Who will be the Democrat VP?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

For Obama I think that means picking someone who agreed with him about the war from the start, just as for McCain it's someone who believes that we must do what it takes to win the war now. I think it would be a folly for Obama to pick someone like Clinton. However, someone like Nunn or Richardson could offer experience without stepping on the core of Obama's message, though I know less about where Nunn is today.

In my idle speculation here, I suppose it's worth separating what I think might happen versus what I want to happen. I think Nunn or Richardson would make outstanding vice presidents. I would probably favor Richardson since Nunn would be another cheney in the sense that it's a VP with no potential to run himself. If Obama were to win, Nunn would be 78 by the time 2016 comes around.

I think Nunn would make the best VP, he just might not make the best candidate. It's traditionally the VP candidates job to be the attack dog, and I can't see Nunn doing that.

[st.cronin]

I can't believe people are talking about SAM NUNN. That just blows me away.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

And, frankly, the campaigning ability of the VP nominee isn't that important. If it was, Bush I would never have been elected.

VA has a Democratic governor. I have not been able to pin down how VA law deals with vacancies, but most southern states allow the Governor to appoint to fill a vacancy, at least until the next regular election. The likely scenario would be Kaine appointing a Democrat early in the year who would be able to mount a normal campaign -- with incumbency advantage -- with the final election taking place in Nov 2009 when VA has its gubenatorial election anyway. So, I don't think Webb's Senate seat would be a significant consideration of the Obama campaign.

My understanding of Virgina law is the same. It looks like the governor can appoint someone to fill the vacancy until the next general election, which sounds like it would be November 2009. Kaine can't really appoint himself; traditionally what happens is that the governor steps down and the new governor appoints the former governor to the job. But since Virginia has a Republican lieutenant governor, that's unlikely.

But Webb's seat would be of interest to Obama since he has to plan for the possibility that the senate could be divided. He doesn't want to be 49-51 knowing that his VP would have made it 50-50

Bush's '88 campaign was the classic case don't let the VP hurt you. Michael Dukakis was the sorriest presential candidate since at least Alf Landon. Gary Hart could have won that race by 8 points if he'd kept it zipped.

[flere-imsaho]

But Webb doesn't have to be inspiring - Obama already does that. Webb just has to continue to do what he's been doing all year - needling McCain on military/foreign policy issues.

And while Webb may not be very good on the stump, he's exceptionally good unscripted in interview/on the Sunday talk shows.

So, one possibility would be that Webb would drag McCain (& his surrogates) into a trench war and allow Obama to run on as positive a message as possible.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I can't believe people are talking about SAM NUNN. That just blows me away.

There are things about Nunn I don't like. He's way too conservative for my tastes on some issues. But I think he'd make a strong VP.

[Crapshoot]

Obama needs a white male - I'd be shocked if he goes any other way, though Seiblus from Kansas is somewhat interesting.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Ugh. Can we stop with this Clinton mythology already? They've lost. They lost to a guy who shouldn't have come close to beating them by overplaying their hand and spending frivolously. People might be dumb, but the Church of Bill didn't propel his wife into office this time and damn sure wouldn't as an independent. Sure, she'd make sure McCain won if she were to run as an independent.

But it would destroy her own credibility in the process. They'll be far more likely to get Obama to run and hope a scandal gets him deposed and allows Hillary to 'unite' the country.

Well, if she was really all about the party, she would have conceded the race by now. Some polls I've seen suggest that a lot of her supporters would just as soon vote for McCain in the general as Obama...moreso if they perceive that the party shafts her somehow.

[Young Drachma]

I agree that they're willing to take the party down in flames to get into the White House.

[stevew]

Mark Warner would be a really good pick. However it looks like he's running for Senate this year. I think he'd be an excellent choice.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

But Webb's seat would be of interest to Obama since he has to plan for the possibility that the senate could be divided. He doesn't want to be 49-51 knowing that his VP would have made it 50-50

If Obama is blowing time by giving deep thought to the Senate ratio during his presidency, McCain will crush him like a grape. Dems are likely to add 3-6 seats to their column regardless of Webb's replacement, so I really don't see this being a big factor in the decision.

Mark Warner would be a great choice; but when he committed to the Senate vacancy, he made it clear that he was out of the VP race altogether.

Polls after a tough primary always show some hurt feelings on the losing side. HRC will have to commit herself very publically to Obama's candidacy when she finally concedes for the healing to really take place. I know I differ with a lot of folks on the board when I say that I believe that she will do this.

