Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog Redux: Name that Veep

Earlier this week, we asked the members of the Fix community to offer their picks on who Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama would name as running mates and why.

Post.com politics producer Sarah Lovenheim combed through more than 130 entries. The most inspired picks are below (listed alphabetically for each candidate).

John McCain

Mike Huckabee:
"McCain should go with the Huckster. Mike Huckabee will solidify McCain's wavering base. He's something of a Libertarian on privacy and constitutional issues, thus having some appeal to independents and to lunch-bucket Dems who think Obama lacks the experience to be POTUS. Huck brings in both the South and the West...Don't forget his executive experience as the governor of Arkansas. And he's likable, and is a proven commodity as a campaigner. He'll bring in disillusioned Obamanauts...' --scrivener

Bobby Jindal:
"...McCain has a serious problem with evangelicals and Jindal's conservative credentials will help shore up that weakness. Despite Jindal's conservative views, he does not seem to be demonized by the left. And in a more long term sense, a Jindal pick could be an important step in rebranding the party and increasing the tent. The one negative is that Jindal would neutralize any kind of attack on Obama's experience, but McCain hasn't been taking that route anyways." --DDAWD

Joe Lieberman:
"..He does do two extremely significant things. 1) He beats Obama's message of change with a bludgeon. How can you call yourself the ticket of change when the other party is running a republican and independent. Picking Lieberman would make McCain much more competitive with independent voters. 2) Lieberman is not going to be the next leader of the Republican Party, picking Lieberman gives the Republicans four years to find the future leader of the Party, and hopefully for their sake turn around their losses in the Senate and House." --Andrew

Sarah Palin:
"McCain desperately needs a candidate who will bring buzz and a sense of excitement to his campaign - basically anyone other than a middle-aged male WASP... I'd ultimately go with Palin on the chance that her being a woman with a young family might have appeal to disaffected Clinton voters who might have otherwise stayed home."--MW

Tim Pawlenty:
"Pawlenty adds some youth to the campaign and some all-important domestic abilities. The governor of a state shows that McCain cares about domestic issues and wants someone with executive experience on board." -- Ryan

Rob Portman:
"...Former budget director Rob Portman in an obvious effort to shore up his economic credentials with conservatives. Portman is from Ohio, a key battleground state, and may not turn off moderates. Portman will essentially become the point person for McCain's economic plan, allowing the Senator to focus on his biggest strength: national security." -- BillBolducinMaine

Mitt Romney:
"Romney is strong in two key areas where McCain is weak -- the economy and fundraising. He can act as an intermediary with business conservatives and help in the key swing states of Michigan and Nevada. And based on the primary, there is no doubt he would be a strong attack dog in the general election."--Ogre Mage

Barack Obama

Evan Bayh:
"...Obama will go (should go) with Bayh because: (1) he's popular and widely respected in Indiana, which seems to be in play this go-around; (2) he will help shore up Obama's perceived foreign policy weakness (odd that the one issue that Obama seems to be ahead of the curve on is perceived as his weakness); (3) he's a former governor on top of being a senator, so he's got experience both working outside and inside Washington; (4) he was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton, so he could be useful in shrinking the PUMA crowd even further; and (5) he is a disciplined politician who would likely be gaffe-free.' --deekerj

Joe Biden:
"Because Obama needs to look like he respects experience, he needs the foreign policy chops, and he needs someone familiar to the American working class. Biden's a great debater and has the air of wisdom that comes from a guy who doesn't have to carefully measure his words, because he knows that you know what he's really all about. Biden will also help Obama take PA." --div

Wesley Clark:
"The only criticism that McCain seems to make of Obama that actually sticks in the media is criticism on the security front. Wesley Clark, four star general and Supreme Allied Commander during the Balkan war takes away this line of attack before he even opens his mouth. Aside from that, he's popular in the south, is well respected elsewhere for his service, and commanded a war without a single American casualty (an important distinction given the Iraq mess)...his advice would be essential seeing that Iraq and Afghanistan are dealt with properly in over the next four years... He's a Catholic, which was a group Obama had trouble winning over in the primaries. He's also 64, which will appeal to older voters, another group Obama has had trouble with. Quite simply, all the pieces fit." --Zach

Hillary Clinton:
"Having won 20 states, over 17.5 million votes and half the popular vote, her power as a vote-getter speaks for itself. With 16 years in national politics, her breadth of domestic and foreign policy knowledge and experience would make her a superior all-around adviser to the President. She is unrivaled at explaining middle-class economics and carries the Clinton brand on the economy. Hillary as the running mate would send Obama's already strong fundraising off the charts. More than any other potential choice, she has shown she is ready to run nationally and if necessary serve as President."--Ogre Mage

Chuck Hagel:
"...Hagel is a Vietnam War veteran, a lifelong Republican and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee who previously worked as political organizer for Ronald Reagan and then as his #2 political appointee at the Veterans Administration. So his selection would not only be an unprecedented bi-partisan gesture but would also bring the military and foreign policy credentials Obama lacks to the ticket. ... Hagel left government service in 1982 and became a multi-millionaire business entrepreneur and CEO before he returned to government as a US Senator in 1996. Thus he also possesses the business experience and economic credentials that both Obama and his opponent John McCain lack... Hagel was also an early critic and vocal opponent of the Iraq War and ...Obama would find huge support for this among independent and Republican voters, particularly in Midwestern states..." --charles laffiteau

Tim Kaine:
"Picking Tim Kaine is the right choice for Obama. Virginia, which was always within reach, would instantly tilt toward Obama/Kaine..."--Chris Mc

Claire McCaskill:
"Senator McCaskill has largely been an effective and articulate surrogate for Obama and she hails from a red state. She also connects well with women and working class voters and is perceived as a moderate. The obvious liability is that she has even less national experience than Obama, having been elected to her 1st term in 2006. However, she does have political experience in Missouri as state auditor which dovetails nicely with 'cleaning up' Washington."
--BillBolducinMaine

Bill Richardson:
"Gov. Richardson has everything Sen. Obama needs to complete his candidacy - Experience (Gov of NM - Check), Foreign policy (UN Ambassador - Check), not jaded by being part of the Washington machine (hasn't been in DC since the Clinton administration - Check), appeal to a very imp[ortant] voting bloc (Hispanic heritage - check), help with purple states (gov of NM, proximity and Hispanic voting strength in NV - Check).." --Amod - Portland, ME

Kathleen Sebelius:
"She's a no-nonsense, highly competent person for the job. That's exactly what's needed here. She has many of Hillary's strengths....but none of the baggage."--MBW

By Washington Post editors  |  July 30, 2008; 5:37 PM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain's Risky Ad Strategy
Next: Obama's Veep Vetting Enters New Stage

Comments

This being an election of 1932's stature, I had the following thought.

