Casino Games Online
Internet Casino Gambling Online

Since it seems likely that the Dems will have either a black or female on the top of the ticket, the GOP is going to need to balance their WASPy nominee with either a woman or a minority candidate. I hear Condi is looking for a job.

Since it seems likely that the Dems will have either a black or female frontrunner, the GOP is going to need to balance their WASPy frontrunner with either a woman or a minority candidate. I hear Condi is looking for a job.

I can't figure why TN Gov. Phil Bredesen-D hasn't gotten more VP buzz. Popular Red State Governor that could shore up constiencies for both Hillary and Obama. Does he have some checkered past that I've missed? He has some strong education advances, has been re-elected, and can bring in independent white males to the voting booth (probably. McCain can bring more. L. Graham can bring some too). Putting TN into play is a real possibility.

Matt Blunt? Bill Owens? Libby Dole? Haley Barbour? Kay Bailey Hutchison? John Cornyn? J.C. Watts?

I take it your mention of Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is just a wild-ass-guess.

I think Schweitzer would say the same about speculation about the vice-presidency as he did when some were speculating about him as future presidential timber, "They've been smoking too many pine cones."

Schweitzer is running for his second term as governor this year. That's all he's runing for. He is rated as a shoo-in at this point.

Being second fiddle to anyone seems to run against Schweitzer's personality.

Who would want to play third man to a White House of Bill and Hillary?

It would be welcome if you explore how an administration fronting Hillary but featuring Bill as Uber-VP would likely function. Speculation about various official VPs could be woven into this exploration nicely.

Dear Mr. Fix,

I haven't the time or desire to read the previous 178 comments to see if someone else has mentioned him already, but as a daily reader of your blog I'm surprised to see you omitted Sam Nunn from the list for Democrats ... I know his name has been out of the limelight for a long time, but he would give either frontrunner instant stature on defense and immediate pull in the crucial South ... Although as a Georgian I like and respect our governor, Mr. Perdue, Sam Nunn would be a much more logical candidate from the Peach State.

I think it would help Obama even more than the other candidates if he would NOW let the voters know who his running mate will be.

I agree with everyone who said that Obama needs to go for executive and foreign policy experience in a veep. I originally imagined that Richardson would be a great choice, but now I'm not entirely convinced he can be effective in a national campaign. Napolitano and Sebelius are probably my top choices, but if Obama chooses either of them, he should immediately name Biden for Sec. of State to bolster the foreign policy end of things.

I'm really not sure who would be a good choice for Clinton, but I'd say that there is basically zero chance of a Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) ticket. I think if Obama doesn't get the nomination, he'll come back to Illinois in '10 and try to pick up some executive experience as gov.

Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore
How can you not mention him????????

OK, here's a crazy idea, but here me out: Al Gore.

I think it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't allow another Clinton-Gore ticket, but could he be tempted by the thought of an Obama-Gore choice? Here's why I think it works:

1. Between 24 years in government service (8 in the House, 8 in the Senate, 8 as VP) and the efforts since 2000 that have resulted in an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, he certainly would erase any concerns about experience from an Obama ticket.

2. Other than serving as president of the Senate and taking over if something happens to the President, the Constitution says nothing about the responsibilities of the job. This would be a perfect platform for Gore to continue his work, not only on environmental issues, but also in understanding the opportunities technology presents in this globalized world (Gore currently serves as chairman of an interactive television venture and is on Apple's Board).

3. On a related point, Gore has consistently understood the major, transformational issues we're facing at least 10 years before the rest of us caught on (the Internet, global warming, international terrorism). This would be a tremendous asset to any adminsitration.

4. By winning the popular vote in 2000, graciously and patriotically conceding after the Florida recount votes, opting out of 2004, and finding ways to not only remain relevant but have enormous impact since he left the VP job, Gore carries an enormous amount of goodwill, both here at home and internationally.

5. His views on issues seem to fit well with Obama's vision for the country, and as establishment as he is because of what he's done, he also is a living embodiment of change. He understands how to make change happen, and would be a tremendous help to a President Obama.

I think all of these are great reasons to think an Obama-Gore ticket makes a lot of sense (and for the record, I did not want to see Gore enter the presidential contest). I think it would ensure a Democratic victory in November.

But why wait 'till then? If Obama's interested, and Gore's interested, it would be game over in the Democratic race if Obama were to announce this between a win in South Carolina and Super Tuesday. Also, it would be a great counter to the fact that Hillary is using Bill as her, as one WaPo editorial put it, hired hit man. Can yo imagine...

What about Newt for the Republicans? The President nom could play the good guy and let Newt be the attack dog, for which he is well suited. As far as the Dems go, who knows. I like Ted Strickland but am a little biased (from Ohio).

If he can't get the Presidential nomination, I think John Edwards would be an Excellent Choice for Attorney General under a Democratic President.

Have there been any repeaters for nominee as a Vice-President on tickets where the first time around didn't succeed?

Obabma (needs foreign policy experience):
Joe Biden - great choice
Bill Nelson - best choice (b/c electoral collge)
Jim Webb - solid choice
[Wes Clark would have been the perfect choice]

Clinton:
Wes Clark - obvious choice
Mark Warner - puts VA in play, and he fits nicely with the Clinton style I think
Obama - if he can swallow his pride
Nelson - to put FL in play

Johnny Mac:
Lindsey Graham - southerner, close friend
Either Maine Senator also fits his style
Mel Martinez - he's a Bush guy, but this would be a strategic move and a powerful ticket

Mitt:
Who knows? I don't see him winning the nomination anyway. I'm not surprised that the R's are finally backing Jonny Mac instead of this guy. Can anyone really imagine Romney or Huckabee as president?

just to clarify, Obama was mentioned by a poster as effectively an ambassador at large as VP, while Bill Clinton would only be an unofficial emissary filling that role.

rd

Hi Posters,

Check out my new blog at www.powertothepeopleblog.blogspot.com

It's a multi-partisan party where I lay out a couple of topics and you informed, articulate political junkies of all persuasions and dogma weigh in.

I'm developing a TV show of the same name that features real people -not pundits. It's currently being considered by MSNBC. My blog will confirm that there is a vast army of informed citizens who should be heard along side the doznes of pundits filling the airwaves.

Join the party!

Tom Wiggin

Well Chris,

After reading this thread all I can say is that last August I predicted that Clinton/Clark would be the Democratic ticket and that McCain would be the Republicon nominee. That prediction was when McCain was polling single digits.

I still think Hillary will pick Wes Clark. Wes Clark is qualified to be President. As for McCain, I think he will pick someone who will appeal to the Nazi Hate radio crowd recently purchased by Bain Capital, deal to close soon maybe March..... unless Willard loses the nomination, then what good are a bunch of radio stations running Nazi hate speech........ So McCain will likely pick Tom Ridge or Jeb Bush...... If for some reason Willard gets the nomination..... wait a minute a Mormon getting the Republicon nomination.... Romney has no chance of getting the nomination, if for some reason he got the nomination, the Republicon party would be wiped out in the general election so his VP pick would not matter.

As for Obama, he has as much chance as Romney...... slim to none...... However his VP pick would be Hillary Clinton...... The 27th amendment to the Constitution says that in every election from 1980 forward there must either be a Bush or Clinton on one of the Republicon or Democratic Tickets....

