Obama Vice President Picks: Who Are The Frontrunners?

Post Reply
User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Obama Vice President Picks: Who Are The Frontrunners?

Post by Guysanto » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:34 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/0 ... 00869.html

[quote]Obama Vice President Picks: Who Are The Frontrunners?
Will Thomas
The Huffington Post
May 9, 2008 11:47 AM

With the Democratic nomination now in its endgame, it's time to speculate on that question that makes politicos weak at the knees: who will be tapped to be vice president? Unlike the top job, there is no election here, and it's the first big choice that we get to see the candidate make about his cabinet.


THE TOP TIER
  • Jim Webb
    Webb is the closest thing to a frontrunner for Obama's VP these days. A former Republican, he served as Secretary of the Navy for Ronald Reagan. Webb defeated George "Macaca" Allen to become a junior senator in Virginia.

    Pro: Webb is a good foil for Obama's post-partisan message, and he's got the military credentials to match up with John McCain. He's good at playing the attack dog, which will let Obama take the high road. And he's from trending-blue Virginia, which would be a great pickup in November for Democrats. He's also pro-guns.

    Con: Webb can be a little out-of-control as attack dogs go.

    [/*:m]
  • Hillary Clinton
    This ticket is either a dream or a nightmare. Some see it as the only way to reunite the Democrats in time for November. Other see it as the fastest way to destroy the Obama brand.

    Pro: Strong appeal with working class voters and women.

    Con: See Iraq War vote, 3AM phone call, Bill Clinton in South Carolina, and the month of March.

    [/*:m]
  • Bill Richardson
    You know him, you love him; he's the New Mexico governor with a heart of gold, a kickin' mustache, and -- thanks to James Carville -- a new nickname.

    Pro: You've heard them all before. A foreign policy resume a mile long, executive experience, and a lock with Hispanic voters. And he picked Obama, despite his Clinton ties.

    Con: Did you watch any of the debates?

    [/*:m]
  • Joe Biden
    He is Mr. Foreign Policy. He also claims the best line of the primary season thus far. Too bad no one told Iowans he was running for President.

    Pro: He trumps any foreign policy claims that McCain brings to the table. He can hit McCain hard.

    Con: He tends to hit everyone hard. And he's a Washington figure, which could hurt a campaign running against Washington.

    [/*:m]
  • Brian Schwietzer
    Never heard of him? You should. Schweitzer has been Montana's governor since 2005, and is currently one of the most popular governors in the country.

    Pro: In addition to his executive experience, Schweitzer has spent a good amount of time around the world (including the Middle East) in his former life as an irrigation developer. His popularity and his pro-gun stance could help Obama in the Mountain West area. He also refused PAC and special interest money during his 2004 campaign. He's also criticized the economic consequences of the Iraq War, an approach that Obama has recently adopted.

    Con: Despite his travels, he has no official foreign policy experience. He also doesn't bring in any delegates from his own state (though that could be offset if he helps in places like North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado).[/*:m]

WORTH WATCHING
  • Janet Napolitano
    Another popular Western governor, Napolitano has settled into a second term in McCain's very red home state. She also backed Obama early in the race.

    Pros: She has proven her executive capacity in Republican territory, as well as the Southwest, which will help sway Obamicans. A female candidate could also help reunite the Democrats.

    Con: Her stance on immigration could prove costly among Hispanic voters.

    [/*:m]
  • Sherrod Brown
    Brown is a favorite among progressives for his economic populism and outspoken criticism of the war.

    Pro: Could help deliver an important swing state.

    Con: Doesn't really satisfy the idea of a unity ticket.

    [/*:m]
  • Chuck Hagel
    A Republican senator who has fought with Bush tooth and nail over the Iraq war, Hagel is one of three Republicans who voted with the Democrats over a withdrawal plan. He also has served on the Banking, Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Hagel has also said he's considering endorsing Sen. Obama.