Ms. Caroline Kennedy should be chosen and drafted as Senator Obama's Vice Presidential running mate.

There are at least 21 reasons/items that make her a fantastic choice to assure his victory.

(21 means we have come of age and considered by many to be lucky.)

1. She is a woman. (Bright, attractive and certainly Jackie O’s daughter).

2. She is VERY smart, worldly, sophisticated, charming and poised.

3. Kennedy trumps Clinton, the Senator and the Ex-President

4. She can “control” Mrs. Pelosi too.

5. America was in its glory, moving forward under Kennedy Family leadership with integration, Cuba, Berlin and a sound economy in a great time of threats, but relative Peace.

6. She has no further ambitions.

7. Uncle Arnold will be neutralized, hence, California is assured.

8. No current other potential candidate can publically object, nor feel “sidelined.”

9. Being married to a Jew, she quiets that potential group’s fears.

10. You just might even get the NY Times' endorsement.

11. Need money?

12. Uncle Ted makes her even more popular.

13. She is a Catholic.

14. She is VERY popular with Hispanics.

15. Dad's memory carries Florida's Cuban vote.

16. She wants me to be under Secretary of the Treasury, and maybe not.(A stab at humor.)

17. Ohio and Pennsylvania are hers, plus Indiana too. See 13.*

18. There are absolutely no negatives, except convincing her that it is her duty.

19. She exudes her mother's great charm and wins the leaders of other nations' immediate trust.

20. How refreshing that a citizen in contrast to a politician will lead us.

21. Obama - Kennedy is abbreviated: OK.

* It wouldn't be surprising for them to carry 48 States, depending on the level of guilt Texans feel (No, of giving us President Bush), and Utah's uniqueness. The Election Night map will be so blue that one will think the oceans rose 15 feet over the day.

Posted by: David Kurland | August 12, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Bloomberg! Bloomberg! Bloomberg! Has Lieberman's main plus of being independent, has Romney's main plusses of $$ and economic creds, has Pawlenty's main plus of domestic management experience, and he puts NJ in play.

Posted by: Mordecai | August 5, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse


37th&OStreet was way out in front on this issue:

From today's Washington Post:


By Juliet Eilperin and Jonathan Weisman
Raising a politically-explosive issue for the first time this election, Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this morning of invoking the specter of race in order to bolster his electoral prospects.

The charge came in reaction to comments the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had made at three separate stops in Missouri Wednesday, where Obama suggested Republicans were trying to scare voters away from him.

"So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," he told voters in Springfield. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making."

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis countered this morning with a terse but harsh statement: "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | July 31, 2008 9:46 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I agree with "Repub" about Rendell. But he's out of contention. My guess is that it will be Bayh or Kaine.

I think McCain's going to pick Huckabee.

Posted by: DexterManley | August 3, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Actually, upon reflection, I believe the PBS show was called "Ethics In America", rather the "Ethics In Government"...which was a segment of the series...I figured I'd better get that in before Rick Davis accuses me of somethinjg!

Damn, I miss that series...Damn, I miss ethihcs...

Damn, I miss America!!!

Posted by: Pete Tenney | August 1, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Name That Veep?

OBAMA --
First Choice: Clark/Webb/Biden (In infinitesimally small preferential order).
Second: Richardson
Third: Chuck Hagel
Off The Wall: That guy from (I think) Harvard who used to host "Ethics in Government" on PBS some years ago.

McCAIN --
First: Lieberman
Second: Rev. Hagee
Third: Little Danny Quayle
Off The Wall: Heidi Fleiss. McCain seems to be increasingly comfortable around all aspects of prostituting oneself.

In the end, though, it won't matter...the election's over. The ONLY reason the polls appear close is because except for the always reliable haters, droolers and "churchstate" pseudo-evangelicals, the somnolent public hasn't gotten involved enough yet and don't know who the hell this guy is with the funny name that rhymes with "Osama" (even Fox "News" keeps making this "honest" mistake). And whose middle name has something to do with 9/11...and, oh yeah, he's BLACK!!!

Without Lieberman to whisper in his ear, this once proud symbol of courageous American courage, resolve and maverick straight talk has reduced himself to a doddering, babbling idiot; a hollow shell of a once honorable man who will now do or say anything to anyone he thinks might be inclined to vote for him...or against Obama.

Too bad...Once he was a warrior!

Can you imagine the outcome of their presidential debate? That's when the nation will tune in for the first time...and they will discover who Barack Obama is...and more to the point, they will ALSO discover exactly who and what John McCain has become!

"Sic Transit Gloria McCaindi"

Posted by: Pete Tenney | August 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

It looks like McCain is going to have to show his hand first as he is going to have to compete with first the Olympics and then the Democratic Nominating Convention. Which should give Big O the edge in his VP pick.

If McCain opts for a financial prop in Mitt the Haircut he could go for an unconventional pick such as Mike Bloomberg. If he opts for a surprise such as Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin he could outflank them with a safer play to the centre ground by choosing Evan Byah or Tim Kaine.

All in all I think that Bill Richardson brings the most to the ticket and will help to keep Nevada, NM and Colorado competitive against McCain-Romney.