I think Hillary is very focused on national defense and ending our Iraq war situation, and I would guess she will choose Wesley Clark for VP. Wes did pretty well running for president in 2004 and has a strong following.

I had guessed someone strong militarily with crossover appeal like Sam Nunn a year or two ago, but he's now a little too crossover and involved in that independent group, and Wes Clark is campaigning with Hillary.

The token stuff (African American, Latino, midwest, etc.) cited above I don't agree with. I believe Hillary is policy driven, and the VP will be chosen that brings strength of policy to her ticket, and that is Wes Clark for the immense strength he brings to national defense.

Bill Clinton is said to be slated for ambassador at large (referring to the mention of Obama for that).

Colin Powell would also be an exceptional choice for VP for Hillary but I read he said he's not interested in that for anybody.

rd

Im really surprised there is no mention of Bill Richardson here as a possible VP. He has a ridiculous resume that will lend credibility to any ticket, and he can help court the Hispanic vote nationwide, and certainly can do so not only in his home state of New Mexico but throughout the Southwest. Nevada was in play in 04 until the last week or so, and Colorado has been showed some blue leanings in '06.

McCain-Lieberman to throw the whole election and party system upside down.

For Obama:
-Janet Napolitano
-Kathleen Sebelius
-Bill Richardson
-Brian Schweitzer

For Clinton:
-Bayh
-Richardson
-Ritter (Gov. of Colorado)
-Phil Bredesen
-Mike Easley

I think even money is on McCain/Romney, Romney/McCain to heal the fissure between the wings.

Clinton/Richardson on the other side

that is weep

that is weep

OK Chris please write this down on a post-it - my early picks are: Tom Ridge for the Republicans and Ted Strickland for the Democrats - with Tom Ridge becoming the President of the Senate.

This year it is back to basics for VP picks.

No more boutique choices like the first this or the first that - or a young guy -

AND I still call Barbara Bush to be the first woman President.

Yes, that is the President's daughter. Read it and weap.

If McCain wanted to strike fear into the Democrats and the Clinton team, he would pick Olympia Snowe.

She is a person who ANY woman would be proud to make the first VP and maybe the first female President.

I wouldn't be surprised if McCain picked Santorum to quiet the far right.

You people thinking there will be a Mitt/Mac (Romney/McCain) ticket are out of your mind...Arnold has a better chance of being Romney's VP than McCain...the two simply can't stand each other.

I think it will be Clinton/Edwards...and Romney/Erlich (former gov. of Maryland Robert Erlich was the first (R) gov. in 40years voted out of office with a 63%approval rating and is very good friends with Mitt Romney, they spoke just before Romney annouced he was running)

Clinton will pick Richardson, which is not a good choice.

McC

Obama/Sebelius would be huge. I can't really get excited for whomever was with Clinton. She is established with her and Bill's team, so the Veep would not likely influence her that much.

If Obama somehow got the nomination, Sebelius would maybe calm some anger among women?

As far as the Veeps, McCain would be torn between a ultraconservative to assuage that wing of the party, and a minority to try to broaden his appeal. Why not do both, and team up with Alberto Gonzalez?

I kill myself sometimes.

Romney would need someone with foreign policy credentials, and a lot of conservative standing. Someone like John Warner.

I don't disagree with the comment that there is tons of excitement and youth in the process. Unfortunately I disagree that Hillary has only old women and illegals. She has the majority of the white people who will go into the voting booth to vote and who are not yet ready for Obama. I also agree that Clinton cannot win. It took forever to eliminate segregation after slavery was abolished. Discrimination is still there but it's naive to think you'll see it in the open. But we are getting close, thanks to Obama.

Huckabee obama would be the best case senerio for this natiion. Re-build unity. And point out and marginalizing those hampering it (ie. the fox's rush's many in the gop)

time to bury the hatchet on the 50's and 60's. The results of not doing so can and will be disasterous on the americna people

Correction to the January 22, 2008, 07:27pm post. The last sentence should read, "If McCain wins, it will be Obama v Huckabee in 2012 because McCain won't run after 4 yrs." The year should be 2012 instead of "2008".

how does obama need hillary. other than old women and illegals what does hillary provide?

Their is tons of excitment and youth in the process. Why? hillary clinton?

the clintons need the new movement. Teh new movement does not need them. Clinton cannot win. Impossible for her to win. For her to continue is to sabotage not only their party, but he country

Hillary needs Obama to win and Obama needs Hillary if he wants to be President. Thus, it seems that the winning ticket for the democrats may be Clinton-Obama. On the republican ticket, the ticket would be McCain-Huckabee. If he gets the Mississipi governor, he loses. If the democrats lose, Obama will be President in 2012. Otherwise, it will be 2016. If McCain wins, it will be Obama v. Huckabee in 2008 because McCain won't run after 4yrs.

"Terrorism, in the modern sense,[1] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence."'

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. The key attribute is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism."

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'propagare', "extending forth"] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."

The gop personified. Not because I or anyone else says so. But by the definition of these terms. This is all they have left. Time to scrap and start over gop. Continue down this path at your own peril

Really fred. What happened to the dixie chicks before it was allowed to speak out? Rosie? Ward Churchhill? tom hanks? Danny glover? Sean penn? Why is it the right can silence the left without fear, but the left cannot recipracate? Why is it I'm a bad guy for forcing the street to run both ways (neither side gets silenced), yet republcains are just being repubicans (fascists) when they silence others.

your funny. But for the street to run both ways ALL must be free to voice their opinion without reprisal. that is what free speech is. Your peopel would silence any and everyone they deem "anti-american". Well fox and the gop are terrorists. Alligned with our enemies. So are they un-american? What should I do to leval the playing feild? Enlighten me.

If fox and those like them are gone, all americans are free to speak. So is the people that work at fox. they just can't call it "news" or "fair and balanced" or tell old people they are giving facts . That's all

Edwards will not be VP - he can't deliver anything that Obama or Clinton can't get themselves, he adds nothing. He couldn't even deliver his home state in the South in 2004; what makes anyone think by running way way further to the left, he'll be able to deliver anything in the conservative south this time? Obama will need experience on his ticket; Clinton will need either defense credentials or a Black man as I stated above to counter the effect on the Black community hers and Slick Willy's smears of the first viable black candidate will have. Obama needs someone with military background and who is a moderate like Jim Webb or William Cohen (Who is a GOP member but served in Clinton's cabinet as SecDef; that would be an interesting pick); Clinton will need someone like Wesley Clark or a viable Black candidate as I discussed in an earlier post.

Obama & Joe Liberman is a ticket that would create movement from the right and the middle to the Dems.

I like the idea of a Mitt & Mac administration.

Both of these tickets are long shots.

Dont worry fredgrad2000. I will free you. i will allow you to think for yourself and break the chains of your master. The question becomes, when your chains are broken, will you be to scared to leave the cave. Will you be to comfortable living in willful ignorance? Will outside be to bright?

Time to think for yourself. GEt off of fox and stop listening to rush and savage. Their enemies are not your enemies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

r

u

f

u

s

I watch fox everyday. Art of war.

"I know you are but what am I". Is the gop's elementary school kid arguement. I've seen their faces. I am only here, and involed in politics to shut them down once and for all. for misleadign the eldery for profit. Dividing the nation for profit.

