Who will be the Democrat VP?

[Buccaneer]

I love following stuff like this, as I have the primaries. It's exactly like a March Madness type sporting event. Anyways, the poll shows the contenders for the Democrat VP, according to cnn.com.

I can't post the pros and cons for each as it is a flash-based page.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...kes/index.html

[Buccaneer]

I have hard time picking since I really like Sam Nunn, but he's not going to accept if asked. I am leaning towards Rendell.

[samifan24]

It will be Jim Webb.

[Izulde]

I'd love if Richardson was the pick.

[kcchief19]

I'm even more tempted to go Other here. I think Bill Richardson is the best person on the list, but Obama/Richardson? Too groundbreaking, I think. After all that's happened, I still think the best ticket would be Obama/Clinton.

Sam Nunn's has great credentials but he doesn't have the voltage of a VP candidate. But you pair Obama and Nunn and I guarantee Obama wins at least three redder than red GOP southern states.

Personally, I think a multi-party tickets is exactly what this country needs. In 2000 I thought the best thing Bush could have done to bring the country together would have been to have Cheney to step aside and ask Bush electors in the Electoral College to vote for Lieberman as VP. Probably would have been best for Bush and the country too, in retrospect. Hagel has the national security credentials Obama needs.

Right now, I think Strickland is the guy. First, he's a huge Clinton supporter, so it's a bone to Hillary's camp. It puts Ohio in play, and maybe helps Obama keep West Virginia from going GOP since Strickland will play to blue collar voters very well. If Obama can win Ohio and just one southern state, it means McCain has zero room for error.

As a Dem I'm not crazy about Webb and Rendell. Easley is OK I think I'm the only guy left who likes Wesley Clark, and I think he'd be Hillary's choice if she were the nominee. I like Kathy Sebelius and think she'll end up in Obama's cabinet, but she'd be a weak VP choice.

[Buccaneer]

In 2000 I thought the best thing Bush could have done to bring the country together would have been to have Cheney to step aside and ask Bush electors in the Electoral College to vote for Lieberman as VP. Probably would have been best for Bush and the country too, in retrospect.

I agree with that. Maybe we could have had gridlock just within the Executive Branch?

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I'm even more tempted to go Other here. I think Bill Richardson is the best person on the list, but Obama/Richardson? Too groundbreaking, I think. After all that's happened, I still think the best ticket would be Obama/Clinton.

Sam Nunn's has great credentials but he doesn't have the voltage of a VP candidate. But you pair Obama and Nunn and I guarantee Obama wins at least three redder than red GOP southern states.

Personally, I think a multi-party tickets is exactly what this country needs. In 2000 I thought the best thing Bush could have done to bring the country together would have been to have Cheney to step aside and ask Bush electors in the Electoral College to vote for Lieberman as VP. Probably would have been best for Bush and the country too, in retrospect. Hagel has the national security credentials Obama needs.

Right now, I think Strickland is the guy. First, he's a huge Clinton supporter, so it's a bone to Hillary's camp. It puts Ohio in play, and maybe helps Obama keep West Virginia from going GOP since Strickland will play to blue collar voters very well. If Obama can win Ohio and just one southern state, it means McCain has zero room for error.

As a Dem I'm not crazy about Webb and Rendell. Easley is OK I think I'm the only guy left who likes Wesley Clark, and I think he'd be Hillary's choice if she were the nominee. I like Kathy Sebelius and think she'll end up in Obama's cabinet, but she'd be a weak VP choice.

Implicit in this message is the idea that partisianship is bad. Why?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Implicit in this message is the idea that partisianship is bad. Why?

I don't think partisanship is bad. I support bipartisanship in this case because I think it would help the Democrats build a clear majority to let them clean up the Bush Mess. Put a moderate Republican on the VP ticket and Obama could waltz in November and get a Democratic Congress to boot. That's why Bloomberg's potential candidacy intrigued me because he was proposing the same thing -- I think in the current environment "indpendent" ticket with a liberal and conservative could sweep a presidential election.

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.

[Barkeep49]

How will having a Republican help pass a liberal agenda? A Republican who doesn't really agree with Obama on anything except the Iraqi War? And a Republican who will give credence to the idea that Obama is weak on national security, an idea that Obama doesn't agree with.

[Barkeep49]

DOLA - It's the same reason that McCain should not put Lieberman on the ticket.

[stevew]

Please take Ed Rendell

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

How will having a Republican help pass a liberal agenda? A Republican who doesn't really agree with Obama on anything except the Iraqi War? And a Republican who will give credence to the idea that Obama is weak on national security, an idea that Obama doesn't agree with.

