MyDD :: Warner out of VP contest

Warner out of VP contest

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:29:25 AM EST

Mark Warner says that he's only running for the Senate: "I have not sought and I will not accept any other opportunity." Too bad, as Obama & Warner would be a great team. If I had to bet, I think it'll come back to an Obama-Clinton ticket. Not that I want it or think its the only ticket-- just that its the only one that really makes sense for Obama to take a decisive advantage. Especially with both Strickland and Warner, the best two Gov options, having taken themselves out of contention. Well, there is another couple of Governors that could happen still, Schweitzer being the best, Sebelius & Richardson too. So maybe Clinton is the 'fallback' option still.

On the GOP side, hasn't Lieberman already taken himself out of contention? I don't see it happening, as it would only fire up Democrats, and Lieberman does not do anything for the social conservatives. McCain is going to choose a conservative to shore up his credentials on the right, and he's going to choose someone that's younger than himself. Sarah Palin is who I'd be the most afraid of him choosing, she'd engage the conservative moms that Bush had going for him the past two elections.

Overall, it seems to me that the race has become sorta at a summer standstill. The latest Gallup poll, at 45-42 Obama leading, has a pretty high number of other/neither/undecided voters, at 14 percent, given that name recognition is at 98% or thereabouts for each candidate.

Have a great Father's day!

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Permalink :: 240 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Obama is still crushing McCain in Rasmussen's tracker. Hes been up by 7 for a while now, including today.

by Bobby Obama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:37:34 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

And McCain is under 40% in today's Rasmussen.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pollsters will make it look good for Obama until (1.00 / 1)

after the convention, and there is no more danger of an
HRC nomination.

It's a bad signal that Obama gets these VP rejections.
Insiders realize he has no chance.

by layer cake on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Strickland ruled himself out last year when he was asked about being Clinton's VP. It has nothing to do with Obama.

by jadegirl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Link, please?

by markjay on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (2.00 / 1)

From November 2007

Strickland

About 1/3 down the article

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Thanks

by markjay on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Thanks for posting this. I was offline all day after the above comment.

by jadegirl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

I know this is the new in argument from Obama doubters, if you assume that Strickland and Warner have an interest in becoming president someday, other jobs provide at least as good path as does vp. Actually, Governor is a much better spot from which to run than vp and the Governor-Senate combination is also quite good.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:42:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Clinton lost to the better Democratic candidate in a contest for the Democratic vote even with the help of operation CHAOS voters. Time for you to grow up and get over it or go join the Republicans.

by TMP on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (2.00 / 0)

Pollsters will make it look good for Obama until after the convention and there is no more danger of an HRC nomination.

Yes, those all-powerful pollsters who fabricate the results out of thin air because all they want is for Dems to lose. They fear nothing more than a Hillary VP nod and will do everything in their power to stop it! BWAHAHAHAHA

by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:49:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

What, you don't remember this Zogby poll released on the eve of the 2004 election?

U.S. Presidential Election Poll
November 8, 2004
Copyright 2004 Zogby International

George Bush: 5%
John Kerry: 4%
Ralph Nader: 1%
John Zogby: 90% Pwnd LOLOLOL!!! Zogby Rulez other droolez!

by sneakers563 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

LOL

by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:13:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

What? That makes no sense at all.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since when (none / 0)

does layer cake make sense?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0)

It goes right to my hips but it's oh-so-delicious.

by thurst on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

Warner knows it is a bad move. He is the only person who can win that Senate Seat.

ENOUGH!

by JDF on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pollsters will make it look good for Obama unt (none / 0)

"no chance" no butt. Obama's going to crush John McCain no matter who he picks for VP. And won't you look ridiculous when he does. (by the way, this is a progressive blog. I think Red State might be a better fit for you)

by Democrat in Chicago on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is still crushing McCain (none / 0)

Not that I want it or think its the only ticket-- just that its the only one that really makes sense for Obama to take a decisive advantage

Or lose his decisive advantage.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Warner needs to be in the Senate (2.00 / 2)

That would be a DEFINITE pick up seat for the Senate so using him as a VP choice wouldn't be wise.

by puma on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:40:10 AM EST

When I saw Clinton give her (2.00 / 1)

concession speech, I realized that there is no better campaigner out there (other than Obama).

