as-vp.html

I did some more research and the guy is great on my top issue, energy policy.

Posted by: TM Moore | June 6, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

I think Wes Clark is a good choice, gives the executive experience, olive branch to Clinton, and foreign policy chops.

One point in Sebelius' favor that I don't hear discussed too much is her dad was a beloved Gov of Ohio in the 70s so she may deliver two states in one. I think she, Clark, or Brian Schweitzer, Gov of Montana, are all good choices. I can't imagine Dems would put Webb on the ticket and nominate 2 1st term Senators.

To all of you who think Richardson is a good choice, it's a pretty poorly kept secret that he has stuff in his past that would keep him from getting through the vetting process.

Posted by: jallenba | June 6, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Richardson is a non-starter. First of all, he was on Kerry's shortlist and was vetted out. Second, an African-American and a Hispanic on the same ticket won't play in Macomb County. Finally, I promise you HRC supporters will go crazy. As one, my peace with the presumptive nominee will go out the window if he picks the traitor of all traitors.

Let me say first, I like Strickland a lot. But let's not pretend he closes the 'God gap.' Whether he's a Methodist minister or not, voters who vote on 'values' aren't going to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights ticket. Strickland is also old. He's 65 which means he is 73 in eight years. He can't take over.

Posted by: Zach | June 6, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"For Obama to have...one [big] decision [who'll be his Veep] essentially made for him would undermine the idea that he is ready for the most important job in the world."

The cruel irony is that Clinton's supporters have damaged her chances of being selected.

Posted by: FirstMouse | June 6, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

If Obama decides to pick her out of necessity, I support that decision.
However, realizing the problem is what to do with Bill - why not have him take over her Senate seat to keep him occupied?
And if Obama doesn't want Hillary as VP, why not create a new cabinet post for her:
"Secretary of Universal Health Care"??? I believe that would make her and her supporters happy.

Posted by: carol in connecticut | June 6, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton genuinely began this saga to help our nation, then she should not quit the race. Rather, she should quit the Democratic party and join the presidential race as an independent candidate. Read "Hillary Clinton as an Independent Candidate" @ http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#8706393981159671199

The issue is not money. She has enough supporters to finance an independent candidacy.

The issue is whether her convictions are genuine. If she views politics as just a sports game (in the same way that many Americans do), then she should accept defeat and should support Barack Obama, whose political views are repugnant to her and her millions of supporters. If she views politics as a way to help her nation, then she should quit the Democratic party and should join the presidential race as an independent candidate.

The choice is hers to make.


reporter, USA, http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/

Posted by: reporter, USA, http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/ | June 6, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

What about Obama and Richardson as a Democrat ticket?

Unless Hillary suddenly divorces Bill, there is no reason to select her as a running mate.

McCain, I would guess would select Romney.

Whoever the respective running mates are, it is going to be a thrilling election.

Get out and vote AMERICA, the entire world is watching.

Posted by: Norron Lee, Sr | June 6, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Glad I stayed long in oil & coal & energy infrastructure. Petroleo Brasiliero is bumping along, ready to take off again.

The idiots who panned Clinton's emergency action plan, i.e. Obama's media fan club, the academic economists who signed absurd statements that her plan was ineffective, and Congress that ignored her recommendations, are all now scurrying to cover these bases now. From closing the Enron loophole to holding Senate hearings on the effect of speculation on energy prices, elements of Clinton's energy action plan that was pilloried in the run-up to the North Carolina primaries to make Obama look smarter than she is are now being pursued.

Look, we're talking about combining the ticket with the idiot, the charismatic empty suit who is the racial fairy tale candidate, on top and the really sharp, deep and ready-to-problem-solve effective politician on the bottom.

It's beyond absurd to propose an Obama-Clinton ticket. The media who panned Clinton and pushed Obama, and the Nanci Pelosi-Harry Reid faction who behind the scenes plotted to help upset Clinton so they can have the weak face man in the White House while they run the country with a Democrat-controlled congress, have set us up for disaster. No, I'm not talking political. The country would go to hell with all these historic, complex and novel problems in the lap of an idiot while the competent VP fumes over at the Naval Observatory.

An Obama-Clinton ticket is absurd and infeasible. You can't have the country falling apart in an historic way with an idiot in the White House and one of the few multifaceted, competent politicians capable of handling these crises as the VP.

If the media and the left-wing Democratic leadership hadn't phonied up such a media production and behind-the-scenes sandbagging of Clinton, we'd be looking at a Clinton-Obama ticket, which is what is better for the country right now.