The knock against Obama is that he's too liberal and too naive about national security. If he is backed by a Republican/indpendent who is conservative and agrees with his national security agenda, you eliminate those criticisms. You want a conservative who is strong on national security and anti-Iraq war. Hagel's that guy. It doesn't say Obama is weak on security -- it says here's a guy with national security credentials who says I'm right.

From a governing standpoint, last eight years aside, the vice presidency is useless. Send Hagel to funerals and museum openings like he's supposed to, not running policy from a secret bunker. End the era of the Imperial Vice Presidency Bush created. If Hagel helps Obama get a 10-point win and those coattails get a fillibuster-proof Senate and big majority in the House, it's Christmas morning for Democrats.

I don't think either side could score a clear majority without doing something groundbreaking. I also think neither side has the political courage to do something groundbreaking. That means we're headed likely headed for another nailbiter.

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.

[Barkeep49]

I understand what the Conventional Wisdom is about Obama's weakness. However, Obama doesn't see himself as having a problem with national security (see recent dustup with Bush's Knesset comments). Appointing Hagel or Biden steps on that message. Nunn less so because Obama could argue that he's appointing Nunn because of the disarmament factor, a definite Obama strength.

And Obama is a liberal. You seem to want him to rule with a liberal message. So why appoint someone who is very much not a liberal? Again it steps on the message that Obama's liberal ideas are OK, which is a meme that he pushes pretty hard.

[Young Drachma]

Picking a Republican is bad news. Hagel probably isn't going to change parties, because he'll have a McCain moment and realize that might be bad news if Obama loses. Not that he would with him on board, because seriously, it'd be the best power play ever and closest he'd ever get to the White House otherwise.

Obama might be a liberal, but he's an appeaser in the sense that he'll sell out to the right to 'compromise' and get stuff done. So I don't think it'd be strange of him to pick someone more center-right.

I think picking a Clinton surrogate isn't going to happen. Too much risk in having one of them club him from behind and to neuter him to save Hillary's chances in '12. Sounds bad, but given what the Team Clinton has persisted with, Obama's team is likely to believe that with their 'new electoral map' they can cut ties with the Clinton wing of the party once and for all and pursue their own agenda. And that's a smart move.

Picking a woman will antagonize Hillary supporters who are mad it's not her. So he's going to have to be smart and bold with his pick. Who knows who it'll be though, because the variables of this race are such that it's hard to predict. McCain's VP pick will probably play too, since we should know who he picks before Obama goes live with his selection.

[JPhillips]

Webb has now boxed McCain in on two different veteran's spending bills. He can play the attack dog, appeal to security minded moderates and put VA in play. There are reasons not to pick him, but on the surface he seems like everything you'd want.

[Arles]

Richardson's a smart choice. He has strong foreign policy credentials (help combat McCain) and would probably deliver New Mexico (and maybe even Colorado) with his popularity. He's a Latino, so that could also help some of angst in the Latino community if Obama beats Hillary. And, he has a strong record as governor of being fairly fiscally responsible (help the "tax and spend liberal" mantra).

The fact that he's such a solid choice means there's no way it will ever happen.

[ace1914]

Nah. Obama will choose Clinton and she will accept. It will continue with his "take the high road" theme, solidify the vote with women and Hispanics and run away with the presidency.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

It puts Ohio in play

Ohio's not in play? News to me.

[ISiddiqui]

I think Strickland would be the pick because he can give you Ohio on a sliver platter and help with PA and WV.

[Young Drachma]

WV isn't going blue. PA has blue potential and with the way Obama's people talk, their electoral map will activate states Clinton would never win. Given the way they've played this thing, I can't see them throwing a bone to the Clinton squad after the way this primary has gone.

[ISiddiqui]

Unfortunately, I think the Obama people have way too much pride in themselves and don't realize how important it is to "throw a bone" to the Clinton people. Without uniting the party, they are done for in November.

[st.cronin]

I think it will be Clinton. Richardson would be a very bad choice, I think - he has tremendous strengths as an administrator and negotiator, but in a national campaign I think he'd be way over his head. New Mexico is one of the more corrupt states, politically, and there are a lot of stories which are well known or semi-well known to residents that would play very poorly nationally. I think an Obama/Richardson ticket would get slaughtered.

An Obama/Clinton ticket I think might actually win.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Unfortunately, I think the Obama people have way too much pride in themselves and don't realize how important it is to "throw a bone" to the Clinton people. Without uniting the party, they are done for in November.

I disagree

I am going to vote for Obama in November, the only thing that would change my mind is having Hillary as Vice-President. I will note vote for Clinton even as vice president, any number of others can bring in the same votes as she could without the baggage.