Posted by: Mike | August 1, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I do not think Hilary wants to be the VP. Is there anyone on here who knows otherwise? I hope it is either former senator Bob Graham from Florida, Governor Schweitzer or former Senator Nunn from Georgia. If Bill Clinton allowed his activities to be vetted as well, I would want Hilary to be VP because I think Hilary and Obama would win the battleground states handily. I just do not think she wants it and I am a Obama supporter

Posted by: robert | August 1, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Mike Huckabee is the solid choice for McCain. Huck could deliver the South for McCain. He is a tremendous campaigner.

Mac & Huck - 2008

Posted by: Phil6 | August 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Clark, he is the best choice. McCain cant swift boat him.

Posted by: Rolf | August 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Bayh for Obama and Romney for McCain. Both are smart politicians with executive experience - something both candidates lack.

And they both look like newscasters. That never hurts.

Posted by: Ann | August 1, 2008 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Several posters have thrown Ed Rendell's name out and I agree that he is quite possibly the savviest politician around, but he has plainly stated that he has always been his own boss and would never be happy playing second banana. Frankly, Obama should be glad he's Gov. because if anyone can deliver PA for the dems, he can.

Posted by: DCH | July 31, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet was way out in front on this issue:

From today's Washington Post:


By Juliet Eilperin and Jonathan Weisman
Raising a politically-explosive issue for the first time this election, Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this morning of invoking the specter of race in order to bolster his electoral prospects.

The charge came in reaction to comments the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had made at three separate stops in Missouri Wednesday, where Obama suggested Republicans were trying to scare voters away from him.

"So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," he told voters in Springfield. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making."

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis countered this morning with a terse but harsh statement: "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | July 31, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

LaDane- if he picks Hagel, the arch conservative on everything but Iraq- my vote goes to Nader. Hagel is not an option.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I think Ed Rendell of PA would be a perfect choice for Obama. He is a formidable campaigner, he would be able to speak to working class whites to ease their alleged fears, even though he's a "Yankee" I think he would aid the ticket in areas like Virginia and North Carolina as well as the oft mentioned Ohio, Mich and Indiana. Obama will not need help with foreign affairs, listening to him, its obvious that unlike McCain who has shown he is only a tactical thinker, Obama is a strategic thinker and would be able to hold his own in the "big bad world." And finally Rendell "does no harm" to the ticket.

Posted by: Repub | July 31, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

It will be Romney for political reasons for McCain and I'm was thinking Kaine for ego reasons for Obama, but now that he has spouted off his mouth, I don't think Barak's advisors would trust him- it will be Bayh (better choice anyway- real experience, friend of Clintons, put IN in play)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

It will be Romney for political reasons for McCain and I'm was thinking Kaine for ego reasons for Obama, but now that he has spouted off his mouth, I don't think Barak's advisors would trust him- it will be Bayh (better choice anyway- real experience, friend of Clintons, put IN in play)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet was way out in front on this issue:

From today's Washington Post:


By Juliet Eilperin and Jonathan Weisman
Raising a politically-explosive issue for the first time this election, Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this morning of invoking the specter of race in order to bolster his electoral prospects.

The charge came in reaction to comments the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had made at three separate stops in Missouri Wednesday, where Obama suggested Republicans were trying to scare voters away from him.

"So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," he told voters in Springfield. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making."

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis countered this morning with a terse but harsh statement: "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | July 31, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

The needs of each presidential nominee are obvious. The Republicans need someone to offset the sense that their candidate is too old to be commander-in-chief; the Democrats need someone who is popular and will appeal to all the Hillary sycophants and the Dana Milbank-loathing Obamaniacs. Thus the choices are simple:

John McCain/Abe Vigoda
Barack Obama/Hannah Montana

(I will be using my write-in vote for the Eliot Spitzer/Larry Craig ticket.)

Posted by: CapitalCat | July 31, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Re Jindal

"The one negative is that Jindal would neutralize any kind of attack on Obama's experience, but McCain hasn't been taking that route anyways." --DDAWD

Let me get this straight:

The VP on the Republican ticket would have about the same experience (probably more) as the President on the Democratic ticket.

Ergo, the Republican Presidential candidate, who has decades of experience, cannot criticize the Democratic Presidential candidate's lack thereof?

With all due respect, this is passing for astute political analysis.

Let's just be honest here. Both Jindal and Obama have sufficient experience to serve as Vice-Presidents.

Posted by: Austin | July 31, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

ChadlinPS, Hillary looks attractive as VP only at the moment. Were she chosen, the Clinton scandals would return to the news. She would be a poor choice and fortunately it looks like Obama has passed on her. She is scheduled to give the keynote address on Tuesday night at the convention, which the VP selectee/nominee never does.

Posted by: RealChoices | July 31, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I am only saying...HRC is the best choice to assure a victory. Can Obama win without her, possibly yes. Can he win with her, DEFINATELY YES. Why take a chance when getting back the White House is so important. Just think about the Supreme Court in the next term. Do you want Reps to appoint more Justices?

Posted by: ChadInPS | July 31, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

So how do you manage to spend all day on here, zouk?

You get a check for your mental disabilities?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Whowever Obama chooses I hope he doens't name running mate first. I would love to see him wait until Songbird McCain names his running mate and then immediately name the choosen one!
I only would like to see this happen so as to put a little fun into the game - this bit of McCain attacking ( stupidly)and Obama answering (brilliantly)is getting boring.
Wouldn't it be fun to see McCain scramble and the derogatory ads that McCain campaign could come up with?
Maybe then this next few months could finally get McCain to clearly state what he is for and against. But that might not help either as it seems his main perogative is to change his mind, ( called a FLIPFLOP)not every few years but every few minutes.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

There has been plenty of venom to go around for everyone. Probably the nature of campaigns. It is because I believe that HRC IS, in the final analysis, a class act, that she in all likelihood did take herself out of the running to give Barack the space he needs to establish his own candidacy. Exuberantly passionate bloggers notwithstanding, I am not persuaded that Clinton supporters are nursing such unyielding grudges as political reporting (they have to write about SOMETHING after all) would seem to indicate. I certainly HOPE that they are not falling into the trap, so amply demonstrated by some in their blog postings, of venting their spleens on emotional invective at the expense of the very things I am certain they care about.