I don't think the Obama-Clinton ticket is reasonable. And I don't think that Clinton should associate herself with what will be an historic Presidency -- historic for its incompetence that will preside over the crumbling of U.S. hegemony. The last unqualified, inexperienced, style-over-substance face man we put in office took our country from leadership to teetering on the brink of military humiliation and economic collapse. The solution is not to put another unqualified, inexperienced, style-over-substance face man into office to replace him. The fact that Obama is left while Bush is right, doesn't make the quality of Obama's lack of qualification and readiness for the Presidency any more feasible than Bush's was. The fact that Obama would be thrown into the middle of all the problems that Bush started, ensures that they won't be solved constructively.

I'm glad I stayed long in energy and infrastructure. Next question: should I start hoarding food, too?

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama-Gore.

What Gore gives Obama:

**A fully-vetted southerner with White House experience, foreign policy experience, a direct claim to the Clinton economy, progressive credentials on technology and the environment, a proven ability to win Michigan and Florida might feel guilty...would bring Tennessee into play...and he's a boring policy wonk, which would fit perfectly with Obama's exciting vagueness.

**Democratic unity and trust in the capabilities and intent of the ticket.

What Obama gives Gore:

**Obama gives Gore executive control over the executive branch's response to climate change...directing the secretaries of energy, interior and transportation.

**Obama gives Gore charismatic leadership to help advance Climate Change efforts and other Gore projects.

**Obama would have to appeal to Gore's sense of duty to his country, to the world...to fix the damage Bush made and appropriately address climate change.

**Obama could appeal further to Gore on the historical need for an African American candidate to run the strongest possible campaign and run the most effective White House.

**Gore would get to act as an "enabler" for historic progress for race and the government's role in addressing environmental emergencies.

**Gore would be stronger in a post-Cheney White House in which there is no proxy VP in the First Lady, as there was during his first go-round.

Posted by: Cal | June 6, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

ElMundo via TPM reports that Edwards has taken himself out of the VP stakes. Clinton=TooMuchBaggage.

The winner of 2 out of 3 of PA, OH, and MI will win the election. In this context a regional candidate will be to the benefit of either candidate.

FL will go R.

Posted by: smartinsen | June 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Re: Gov Bill Richardson. The A train makes sense to me.

Maybe you think because Gov Bill Richardson switched sides he's now too polerizing. If so, you probably have a good point. But surely he'll be on Obama's short list, and how to negate that possibility will be explored. Otherwise, he'd make a terrific VP.

Richardson was secretary of Energy, etc., under Bill Clinton, and has met eye to eye with many despots, including Sadam Husein. In Sadam's case he didn't blink and brought our prisoners home.

He's half WASP and half Latino, and was elected Gov of New Mexico by 69%. He's a moderate with a big tent, including Republicans, independents and liberals. He runs a tight economic ship/state, with a balanced budget and an eye to the people.

In other words, his resume is strong on executive and diplomatic experience, but with a humanistic touch. He would also be a strong pull for the Latino vote.. Can you imagine him stumping, speaking in both Spanish and English?

Now if only Barack can convince Hillary and Bill to forgive him for the sake of the party.. Then somehow convince Hillary's hardcore to go for it....

Posted by: Charles Munn | June 6, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

What about Sam Nunn? He is better positioned and has expressed more interest in the job than either Clinton or Edwards. McCain, Huckabee, and Romney effectively split Georgia three ways. Republicans in the state are already suspicious of John McCain's conservative credentials, the entry of Bob Barr into the mix further threatens his position(I think the latest polls had him polling 8-9% in GA). Adding Sam Nunn to the ticket would help allay concerns about Obama's inexperience and, at the very least, would force McCain to spend time and money in a state that should be solidly Republican.

Posted by: acronon | June 6, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I think Bill Richardson would be an excellent choice, especially with that sexy mustache! It seems it gives him a real talent for speaking out of both sides of his mouth, a crucial skill for someone who will be entrusted with the important duty of attending the funerals of foreign leaders. Plus, we know he likes football.

Another superb choice would be Caroline Kennedy. She will be well-qualified for the job once she has spent a few weeks on the veep selection committee. Also the parallel would be awesome: Cheney headed the committee and picked himself, then Caroline did too!

Finally, having heard an Obama supporter on TV last night in a state of rapture analyzing the Jungian nature of the Obama campaign, how about a descendant of Carl Jung? Of course we might have to push through an amendment to the constitution for that, but you know, often the things you have to work hardest at are those most worth working hard for!

Posted by: Paul | June 6, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is impossible because she can't pass the vetting. She and Bill would have to release records of their contributers and what they have been up to the last few years. Bill has been on an influence peddling rampage he was so sure Hillary would be president. We can only imagine what they have been promising and to who. These two sold the white house when they were there and were up to their old ways already before she was even elected yet. I don't really see how she could have even been a candidate period to be honest. Are peoples memories this short? They even tried to steal the furniture from the white house when they left. No one remembers them having to return it?