Also, why can media matters not be a source. What other site cannot be used as a source gop? If fox says it, they say it. That arguement of "Where did you hear that" doesn't really make sense to me. What does it matter when one gets the link, if they said it. Hysterically arguement. Only works with dittoheads, will get you nowhere here. We are not clone dittohead robots here buddy

What about Tom Ridge or Condi for Huck? To give him national security cred. Probably Huck for Mac or Giuliani. I don't think Edwards will get a second VP try.

Is choosing money party or other countries over the good of one's nation still considered treason? If not what changed?

the gop are party loyalist red coats. choosing the empire over america. If it's a rat

"HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA. Fox is done. They don;t have longer left. Enjoy your propoganda while it lasts. Would romney go on MSNBc if they called him a terrorist? What about if they called him a woman? What if they called him a devil worshipper? Not puttingother people on there and they say it. But wolf blitzer or anderson cooper. Or brian williams? Would that ever happen? no because they are newspeople.

fox deserves time with the presidential candidates like us weekly or the national enquire would. They are not news. They are a gossip magazine equivalant. that you think them news wshows your face :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 22, 2008 06:37 PM "

Quit getting your news from Media Matters; I want actual quotes of Fox News personnel saying anything you quote them as saying above, and it can't come from Media Matters (the Soros funded slime machine) Romney has been interviewed by Chris Matthews and by Wolf Blitzer; same with McCain; and boy for Fox being "done" they sure are still winning the ratings wars by 10x with MSNBC (they must be bankrupt with their low ratings and use of a botoxed sportscaster for a news show host by now) and almost as much as that with CNN. You left-wing nuts just hate not having a monopoly on the news; I mean isn't having the New York Times, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and most of the rest of the major newspapers in the US towing the liberal line enough? Nope, not for the Soros/DailyKos crowd? They want any opposing views silenced; because they know that without a monopoly on being heard, no one supports the MoveOn looney left agenda. So keep hating Fox News bud, they'll still keep winning the ratings war, and you'll be no closer to your MoveOn.org utopia in 10 or even 20 years than you are today.

And the right are sell-out traitor terrorist fascists. If we want to generalize

LOL! Hate to be redundant, but, the "Brokered" Ticket get McPain into the Secretary of Defense Job, he is best qualified for, special interests wanting him in the Presidency or not. Huck, as the other Statesman, as Mitt's Veep for one or two terms, before he can then take the lead role. ALL the other candidates, into the White House as Cabinet Posts!

The Republicans HAVE to rally every single bit of support only a Combined Brokered Ticket can do! Even then, they are going to be hard pressed to survive an Obasama/Edwards Dimocrat Socialist Ticket!

The Clintons and Biden, will not be able to compete! What needs to be realized about the Democrats, is a part is Old School Moderates, but the energized Base, is Green Influenced Socialists-And PROUD of it!

And while I haven't seen it mentioned, I think Edwards would make for a great attorney general, for which that passion and anger would be put to great use.

Posted by: femalenick | January 22, 2008 04:08 PM

John Edwards is not qualified for AG - AG's are the top law enforcement officials for the US; John Edwards' legal experience is in civil court; he is not qualified for AG. He should drop out of this race; he cannot win; he is solely in it for vanity now and the hope for some position after the convention that would allow him to run yet again in 4-8 years. John Edwards has gone from a moderate Democrat to a far lefty in less than 4 years; I don't find him credible and he strikes me far too similar to Hillary; will do or say anything to get elected. Obama is the only Dem left standing with any integrity and who you can believe (whether you agree with his positions or not) he means what he says. And for the record, this whole use of a former president to be a campaign attack dog is just pathetic; absolutely pathetic; you would think Bill would have at least a little more class than that; but maybe not, there will be a new class of interns in the White House in Hillary's administration if elected...

If fox was news, they would not need to slant one way or the other. If they were news they would report sotries god and bad for the gop, watch them before the 06 elections and see all the news they buried.

Once fox's grip on the msm was broken, by people like us, they were already done. Fasist propoganda can only exist in a fear vacuum. Once the seal was broken so was their power. Tehy are not getting it back. Short of ww3, the gop is irrelevant for a generation. Couldn't have happened to a worse bunch. It is not the dem's or bloggers or msnbc fault. Teh gop and fox did this to themselves. Though they will never take accountability for their actions, they still will be held accountable by the people for them

Richardson is the man for democrats. Latino with terrific resume.

Posted by: Boquet.Yves | January 22, 2008 04:59 PM

I thought Richardson should have been the shoo-in Dem candidate, Latino, resume that is nothing short of spectacular, and could win as a less-polarizing Dem in red Mountain West states, but then he opened his mouth. It is a toss-up in my view as to who is LESS articulate, Bush or Richardson. His resume is great, but he is not a strong campaigner or communicator; and if we learned a few things from Bush 43 presidency, one is that we could use a president who can communicate better.

"I love the hate Fox News posts here; at least the GOP candidates will debate and appear on MSNBC or CNN, which are both DECIDEDLY left, while the Dems run and cower at the mention of Fox News."

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA. Fox is done. They don;t have longer left. Enjoy your propoganda while it lasts. Would romney go on MSNBc if they called him a terrorist? What about if they called him a woman? What if they called him a devil worshipper? Not puttingother people on there and they say it. But wolf blitzer or anderson cooper. Or brian williams? Would that ever happen? no because they are newspeople.

fox deserves time with the presidential candidates like us weekly or the national enquire would. They are not news. They are a gossip magazine equivalant. that you think them news wshows your face :)

well thank you for the warm intro femalenick..

I'm a reader mostly everyday, but something about these postings drove me to compose.

Mibrooks, just curious, what exactly did Hillary say that offended you? If you look at her comments, from a factual standpoint, she is correct. I'm sure Eugene Robinson would agree with me on that one.

Why do we let these minor things bother us when we seem to have a perfected ability to ignore the major things that should concern us?

(Rising deficits, cronyism, the power of lobbyists, and the kidnapping of your elected officials once they become elected congress(wo)men)

we can not afford to let this be a popularity vote, or one where personal grudges sway a decision. Isn't the country messed up enough? It's all talk from the politicians because we as voters are not smart enough to remember to hold them accountable. Maybe after the country votes out the entire Congress (save a few) and elects some "real" people, politicians will get the message.

Forget party affiliation and remember the nation. Last I checked, there isn't another USA for us to run to after this one is broken...

These views are mine alone and do not represent my employer.

well thank you for the warm intro femalenick..

I'm a reader mostly everyday, but something about these postings drove me to compose.

Mibrooks, just curious, what exactly did Hillary say that offended you? If you look at her comments, from a factual standpoint, she is correct. I'm sure Eugene Robinson would agree with me on that one.

Why do we let these minor things bother us when we seem to have a perfected ability to ignore the major things that should concern us?

(Rising deficits, cronyism, the power of lobbyists, and the kidnapping of your elected officials once they become elected congress(wo)men)

we can not afford to let this be a popularity vote, or one where personal grudges sway a decision. Isn't the country messed up enough? It's all talk from the politicians because we as voters are not smart enough to remember to hold them accountable. Maybe after the country votes out the entire Congress (save a few) and elects some "real" people, politicians will get the message.