It is very easy to take potshots at anyone in public life and I have only admiration for anyone willing to take on the burden. I was a Hillary supporter and now, am proud to support Obama. The fact that I do support Obama does NOT mean I have to have hatred or contempt for all or any Republicans, only that, having seen the choices, I have made mine.

Posted by: DCH | July 31, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Leon. All this Hillary bashing makes absolutely no sense. Despite his infidelity, Bill Clinton left the Office of President with an economy in surplus, NO wars and a solid, strong reputation around the world. Why anyone wants to see that as a "bad" thing is beyond me! So what if Obama puts the Clinton brand on the economy. So what if Obama puts the Clinton brand on healthcare. So what if Obama puts the Clinton brand on dealing with our world leaders. SO WHAT??? He'll still be the guy in charge - and will have all the benefits of a Clinton brand!

Posted by: Christina | July 31, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

dch as a HC supporter I not only feel that she has never been on the 'short list' but that she has never been on any O list for VP. The vennom from the O campaign and their supporters towards her regarless of her fundraising efforts for him since suspending her campaign, proves her class and how much her opponents have continuously underestimated her; at their and the country's loss.

Posted by: Leichtman | July 31, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

There is no doubt that if Obama chooses Retired General Wesley Clark as his VP running mate that he will take the election by storm like no one ever has before. And there will be so much excitement generated on election night.

Gen. Clark's experience and expertise will erase any military experience issue that McSame tries to use for leverage in his campaign against Obama. And, an Obama/Clark ticket has a nice tone to it.

Posted by: Mike | July 31, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

On the Republican side, Jindal has a Democractic Lieutenant Governor while both Minnesota and Alaska have Republican Lieutenant Governors. Would would think that McCain would want to hold on to the Louisanna Governorship for the Republicans to build on for the future.

Posted by: chris | July 31, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Republican Governor in Indiana, who could appoint a Republican Senator to serve out Bayh's term. Lieutenant Governor in Virginia and so why would Obama want to turn the Statehouse over to Republicans. Biden has a Democratic Governor, and Sebelius has a Democratic Lieutenant Governor they would seem better choices in keeping those seats in Democratic hands.

Posted by: chris | July 31, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

oops, somehow I got my comment on without "signature." My apologies.

It's time for Hillary supporters (I know, because I was one) to get off the VP train. I am as anxious for party unity as anyone and I don't see it happening. The tone of HRC's remarks when she suspended her campaign telegraphed her real intentions. She has already done the adoring second banana routine and I can't believe she would want to reprise the role for yet another man. Moreover, she knows that the "vetting process" has no way of dealing with dear old Bill. My guess is she took herself out of the running and has kept a low profile to allow Barack to build his base. Don't be shocked when the choice emerges and turns out not to have been on the "list."

Posted by: dch | July 31, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

It's time for Hillary supporters (I know, because I was one) to get off the VP train. I am as anxious for party unity as anyone and I don't see it happening. The tone of HRC's remarks when she suspended her campaign telegraphed her real intentions. She has already done the adoring second banana routine and I can't believe she would want to reprise the role for yet another man. Moreover, she knows that the "vetting process" has no way of dealing with dear old Bill. My guess is she took herself out of the running and has kept a low profile to allow Barack to build his base. Don't be shocked when the choice emerges and turns out not to have been on the "list."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Its not only older women that think Hillary Clinton is the right choice and would make a solid VP for Obama. This 40 y/o guy thinks its the right choice as well. Obama needs her solid experience to balance out his lack of it. He has great ideas and hopes for this country, but needs someone as strong as HRC to carry out his vision.

HRC is the right choice, and recent polling actually indicates an Obama/Clinton vs McCain/Romney wins by a huge margin. HRC brings 11% more Dems, 5% more Ind and 4% more Rep to the table.

Posted by: ChadInPS | July 31, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

I am watching Tim Kaine on Charlie Rose. My wife and I both do not think he projects as "presidential". We had never seen him before.

Perhaps he will grow on us over time. Perhaps he is an acquired taste. Charlie is trying to keep him from free form riffing during his avoidance answer on NAFTA and D protectionism, but TK seems to insist on rambling.

He answers a question on the power of teachers unions by saying VA is educating more kids than it used to.

He is rambling on. I do not think he will grow in our estimation until he learns to answer a direct question with some semblance of a relevant answer.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | July 31, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

I guess she did not realize that "Dark Horse" Peter King has more experience in foreign affairs, terrorism, and yes economics then OBAMA. So maybe you should update your list to include Peter King from Nassau/Suffolk County NY.

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | July 31, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Leichtmen wrote:

Why is Graham never mentioned as a McCain VP possibility?

My response:

Unmarried 53 year old Lindsey Graham? Hmm. Perhaps its because, fair or not, questions will be raised about his commitment to family values and whether an unmarried person with no children (at least none that we know of) can understand all of the issues about raising a family in America.

Its not a good test, but the simple fact is that an unmarried candidate is not going to win (unless the Candidate has a "sad" backstory to explain this... their spouse died and they were a very committed parent who made extraordinary sacrifices to raise their child... for example commuting home to Delaware every night be train just to be with their kid...)