Posted by: xxxxxxx | June 6, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

These picks are too serious. We need levity. Both candidates need to shore up weak points. McCain amongst voters who are under 70 and have been to college. Obama amongst voters who are over 70 or have not gone to college.

McCain should choose Angelina Jolie as his VP. Obama should take Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

Posted by: steve boyington | June 6, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

You do what you gotta do to win - if it means Hillary as VP, so be it. As an Obama supporter, if he makes that decision--I support it.
Since the 'problem' appears to be Bill Clinton - why not give him a reala job and have him take over her Senate seat???
Also, if not VP, why not create a cabinet post for Hillary as Secretary of Universal Health Care and let her create the national plan.

Posted by: carol in connecticut | June 6, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

You do what you gotta do to win - if it means Hillary as VP, so be it. As an Obama supporter, if he makes that decision--I support it.
Since the 'problem' appears to be Bill Clinton - why not give him a reala job and have him take over her Senate seat???
Also, if not VP, why not create a cabinet post for Hillary as Secretary of Universal Health Care and let her create the national plan.

Posted by: carol in connecticut | June 6, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cilliza,

Did you not wtach Obama's interview with Cndy Crawley last night? He did not give one iota of an indication about Clinton. We all know you are a Hillary supporter. Now that we have a presumptive and brilliant nominee isn't it time you stopped stumping for Clinton as VPOTUS and get behind Obama and whoever he he picks as VP?

Posted by: Surya | June 6, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Why does everyone continue to dismiss the credentials of Gov. Bill Richardson? Further, I would like to know whether Hillary does in fact have the most popular votes since the last two elections. It is interestingly noted that When Wolf Blizter and Roberts televised their three scenarios of the most popular votes not a single scenario excluded the votes in Michigan and Florida and they did not include the popular votes since South Dakota and Montana. I challenge the media to address this issue and tally up the final popular votes they way they should be and stop all of this hurray about Hillary leading by the most popular votes. In the event I am wrong, please disregard this particular isse. Have a wonderful Obama day.

Posted by: Maxine | June 6, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Richardson's campaigning ability is questionable. Strickland is the pick.

Posted by: OvieRules | June 6, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Huge Cillizza fan but I think his list is wrong. Joe Biden, Ted Strickland, Wes Clark, Jim Webb and Bill Richardson...not neccessarily in that order. No way he picks Edwards!

Posted by: davidstern | June 6, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Please educate me.

Why is Bill Richardson not on this list as an extremely attractive candidate for VP running mate on the Obama ticket?

With his vast and varied political experience, it seems logical.

So what are the skeletons in his closet?

Posted by: Dazed & Confused | June 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Strike Edwards from the list, as he took himself off of it today.

I think Clinton made herself impossible as a choice when she said she was "open to it" at a time and in a way that will sure be seen as pressure. He cannot be seen as caving to pressure as his very first act as presumtive nominee, so that ship has sailed. Those still lobbying for it are just doing the Dem Party yet another disservice.

Seblius would offend HRC's legion of old white women? WOW! That more than anything, if true, shows just how petty their public pout really is. Anyway, don't want to annoy HRC or the dumber of her followers, so probably take all women off the list lest women be offended! (Just saying that sounds ridiculous, but so does the notion that HRC, who was never asked about pardons, commodities trading, NAFTA lies, Irish settlement lies, Bosnia lies, Bill's disbarrment for lying under oath, Bill's receipt of money from folks he pardoneed, etc., somehow got a raw deal from a media that for months was obsessed with the Rev. Wright and flag pins.)

Gov. Rendel of PA should surely be on the list, as should Gov. Kaine of VA. Gov. Richardson of NM likely would be a better Sec of State than VP candidate, but if you take Edwards and all women off of it,then I guess he should be in the top 5. Chuck Hagel is a serious possibility as well for a campaign trying to "reach out." But, that would likely be a bridge too far for most loyal Dems. Best to pick a Dem with clout in PA/Ohio/Michigan/VA.

Posted by: Dolph T | June 6, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I'll vote for Obama, but only if he chooses someone other than Clinton. I would never vote for a Clinton for anything. If Clinton is Obama's running mate, both my wife and I will vote for Nader.
I'm not all that sold on Obama anyway, Nader would make a much better president.

Posted by: Harmon Seaver | June 6, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

This one site holds a Vice President Poll every week, so you can see what America thinks. Just visit:

http://www.votenic.com

and help your favorite candidate choose his/her running mate. They started a VP poll last week, and the results from that poll have just been posted. This poll is honest and represents all of America.