I could see her in WV and KY saying '...and that is why WE MUST ELECT BARACK OBAMA!' The response to that? A resounding chorus of 'YES, MA'AM!'

Maybe the dream ticket would work.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:47:12 AM EST

It would work if reversed. The problsm (none / 0)

with Obama is that he has no record to tower over
the Chicago ghosts.

People have no way of judging him. The slick messages
written up by his marketing staff can't counter the Wright stuff.

by layer cake on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It would work if reversed. The problsm (none / 0)

He's done pretty well so far, though, no? He beat the inevitable nominee who started way ahead in the polls, with lots and lots of money, and 100 superdelegates.

But you do have a point and I'm sure the Obama campaign is well aware of the need to let people know more about his biography. Bill Clinton had to do the same thing in 1992. Before the convention, most people thought he came from a wealthy family and didn't know he had a child. After the convention, they understood his roots, having heard him talk about his single mother, being raised by his grandparents, etc., (interestingly, a similar story to Obama's) and that carried him forward.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:45:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It would work if reversed. The problsm (none / 0)

"He beat the inevitable nominee who started way ahead in the polls, with lots and lots of money, and 100 superdelegates."

He also beat the Wright Distraction. But a big part of it is that everyone but blind partisans bent on his destruction realized that tarring him with someone else's words was fundamentally wrong.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When people are disgusted with our (none / 0)

current government and our current 'leaders' they want to elect fresh new leaders. That's why Obama is doing so well. He's a constitutional scholar, he has a record of public service and he's not part of the old establishment. When things are going well, we want more of the same. When they are not, we want to elect a really smart person who is not part of the problem...that's why Obama will win.

He has the same experience Abe Lincoln had when he ran for president (another really smart person) and he turned out all right.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:37:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fight the smears (1.00 / 1)

He's a constitutional scholar...

What has he published? Where has he been tenure-track faculty?

by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He wasn't tenure track faculty. (none / 0)

Which is a plus.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:58:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He wasn't tenure track faculty. (none / 0)

So if he wasn't tenure-track faculty, and if he never published anything (not even a student note when he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review), he's not a constitutional scholar. Period.

by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He wasn't tenure track faculty. (none / 0)

He was offered a tenured position at University of Chicago several times. He turned them down. They don't offer tenure to unqualified people at UoC, which I've ever heard is a pretty decent law school.

I'm surprised you conspiracy theorists are still pushing this tripe. Don't you have a made-up tape to obsess over these days?

by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:18:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dead wrong (none / 0)

According to a press release from the University of Chicago Law School, Obama was a "senior lecturer" (essentially a high-profile adjunct) from 1992-2004 and was, on several occasions, "invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position," which he declined.

Note that's "tenure track" -- not tenured. Meaning he was invited to be an entry-level professor, a position in which he would be expected to publish significantly if he wanted to gain tenure. And he declined that position.

A few years ago, I was invited to join a prominent strategy consulting firm, which I declined in favor of another line of work. Do I get to call myself a strategy consultant now?

So, once again, if Obama's such a constitutional scholar, WHAT HAS HE PUBLISHED? You don't get to call yourself a scholar if you don't publish.

If that makes me a "conspiracy theorist," well, crank up the X-Files DVD. Calling Obama a "constitutional scholar" is like calling Hillary a military commander on the basis of her visit to Tuzla.

by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

It makes me sad to watch you dead-enders squirm like this.

Let's begin:

You say, "(essentially a high-profile adjunct) "

Actually, no.

This is from their statement: "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status."

They specifically say that those who hold the position are regarded as professors and is specifically distinct from adjunct status.

So, either you're trying to intentionally deceive me or you didn't read the whole statement. If the former, you failed, if the latter, I suggest you actually inform yourself.