Posted by: Lindsey Graham? | July 30, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Leightman wrote:sunshine some how your campaign has miscalculated and presumed all 18 million of us will just fall in line. Why: Because he is entitled. Personally I am ready to put up a McCain sign in my yard and volunteer for him if I read one more post like your's.
____________
So you were for Hillary, so presumably you agreed with her on the issues. Now you will vote against those issues, based on spite?
I generally think the issues matter most. And I still don't think Hillary will help Obama get elected.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Chuck Hagel would be the boldest pick but a pick potentially the biggest payoff. Picking Hagel would signal a serious effort to voters by the Obama team to change the culture of Washington from bitterly partisan to a post partisan atmosphere. Hagel is a war hero, a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, and McCain would have a hard time attacking his good old friend Hagel. That would be a nightmare for McCain. The only problem by picking Hagel is that he is conservative on many issues liberals hold near and dear, but i don't think they would sit at home on election day just so they can see what they perceive as a number 3 Bush term come into effect.

Posted by: Ladane | July 30, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Chuck Hagel would be the boldest pick but a pick potentially the biggest payoff. Picking Hagel would signal a serious effort to voters by the Obama team to change the culture of Washington from bitterly partisan to a post partisan atmosphere. Hagel is a war hero, a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, and McCain would have a hard time attacking his good old friend Hagel. That would be a nightmare for McCain. The only problem by picking Hagel is that he is conservative on many issues liberals hold near and dear, but i don't think they would sit at home on election day just so they can see what they perceive as a number 3 Bush term come into effect.

Posted by: Ladane | July 30, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

All the Anti-Clinton sentiment is interesting being that:

Her husband is the only successful Democratic president in the last 40 years.

She won 18 million votes in the nomination process, and 50% of all people voting not including MI.

She won in key demographics including Democrats voting in Dem. primaries, Latin voters, women and working class voters.

She won in battleground states without caucuses: NV, NM, OH, IN, MI (would have won regardless- Obama didn't allow revote), FL, NH, PA and won 50% of vote in MO, where she would have won if not for archaic Dem rules and non dems voting. Additionally she puts AR and WV in play.

She represents change much more than the old white rich men on the list- there are only 17 female leaders out of ~200 countries on earth. That is with 52% of human beings being female.

Stop hating on her. She would have been a great pres. She deserves the shot at VP but should be a supreme court justice anyway (turn down VP).

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

"sunshine some how your campaign has miscalculated and presumed all 18 million of us will just fall in line. Why: Because he is entitled. Personally I am ready to put up a McCain sign in my yard and volunteer for him if I read one more post like your's."


Well, I'M frightened now.

Hillary is such a babe!

There...happy?

(grammar police alert...you don't need an apostrophe in the word "yours" since the word "your" is a possessive on its own.)

Posted by: DDAWD | July 30, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has been knocking Obama constantly about experience, so it's goodbye Jindal, and I pray good by Evangelicals."

He really hasn't. I'm not saying McCain is taking the high road or anything; he isn't, but McCain just hasn't been focusing on the experience gap. Perhaps he feels its not a winning issue for him or might serve to highlight the age difference.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 30, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

bonjedi I spent my evening phone banking for Noreiga and organizing blockwalks for the Chris Bell campaign. How about you since you seem to pride yourself on 'your D bonafides'. I challenged you months ago to lay out your D resume since you are such a smarty and holier than thou D, to describe for us exactly what you have done for the D party over the last 10 years other than shoot your mouth off. Your silence over these months proves my point. Your only contribution to the political process is to come to blog sites like this and insult everyone who doesn't agree with you. A pretty noble endeavor, in your mind.

As to Graham didn't know he was mistrusted by the cultural conservatives. While I don't agree with most of what he says, he seems like a straight shooter, someone who seems precisely on McCain's radar, and a perfect compliment to McCain, curious why he is given no consideration over empty suits like Romney.

2 things I will agree with bonjedi about: 1. McCain does not have a prayer of a chance;
2. There is zero chance O will choose HC, b/c they have been nasty to the Clintons since day 1 of the campaign, something their supporters have taken great pride in. They would be heart broken if they missed out on one more opportunity at the Convention to give them the finger. Incidentally, HC has obviously given her email, mailing addresses, and phone numbers of her contributors and supporters to the O campaign b/c I along with other HC neighbors are getting 5-10 letters, emails, and calls p/ week asking for money. Incidentally I have told them not to hold their breath waiting, my time and money are going to Chris Bell and Noreiga.

Posted by: Leichtman | July 30, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Bobby Jindal:
The one negative is that Jindal would neutralize any kind of attack on Obama's experience, but McCain hasn't been taking that route anyways." --DDAWD
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Uninformed voters is why we had the idiot in chief for the past 8 years. Apparently they are still alive and well.

McCain has been knocking Obama constantly about experience, so it's goodbye Jindal, and I pray good by Evangelicals.

Posted by: Watplanetrufrom? | July 30, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

WILL THE ELECTION EVEN COUNT? NOT WHEN
"VIGILANTE INJUSTICE" HAS USURPED THE
LAW OF THE LAND AT AMERICA'S GRASSROOTS


• Congress must probe unlawful targeting of American citizens by vigilantes hiding behind government-funded volunteer programs

• Due process denied, the Constitution discarded by "extra-legal control mechanism" said to resemble the KKK, the Stasi and the Nazi Gestapo

• A cause of the crisis in the mortgage and credit markets?

• When will Chertoff, Mukasey, Gates and Paulson take action?


A virulent form of "domestic terrorism" is destroying the rule of law in America.

Victims of so-called organized "gang stalking" or "community stalking" charge that the rule of law has broken down nationwide at the hands of state-supported vigilantes -- operating under the cover of citizen "volunteer" programs and various "service" corps.

Organized groups of private citizens, funded by elements of government at multiple levels, are the backbone of an "extra legal" control mechanism that its victims say is denying citizens their constitutional right of due process under the law. Victims of this extra-legal network maintain that these vigilantes are functioning outside the legal system as judge, jury and executioner -- meting out various forms of harassment and abuse. Victims call it "domestic terrorism" and they allege that their human rights are being violated.

Those who have been targeted by these organized groups say this vigilante militia is patrolling the streets, stalking and harassing, inflicting physical harm upon persons targeted by this extra-legal control mechanism. Some victims have moved to other cities and towns to escape the extra-legal persecution -- but they say the vigilantism reoccurs in their new locale.