[Barkeep49]

If McCain and Obama aren't think about how they would practically work their agenda I would be disappointed in both of them. So I absolutely believe that Obama is thinking about how the composition of the Senate would effect him and McCain is thinking about how to work with what is likely to be an opposition Congress.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I agree that they're willing to take the party down in flames to get into the White House.

The question I have for her supporters is that if she's willing to do that, what the hell do you think she'd do when she became POTUS? Ignore rational thought and the evidence before her? Wait....that's what she's accused GWB of doing....

[bronconick]

Even given unlimited money, Hillary couldn't win as an independant, because California law forbids someone who ran in a party's primary to appear on the ballot as an independant. No California= No Hillary win.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Most of the best and most sweeping changes in our country happens when the "correct" side has a majority and can reform the system. Roosevelt's New Deal, Johnson's Great Society, the Reagan Revolution. Right now, we've reached a point where neither side can accomplish that because we so divided. The Republicans did a great job pushing their agenda in 2001-2005 and the pendulum swung too far to the right. It's time for a liberal agenda to swing the pendulum back. I'm all for partisanship right now. And if takes hiding a Republican in the backwater of the vice presidency to win, let's do it.

You mean we would expect more crap like the worthless $300 billion Farm Bill? Cool.

And you do realize that historians continue to debate the positives of the three programs you listed? Most, though, say that the federal gov't War on Poverty was a disaster, as with most War on [fill in the blank]. Why encourage more of that when they will only get us further in debt with little to no benefits? There is no such thing as the correct side, only the reduction in the power and expenditures of the federal govt.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

If McCain and Obama aren't think about how they would practically work their agenda I would be disappointed in both of them. So I absolutely believe that Obama is thinking about how the composition of the Senate would effect him and McCain is thinking about how to work with what is likely to be an opposition Congress.

Then prepare to be disappointed. Obama's agenda will not pass, regardless of the Congressional margins, if he isn't there to offer it.

When you are in a very close election, such as this one may prove to be, you don't have the luxury to worry about how Congress will shake out a year after your hypothetical presidency may begin. You'll have plenty of time to worry about that after election day.

I'm not saying that Obama won't campaign with the Udalls in NM and CO -- of course he will. Appearing with popular candidates in in key states will help both campaigns. But I am saying that he won't blow much time campaigning in Mississippi if he has little chance to win there.

Now, if in October Obama is running 10 points ahead and appears to be headed to an electoral landslide, OK. He can go ahead and pad his majority. But I think we'd all agree that it seems a little far-fetched at this point.

This is mostly irrelevant to the Webb hypothetical we are discussing. Gov. Kaine would appoint a Democrat to fill the seat, which takes you through the end of 2009 anyway. And with expected 2008 Senate pickups in NM, CO and VA and possibilities for NH, ME, OR, MN, AK and MS, how Webb's seat might shake out in November 2009 isn't a significant factor.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You mean we would expect more crap like the worthless $300 billion Farm Bill? Cool.

And you do realize that historians continue to debate the positives of the three programs you listed? Most, though, say that the federal gov't War on Poverty was a disaster, as with most War on [fill in the blank]. Why encourage more of that when they will only get us further in debt with little to no benefits? There is no such thing as the correct side, only the reduction in the power and expenditures of the federal govt.

There should be plenty of debate on what did and did not work in the past. Did everything Roosevelt do work? No, but he knew that -- his philosophy was to try a lot of ideas from smart people and use the ones that work and discard the ones that don't. That's what any good government or business should do. I certainly don't agree with everything Johnson and Reagan did either (Vietnam, exploding the deficit), but I generally think that their approaches were probably the right idea at the right time. This nation probably wouldn't have made it through the Great Depresssion if Roosevelt had a Republican Congress in the 1930s.

I'll grant you that it's a personal taste. I'm a utilitarian, so my general philosophy of government is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. I think we've gotten a long way from that in the last eight years and we need to swing the pendulum back. There are plenty of Republicans who think this election year is hopeless -- just ask George Will.

[kcchief19]

Interesting poll out of Michigan: McCain 44, Obama 40, Undecided 16

However:
Obama/Clinton 51
McCain/Romney 44
Undecided 5

From a pure win standpoint, I have no doubt that an Obama/Clinton ticket would win in landslide and would be Obama's best chance to win. However, I don't think either one of their egos could take it. But if they could set ego aside and coexist on the same ticket, they win.

[Barkeep49]

Why would Clinton want to be VP? Why would Obama want her meddling around? That's not about ego, that's about trying to accomplish something good (as they see it).