Posted by: Gramens | June 6, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Is Brian Schweitzer a possibility? In addition to Virginia, Obama is looking to secure a few states in the West (CO, NM, NV). Few are as popular in the mountain west as Montana's Governor, and he fits the nonpartisan "change" message better than anyone.

Posted by: matt | June 6, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Pretty good list, Chris. But I have more possibilities:

Mark Warner or Tim Kaine - I actually think that Jim Webb is the least likely of the Virginia Three to get the call because of some fairly outrageous statements he's made in the past.

Bill Richardson - He has executive and diplomatic experience, he's funny as hell, and, as a Latino and westerner, could help a lot. Three possible drawbacks: an entirely non-white ticket is questionable; his debate performances weren't exactly stellar, and his feud with Carville could agitate the Clintonistas.

Bill Rendell - I don't think Obama needs him to get PA, but he obviously helps. Great campaigner, ultimate Joe Six-pack guy, smart as hell.

Janet Napolitano - Not likely, but she might force McCain to fight for his home state.

What say you?

Posted by: Organizer 721 | June 6, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Wes Clark or Joe Biden make alot more sense then Webb, or Strickland.

Clark is a big Hillary supporter and he can win Obama Arkansas and probably help in VA, NH, OH, and NC. My betting money is on him.

Posted by: Andy R | June 6, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

CC I always like your posts, but these lists seem incomplete. On the D side, rule out Edwards. Add Kaine, Warner and Bayh. Webb is interesting, but are you sure about adding someone to the ticket with a history of angering women just after knocking Clinton out?

On the R side, surprised no mention of Sanford (gov of SC). Fiscal conservative, in his 40's for nice contrast, a bona fide R to placate the base and will offset Obama's black turnout in the South.

Posted by: Forgot a Few | June 6, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Wes Clark would also be strong. I thought he was a pretty good campaigner in 2004! A downside is how far he went in attacking Obama as a Clinton surrogate (and how ruthlessly he hung his friend Samantha Power out to dry to score political points for Hillary).

Bob Graham would also be interesting. He's still the most popular politician in recent Florida history (sorry, Jeb). I don't know about his health, but if he's still able, he could be a very good choice.


Posted by: John Z. | June 6, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who caught Strickland's act leading up to the Ohio primaries knows that he possesses the number one skill every VP should have: standing behind the candidate/President, nodding vigorously at whatever the candidate says, no matter how ridiculous it is.

That seemed to be the extent of his vaunted support for Clinton. If Obama wants a Strickland-type, he could save the taxpayers an immense salary and commission a lifesize VP bobblehead.

Posted by: bondjedi | June 6, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Caroline Kennedy

Posted by: vermonter | June 6, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse


Cillizza, why don't you take a rest until you can get off your fixation of Cinton?

You have nothing except ENDLESS REPTITIVE idiocy about a Clinton vice presidency?

"ohhh...she went to the bathroom, she walked on the sidewalk put on shoes. That must mean she's chosen..."

First, it isn't gonna happen. Never. Obama isn't dumb. Hillary and Billy cannot pass a SMELL test, let alone real scrutiny.

And you don't know what most insiders are saying, and have been: SAM NUNN.

Posted by: worn out | June 6, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

McCain would be smart to pick Lieberman. McCain-Lieberman could seriously remove Jewish Americans out of Obama's coalition.

If I am Obama, would Diane Feinstein be an asset? She is a woman with strong foreign policy creditials. She is also a Clinton supporter and Jewish. While California isn't in danger of going to McCain, Feinstein could be an asset in places like Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey with large Jewish populations.

Posted by: MNDem | June 6, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I think Mark Warner is more likely than Webb. Warner's the one who has support in Virginia that's both deep and broad, while Webb BARELY beat George Allen, partly because of his history of arguing against women in combat (which is not exactly a way to win the love of feminists).

Warner's also, frankly, as talented a politician as Obama. Plus his forward-together message is the exact same as Obama's, so choosing him would put even more emphasis on the message that will win the general.

Warner's probably worth a few points in Virginia, which could easily put the ticket over the top there.

Posted by: John Z. | June 6, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Obama's Veep choice depends largely on whether he chooses to follow primarily the "50 state strategy" or an electoral vote strategy. The "50-state" is better for governing; the electoral strategy is essential to winning. Perhaps he'll do both: He's the "50-state" candidate with the broad, cross-sector appeal. Now he needs a Veep who brings some particular state or state which might not be in the Obama column otherwise. Despite Hillary's "big state" wins, there is no evidence to indicate that she actually helps Obama in any particular of those states. So, he's better off picking someone to tie down a purple state like VA, NC, NM, CO, NV, OH, MO, IN or a couple of others. There's even rational in picking someone who can give McCain fits in a solid red state in order to throw him offstride and spend scarce resources defending an otherwise "gimme". There are a number of Veep possibilities, but it is a minefield that requires vetting for killer issues like prostitutes, tax evasion, insider trading, and a plethora of other taboos for a Veep candidate.