"It appears to be a nationwide network that attracts right-wing extremists as well as law and order types and people connected to public safety such as firefighters, police auxiliaries, retired police and military officers and even their family members," says one victim, who says he has been "gang-stalked" for several years. "I doubt it could exist without some people in positions of power looking the other way."

Even some regular, uniformed police are reported to have been intimidated by this network of extra-legal control, using volunteer citizens as the "street muscle."

Victims say that in addition to being physically harassed, their property is being vandalized; their privacy is being invaded; their mail is intercepted, financial accounts and billing statements altered, family finances decimated; and their physical well-being has been compromised using hi-tech instruments such as "directed energy weapons" that emit silent bursts of radiation -- lasers, microwaves, x-rays, even sonic frequencies -- that can disable, main, induce illness or even kill.

"This is torture that's happening right here, in American cities and towns," says one alleged victim. "But it's like pre- World War II Germany; people refuse to believe that such abuses could happen in a civilized society. But it is happening. And I'm convinced that local and federal authorities not only have knowledge of this extra-legal targeting, but are providing funding and direction.

"I know the FBI knows about it, because I've been down there several times over the past two years to report it." He says he knows of no formal investigation, despite his offers to cooperate.

"I'm not saying they know of the worst abuses, such as using microwaves on targeted persons to degrade their health and make it impossible for them to earn a living. But they must know that these citizen patrols are doing a lot more than just cruising around the neighborhood. "

Citizens who have reported abuses say their complaints are typically ignored -- or that authorities insinuate that their claims are figments of their imagination, or are a manifestation of a mental illness such as paranoia.

"That appears to be part of the M-O," says one victim. "You haven't done anything wrong, so they can't charge you with a crime. So they attempt to make it look like you're crazy. That's how they marginalize people who don't fit in with their world view."

This victim believes the vigilante network is a convenient way for those in power to dispense with persons they simply don't like, or whose political or social views do not hew to what they regard as the established order.

Victims also believe that a network of federal, state and local government programs and agencies works in tandem with the citizen-based extra-legal control system to destroy their financial security. They allege that the crisis in the mortgage and credit markets may have been worsened by these programs, which they say are sapping the financial well-being of individuals and families without benefit of the right of due process.

Some victims wonder whether these extra-legal programs didn't create those financial crises in the first place. "We haven't had these kind of widespread financial woes for sixty years," a gang-stalking victim said. "You have to wonder if these rogue programs of personal destruction weren't a blueprint for an ideologically-motivated purge."

Some of the agencies looking into the mortgage and credit market problems may have had long-standing knowledge of these programs, according to victims, who are calling on Congress to investigate.

"The issue of state-supported vigilantism and extra-legal control represents an assault on our judicial system that makes Watergate look like the third-rate burglary that it started out to be," says one gang-stalking victim. "Since government agencies appear to be involved in funding these programs, it's up to Congress to investigate, to use its powers of oversight to ensure that democracy and the rule of law prevails -- and not the law of the jungle."

President Clinton often talked about "the politics of personal destruction." Hillary Clinton warned against the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a concern she reaffirmed, albeit in milder descriptive language, in her autobiography, "Living History."

The network of programs and policies that are allegedly circumventing the judicial system, violating constitutional rights and meting out vigilante justice, might collectively be termed the MECHANICS of personal destruction.

I wonder aloud whether Bill and Hillary Clinton weren't trying to warn the rest of us about an evil that even the power of the presidency could not keep in check.

The entire electoral process is being marginalized, relegated to little more than window dressing, as true power is stolen away by a neo-fascist element that has found a way to seize the reins of power and authority. It is analogous to what John Dean called "a cancer" -- not just on the presidency, but on the entire body politic.

Amazing as it sounds, this powerful apparatus appears to exist under the radar of most elected members of Congress. Those who should know, perhaps they believe such programs exist to target "terrorists," so-called enemies of the state. They naively refuse to believe that these programs, over time, appear to have morphed into a vast system of extra-legal vigilante control not unlike the East German Stasi, the KKK of the old South, the Gestapo of the Nazi Third Reich -- and that these programs effectively deny innocent American citizens their constitutional rights.

This appears to be nothing less than neo-fascism under the guise of "national security" and "keeping America safe." And liberals and progressives, who arguably are represented among the targets of these programs, naively insist that "it can't happen here." Only the Libertarians seem to perceive the threat.

Whoever is elected the next president will inherit these programs. That person, if he learns of such programs, is likely to be told of their necessity and propriety -- that such an extra-legal control mechanism, employing citizen vigilantes and extra-legal programs targeting financial resources, can co-exist with democracy.

In fact, this extra-legal control mechanism is destroying our democracy; much damage already has been done. Individuals and families are being slowly destroyed. Some call it a "silent holocaust" due to its clandestine nature and the use of silent, invisible directed energy technology.

Below are links to the articles I've written about this imminent danger to our constitutional democracy. I urge lawmakers and congressional committee staffers to do some research, and start asking some tough questions, starting with the Department of Homeland Security:

"Mr. Chertoff, are you aware that many Americans believe they have been the victims of so-called community or gang stalking, possibly perpetrated by persons equipped and trained by federally funded volunteer programs under your charge? Have you heard of such reports, and are you investigating to ensure that these programs and their resources are not being misused?"

That would be a good place to start. I believe it goes much deeper; but the curative process must begin before more Americans are seriously damaged by this descent from the rule of law to the nihilist rule of the jungle.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/get-political-vic-livingston-opinion-expose-state-supported-vigilante-squads-doing-domestic-terrorism

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vigilante-injustice-organized-gang-stalking-american-gestapo-are-they-doing-hi-tech-torture

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1


Posted by: scrivener | July 30, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

While it doesn't matter very much who McCain picks for VP because Obama's toast in the general anyway, the inclusion of Joe Lieberman on the McCain VP list is nuts. Exept on the Iraq War, Lieberman always votes with the liberal Democrats. The only reason Lieberman is with GWB and McCain on the Iraq War is because Lieberman is concerned about Israel. He's worried that if we cut-and-run, like the liberal Democrats and Barack Obama want to do, Israel is on it's own. Having been driven out of Iraq a President Obama wouldn't send our military back in to start the war all over again. Without our military in the Mideast, Israel will be history especially with a nuclear Iran taking over.