I would think her recent statements, about staying in the campaign just in case he is shot, would put her out of the running.

[albionmoonlight]

The problem with Warner or Webb is that you are taking an easy Dem seat in the Senate and putting it back in play.

I'll go with Strickland here. He's a Clinton backer, so that is a bit of a bone. He can help with Ohio, which is huge. And, if he is working for himself, he won't be working behind the scenes for the Clintons to screw up Obama's chances in Ohio.

[QuikSand]

I don't claim any particular insight into the selection, but it seems like a pretty pivotal decision for the campaign, to me. If the abbreviated view of the Obama candidacy is that he is about being young, different, inspiring, and pro-change... then surely one way to go with the running mate would be to essentially double down on that and go with someone vibrant and young. However, if you're worried about looking weak on foreign affairs or generally inexperienced, maybe the sensible move would be to find an offsetting running mate, someone who would lend some strength to the ticket on that front.

Seems to me you send very different messages with those two different sorts of possible running mates. I'm not fully convinced which one makes more sense, honestly.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't claim any particular insight into the selection, but it seems like a pretty pivotal decision for the campaign, to me. If the abbreviated view of the Obama candidacy is that he is about being young, different, inspiring, and pro-change... then surely one way to go with the running mate would be to essentially double down on that and go with someone vibrant and young. However, if you're worried about looking weak on foreign affairs or generally inexperienced, maybe the sensible move would be to find an offsetting running mate, someone who would lend some strength to the ticket on that front.

Seems to me you send very different messages with those two different sorts of possible running mates. I'm not fully convinced which one makes more sense, honestly.

If he decides to go with the latter, then I think that the obvious choice is to go with some old white guy who has been in the Senate for 10,000 years, but who has not been in the national spotlight--so he's got the experience thing going on, but does not seem like yesterday's news to the electorate. (i.e., Dodd or Biden).

[Bearcat729]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think Strickland would be the pick because he can give you Ohio on a sliver platter and help with PA and WV.

Why does everyone think Strickland is going to guarantee Ohio for anyone? I mean he's only been the governor for one term, he hasn't even had to run for reelection yet so we don't know that he's that popular in this state.

[Swaggs]

Survey USA has some pretty interesting polls showing that that VA, OH, PA, and NM are all currently big wins for an Obama + Edwards ticket over McCain + various combinations of Lieberman/Huckabee/Romney/Pawlenty.

I'm not a big fan of Edwards, but other than Clinton and maybe Lieberman, he probably has the most "star" power of anyone being mentioned by either side.

[ISiddiqui]

But does Edwards want to go through the VP thing again? I think he'd more angle for a AG spot or something.

[st.cronin]

That would be pretty weird, being the VP candidate for two different Presidential candidates, wouldn't it?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But does Edwards want to go through the VP thing again? I think he'd more angle for a AG spot or something.

He's said before he doesn't wanna be VP again and the Democratic party is not known for retread candidates. The GOP does that, but the Dems don't re-nominate losers. No way Edwards gets another shot on the ticket.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I disagree

I am going to vote for Obama in November, the only thing that would change my mind is having Hillary as Vice-President. I will note vote for Clinton even as vice president, any number of others can bring in the same votes as she could without the baggage.

I would think her recent statements, about staying in the campaign just in case he is shot, would put her out of the running.

It doesn't have to be Hillary herself to throw a bone to the Hillary people. It can be a Hillary supporter from the get go, like Strickland, or Rendell, or Clark.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That would be pretty weird, being the VP candidate for two different Presidential candidates, wouldn't it?

I think it happened once back in the late 1800s.

[Swaggs]

Edwards would probably be an asset in Iowa, Ohio, PA, WV (although I think Obama lost it by not trying at all in the primary), VA, and maybe SC/NC/GA (these three are pretty doubtful, unless Bob Barr gets some momentum to the right of McCain). He would also probably be a bigger fundraising asset than anyone previously mentioned.

Again, when you consider his wife's health and that he was just the VP candidate, I think it is doubtful that he would consider it again, but other than Hillary, I think he brings the most to the table of anyone else mentioned.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Edwards would probably be an asset in Iowa, Ohio, PA, WV (although I think Obama lost it by not trying at all in the primary), VA, and maybe SC/NC/GA (these three are pretty doubtful, unless Bob Barr gets some momentum to the right of McCain). He would also probably be a bigger fundraising asset than anyone previously mentioned.

Again, when you consider his wife's health and that he was just the VP candidate, I think it is doubtful that he would consider it again, but other than Hillary, I think he brings the most to the table of anyone else mentioned.