Forget party affiliation and remember the nation. Last I checked, there isn't another USA for us to run to after this one is broken...

These views are mine alone and do not represent my employer.

I love the hate Fox News posts here; at least the GOP candidates will debate and appear on MSNBC or CNN, which are both DECIDEDLY left, while the Dems run and cower at the mention of Fox News. I wish all the media were straight-shooters, but as evidenced by the fact that the MSM won't report good news on Iraq and wants to make sure everyone thinks we're in a recession this year (despite still having economic growth each quarter - definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of NEGATIVE growth; we haven't even had one yet, and aren't projected to), that just won't happen. So the least we can expect from our future commander-in-chief who is supposed to stand up to crazy Iranian mullahs, terrorists, Putin, and the likes of Hugo Chavez is that they can speak to all Americans and stand-up to all our media outlets, unafraid, even of the "scary" Fox News people like Chris Wallace and Brit Hume.

Obama is running as the unity candidate, so why not a unity ticket? Christie Todd Whitman would be an awfully interesting choice for BHO . . .

Hillary will need to pick a Black man (perhaps Obama) as her running mate, especially if she is facing McCain. McCain will garner a lot of independent votes even if the general tide is favorable to Dems in 2008; so she will need the solid 95% Black vote and on good turnout; and she is alienating a lot of African-Americans in her (and her chief attack dog, Bill) criticisms of the first viable Black candidate. She will have troubles with her own left flank (the reliable Dem Black vote) if she actually becomes the reason why Obama as president became just a "fairy tale"; so if Obama wasn't an option due to the Clinton slime machine burying him, someone like Ted Strickland in Ohio (1 of 2 key states in 2008) might help her win Ohio and shore up her Black bona fides.

For the GOP, McCain will need a solid conservative to shore up his right flank and let the GOP base see they have a "successor in waiting" of their own ilk; but he cannot be too polarizing or risk McCain's chief asset in this election, his ability to beat a polarizing Dem like Hillary thru his appeal to independents. This could be tricky for him; so Huckabee is an option (he certainly looks to be licking McCain's boots a lot of the time), but a couple dark horses that would fill this need and appeal to independents could be Tom Ridge (would be useful in PA and has national security bona fides and isn't viewed as a firebreather by the left, but viewed as a conservative by the right) or Lamar Alexander, former governor of TN, conservative but not too so, southerner, current Senator. I wouldn't bet money on those two, or even on McCain at this point, but two interesting picks in my view.

"rufus, there are no circumstances imaginable where I would vote for Clinton anywhere on a national ticket. I never liked her to begin with with, but this last month's racist attacks have turned everyone in my family against her, too. We will vote for McCain, if he is the Republican nominee and, likely, even Huckabee. If it's Romney or Guliani vs. Clinton, we will vote third party.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 22, 2008 04:25 PM
"

I feel you mike b. I'm conflicted on that one. don't think it will happen. I hear you and agree. Depending on chaging of stances between then and now, which we will never know. I'm at teh point right now, with the spinelessness of the dem's, if it's not edwards or Obama, I'm not voting. I'm sick of backing cowards and people that talk out of the side of their mouths. thumb their nose at people like us laying on the line for them. For what? So they can take money to sell-out?

"I must say that there is a lot of ignorance on the board today."

Observer, we get the gamut every day. But along with the ignorance and emotions are some very reasoned ones, even when I don't agree with their conclusions. The regulars are here because of any combination:

1. We're "junkies." (Claudia, Mark, Judge, bsimon, jimd52, andyr3?...)
2. We're bored and have nothing else to do. (zouk, at least according to Claudia!)
3. We get a sense of what people of all stripes are thinking re: the world of politics.
4. We get to play "pundit," albeit anonymously. Heck, maybe some are competing for CC's job! (the regulars!)

If you visit often enough, even as "just an observer," you will learn things you might not otherwise get from the mainstream media. Or maybe I'm just justifying the time I find myself spending here.

"They may be sorry they asked for that as they whine and complain when the street runs one way."

Both that is

"Let Hillary take the knocks of president, but share in the glory of the success. Repubs want Obama to win because Fox news will call him Barak Osama and do a swiftboat on him with the quickness. One one combined ticket they couldn't be stopped. The women and minority vote alone would crush the competition.

"

Fox's sway is over. Didn't you get the memo? Their candidates are done as is rush's. The republcain party is starting to distance themselves. The time to live in fear of what the republcains might do is over. If all they can resepct is treangth, they will get that. They may be sorry they asked for that as they whine and complain when the street runs one way.

To allow fox or rush or any republcain to pick the opposition ticket is not a democracy. they have for years now. Teh gop no longer has a gripe on the "dittoheads" or the democracts. You didn't get tehmemo. fox and the gop are done. not to be feared.

Don't forget, Kathleen Sebelius is a native of Ohio and her father was a Governor and Congressman from that state. Strickland obviously has significant pull there, but Sebelius could help carry Ohio and bring things to the table that Strickland might not.

After reading these comments, I must say that there is a lot of ignorance on the board today.

IMO, Hillary-Obama is the perfect ticket. I don't know where most of you all live, but Hillary's comments about King's dream didn't offend me at all. If there are those of us who continue to react to the subtle whims of the players in the media, read a book.

She was factually correct in stating that the civil rights progresses of the late 60s which were signed into law could not have happened without a President (esp. one who understood what segregation was doing to the fabric of the country).

This is how and why we are still a confused society and as a whole, as dumb as ever. We let the "news" think for us instead of thinking for ourselves.

We need a statesman, we need a thinker, we need a realist, and we need someone who actually understands that you can't have a war and cut taxes on the most wealthy, we need someone who is willing to take the blame for the last 8 years...

If I were Obama, I'd quietly team up with Hillary with the understanding that he would have sway on Foreign policy (namely diplomacy). I would also allow him to focus on social issues (health and welfare)

Let Hillary take the knocks of president, but share in the glory of the success. Repubs want Obama to win because Fox news will call him Barak Osama and do a swiftboat on him with the quickness. One one combined ticket they couldn't be stopped. The women and minority vote alone would crush the competition.

Say what you want about Bill, but when he was President, America was doing pretty well as a whole, and we had this big thing called a surplus...

These comments are mine and do not represent any point of view of my employer.

Putting Bayh on the ticket would be a mistake. Best case scenario, the Dems would be sacrificing a Senate seat to the GOP.

bsimon, Obama was appointed to that position soon after joining the Senate. Here's an excerpt from a Salon piece:

"Should Obama wonder whether he ought to have bothered with his subcommittee, he could ask his friendly rival Joe Biden, D-Del., who chaired the Europe subcommittee for many years during the Cold War. Biden effectively exploited the chairmanship to transform himself from a junior member into one of the Senate's most knowledgeable experts on arms control, nuclear weapons, European attitudes toward America and the Soviet Union, the European Union's policies, and the role of NATO, which also comes under the subcommittee's mandate. As a result, Biden starred in Senate hearings on the SALT II arms treaties and eventually established himself as a leading national voice on foreign policy.

"I wouldn't call it a neglect of duty but a missed opportunity to explore issues that will be of fundamental importance to the next administration," says ambassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations, before going on to represent the Clinton administration at the United Nations organizations in Vienna.