"WHAT HAS HE PUBLISHED? You don't get to call yourself a scholar if you don't publish."

Actually, you get to call yourself a scholar if you're an accomplished academic with enough knowledge to teach (in a position considered equivalent to being a professor) at one of the prestigious law schools in the country, who also contributed as a researcher to numerous published papers. I haven't looked into whether Obama was the main author of any published paper, that'll certainly be an interesting project, but I would hesitate taking the word of right-wing bloggers before you make that assertions. A lot of published academic papers (particularly pre-internet papers) get lost in the flux, so not being available on Google is not "proof" for your case.

Anyway, let's sum up your argument the guy graduates Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, collaborates on scholarly papers as president of the HLR, works in a position at the University of Chicago that's considered equivalent to being a professor, and frequently declines joining on as full-time faculty... obviously, dude knows next to nothing about the constitution and has done no scholarly work whatsoever.

Brilliant reasoning. Now, tell me again about those SHOCKING Farrakhan connections, whitey?

by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:52:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

Also, it's worth checking out the blogs of the UoC professors, especially the parts where they basically say they begged him to join the faculty.

That is, if you can stand to see anyone write anything positive about Senator Obama, which I imagine you can't.

by Stroszek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

Also, it's worth checking out the blogs of the UoC professors, especially the parts where they basically say they begged him to join the faculty.

Once again: a few years ago, I had a management consulting firm begging me to become a management consultant. I turned down the offer. Do I now get to call myself a management consultant.

Obama turned down the offers to join the faculty as a tenure-track professor. That is, he had an offer to pursue a scholarly career; instead, he became a politician.

by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

Actually, you get to call yourself a scholar if you're an accomplished academic with enough knowledge to teach...at one of the prestigious law schools in the country, who also contributed as a researcher to numerous published papers...

Dead wrong. The sina qua non of being an academic is publishing original research -- not "contributing as a researcher" to published papers, but publishing them yourself.

I haven't looked into whether Obama was the main author of any published paper...

Please do, before you tell us what a leading scholar he is.

[Obama] collaborate[d] on scholarly papers as president of the HLR...

If you're making this argument with a straight face, you clearly have no idea of how law reviews work.

Unlike other academic journals, law reviews are run by students. The senior editors select articles for publication from among hundreds of submissions -- itself a highly controversial practice, since the editors aren't themselves lawyers or legal academics. More junior editors edit the articles for clarity and space, verify citations, and ensure correct Bluebooking (i.e., formatting) of citations. They don't collaborate on original research.

As an aside, there are many social scientists and other faculty who question whether law review articles are truly scholarly literature, since most of them aren't peer reviewed. I'm sympathetic to that view, but I'll set it aside for now.

"Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status."

With due respect to the UoC Law School here, I think this distinction between "senior lecturer" and "lecturer" is a semantic one. They're basically trying to give a fancy title to more accomplished adjuncts for whom teaching, say, legal writing to 1Ls would be beneath them.

This is common at law schools. Larry Sonsini, for example, is best known as a leading corporate lawyer in Silicon Valley, but he also teaches securities law at Boalt. (IIRC, he's even written a few law review articles on the side.) It would indeed be demeaning to call him an adjunct. Sonsini wouldn't claim that he's pursuing a scholarly career, though. He's basically coming back to teach at his alma mater what he's learned as a leading legal practitioner.

Lastly, let me digress for a moment and explain why I care deeply about this topic. (Contrary to the original poster's bizarro rantings, it has nothing to do with Louis Farrakhan, right-wing bloggers, "Whitey," or other nefarious characters.)

I have many friends who are academics, both in law schools and in other fields. And to claim a glorified adjunct is a "leading constitutional scholar" does a grave injustice to those junior scholars who work very hard to accumulate long publication records.

It reeks of arrogance for the Obama campaign to claim that being a "senior adjunct" makes Obama some kind of leading constitutional scholar a la Lawrence Tribe or Bruce Ackerman or Cass Sunstein. It reminds me of when Obama said that growing up in Indonesia qualifies him as commander in chief.