It was a brilliant stroke by Obama's people that instantly took Hillary out of the running by casually mentioning that she would of course need to present a clean bill of health on Bill's income and library financing, to be examined by Caroline Kennedy, no less. Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Stonecreek | June 6, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has too much baggage and no president wants to share the limelight with someone who has their own national political base. And then there's Bill. Edwards harkens back to last election, Obama wants to look forward. Sibelius is from a small state and did not do well in her response to the State of the Union address. Plus, won't it look like condesention to pick a woman not Hillary? Webb is a good bet--key state, military background, etc.. Governor of Ohio would target that key state. How about a wild card--Al Gore? Might heal the party, world contacts, Nobel Prize, cheated president, laid back enought not to threaten Obama. As for the Republicans: frankness would bring me to question Romney's appeal to the Baptist South. Lieberman would bring the independent theme to the fore, but would the Republican base like it? Does McCain need South Dakota? Hardly, scratch Thune. Crist would be the smart pick since Florda is a must have state. Pawlenty is more of a reach, but here is another big state. And vps are about getting elected. They have not been a key to the overall victory, so they have to bring something to the plate--i.e. a key state or a key constituency.

Posted by: fulrich | June 6, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Romney makes the most sense for McCain, Bobby Jindal doesn't look old enough to be up past 10:00 pm. Agree Webb is to tempermental to be VP plus lacks class. When Bush asked him about son, he ignored him. You don't have to like Bush to show civilty and respect for the office he holds.

Posted by: bhoomes | June 6, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Democrats -

Nancy Pelosi. While I suspect she would have been the Clinton VP choice, she would be able to bring her home state to bear for the general election.

Republicans. Frankly, McCain needs to bring in someone who is 1) younger, 2) more conservative, and 3) a female and/or not white. My pick is Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. He would be a real shocker to the establishment and a major 'think out of the box' for the McCain campaign. McCain is a Liberal Democrat wearing and elephant suit and needs to seriously shore up his creds with the Conservative and Libertarian arm of the party.

Posted by: docwatson | June 6, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama supporters want change; Hillary as VP does not represent change. Why would Obama supporters---equally as strong in numbers as Hillary supporters---want to vote for someone who blatantly lies (sniper fire, anyone?) and who ran her campaign millions of dollars into debt and who told America that John McCain would make a better commander in chief than Barack Obama? There is so much talk about appeasing those who voted for Clinton, but those of us who voted for Obama deserve to be heard, too.

Posted by: Melinda | June 6, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

CC, do you really think the Democratic Party would let Obama pick Webb? His senate seat was such a huge and unexpected pick-up. I doubt the dems would want to test VA's purple-state staus with such an important position.

Posted by: scrappy | June 6, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

We can also strike off Ed Rendell and Bill Richardson for Obama.

Rendell simply went too far out on a limb in support of Hillary. He actually said, after Obama had pretty much wrapped it up, that the Democrats were not putting their best candidate forward.

You can't really walk back from that kind of statement. Yes, Rendell will work for Obama's election, but you can't be the VP pick and have Republicans running commercial after commercial of you dissing the top of the ticket.

Bill Richardson, for all his experience, performed rather poorly in the debates. He came across as sloppy and unprepared, and far too willing to appease the likes of Kim Jong Il and other unsavory types around the globe (diplomacy is great, but on the campaign trail, you also have to show your tough side).

Furthermore, it has been discussed rather publicly in the media that he has an unfortunate tendency to be rather touchy-feely with his female staffers. That is NOT a headache that Obama wants or needs.

Posted by: Doug in NYC | June 6, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

What happened to Bobby Jindal as McCain's VP? I thought he had front runner status

Posted by: The Ray | June 6, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I really like Obama but his VP pick choices show how many vulnerabilities he has: women (Clinton, Sebilius, McCaskill), Latinos (Richardson), military (Clark, Hagel), working class (Strickland). Is there a Latina woman veteran (preferably older) from a battleground, working-class state?! :-)

Posted by: bsengel1 | June 6, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Part of me thinks -- if George Will is so dead set against Obama picking Hillary for VP, and we all know that Will doesn't want Obama to win the presidency, then perhaps picking Hillary for VP would be Obama's best choice.

I'd rather see her as Secretary of State -- she'd be more of an asset to Obama there. Should Obama actually win the GE, he's going to need a huge amount of help in order to turn this country around.