Ritch points out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change -- and of course, the undermining of the foundations of the Atlantic alliance by the Bush administration. There is, indeed, almost no issue of current global interest that would have fallen outside the subcommittee's purview.

Certainly Obama is capable of formulating the concepts and questions that his subcommittee could have explored. In an otherwise unimportant press release hailing the visit of Poland's president to Washington last July, he took the trouble to note several important issues affecting our relations with Europe, including the renewal of transatlantic relationships, repairing our ties with what the Bush White House contemptuously called "old Europe," integrating Russia into Western institutions, consulting our allies on proposed missile defense deployments, and securing additional European troops for the Afghan security mission.

Perhaps he could not have been expected to undertake an ambitious round of hearings when he was in the midst of deciding to run for president -- but that decision may merely point up the conflict between ambition and experience that has raised questions about his candidacy."

The whole article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/

Mind you, I really like Obama and believe in my heart that he will one day make a great president. I am simply not willing to take another chance today. Bush & Cheney have shown us what can happen when we elect someone who must train on the job.

Regardless of how we got here, these are dangerous times and call for hard work - not inspiration.

Get real, folks. If Obama's not at the top of the ticket, he'll have to be Veep. Look at the enthusiasm he's generated as a candidate. If he's off the ticket entirely, a vast majority of the new people he's energized, will simply get discouraged and go back into hibernation.

"Foreign policy & national security credentials are critical at this point in our history."

Credentials are overrated. I say that in a general sense; of course experience is important and credentials have some correlation to competence. However, they are not the only measure by which to consider candidates for President.

I suppose much depends on what a person thinks is the most important problem faced by our country. The obvious list includes endless war in the Mid East and what likely will be a full-blown recession by the time Nov 11 comes around. I think the larger problem is one of disunity. On a smaller scale, this exact problem can be seen within both parties, not just in the US as a whole. Certainly the Repubs don't seem to know what they stand for; this is true to a lesser degree for the Dems. As far as Americans as a whole go, we're all over the map. We need the kind of leadership that will repair some of the divisiveness.

That kind of leadership isn't measured with 'foreign policy credentials' or years in office. It is measured by how people react to the leadership. Of the people running for President right now, Obama has far more leadership credentials than anyone else in the race.

It won't be Edwards. Why bring back a loser? I don't think Hilary or Obama would take another senator. Bayh, Clark or Richardson make sense.

If the GOP nominee could persuade Powell, he's the only choice. But Powell won't do it. Southern or Midwest governor sounds right.

I'm no HRC booster, but from the outset, I've been saying that as long as Obama doesn't completely implode, HRC (if the nominee) will have no choice but to ask him. Otherwise the African-American vote won't show up for her in November. This would be devastating if they are trying to pickup states in the south.

For her, there is no downside: It unifies the party; Obama brings the majority of independents and moderate Republicans who already support him; African-American vote is energized like it hasn't been before; Obama is billed as the Democratic party's long-term plan for the WH.

For those who say Obama has no foreign policy experience, I think he plays better than you might thing. Not to mention this is where Bill comes in (in what country isn't his "likability" high).

Besides not only would she be the first female President, but the feather in the cap of the "Clinton Legacy" would be putting a African-American in the WH, setting him up for the Presidency.

"Both Hillary and Obama will need a Veep who is white, male and mainstream. Edwards fits the bill."

Posted by: parkerfl

Mainstream? John Edwards would probably be a good choice for the Dems as VP, but he is anything but mainstream with his extremly populist positions.

Here's a thought:

Obama-Bayh with Joe Biden as Chief of Staff. You pick up an important midwest state and you settle the experience question.

Obama-Biden would be a very strong choice

HOW ABOUT MCCAIN/LIEBERMAN R AND OBAMA/RICHARDSON D.I THINK IT IS MORE LIKELY TO BE A GOV. THAN A SENATOR.

Mark, if you didn't read the whole piece - worth your time.

Because Obama could end up the nominee, I desperately need the GOP to rally behind McC so that I will have reason to go to the polls. As you know, I'm rooting for HRC because I want a Dem in the White House.

I don't agree with many of McCain's policy positions, but I do have respect for him because he has shown a willingness to go against his party. Foreign policy & national security credentials are critical at this point in our history. The economy is important but it's inextricably linked to foreign policy. Having just been in Southeast Asia, I experienced & witnessed firsthand how our policies are affecting other countries' security and economies.

Your "Replacements" analogy is perfect.

femalenick quotes a BHO criticism focused on
"What renders this gap especially surprising is that Obama is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe."

I wonder when he was appointed to that position. My guess is sometime in 2007, at which point his focus was likely on the Presidential race more than trying to determine a workable change to European foreign policy with the Bush admin. I think the author overstates the importance of this lack of a visit. On the surface, it looks damning, but the reality is it is a manufactured criticism that amounts to little. If anything, it serves as a reminder that all the candidates who currently hold jobs are largely ignoring them in favor of running for higher office. In short: hardly a reason to change one's opinion of a candidate.

nick, that is a telling criticism of BHO.

I have this sense that if McC loses the R nomination we will be watching a rerun of "The Replacements".

No Biden, no Dodd, no McCain.

Just replacements.

nairkav, Nunn would be a great choice, but he would be even better as Prez. Goes with my "replacements" theme.

If Bloomberg runs, I expect Nunn or Hagel to run with him.

"I was proud to represent the grown-up wing of the Democratic Party," John Edwards told the cheering crowd.

"When all those kinds of personal attacks are going on, it doesn't do a thing to help somebody get health care who doesn't have it," Edwards said. "It doesn't do a thing to help our kids get the education they need. We have work to do in this country." He might pick Obama for Vice president.

I disagree, Cheney was no help by the time of the general. If a few thousand people in South Florida hadn't "voted" for Pat Buchanan when they meant Al Gore, we wouldn't have had this utter disaster in the WH to begin with.

The idea that a bunch of retired Jews in South Florida intended to vote for Pat Buchanan still makes me laugh...damn butterfly ballot (and the Dem countyperson who designed it)

But more to the point, Johnson delivered Texas to Kennedy given the considerable clout he held in the state with his political operation. Cheney might have been able to persuade/dupe a few people on the fringes, but no way did he "deliver" a state.

bsimon, I used exactly the same justification as you did when I voted for GW in 2000. It's why I cannot vote for Obama if he were at the top of the ticket.

Excerpt from a Washington Monthly piece written by Ted Widmer on why the JFK comparisons don't work with Obama: "Like Kennedy, Obama has taken several long trips as a lawmaker--through the Middle East, Africa and the former Soviet Union. But there is one noteworthy gap in Obama's itinerary: except for a brief stopover in London, returning from Russia in 2005, he has apparently never been to Western Europe since launching his political career. What renders this gap especially surprising is that Obama is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe. Not only has the Senator not visited the region his committee oversees, but as Steve Clemons of the Washington Note has observed, Obama's committee has not held a single policy-oriented hearing since he's been chairman. Europe may not be the central playing field it was in Kennedy's day, but it remains essential to the global set of alliances and relationships that the U.S. needs to cultivate in the new century. In fact, there is no place where it will be more urgent to rebuild bridges. As Obama knows, the United States cannot do it alone--and Europe will need to play a supporting role in whatever strategy the next president articulates."