I'm not arguing that Obama "knows nothing about the constitution," or that he's a poor lawyer. Indeed, I'm inclined to think he would make a better Supreme Court justice than a president. I am saying, however, that until someone produces a list of publications that Obama has authored, he cannot justly be called a scholar.

by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dead wrong (none / 0)

I can't disagree with that logic. He really needs to do an in-depth interview on the subject or something at the very least. Debate the issues with someone that has a more originalist interpretation.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When I saw Clinton give her (none / 0)

And Hillary is a good/great debater. Certainly better than McCain and probably better than almost anyone McCain would pick as VP. Of course, she is also a better debater than Obama, so I don't know if that would be a problem.

I saw Gov. Jindal on one of the morning political shows this morning and while I disagreed with him on just about everything (he said he is for teaching ID), he is charismatic and seems like a good guy and would be very troubling as a VP opponent. I hope McCain picks someone else.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoever he picks won't be debating (none / 0)

against him but will be debating against whoever McCain chooses. Obama vs. McCain...who do you think will be the better debater? I think Obama's hands were tied in Dem vs. Dem debates which made him seem hesitant on the attack.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever he picks won't be debating (2.00 / 1)

Well obviously Hillary won't debate against Obama (again), I just wonder about the possibility of her upstaging him both in debates and with Bill and all that. I am going to be optimistic about it for now.

I think Obama will wipe the floor with McCain. The funny/great thing is that Obama is not always a great debater because he actually thinks about his answers before he responds, unlike Bushie who just spews whatever comes to his pea-sized mind. To me, it's another example of Obama's ability to be nuanced in the world of politics where everyone wants things to be black and white (no pun intended). Obama both literally and symbolically inhabits a world of nuance where things are not always right/wrong, good/bad, easy/hard. It's what I like the most about him.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever he picks won't be debating (none / 0)

Yeah but Bush wasn't a good debater either so I'm not sure how comparing the two does much for the argument.

Obama does not debate well; neither does McCain. When dealing with an experience meme not doing well in a debate is harmful for the cause. McCain will win in debates against Obama. Clinton would've cleaned McCain's clock & left him looking "confused." It is a real problem.

by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever he picks won't be debating (none / 0)

I don't think Obama loses against McCain in the debates simply because McCain has looked more and more confused over the last few months. I think if Obama can just pull off moderately decent, he wipes the floor with McCain.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whoever he picks won't be debating (none / 0)

I get that McCain has been looking confused - however he also has that authoritative thing about him - he wanted the town hall meeting b/c they work for him. Being that the meme is that Obama is unsure, his speech patterns (the uhhs & uhhms are frequent) are very problematic when debating/spontaneously speaking when it comes to making a solid point or trying to persuade someone of your certainty/expertise (it is something that would be harped on in an intro to public speaking course) he does stand a good chance in losing against McCain & reinforcing the experience meme being pushed by the GOP. That is a very real problem. Clinton was very confident when she spoke & would've wiped the floor with him but his debating style is a problem.

by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome that would be an exciting ticket! (none / 0)

but I am not getting my hopes up. I have finally accepted that it probably wont happen and now this diary, hehe. Its not nice to fool with an old lady!!!! Sigh. I will keep my fingers crossed though.

Hillary/Obama 2008

by Sandy1938 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST

McCain went after another of Obama's VP (none / 0)

selection team member, Eric Holder, because he was the lawyer who helped pardoned Marc Rich.

If McCain is going after Eric Holder for Marc Rich, how is Obama going to be able to put Hillary on the ticket since it was Bill Clinton who pardoned Marc Rich.

by puma on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST

Re: McCain went after another of Obama's VP (none / 0)

While I'm not wild about the idea of putting Clinton on the ticket, Obama shouldn't let Republican concern trolls determine who it is.

First, pick someone who can lead the country should the need arise; Political concerns second.