More expediently, Obama NEEDS Clinton as a deeply embedded part of his administration in order to prevent her from running against him in 2012 in case the economy and/or the war really goes sour during his first term. Obama and Clinton both know that.

A strong Clinton supporter such as Ed Rendell would make a decent VP choice.

Posted by: V. J. Homer | June 6, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Richardson and Webb would be terrible picks for Obama. Richardson frequently garbles his words and Webb loses his temper - not what you want in a VP candidate. My pick is my governor, Tim Kaine. Very smooth and controlled, guaranteed to do no harm (my #1 rule).

For the Repubs, one problem is that most people associated with the Bush administration are wildly unpopular (even Condi Rice), so they must be ruled out. How about a conservative governor like Mitch Daniels? He would bring a lot of wavering conservatives on board.

Posted by: AndyfromVA | June 6, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

The VPs are so critical this year. McCain is likely to croak in office, and Obama is likely to get shot. So people are seriously thinking of these VP selects as the next POTUS.

Posted by: dcp | June 6, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Who Are the Rothschild Family?


VIDEO: Who Are the Rothschild Family? (PHOTO shows Evelyn Rothschild, who controls a $500 Trillion empire on earth, and his wife)

Who Are the Rothschild Family?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXzNUsFsz9c

Posted by: yes | June 6, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I still like Bob Graham, though I don't know if he would want it or be able. He was right on Iraq, has the experience, and puts FLA in play.

I think Lieberman would be the best pick for McCain (though a hard one for GOPers to swallow). It sends a message that he's reaching out across party lines, which is much of Obama's successful message, and it reinforces the message that he's not your ordinary Repub (which means, he's not George Bush). He's also very friendly with the Clintons, and with all the disaffected Clinton backers, that can't hurt. If nothing else, it would curb their ability to say McCain is Bush-light. The biggest drawback to Lieberman is that you would be effectively saying, there wil be no short-term end to the Iraq War, which is clearly the outcome the public wants. Also, you're pretty much saying "trust me" on the economy, because neither man has strong domestic economy credentials (well, Joe DID manage that liquor store in New Haven).

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 6, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

I still think Kaine is more likely than Webb. Even though Webb's military creditials would be a great asset to Obama in the fall. I think Kaine has tried to position himself for the job, and he is term limited.
However, I do not think Obama will pick a Virginian. He (Obama) is actually going to get some coattails from Mark Warner, who will win his Senate race in a landslide. Warner would probably be the best VP candidate, but with a Senate slot sewn up I don't think he will get the call.

Posted by: JNoel002 | June 6, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

What about Chuck Hagel. Center right, war critic, lots of street cred and it would be a reach across the aisle.

Posted by: Da Begal | June 6, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

OK, x out the last 2 names, Hillary and Edwards. Those 2 are out of the question. Hillary just threw his name is the gutter, and Edwards was on the last losing Democratic ticket. So neither choice makes any sense.

Posted by: dcp | June 6, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

M in A, not sure if you read this page anymore, as it's been taken over by the whack fringe.

But if you do, read Kraut's column in today's WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503434.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

A very nice summary of my position on gas taxes, referring to our discussion about a month ago.

Posted by: JD | June 6, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

This notion that Obama must pick someone with a great deal of foreign policy experience is a bit overstated. There is a whole foreign policy infrastructure, including the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor, who advise the president on foreign policy (of course, the whole system broke down under Bush/Cheney).

With all that being said, I still feel that Webb is the best choice. He's new. He's different. He's interesting. He's unpolished. In fact, his capacity to go off-message could actually be a boon for Obama, as it will be hard for the Republicans to attack a gun-loving, right-of-center, populist guy.

It also doesn't hurt that his son is serving in Iraq.

Posted by: Doug in NYC | June 6, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Wesley Clark -- Clinton supporter who can bridge the divide; has gotten better on the campaign trail; serious military and foreign policy creds; and, coolest title in a job: Supreme Allied Commander.

Posted by: Anon. | June 6, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

If Obama picked HRC, it would be recorded as one of the biggest blunders made in the political annals of history. It would force a lot of conservatives like myself to hold our noses to vote for McCain. It would do what McCain couldn't, solidify the republican party. Plus why would you want a VP who prays every night for you to die so she could get your job.

Posted by: bhoomes | June 6, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Not Dodd, as Rell would appoint a R.

Posted by: smartinsen | June 6, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

At this point I may be leaning toward Romney - he brings important economic credentials to the ticket as well as conservative cred. I would have not said this three months ago.


Tim Pawlenty is not well known and well I don't know. The bridge collapse shows something about government that we do not want to talk about.