To read the whole piece: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801w.widmer.html

I think Sam Nunn would be a terrific running mate for Obama. He is an independent Democrat with stellar defense credentials, and many conservatives have respect for him. He would bolster Obama by providing strength on defense and national security.

Like bsimon, I was thankful for Cheney's presence, even though I still thought GWB was in over his head. We were wrong about Cheney and Rummy, but we thought their grey eminences would be helpful to the Shrub.

I am also sure that helped GWB in 2K to lose the pop vote by less than the margin he lost CA.

"I suppose Rice is a possibility there."

Rice is a tie to the current administration, which I doubt any GOP operatives really want to saddle their candidate with, whomever that candidate will be.

Richardson is the man for democrats. Latino with terrific resume.

uckeleg writes
" to put this discussion in perspective, a VP-candidate hasn't helped a P-candidate win the WH in a significant way since Johnson helped Kennedy carry Texas in 1960"

I disagree. Cheney was a huge boon to the Bush candidacy. Back in 2000, Cheney looked like just the kind of elder statesman that would guide the wet-behind-the-ears governor through the wily ways of Washington. I recall my line of thinking being along the lines of "This guy is out of his league, but maybe with Cheney he won't entirely botch things up." That wasn't enough to get my vote, but I bet it was for a lot of swing voters.

McC has repeatedly said he would want someone both with the ability to be Prez and with knowledge in an area in which McC considers himself weak. He has mentioned "communications/media", tech and biotech.

I take him at his word and think he has somebody in mind, but I do not know who.

It's not Rice. Proud's suggestion of Chris Cox makes more sense.

A brokered RNConvention might accept McC and force someone on him.

Who do you think that would be?
I suppose Rice is a possibility there.
--------------------------------------
For Romney, Kay Bailey Hutchison makes good sense politically, but again, the Rs cannot afford to be giving up senior leadership in the Senate; even if TX is safely R Kay's replacement will be a drop off in power.

Dems:
Clinton will probably pick Bill Richardson.
Obama should pick Joe Biden.

GOP:
McCain will pick Lindsey Graham.
Romney will try to pick a Southerner, if he can find one who will run with him.
Huckabee should pick John Thune.

Although you can rule out certain candidates...Rendell and Richardson for the Dems because they like their ladies too much, and Charlie Crist and "Miss Lindsay" Graham because they like the little boys (it's the GOP--what do you expect?)

First, just to put this discussion in perspective, a VP-candidate hasn't helped a P-candidate win the WH in a significant way since Johnson helped Kennedy carry Texas in 1960, so while it's fun to imagine, I doubt it's going to have any real impact.

Although CC does do a good service by listing some of the R-VP potential candidates...Good God, imaging ignorant Southern neo-Fascists like Huckabee, Purdue and Sanford (and certainly Thune, although he's not Southern) is truly terrifying, especially since they'd be a heartbeat (and certainly a faint heartbeat if it's McCain) away from the presidency.

I enjoyed the threads last week over the Veep. It is fun to guess if a VP candidate can help a candidate win. I'm afraid I cannot add to any of the earlier posts except that any of the midwesterner governors would work with either Clinton or Obama.
With the GOP, I believe some worthy candidates have not been mentioned yet. Kay Bailey Hutchinson from TX, Colin Powell, David Petraeus, and Governor Matt Blunt from Missouri would be intriguing choices.

Obama/Nunn

Could you imagine Billy's role if it were Obama/Clinton? Man that would crack me up. He'd be like the evil mistress, hiding in the shadows, trying to continually encroach on Obama's role as the Commander in Chief, almost entirely forgetting that as the spouse of the VP, he has no role or authority in government.

A Clinton/Obama ticket would be even funnier, because Billy would have some authority as the "first gentleman" and would even further step on Obama's toes.

Though, after this nomination battle is over, I'm sure Billy and Obama will be sharing drinks and laughing of times past in the White House pub (they have one, right?).

I am still picking Clark for Defense and Richardson for State, although Bill is a likely VP pick as well. The only place I think Edwards will fit is AG, and I'm still sticking with him there. Sibelius at Security, and Vilsack at Agr.

"Interesting idea, although it seems a little weak on domestic issues."

rpy1, the GOP's perceived strength has almost always focused on foreign & military policy rather than domestic policies. Even given the economic climate, I expect that they'll continue to focus on this.

Bayh is the clear choice for Clinton, for all the reasons Chris mentions. That is, if her current tactics (if successful) don't require her to pick Obama to reunite the party.

For Obama, an old hand with foreign policy experience, from a swing state, and who was against the war in Iraq from the outset would be ideal. Bob Graham? Sebelius would be fantastic if only she had a little foreign policy experience: in addition to being very popular in a red state, she successfully fought big insurance before becoming governor, and she dinged Bush's Iraq decision after the tornado disaster. Daschle's great, but wouldn't the fact that he's married to a high profile lobbyist be used to help McCain wrest the reform/clean government mantle from Obama?

rufus, there are no circumstances imaginable where I would vote for Clinton anywhere on a national ticket. I never liked her to begin with with, but this last month's racist attacks have turned everyone in my family against her, too. We will vote for McCain, if he is the Republican nominee and, likely, even Huckabee. If it's Romney or Guliani vs. Clinton, we will vote third party.

femalenick -- I hadn't thought of a McCain/Rice candidacy. Interesting idea, although it seems a little weak on domestic issues.

Also, I hope you're right about the possibility for a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. Unlike a lot of other folks, I actually think Obama is better on foreign policy than domestic. For Clinton, the reverse.

As a Montanan, I like to see other Montanans do big things. Nevertheless, I think Schweitzer a very unlikely pick for the Ds. He is going to cruise to reelection here as Gov. in '08, and that's where I think he'd prefer to stay for now. Why move to DC when he can live in Helena? :)

The republicans will have a woman, preferably a black woman or a blackman because the hillary will win and choose a white male. obama would have been so damaged by Bill that black people will be pissed. And when they are pissed they will either stay home or the republicans can exploit that to their advantage. they can just go for a hispanic running mate. Blacks will be bruised with the Obama hits that Bill and Hillary will have done, so they stay at home and the republicans will be motivated by Hillary to go to the polls and take some hispanics.

OOps...sorry, optymist, just saw that you mentioned AG possibility re: Edwards. Missed it.

Obama/Roemer. Former Indiana Congressman, 9/11 commissioner. Youthful, but experienced.

OBAMA- RENDELL.........Rendell is extremely popular Mayor/Governor in Philadelphia......sharp mind, amiable regular guy personality and articulate.

"Hillary's going to be too cautious to pick Obama or Richardson. I hate to say it, but a lot of people in this country are already racist, sexist, or fear illegal immigrants, and 2 non-white males on the ticket will only inflame more loony reactions."

Completely disagree with the first statement, but completely agree with the 2nd statement.

And regarding jimd52's point: "I tend to doubt that we would see a female-African American, or African American-female ticket, also female- Hispanic, African-American-Hispanic are unlikely."

Again, not only does a Clinton/Obama ticket remain a distinct possibility, but if McCain were to get the nomination, and though not listed, there is the chance he could pick Condi Rice, which would make sense for two reasons:

1) It could quell the idea that the GOP lacks diversity.

2) Given the work she's doing in Israel and Palestine, a case could be made for maintaining continuity on that front. Along this point, she has gotten considerably more positive press as Sec. of State than she did as National Security Adviser. Further, she's respected by GOP faithfuls.