Posted by: tic | July 30, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Swoosie:

Are you Swoosie the Riveter?

Or have I fallen upon a piece of "disinformation"?

Have a transparent evening.

Posted by: eyes on | July 30, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

going to be very surprised when it turns out to be Leahy, the only Democrat that stood up to the repugs.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 30, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama is terribly over. He is beginning to implode because he is a big blowhard who has so much hot air associated with his campaign that he now thinks he is actually President. Americans don't like arrogance, and in the end the bigger they are, well, the bigger they fall. This thing is just ramping up good and I am going to sit back and watch the Obama, the guy who does not value my "over 50, woman" vote---lose in November and I won't be the least bit sorry. If we are going to go into Afganistan, as Mr. Obama says, then I would much rather have a soldier run that war than a community organizer.

Posted by: swoosie | July 30, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Flownover, the Graham that is referred to as McCain's VP is US Senator Lyndsey Graham of South Carolina. Graham is still in the Army Reserves & spent last year's congressional summer recess in Afghanistan teaching constitutional law to Afghany politicians & military law to military personnell. Graham supported McCain in SC in 2000 in his primary loss to Bush & supported him as US Senator this past year throughout the campaign & especially helped McCain pull out the SC win vs. Huckabee & Romney. Romney had the endorsement of South Carolina's other US Senator, Jim DeMint. Huck had the endorsement of alot of Christian conservative leaders in SC. McCain & Graham won with the military vote in SC. Graham won his primary vs. a racist segregationist last month in June with 67% of the R vote. He has moderate stances on immigration & is part of the "Group of 14" to get the judicial nominees an up or down vote. He went against the right when Frist threatened to end the filibuster & went against the left when Tom Dashle & Harry Reid tried to deny qualified conservative judges an up or down vote. Graham is a fierce supporter of the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, is always on the front line in support of veterans & was McCain's best supporter of the surge before the surge was cool. Graham is a man who stands on principle, despite party lines. He has very strong national security & constitutional & military law qualities. However, Graham is not always a favorite of social conservatives...as McCain isn't. This is 1 reason why, Leitchman, that McCain won't pick Graham as VP. Graham has no executive experience & his qualifications on economic expertise could be criticized by the Obama campaign. McCain needs someone who will excite the socially conservative base & bring successful executive experience. A reformer would also be a good nudge. This is why, in my view, Tim Pawlenty is the front-runner for McCain's VP right now. Sarah Palin had a great spot, but now with the indictment of Ted Stevens & Lt. Gov. Parnell running for the US House vs. Republican Don Young...Palin may need to stay where she is for the sakes of Alaska. Also, McCain may not want the tainted story of Alaska politics in his campaign. Tom Ridge was once thought of as a wildcard, but now he may be #2 on the list. A successful governor of Pennsylvania that would likely bring Pa. to McCain in 08'. He has wonderful homeland security credentials as McCain does. Ridge served as the Homeland Security Advisor after 9/11, the 1st we ever had. Ridge balanced budgets. He isn't a favorite in the social conservative movement b/c he supports abortion, but only in cases of rape, incest & the life of the mother. That's a position shared by the over-whelming majority of American's. Ridge has to be #2, but I'm better Pawlenty gets the nod. McCain may well pick Lieberman & promise to only serve 1 term if elected. That would soothe the issue of age, perhaps? It would also draw bi-partisan praise & put Conn. & Pa. in play hard. Obama could pick Bayh & try to take Indiana & compete hard in Iowa & other midwestern states. It should be an interesting election either way. But that's the "Graham" whom was referred to and that's why I think McCain won't pick him. Graham made reference in an interview when asked about being a possible VP that he succeeded Strom Thurmond and is now the senior senator from SC, and he would like to be the senior senator of SC for a long, long time.

Posted by: reason | July 30, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman

It's more like 78, not 18 million. You're inflating HRC's strength, just like you exaggerated those caucus riots instigated by Obama supporters.

Just put up the McCain sign already, or -- since you insist on being a baby -- hold your breath until your face turns blue. Your bona fides were called into question months ago, and you're now showing your true colors.

Posted by: bondjedi | July 30, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

sunshine some how your campaign has miscalculated and presumed all 18 million of us will just fall in line. Why: Because he is entitled. Personally I am ready to put up a McCain sign in my yard and volunteer for him if I read one more post like your's.

Posted by: Leichtman | July 30, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Sarah,

Thanks for the shout-out, re: the Huckabuck... but I wish you had chosen my recommendation of Dodd for Obama. It looks like Obama's hubris will lead him to choose someone who won't question his much-vaunted judgment, and that's a huge mistake. Dodd has the courage to stick firm to his principles; that's a lesson Obama has yet to learn.

Best to ya.

Posted by: scrivener | July 30, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

sunshine some how your campaign has miscalculated and presumed all 18 million of us will just fall in line. Why: Because he is entitled. Personally I am ready to put up a McCain sign in my yard and volunteer for him if I read one more post like your's.

Posted by: Leichtman | July 30, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

The whole list looks good except Clinton. The Clintons are too much drama . I think Obama would lose quite a few "Obamacan" votes to McCain if she's chosen. I don't think she brings votes he wouldn't get anyway once people consider the issues.

Posted by: Sunshine | July 30, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Lindsey Graham, ever heard of him?