The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain

by really not a troll on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:19:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain went after another of Obama's VP (none / 0)

That got no traction. McDesperate is already in full Hillary mode. That is, the kitchensink/kneecap strategy that didn't work for her either.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It won't (none / 0)

Put Hillary on the ticket, and he goes after her too. He will go after anyone Obama puts on the ticket.

If she was the nominee, he'd be going after Bill left and right.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It won't (none / 0)

The GOP is going to go after everyone (very skillfully). The decision needs to be made as to who is best in responding the the attacks. The Clintons have been through (successful) G/Es before - they know how to win with the full country looking on. They are also not afraid to fight & they have proven they can do it. Noone can say they have undergone the same level of scrutiny by the GOP, and not many can say they have the same ability to fight back that they exhibit.

So it comes down to who can best handle them as campaigners.

by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm not sure why you quoted yesterday's Gallup numbers but not today's Rasmussen tracking which shows an Obama lead of 7, with McCain at 39. I know you're feeling your way at trying to say something positive about Obama, but it's really not that hard.

Warner made the right decision. We should not give up a solid Senate seat pick up. There are other strong VP contenders, including Richardson and Wes Clark.

by jadegirl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST

Why Clark? (none / 0)

I see his name mentioned a lot and I don't understand why. He's a liberal military guy which is nice, but I don't what else people see in him. Since he's never held any kind of office, I worry that he would just reinforce the "Obama is inexperienced" line.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I'm genuinely curious what Clark brings to the table.

by sneakers563 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Clark? (none / 0)

He ran a multi-national military force and won a war with no casualties. Sounds like he knows how to run a large operation with lots of people and lots of opinions.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Clark? (none / 0)

Plus, as VP, Clark is supposed to be an advisor and someone trustworthy; he does not need to be a politician. He's smart and attractive and seems to be a good person, all good qualities for a VP. Plus, he is a Hillary supporter, which at least shows a little bit of reaching out (though not as much as many people want). And one of the unfortunate advantages of Clark is that he is a white male; there is some question of how centrists and moderate conservatives would respond to a ticket with a black man and a woman or a latino (Richardson).

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

How about Christine Todd Whitmann?

by moevaughn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:09:42 AM EST

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

for McCain, that is

by moevaughn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:16:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (2.00 / 1)

Hadn't thought about it, but is seen as more traitorous by the GOP base than even McCain. Palin would be formidable, but I wonder if personal circumstances take her out of the running in this cycle.

And I'd have risked that VA-SEN race (or had Warner run in both) to go Obama-Warner this year. Sigh.

by Adam B on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:24:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

If McCain needs to distance himself from loser GWB, Todd Whitman on the ticket would help -- and she's well-liked by Independents. and she's strong on the environment -- a really hot issue now. I think she's pro-choice, so that might not be good for religious right. She would draw the women though.

by moevaughn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:50:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (2.00 / 1)

You nailed the reason why Whitman of the boxed candy fortune won't get on a national ticket -- abortion. The pro-choice Republicans get shut out of the platform when they try to get a statement that abortion is a complex moral issue and McCain would destroy himself with the base with Whitman on the ticket.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

yep. that must be why her name hasn't come up. Since she doesn't have much of a future with GOP, I wonder if she'll join the Independents. That's quite an inclusive group, with socialist Bernie Sanders and warhawk Liebermann.

by moevaughn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:14:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Christine Todd Whitman (2.00 / 1)

I've actually thought that Obama should give her another shot at EPA. She struck me as a very level-headed person who was trying to protect the environment, because that's the job title and something she believed in. Of course that didn't work out under Bush, where the job description was really "deflect criticism while we eviscerate environmental protections for the benefit of our friends in industry". But if she was given a chance in a forward-thinking administration, I think she'd be excellent, unfortunate party affiliation notwithstanding.

by lilnev on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP contest (none / 0)

You may be right - I never understood why so many people liked her - I'm from NJ & I can't stand her..

by jrsygrl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Too bad about Warner, I feel that Obama/Warner or Obama/Edwards would be amazingly stong tickets. I disagree about Obama/Clinton, I don't think that pairing would be good for either.