On cabinet roles, I would bet that Clark is already top of mind as defense secretary. Richardson would not add to an HRC ticket, but he'd be a perfect Secretary of State choice - and be the first Hispanic in a very powerful, visible role. And while I haven't seen it mentioned, I think Edwards would make for a great attorney general, for which that passion and anger would be put to great use.

What happens to Obama if he loses the nomination? If he goes back to the Senate, it'll be quite deflating to start a big movement and then go back to the every day doldrums of the Senate.

Jack Reed's exceptional Defense experience could be an ideal compliment to Obama.

I almost forgot: Mitt Romney would go with Marie Osmond. Think of the pluses: the gender vote, The Osmond vote (must be thousands by now) and you got the entertainment covered for the Inaugural Balls!

Chris,
You gotta get real!
Hillary's DISLIKE numbers show the truth. People who are supporting Obama for the nomination are NOT going to forget the Clinton lies if Hilary is the Democratic nomination.
The bumber stickers to vote for Monica's x-boysfriend's wife are all ready out there!
If THE HILL-BILLIES are in, a vast number of independents and Dems WILL be out!
Democrates have had their fill of defending Billies lies even if Hillary hasn't!

I think Edwards is AG under either Clinton or Obama, though Robert Kennedy, Jr deserves a look.

Biden has done it all in the Senate, has a son ready to take over and a Democratic governor to make the transition happen. Biden will be Obama's Veep unless he wants State. He wants to put his expertise to use in the executive branch where he can truly make a difference.

Dodd has a Republican governor to deal with so his appt. by Clinton or Obama is more problematic.

If it is Clinton, I think Bayh is the favorite, especially since it looks like domestic issues are becoming paramount.

McCain can go two ways, pick someone like Thompson to keep the base happy and minimize third party eruptions, or scare the dems by going with another maverick like Hagel.

Huckabee could add some firepower with Colin Powell, but he won't bite, unless Chuck Norris threatens to kidnap Alma!

I think Wes Clark would be a good Secretary of Defense. Too bad the back and forth between Hillary and Obama got so nasty. They would have been unbeatable on a ticket together. As it is, either one of them could lose to McCain, and I think the nastiness is the reason. I am a staunch Democrat, but these last few weeks have even turned me off.

I suspect McCain would LIKE to pick Lindsey Graham as his VP, but I don't think that's possible. My understand is that Graham has most of the same minuses to the GOP base that McCain does: Liberal on immigration, against torture, believes in global warming, campaign finance. Plus, he's not exactly beloved even in SC.

Also, not that it should be part of the conversation, but I think he's also single and has never been married. Now, I'm a dirty community liberal so that doesn't bother me in the least. But I imagine it might be a problem for at least a portion of the GOP base.

I agree with kissmemonster-Edwards would add nothing to either an Obama or a Clinton campaign in a general election. If either of them feels the pressure to run with a more traditional VP (ie a white man, esp. from the South), there are plenty of better options. Mark Warner is the most obvious, Wesley Clark a close second. John Edwards would be a pretty good candidate for Secretary of Labor, imho ;)

Chris,
How about a Clinton/Clinton ticket. The great charge of the next administration must be to make the world safe for Oligarchy.

Richardson? No, NM is #2 in the nation with health care un-insured (next to TX)

Edwards? He lost his own precinct in 2004

I can't believe that so few are talking up Jim Webb!!! Another topic is... Why?

If either of them want to go White / Male, who else is better?

I think Obama could pick someone not just with foreign policy experience but also executive experience, making the VP something like a chief operating officer to Obama's CEO position (not unlike Cheney's current position). Bloomberg might be an interesting choice. Schweitzer too. I have a feeling Obama's pick will be pretty interesting.

Hillary's going to be too cautious to pick Obama or Richardson. I hate to say it, but a lot of people in this country are already racist, sexist, or fear illegal immigrants, and 2 non-white males on the ticket will only inflame more loony reactions. Dems do fine among their base, but need to go beyond women and minorities to pick up white males. If the party seems like it will really split, then maybe she'll pick Obama. But remember, Clinton has far less experience than all of the REpublicans, so she too will face experience questions in the fall. I think she'll need a governor or someone with gravitas to combat those charges. Generally, we probably won't be too surprised with her pick.

McCain will probably have to satisfy his base, a la Bush I and Dole. The Repubs might also want to steal some of the Dems' glamour by putting a minority or woman on the ticket. He'll also have to have someone strong on the economy. Martinez would be a good strategic pick (FL, hispanic, conservative). Portman makes sense.

Clinton and Obama will be under enormous pressure to pick each other. Not only will this unify the part but it will bring together the divergent demographic groups that each one appeals to.

Hillary will need the young voters and won't want to antagonize African-Americans.

Obama will need the women's vote and party-line regulars.

I know it doesn't look that way now with all the animosity between the two of them, but the desire to win has a way of being the deciding factor in the end.

l think Hillary will pick Bayh or Obama as her VP choice. But let's set the record straight, Hillary has every right to question Obama's record. l think he should grow up if he wants to be the commander in chief

This is a terrific list -- I wish some of THEM were running for President, and the present lot were running for VP instead.

By the way, what about that meeting Obama had with Bloomberg? And how about Bloomberg's meeting with Ross Perot's old campaign manager? Anything in that?

if hilary is the nominee i can't see edwards bringing anything to the ticket,he can't bring the north/south carolina or anyother red state.he would be more of a liability than anything else.he bring no foreign policy experience.who can hilary select that would appeal to the black vote.former president clinton and hilary has began to alienate the black vote with his "pit bull " attacks on obama.the question would be to the black voters if not hilary then who do you have to choose from,hilary or mcclain or some other republican.the black voter may surprise hilary and decide to turn a deaf ear to this election in november. i say to ms.clinton don't take the black vote as your right of passage.don't feel your connection to congressman john lewis,the congress heading the ways & means committee and other noted blacks don't speak for the majority of blacks and can no longer sound the rallying cry for white politicans demanding that blacks fall in line and support the candidates in which they have their hands in the politicans pockets and they are the lone receiptients.this election will bring a polarizing effect on this country if obama is the nominee basically due to the nasty operations of the republican party.hilary/bill has shown the nastiness of white politicans when they feel threatened.the threat is they may not be delivered the black vote in which they feel they are entitled to.

No way on OK Gov. Brad Henry...he is very close to being a DINO. Not totally his fault--Oklahomans don't like their Democrats to be "too democratic."

ASin, You're right, but Graham is prolly too insular a pick as well. Someone with no Senate background would be preferrable.

I don't see McCain picking Huckabee. James Dobson aside, McCain's problem is not with the evangelical wing of the party. His consistent pro-life record should be enough for them.

His problem is with the equally (if not more) zealous anti-tax wing of the party led by Rush Limbaugh. I think either he picks someone with a tax cutting record (not sure who; someone like Kemp or Gramm, who are both too old; has Pawlenty cut taxes in Minnesota?).

Or he does what he's been doing all along and just makes what he thinks is the right decision is regardless of the politics. That would argue for someone (1) qualified and (2) probably already a McCain supporter. Lindsay Graham would probably be at the top of that list.