Posted by: Leichtman | July 30, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

that little group of people say around 18 million of us. No we do not accept not except Obama but have had it with the months of condescending comments here about HC.
And DDawd if you have ever been involved in a Presidential campaign you would understand that it is traditional that the winner helps retire their opponent's debt. Has been that way for every Presidential campaign in my lifetime; up to now anyway. And why has HC gotten this treatment from the O campaign? Lets see she has been fundraising for him nonstop, given out our email and mailing addresses for O fundraising, raised millions from her supporters for him and received $200,000 from his supporters; whoopie. You just don't get it. There are millions of us who feel just like me and ready to jump ship for the first time in 30 years of voting if we continue to see the same disrespect for Bill and Hillary by your campaign. Let's see how you do if even 20% of those 18 million oppose your candidate in Nov.
Kaine is a fine man who I worked for in Richmond to get elected but exactly what foreign policy or national economic experience does he have to deserve to pass over HC or Biden? Precisely the same as B.O. None. Two liteweights, on the same ticket,that is sure rassuring. Selecting Kaine will be seen as a Political choice, to win Va in Nov, and nothing more. I will see it as a character test that Sen O would fail with an F. And what have we heard for months, that Sen O does not practice the old style politics rather he does what is best for the country. Then it should either be HC or Biden the only prospects that qualify to step in to the whitehouse which if I am not mistaken is the true test of a VP selection, not whether they politically help to carry a state.

Posted by: Leichtman | July 30, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"Why is Graham never mentioned as a McCain VP possibility?"

Heather Graham? Billy Graham? Graham cracker? Who the hell are you talking about?

Posted by: FlownOver | July 30, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for picking my post about Clark!

Posted by: Zach | July 30, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I think the widespread -- and often discussed -- assumption that Tim Kaine would strengthen the Obama ticket in Virgnina is probably correct. Or should I say WAS correct? At this point, the notion that Kaine would bring VA along for the Democrats has been so thoroughly proliferated through the media echo chamber that it would be positively surprising for VA voters not to be aware of the logic underlying that veep selection. Why does this awareness matter? Voters (arguably) do not like to be treated as though they can be so easily played by an overtly strategic tactic. As such, many VA voters may be reluctant to make the Kaine-prompted switch as a function of the self-consciousness that would result from the implicit admission that they can indeed be gotten via such a non-substantive modification to the Obama ticket.

The "Kaine bump" may still obtain. However, it may be smaller than it would have been in a un-analyzed universe. In addition, to avoid the appearance (to themselves and others) that they have been gotten, the VA voters may wait a bit to voice support for the Obama ticket after the addition of Kaine. Overall, this means that the bump in VA may be smaller and come later than anyone thought.

Posted by: Aaron L. | July 30, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting how resistant the Obama supporters are to understanding that this election is going to come down to how women, the older women vote. Obama and his team want to think that independents are the key, but they are not. Women will ultimately be the tipping point for this election and right now, the women over 50, the majority of them do not support Obama. If you have ever doubted the resolve of women, please don't with this election hanging in the balance. If the numbers work out, and Clinton can pull in the women, and hispanics, then let it be. We need this election. Kaine, Seibelius and other in the VP field are simply lightweights and will be a drag on the ticket for many reasons.

Posted by: swoosie | July 30, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

You know, its funny, as time passes, I find Clinton less and less unpalatable as the VP pick. I still think its ridiculous how she is trying to use Obama to recoup her campaign debts, but I did once like Clinton. Not as much as Obama, but early on in the primary season, I'd have been happy with her if she beat out Obama.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 30, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, HRC got 18 million votes - God Bless her. OVER 120 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED IN 2004! There are a lot of people to be reached. The Independents will decide the election as usual.

Posted by: KT | July 30, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Great, I finally get some recognition on this thing and there are no tshirts involved.

Not to mention that I get put under scrivener's entry.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 30, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Basewd on the consensus opinions of the Fox News/Limbaugh talking point regurgitators here, we now that VP they really want for McCain to be a rabid weasel. Hum... Now, who looks AND acts like a rabid weasel? Leiberman? Romney? Cheney? All good choices, but we need to look further and find someone with obvious first stage Alzheimer's Disease, too, so they fit with McCain.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 30, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

The only people who want to see Hillary on the ticket are those few dems that are left that simply cannot except that Obama is the nominee and not her. Beyond that little group of people, Obama doesnt need Hillary in any way. Thats just the truth.

Posted by: matt | July 30, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

if O loses after giving HC the finger for VP, he will deserve to lose and will only have himself to blame.

Why is Graham never mentioned as a McCain VP possibility?

Posted by: Leichtman | July 30, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

if O loses after giving HC the finger for VP, he will deserve to lose and will only have himself to blame.

Why is Graham never mentioned as a McCain VP possibility?

Posted by: Leichtman | July 30, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

if O loses after giving HC the finger for VP, he will deserve to lose and will only have himself to blame.

Why is Graham never mentioned as a McCain VP possibility?

Posted by: Leichtman | July 30, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

swoosie I agree

I would as a volunteer for Obama for a year and a half...

and a heated debater between Hillary and Obama...would rather see Hillary on the ticket than Kaine.

ugh.

Posted by: dl | July 30, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Romney's the obvious pick, but it makes you wonder if the McCain campaign will screw up this decision like most of the rest. Theirs has not been a clean run so far.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | July 30, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

My take is that Obama's ego cannot recognize the need for someone of significant caliber, thus the intensity around Kaine is building. Kaine is a blah sort of guy, actually a nice "yes man" who will never be glitzy or interesting in his own right. Obama can feel like the big man and continue with that. In the end, the only candidate for VP that make pure sense is Hillary Clinton. But Obama and moreover his operative would rather give up their you know whats than have her on the ticket. They will be very sorry as he begins to commit to the wrong VP and continues to dive in the polls. The most excitement that could ever be generated in history would be the Obama/Clinton ticket and that is the way it should go, but Obama is very arrogant and in general a big petty snot. Just look at how he has ousted the New Yorker mag from access to his campaign. He's petty and in the end, it is going to cost him. Good.

Posted by: swoosie | July 30, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company