Romney may still have to overcome the negative reaction to him personally that the other Republican Presidential candidates had to him. My guess is that if McCain talks to some of the others, and they are OK with Romney, Romney will get it. An unusual dynamic developed among the Republican Presidential candidates with all the debates - most of them started to really like McCain - it was not hard for any of them to endorse McCain.


The guy who the others did not like was Romney, for a few reasons, Romney had more money and was more prone toward negative attacks and negative attack ads. Personally he was more abrasive.

Romney at this point adds unity to the ticket - it is a good choice, if like I said the personal relations can be overcome especially among them all. This might work. Romney had street cred in Michigan which is important. McCain has a better chance in Michigan as compared to Minnesota and simply from that strategic comparison, Romney makes more sense.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 6, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I would have said Richardson as well, and from outside the U.S. it seems pretty obvious he should be in the mix unless I am missing something. I think he was in the Clintonian faction before this cycle so you have a bit of unity after all.

Posted by: alessio | June 6, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Regarding Senator Mikulski, that is a great idea but I suspect (although it is stupid) that candidates still have to bring along a nuclear family complete with kids and adoring spouse to make it to the Final Four these days. On the other side of the aisle this may apply to Condoleeza Rice as well. And in a very marginal way, switching back to the Dems, there's maybe even a slight issue with Bill Richardson not having kids. I said it was stupid.

It's too bad Sandra Day O'Connor isn't a little younger because that would otherwise be a very interesting outside the box pick for McCain, whose five options listed by Chris have a certain demographic similarity. A barrier-breaking pioneer and fellow Arizonan, who just a few years ago gave up the job of her dreams for family responsibilities, which I believe, sadly, are no longer an issue for her at home. Too old, though, I think, especially given McCain's age.

My favorite part of the photo op with Jim Webb yesterday was the photo with arms upstretched with all the politicians together (there must be a clever insider term for this classic pose--Chris?). Only Jim Webb would do this with a clenched fist. You gotta love this guy, he totally stays on the fighting message because it seems to be who he really is. I hope he doesn't become VP, though, because it's too fun having him as our Senator.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | June 6, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

For either candidate to choose a prospective candidate from the other party is lunacy. Obama to choose Powell or Hegel or for McCain to choose Lieberman simply will not happen. McCain/Lieberman = GOP catastrophe.

McCain needs a moderate Republican in order to win, though it appears that he will make his choice further right.

If he wants to think out of the box, how about one of the Senators from Maine?

For Obama, I am coming away from the CW that he needs to pick a running mate with strong military/defense credentials. He is capable of reflective decision with input from his Sec. Def., SOS, and other cabinet members.

Sherrod Brown would help deliver Ohio as well as Strickland.

Posted by: smartinsen | June 6, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Yikes. At least two of the McCain top 5 are disasters waiting to happen. Thune? What does he bring - 'central casting looks'? And Lieberman?!? If that's the way McCain's thinking, he's farther gone than I thought; McCain-Lieberman: guaranteed landslide loss.

Posted by: bsimon | June 6, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

It is going to be Ed Rendell - I do not believe Ted Strickland wants it and he rather concentrate on his own state. Chris you have to remember for most of recent history the candidate who is the vice president on the losing ticket really does not have much of a future.


Who would want this?

Seriously, this slot is not nearly as good as one might think. Recent democratic vps have been recent targets - Gerry Ferraro, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards. The only one who came out better was Lloyd Bentsen.

So you probably forgot him.


Being Mondale wasn't that good either. McGovern had two vp candidates, both are fogotten except isn't one Arnold's father in law?

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 6, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

What happened to Huckabee? He certainly is interested in the job, appeals to groups that McCain does not, and gotten a lot of votes.

Posted by: TK in ME | June 6, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Not Strickland, his credentials are weak - he's only popular in OH because he's NOT Taft. I'd take Webb or Rendell first. But I strongly believe Obama needs to pick a woman, one with strong experience and well respected. Who?? -- this is seriously outside the box and a bold move-- Olympia Snowe of Maine. She has a reputation for being bipartisan, she was part of the Gang of 14; she sits as a ranking member on several committees. McCain may try to pump some enthusiasm in his campaign by selecting a woman or maybe even Jindel of LA. Either would seriously change his appeal.

Posted by: Ohio | June 6, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

What about Chris Dodd with the expertise in financial matters, foreign policy, and he speaks fluent Spanish. And he has an amazing shock of white hair ........ What a battle it would be if Lieberman was the VP nominee on the Rep side!

Posted by: nclwtk | June 6, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I keep having this weird vision of a McCain/Rice ticket in the fall.
I'm in Canada and may not be clear on who is eligible, but I keep coming back to Condi as the one who could entice voters wanting to appear progressive but scared of too much change.
It would be the greatest, most cynical Republican end run ever: a black woman in the White House in 08 and the Democrats still divided and broke.
It's a wonder I get any sleep at all...