I guess after last night we can discount a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. Although there was certainly no love lost between JFK and LBJ or even Reagan and Bush I.

Wouldn't Edwards be a terrible choice? He didn't help with any states in '04 and hasn't really been burning up the polls in the primary. I think he would just bring up bad memories of the Kerry campaign. Really it seems to me that he'd be lucky to get offered Secretary of Labor, but what do I know.

As for the Republican veep nominee, don't count out Dick Cheney!

Just joking.

I think.

Jim Webb.

I think Mark Warner would be a better VP choice than either Kaine or Webb for any dem candidate.

Webb doesn't have enough elected experience to be apart of an Obama ticket. Kaine road Warner's coat tails to Governor. And not that he hasn't done a nice job, but Warner would could bring a lot of red voters over to the Dem's--he already brought them to Kaine and Webb. I think he would make a particularly good choice for Obama, if he wins the nomination.

I think the ticket that makes the most sense for the Dems is Clinton-Richardson. I hope she's thinking of making Wesley Clark her Secretary of Defense which would be the smart choice considering what we've had for the last seven years. Biden says he doesn't want to be secretary of State but he would also be an excellent choice. I hope she nominates Joe Lieberman to be Ambassador to New Zealand so she can send him and his wife as far away as possible.

I would hasten to add that Obama/Napolitano would be an excellent ticket, to echo tfo.

moreandbetterpolls is right. And Hillarycare 2.0 would be just as bad...
it also runs on a lot of hot air. The numbers don't add up.

Mrs. Clinton asserts her plan will cost $110 billion a year. But that doesn't count the $50 billion in SCHIP spending for families with incomes of up to $80,000 a year in D congressional proposals. While she estimates that computerizing health records and adding an undefined menu of preventive care will generate $300 billion in savings, you first have to pay for them and the Congressional Budget Office rarely "scores" an expenditure as saving money.

She buries the additional cost of forcing insurance companies to cover people who are buying insurance just to get a procedure paid for. That will drive up premiums and dump people into the waiting arms of government-run health plans.

And since you get the same rate whether you are sick or healthy, whether you take care of yourself or not, the savings of preventive care are pretty much out the window. In a matter of years, Medicare and Medicare will be the dumping ground for most of us as private-sector premiums of one-size-fits-all plans that we have to sign up for become pretty much unaffordable. At that point Mrs. Clinton's Best Practice Institute will become Central Command for rationing and price controls.

Gee, that sounds great! Thanks Hillary!

I think the Dems need a westerner on the ticket. If either Obama or Clinton wins, then they should also pick a governor to balance out experience as well as geography. Therefore, Richardson, Sebellius or Napolitano would be good choices.

I am hoping for an Obama/ Sebellius ticket.

I definitely think Obama/Richardson would be an excellent, winning ticket. I have to say I like the idea of Obama/Sebelius, though. I just don't imagine Edwards being put up for veep again, though. AG, maybe. As for Clinton, I think she would do well with Richardson, too. Or Mark Warner.

proudtobeGOP: I think it would be a major blunder for McCain to run with Thompson. One of the biggest criticisms McCain is running into of late is that he's too old for the job. If he ran with Thompson, it would be "Old and Older". I think Lindsey Graham would be a much smarter VP pick for McCain.

Obama would never be Hillary's VP. But if she wants to appeal to some of his supporters, how about Harold Ford Jr.? Just a thought.

what about Bill Nelson from FL? Been elected statewide, fits the white male bill, NASA astronaut, etc.

If Obama wins, I see Janet Napolitano on the short list. She continues to build the Democrats in the southwest and neutralizes the McCain factor somewhat by coming from his home turf. As a woman, she reduces the number of sour grapes in that slice of the Clinton demographic pie and gives Democrats the potential for 16 years of smashing glass ceilings in the presidency. And she adds executive experience to the ticket.

If Hillary wins, I think Vilsack is on the short list for sure.

Its Obama and Colin Powell all the way...Barack needs the experience and the insurance Powell provides, a la Chris Rock...

First Lady Clinton's 1993 plan is found here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3600.IH:

It is 1000+ pages long and is the blueprint for the HMO/PPO system of the 90s that you now decry.

The plan was drawn with the help of the insurance lobby but to the exclusion of the AMA.

It was not better than what we actually got. It was pretty much the same as what we actually got.

Go read it.

No way Edwards gets the Veep spot for Hillary or Obama. The only way he could even possibly swing it is if it's so close between the two others that his marginal number of delegates actually could tip the balance one way or the other. Even then, I think both would fight to get those delegates by offering him something else. He doesn't add what either of them need for the ticket.

Both are Senators and neither should pick another Senator - they want some form of executive experience on the ticket. Military brass or popular current or former governors should populate the list most heavily. I think the candidates have much different lists, because of endorsements and the types of balances they're seeking to gain from their VP.

For Hillary:
Richardson is out - he helped give Obama the big margin in Iowa.

Schweitzer is good, but out - not enough electoral votes in Montana.

Vilsack is possible - but he couldn't even help deliver Iowa in the primary. He's probably not seen as being able to tip the balance in that state.

Daschle and Kaine - both out. They're Obama people.

Sebelius is good. Strickland is good. Clark is better. I'd bet on Clark.

For Obama:
I think his list is longer. Less of a conventional candidate, and I think that gives him a little more latitude.

Vilsack, Strickland, Bayh, Clark - out. They're all Clinton people. Obama's camp doesn't want the Republicans airing the "Your VP nominee doesn't even think you're the best person for the job" ad airing the day after they announce. Clark would have been amazing, but the Clinton's had that on lock and got him to endorse way early on.

Daschle is important, but he couldn't pull South Dakota over, and I still think that he isn't going to just pick another Senator, let alone one who is not a household name across the country... people don't pay attention to this stuff in the same way we all do.

Richardson is on the fence, but I think that his campaign for President showed that he doesn't really rile up anyone in spite of his impressive resume. I think Obama looks for someone who has proven to be more compelling and has the resume.

I think Schweitzer could be good for Obama because he would be looking for a "type of candidate" rather than just for the electoral votes that I think Clinton needs.

I think Napolitano is a big name missing from this list. Arizona will be in play and she's come out as a vocal advocate for Obama. Popular woman from a swing-state. Great pick.

Kaine is really, really good. Virginians get a chance to vote for Mark Warner and Tim Kaine on the same ballot and for different offices. I think this minimizes ticket-splitters and the Republicans sit at home.

Webb could also buck the trend of not going for a Senator because of his varied past experiences and he adds the military credentials.

Wildcard: Bloomberg. If Bloomberg sees this as his only chance to get into the national stage, I think he'd be willing to play second fiddle for Obama. I don't think we should underestimate ambition, and Bloomberg might not think he could take a real shot at gaining Independent voters given Obama's proven appeal to that group. If this happens - Democrats have a slam dunk.

Not gonna happen but interesting to think about: Colin Powell.

Republicans: Huckabee, unless Romney pulls it out. Boring.

Go Dems.

Because I think that an extremely large number of people just want anyone but another republican president I think Hilary will probably win the election no matter who she chooses for VP, but I would sure like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. It might show the world that the US is moving on to a more enlightened future.

I'd vote for any Dem with Bill Richardson on the ticket. He'd be a particularly good complement to Obama.

boyjohn-i wouldnt mind zouk, he j