    Pro: Broad Senate experience. A living embodiment of Obama's commitment to work with like-minded Republicans. Also is a veteran with experience in Reagan's administration

    Con: He is still a Republican (especially on abortion and health care), which would not sit well with a lot of Democrats.

    [/*:m]
  • Wesley Clark
    Rhodes Scholar turned four-star general and once-presidential candidate. A star resource for Democrats on military affairs.

    Pro: John McCain would have to salute him. And he has Southern appeal.

    Con: Backed Clinton early and has been a very active surrogate. Not always the best politician on a national stage.

    [/*:m]
  • Kathleen Sebelius
    Talk about reaching across the aisle. This Kansas governor convinced a Republican to leave his party, become a Democrat, and run as her lieutenant governor. Kansas is rife with stories of Republicans undergoing conversions, and Sebelius gets a good amount of credit for this.

    Pro: Another Red-state governor with an excellent post-partisan record. Having a female VP could be a strong ticket.

    Con: Sebelius didn't wow anyone with her response to the State of the Union, which raises questions about how she would do on the national stage. And her location in Kansas doesn't add much that Obama doesn't already get from Illinois.

    [/*:m]
  • Tom Daschle
    The former South Dakota senator, Daschle has been a strong supporter of Obama's campaign; he's a national co-chair and is rumored to play a big part in the campaign strategy.

    Pro: Can bring in votes from his home state.

    Con: Weak campaigner: he lost his Senate seat while he was the sitting Majority Leader.[/*:m]

HONORABLE MENTION
  • Mike Bloomberg
    Sure, most voters have never heard of him. And sure, he's never been a national player. But the current mayor of New York has been a darling of the media, as they spent months seeing if he would get into the Presidential race. Coupled with some private conversations with Obama that caused a tizzy in the fall, a Bloomberg candidacy could cause some media attention that would rival that of even John McCain.

    Pros: Excellent economic record. Interested in policy minutiae. Post-partisan (former Republican switched to Independent). Media darling.

    Cons: Unheard of outside his home state. It's tough not to seem like an elitist when the world 'billionaire' applies to you.[/*:m]
[/quote]

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:36 am

Well, add Al Gore to the list.

That's the ticket I favor. Having won the popular vote in 2000, having been thoroughly screwed by "Bush Family and Appointees" eight years ago, the guy has the experience to teach Barack Obama a thing or two about what to expect and deflect from the Massively Dishonest Political Machine, controlled mostly at this moment by far-right Republicans.

Besides, he would be in a good position to help us begin to save ourselves from global disasters even bigger than Bush's presidency

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:37 am

[quote]Well, add Al Gore to the list.

That's the ticket I favor...[/quote]

Guy,

Even though the Republican brand is in very bad shape in this election cycle, Obama is not a sure thing as the polls suggest - assuming responders to the survey questions are not lying. Gender appears to be the most important factor for Obama to have any chance at winning.

As far as Al Gore, the VP choice - sorry, but wrong gender - his delay in supporting Obama is a clear signal that he does not want to be Hillary's next rival. He has already been VP. Although you would might enjoy him being put face to face with the Clintons, Obama's second should have no appeal for him.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:28 pm

Actually, Tidodo, there are a number of other fine choices. I feel certain that whomever Obama selects will make a great addition to the ticket. I went on a limb telling everyone that I trusted his political instinct, even before he became my candidate. I DO favor the Obama-Gore ticket, as I said, but I will be satisfied with a great many others (as long as they do not include the Clintons). If Hillary gets picked, I will be disappointed but I will still work in whatever capacity I can to defeat the McCain-and-whoever Republican ticket.

I also happen to think that gender is very important. This does not necessarily mean that a woman must be selected, as a few men may as well capture the majority of women votes for having fought alongside them all along. I floated elsewhere on this forum the idea of a woman VP (with some names that did not include HRC), but nobody picked up on that.