Posted by: Marcus V | June 6, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"It's hard to know whether Obama can (or, more importantly, would) name a woman whose name is not Clinton. Clinton's most ardent supporters would almost certainly see such a move as a final indignity in a race they believe has been chock full of them."

!

How I envy the gays.

Posted by: aleks | June 6, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh should be on Obama's short list. He was a big Hillary supporter (the olive branch factor, as with Strickland). He's young and still fresh, but also experienced enough after having served two terms as governor before going to the Senate. Plus, once-reliably-Republican Indiana might be in play, and its 11 electoral votes would be a major pick-up for the Democrats.

What happened to Rob Portman? The Fix had him on the previous list for McCain. I think Portman is more likely than Lieberman.

Posted by: harlemboy | June 6, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

What about Bill Richardson? He has solid foreign policy experience and he would help Obama with latino voters.

Posted by: Scott | June 6, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Both Sen. Webb and Gov. Kaine were with Obama at his campaign stop at Nissan Pavilion yesterday. As my wife noted, he said some nice things about Kaine, but was extremely effusive in his praise of Webb. This could be one to watch.

Webb's obvious plus is his experience on military matters. His downside is that, like Obama himself, he is a first-term Senator whose path to the office was greased by the Republican candidate's implosion. He is also a loose cannon who is almost guaranteed to go off message and cause embarrassment at some point.

Posted by: JJ | June 6, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Too bad we don't have a larger list. I've love to see how people would vet Bill Cohen, Dick Rubin or James Will for Obama. In particular, I think Cohen would shore up Obama's foreign policy creds, and add to the "change" message given he was a Republican Senator.

Posted by: Nichevo | June 6, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Edwards just said in Spain that he's lout of the running, so it's really Hillary's spot to lose now. Will she be gracious enough to force Obama into giving her the ticket?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | June 6, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

I think Webb's foreign policy and military experience should put him at no. 1.

Posted by: ambolt | June 6, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

What about Barbara Mikulski for Obama's VP. She's from a nicely positioned state, with more seniority in the Senate so Clinton would have to support her whole-heartedly, and she's got of great working-class name.

Posted by: gabling | June 6, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Ed Rendell would certainly be an entertaining choice and popular here in PA, but I don't think it would work very well. If the first rule is 'do no harm', my governor is a shaky choice at best.

I think Bill Richardson would be an excellent choice.

Posted by: Susan | June 6, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

What about Newt Gingrich for the R's? He would help with the conservatives and is without reproach when it comes to domestic issues like healthcare. Seems like he could be a nice balance for McCain.

Posted by: Peter in NJ | June 6, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Since Big Media picked the Big O as the Dem candidate, why don't you just tell us who you want as the Veep? It would save us all some time.
-Wm Tate
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

Posted by: Wm Tate | June 6, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

When picking a Vice President, the number one rule is DO NO HARM. In other words, don't pick someone who can't control himself/herself and makes controversial statements, or is just an idiot (Dan Quayle?). The number two rule is UNIFY THE PARTY, like Reagan did when he picked Bush. No other consideration is worth anything, as the VP candidate is not going to attract any voters from the other party - people vote for the Presidential candidate, not the VP candidate.

Of the Dem. possibilities on your list, Clinton is the only one who can unify the party. Edwards and Webb have a tendency to make outrageous statements and would be disasters. The others are nonentities.

Of the Rep. candidates, no one on the list would unify the party (where are all the hotshot conservatives?) Lieberman shoots off his mouth and would be a terrible pick. Romney would do no harm and the others are nonentities.

Posted by: AndyfromVA | June 6, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

I've read some comments about PA Gov. Ed Rendell as a dark horse VP for Obama, and he certainly would seem to bring a lot of strengths. Rendell can take a bite of iron and spit out nails, and a tough guy may be valuable to Obama so that he can maintain his lofty rhetoric while Rendell gets down and dirty in the trenches. It also makes PA a sure thing for the Dems. Thoughts?

Posted by: Tampa, FL | June 6, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

On Clinton, George Will goes lunar:

"Clinton, having risen politically in her husband's orbit, is a moon shining with reflected light. Were Obama to hitch himself to her, he would reduce himself to a reflection of a reflection."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503435.html

Posted by: piktor | June 6, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I find Obama's potential picks to be lacking in the foreign affairs dept. What about the trio of also-rans Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd - specifically Richardson, who has become an Obama attack-dog recently and has all the credentials you could want for a potential veep.

Posted by: The A-Train | June 6, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company