No doubt. But he is tainted with the Kerry loss, and for not delievering his own home state in that loss, and who wants to be a VP candidate again. The whole point is to bring you some attention for a potential Prez run later. Aside from Cheney, and perhaps Gore & Bush I, the Veep doesn't do all that much.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I understand what the Conventional Wisdom is about Obama's weakness. However, Obama doesn't see himself as having a problem with national security (see recent dustup with Bush's Knesset comments). Appointing Hagel or Biden steps on that message. Nunn less so because Obama could argue that he's appointing Nunn because of the disarmament factor, a definite Obama strength.

And Obama is a liberal. You seem to want him to rule with a liberal message. So why appoint someone who is very much not a liberal? Again it steps on the message that Obama's liberal ideas are OK, which is a meme that he pushes pretty hard.

Obama thinking he's right on national security and thinking he has a problem convincing voters he's right are two different things. I agree he believes he's right on national security. I don't know if he think he has a problem on national security with the voters. He's a smart guy, so I imagine he and his campaign knows what he strengths and weaknesses are. If he doesn't realize that voters perceive him as inexperienced on national security, he's delusional and will not win. I disagree that appointing someone strong on national security undermines him -- it enhances him. People perceived Bush as weak on experience, but picking Cheney allayed that. Balancing a ticket with liberal/moderate is a tried and true strategy.

Electoral strategy and governing strategy are completely different. Kennedy and Johnson didn't agree on much of anything, but Kennedy wanted to win so he put a Southerner on the ticket. Reagan and Bush hated each other, but Reagan need Bush's establishment supporters. Eisenhower hated Nixon but put him on the ticket to win then completely ignored him. Eisenhower's line to a reporter in 1960 probably killed Nixon as much as anything -- when asked about Nixon's accomplishments as VP, he said, "If you give me a week, I might think of one."

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't claim any particular insight into the selection, but it seems like a pretty pivotal decision for the campaign, to me. If the abbreviated view of the Obama candidacy is that he is about being young, different, inspiring, and pro-change... then surely one way to go with the running mate would be to essentially double down on that and go with someone vibrant and young. However, if you're worried about looking weak on foreign affairs or generally inexperienced, maybe the sensible move would be to find an offsetting running mate, someone who would lend some strength to the ticket on that front.

Tying these two streams together, Quik has an excellent observation. There was plenty of criticism of Clinton's selection of Gore for VP since they were so identicaly -- same philosophies, same ages, etc. Plenty of people thought it was a mistake to have two Southerners on the ticket. But Gore's selection helped to reinforce Clinton's youth and energy themes, and electorally helped them win southern states that Clinton and a northeast liberal on the ticket might not have won.

I don't pretend to know the best selection either. There are many valid theories on choosing a VP and I'm not certain it's conclusive on which if any strategy is more successful than another. There are plenty of people who believe a VP can only hurt and not help, and the key is selecting a VP who does no harm.

That said, I think Obama selecting someone like himself would do harm.

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Ohio's not in play? News to me.

Not the best word choice by me. Ohio's clearly a huge battleground state between Obama and McCain, but it would not be between Clinton and McCain. Clinton would win Ohio easily. Ohio went for Bush twice and all things being equal, I would give McCain a slight edge to the GOP since they would fight to win at all costs. But if Obama can lock up Ohio from the beginning that would be huge.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't claim any particular insight into the selection, but it seems like a pretty pivotal decision for the campaign, to me. If the abbreviated view of the Obama candidacy is that he is about being young, different, inspiring, and pro-change... then surely one way to go with the running mate would be to essentially double down on that and go with someone vibrant and young. However, if you're worried about looking weak on foreign affairs or generally inexperienced, maybe the sensible move would be to find an offsetting running mate, someone who would lend some strength to the ticket on that front.

Seems to me you send very different messages with those two different sorts of possible running mates. I'm not fully convinced which one makes more sense, honestly.

In that case you go with the one guy that fills both shoes - Jim Webb.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

In that case you go with the one guy that fills both shoes - Jim Webb.

Except Webb is a terrible campaigner, by all accounts, and he costs the Dems a seat in the Senate.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Obama thinking he's right on national security and thinking he has a problem convincing voters he's right are two different things. I agree he believes he's right on national security. I don't know if he think he has a problem on national security with the voters. He's a smart guy, so I imagine he and his campaign knows what he strengths and weaknesses are. If he doesn't realize that voters perceive him as inexperienced on national security, he's delusional and will not win. I disagree that appointing someone strong on national security undermines him -- it enhances him. People perceived Bush as weak on experience, but picking Cheney allayed that. Balancing a ticket with liberal/moderate is a tried and true strategy.