I hope Obama will make Hillary an offer: that of becoming the next Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Or whatever role that would keep Hillary in the fold but keep her husband at bay. He deserves a nice retirement far away from Washington (perhaps Hugh Hefner may help in selecting a mansion or other sweet spot for him) to keep him at arm's length from Obama's own burgeoning legacy to the American people.

If you insist that a woman must be picked for Obama to become the next president of the United States (I do not share that view), then tell me if this is simply just another way for you to promote HRC. Have you, in fact, thought of any woman other than Hillary Clinton?

One comes to mind, for the Republicans (though she has so far not expressed any interest) : Condoleezza Rice.

Though I am extremely opposed to the policies that she has promoted as National Security Adviser, Secretary of State, confidante and teacher of world affairs to President Bush, I do admit that her gender, her race, toughness of character, experience and conservative appeal (???) would present some serious hurdles for the democrats to overcome. They could no longer claim exclusivity to "change" in this election year. But, let me stop on this note, before my thoughts devolve into a full-blown nightmare.

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:37 am

[quote]I hope Obama will make Hillary an offer: that of becoming the next Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.[/quote]

I can't imagine why would she give up her senate seat for that job! But, I like your joke.

[quote]I also happen to think that gender is very important. This does not necessarily mean that a woman must be selected...[/quote]

+1-1=0

[quote]If you insist that a woman must be picked for Obama to become the next president of the United States (I do not share that view), then tell me if this is simply just another way for you to promote HRC. [/quote]

No, Guy. The rationale behind this is that HRC has raised the hopes of many women who felt that they have been discriminated against since the birth of this country. Certainly, HRC is at the top of the list of those who can help mitigating women's frustration about her losing to Obama. Any other woman would be the next best thing. In my mind, there is still no guarantee the fracture caused by Obama supporters (not necessarily Obama as they appear more divisive than he is) can heal quickly enough to unite the party before the elections. HRC is the only one who can do it that fast, which is why picking another woman might not be enough.

As far as Bill is concerned, he was the smartest and most stable president we had in the past 40 years. I apologize to the fans of Reagan. The USSR would have imploded regardless of who was POTUS at that time. Reagan benefited from Carter's policies that inflicted the pain on US farmers that led to the USSR implosion.

Now going back to Bill, I always thought that the Republicans' demonizing machine had more effects on their sheep. It is demoralizing to realize that its reaches cross the partisan line. While I don't know what Hillary can be as a president, I know what Bill can be in terms of influence on the nation's policies. Moreover now, what he did for his wife during the primaries is a model of family loyalty (no pun intended). Would you not do it for your wife? Not that it was totally altruistic, but Bill's record as president makes me believe that the more we can benefit from his service the better it is. And, I don't care what he does with cigars in his spare time. Obama should put the interest of the country first by having the best political minds in the White House and worry less about personal influence.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:21 am

[quote]+1-1=0[/quote]
It's never that simplistic, Tidodo. Do you mean to tell me that before Obama, race was not important. That before Hillary, gender was not important. That before Lieberman, the Jewish vote was not important. Of course, you could not possibly mean that. So, this must be your little mathematical joke. In reality, every demographic sector in the United States (with exception made for WASP males) has had to look for allies, as it is strictly impossible to have all of them represented at once. Gender is important, extremely important I would say. But that does not mean that Hillary must be selected as VP. As important as gender in this election year is the seniors vote. [Are they all going to vote for McCain?]

[quote]Now going back to Bill, I always thought that the Republicans' demonizing machine had more effects on their sheep. It is demoralizing to realize that its reaches cross the partisan line.[/quote]
I was going to respond to you in much detail, then I realized that it must again be your sense of humor at play (just as mine is quite often, if not always, present). Just in case, though: You cannot possibly mean that any dissent from the view that Bill Clinton was the greatest thing since sliced bread is attributable to "the Republicans' demonizing machine". I don't take offense, but rest assured that I have always been more critically minded than this.

Post Reply