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

From a pure win standpoint, I have no doubt that an Obama/Clinton ticket would win in landslide and would be Obama's best chance to win. However, I don't think either one of their egos could take it. But if they could set ego aside and coexist on the same ticket, they win.

I see your point, but I think you understand that you are essentially asking both Obama and HRC to be entirely different people for this to work. And we all know that relationships that are founded on the belief that one partner or the other will change are ultimately doomed to fail.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Why would Clinton want to be VP?

- Higher prestige gig than Senator.
- The honor of being the first woman to serve as Vice President.
- Assuming Obama wins, she would be the presumptive nominee in 2016. And if Obama loses, she would probably be the most likely to win the nomination in 12.

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Why would Obama want her meddling around?

Beyond the advantages she would bring to his campaign?

- She's a skilled, experienced politician. Obama may think she'll be easier to handle and/or ignore as a VP rather than as a Senator.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

- Higher prestige gig than Senator.

Higher prestige than the average Senator. But she's a superstar Senator and will remain that way. She can already get press coverage of just about any issue she wants.

- The honor of being the first woman to serve as Vice President.

Legit reason

- Assuming Obama wins, she would be the presumptive nominee in 2016. And if Obama loses, she would probably be the most likely to win the nomination in 12.

If Obama loses she'll be blamed for the loss whether or not she did the best job of VP campaigning ever. If Obama wins she'll be 69 in 2016. That starts to reach the point where age is an issue. But yes if Obama wins and she is VP that is likely her best way of getting a chance to run for President again.



[quote]Beyond the advantages she would bring to his campaign?[/quotes]
Advantages, really? Bill goes off message during his wife's campaign. What kind of liability would he be in the third fiddle role? The polls showing Obama/Clinton doing well are similar to the polls showing Obama/Edwards doing well: they're names that people recognize and thus poll better.

- She's a skilled, experienced politician. Obama may think she'll be easier to handle and/or ignore as a VP rather than as a Senator.

I doubt he thinks this and, as I've posted before, I don't think he values the experience she brings to the table.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

If Obama loses she'll be blamed for the loss whether or not she did the best job of VP campaigning ever.

I actually think this might be true regardless of who Obama picks for VP - if he loses, it will be Clinton's fault.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I actually think this might be true regardless of who Obama picks for VP - if he loses, it will be Clinton's fault.

Oh I think it's true no matter who Obama chooses. I didn't make that clear in the earlier post.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Oh I think it's true no matter who Obama chooses. I didn't make that clear in the earlier post.

Ok, but then don't you agree that from her point of view it would be easier to combat this perception if she had actually campaigned as the VP candidate?

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Ok, but then don't you agree that from her point of view it would be easier to combat this perception if she had actually campaigned as the VP candidate?

There's no real change, most likely, in how she is viewed. She's unlikely to be given any credit for an Obama win and she would get the negative whether she's on the ticket or not.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I see your point, but I think you understand that you are essentially asking both Obama and HRC to be entirely different people for this to work. And we all know that relationships that are founded on the belief that one partner or the other will change are ultimately doomed to fail.

How do they have to change? All politicians are ego-driven. If you're saying two ambitious, ego-centric politicians can't coexist on the same ticket, history would suggest otherwise. The rift between them is personal. For all the debate about their differences, they aren't very far apart on anything. They aren't even far apart on Iraq.

The only thing they have to do is decide they want to win and set aside their personal ego over who gets to be president and gets to be VP and go win the thing. People make it sound like he's a liberal and she's the second coming of Reagan. They share the same position on 95% percent of the issues, and their differences on the other 5% are minor.

She has a vested interest in making sure he wins since she will be blamed if he loses. She would be more effective campaigning as the VP than as a surrogate, and after the experience of the last six months I'm not sure he's going to find a more experienced campaigner for the job.

If he asks, I think she accepts. But if the doesn't ask it's personal, not business.

[Buccaneer]

7 of the 61 voters win.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

As an aside, I'm surprised Joe Biden isn't getting a lot of play as Obama's VP. I know it would resurrect the "clean and articulate" comment, but Obama and Biden didn't fight much during the primaries and they are in lockstep on a lot of issues, including national security which is one of Biden's biggest strengths. I have read rumors of a Biden-for-Secretary of State role though.

Do I get partial credit?

[Buccaneer]

Yes, I was going to highlight your post but got sidetracked. Nice work, Matt.

[Young Drachma]

Good stuff.

[path12]

I had Rendell. That's pretty wrong.