Electoral strategy and governing strategy are completely different. Kennedy and Johnson didn't agree on much of anything, but Kennedy wanted to win so he put a Southerner on the ticket. Reagan and Bush hated each other, but Reagan need Bush's establishment supporters. Eisenhower hated Nixon but put him on the ticket to win then completely ignored him. Eisenhower's line to a reporter in 1960 probably killed Nixon as much as anything -- when asked about Nixon's accomplishments as VP, he said, "If you give me a week, I might think of one."

I agree that Johnson helped Kennedy become President, because Johnson helped rig the vote. But since 1960, I think it's silly to say that any VP has helped the person win a state. You can make amorphous arguments, such as the idea that Cheney helped allay concerns about Bush's inexperience, but tangible benefits are hard to come by.

I think you hit the nail on the head later on when you point out that both Clinton and Bush put people on the ticket who were very similar to themselves. This has been the winning strategy in the last four elections. I see no reason why either Obama or McCain should deviate from it. They should stay true to their message in their picks for VP.

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.

[chesapeake]

Obama has a number of needs he hopes to fill with his VP choice. He badly needs HRC's base to come on board -- blue-collar workers, hispanics and women -- to win in the fall. But I do not believe that he and Hillary could live together on the ticket.

I think he would like someone who has more experience the national stage to try and counter McCain's substantial advantage there. Also, I'm sure he'd like to bring on someone from a swing state of electoral significance.

I think I'd put those criteria in that order. Richardson seems to fit that bill the best; however, I've heard that the spotlight of the general election may well burn him.

I think Webb has blue-collar appeal, decent experience and comes from a swing-state. He would be a solid choice. He could be a powerful weapon for attacking McCain's position on Iraq and weakness on veteran's issues.

One not on the list but presenting an interesting fit is Dick Gephardt. Unions love him, he plays well in the midwest and he has decades of experience. He is currently a registered lobbyist, however, so I wonder if Obama would toss him off the list just for that reason.

[SFL Cat]

I'm thinking if Hill doesn't get the VP nod, she might try to run as an independent.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Except Webb is a terrible campaigner, by all accounts, and he costs the Dems a seat in the Senate.

Webb was a good enough campaigner to win a senate seat against an entrenched incumbent. Sure, the "macaca" comment was a big factor, but there was a lot more to it than just that.

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.

A lot of this is moot. If Obama thinks Webb can help him win better than anyone else, why would he care if it might cost the Dems a Senate seat?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I'm thinking if Hill doesn't get the VP nod, she might try to run as an independent.

She has NO money, it would destroy what credibility she has left, give McCain the White House and did I mention, she has NO money and isn't on the ballot anywhere? That won't happen.

[Swaggs]

I'm not familiar with the procedures for replacing a senator in the state of Virginia, but wouldn't the current governor, Tim Kaine, be a strong candidate for that position. If I am not mistaken, Virginia has very short term limits for governors, so I would think that Kaine might be interested in appointing himself as Webb's replacement and would have a pretty good chance to defend the seat in a general election (particularly if he appoints himself and gains seniority over an "open-seat" candidate).

[Swaggs]

Doh... missed chesapeake's post while I was making mine.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

She has NO money, it would destroy what credibility she has left, give McCain the White House and did I mention, she has NO money and isn't on the ballot anywhere? That won't happen.

Never count out a Clinton. If she feels like she's getting the shaft from the party, I could easily see her attempting to slap it down during the general, just to show that she can't be brushed aside as a political force. And from what I've seen and read, I'm positive there would be a lot of disgruntled Dems who wouldn't hesitate to throw money her way.

[Butter]

Just like they're throwing her money right now?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Never count out a Clinton. If she feels like she's getting the shaft from the party, I could easily see her attempting to slap it down during the general, just to show that she can't be brushed aside as a political force. And from what I've seen and read, I'm positive there would be a lot of disgruntled Dems who wouldn't hesitate to throw money her way.

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.

[Buccaneer]

Fascinating discussion.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

In that case you go with the one guy that fills both shoes - Jim Webb.

I really disagree. He may only be 50, but Webb does not have any degree of the cache Obama does - he's not bound to inspire anyone on the stump or elsewhere. He is pretty flat in person, and is not really inspiring.

That's not to say that he wouldn't be a good choice - I think there are plenty of reasons why he makes a lot of sense, many expressed here already. But he's not going to help motivate/inspire young people or convince voters about their brand of change -- he's essentially just the "offsetting credentials" guy who plays ten or fifteen years older than he is.