I think it's looking more and more like Obama/Clark

by ArkansasLib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm not really aware of any sort of relationship between the two - the only place I've seen this really talked about was the "Four Days in Denver" fiction.

The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain

by really not a troll on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:20:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I personally don't want Hillary to be the VP. There is just too much down-side for her career to that option. And as I said before she is exposed to more risk than Obama should the ticket lose.

However, as you can see by the lead story on the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/world/ asia/15nuke.html?em&ex=1213675200&am p;en=7dae8fb60503ce92&ei=5087%0A

the story being released after months of sitting on it comes down again to National Security. Clinton will be the strongest (non-millitary) candidate that Obama could put into that position. Sebilius and Richardson do nothing for Obama on that front (yes, even with Richardson's negotiation skills) and only weaken him on Economic and Foreign policy.

Obama has lot's of choices, Clinton is the smartest political choice. Whomever he picks has to not only be able to be politically savvy, but bring voters along with them, and shore up Obama's political positions that he is vulnerable on. I don't see very many choices for him out there that fill all of those billets.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:20:13 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm always surprised to hear everyone (especially the press) mentioning that the VP position is "worthless."

Why is that? In the history books a vice president is always remembered. Secretary of state, attorney general, senate majority leader? Not so much.

If they cut a deal between themselves (making her primary role the health insurance czar), it could certainly be win-win.

With the dwindling list of candidates that actually want the VP position, I could see him defaulting to Clinton, escpecially with poll numbers showing him over McCain by less than 10 points (Gallup is now only +3 for Obama).

If he can gain on McCain by 10-15 points, then he can surely run as his own brand, with a "new name" friend as VP. Otherwise I think Clinton is a safe choie. At the very least she can flip Arkansas for him, and strengthen chances in OH, PA, WV, and a few others.

- Matt

by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I agree completely, the VP choice is far from worthless, in fact it will be key for both candidates this year given their weaknesses (Obama's inexperience and McCain's age).

by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm saying that the VP position is anything but "worthless".

It's going to be the position within the Democratic ticket that makes or breaks the push regain the White House. A weak ticket, means we all need to focus on down-ticket races and even then a weak National ticket really hurts those races also.

Webb, is a good choice, but we can't afford to lose his seat in VA. Clark, a great National Security choice, but is weak on the policy/politics side.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

How is Clinton good on national security? She voted for the war and hasn't shown what I'd consider to be good judgment since.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Then Obama isn't good as well, as his record mirrors her's since he entered the Senate.

She has experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee and her foreign policy positions are just some of the reasons that 18 Million people were voting for her.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:22:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I've definitely come to realize Clinton is the best VP choice. McCain, whether he wanted to or not, has pushed the campaign in that direction, and the refusals of so many potential candidates like Warner, Strickland and Edwards just cements it.

It also takes away any big bump McCain would get from picking a female VP like Sarah Palin.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:25:49 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Sadly, Sarah Palin just gave birth to a child with Down syndrome. She has a great future in the Republican party, but this won't be her year.

by feynman on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Yeah, you're probably right. I knew she just had a child born with DS, but the full implications escaped me.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I have a child with Down syndrome, and I don't see that disqualifying me from any job. The child would be 9 months old by the time she assumed office.

I guess the main challenge would be being part of a grueling campaign run with a young baby, but that would apply regardless of whether the child had Down syndrome or not.

by markjay on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I wouldn't think it would disqualify anyone from a job, but this is a pretty abnormal job. It would mean 6 months of not being able to see her that much, then moving the whole family out to DC, all while still having responsibilities as the governor (unless she stepped down) and getting MASSIVE media attention at all times. It would definitely apply to any newborn baby, but wouldn't it be of even more importance to have as active a role as possible in your baby's development with something like down syndrome? Genuinely asking, since I have not yet had any kids myself.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I believe her last child makes 5 (or maybe 6)? I think that fact might weigh in more heavily than the fact that she has a child with DS. Also her husband is a commercial fisherman so he obviously couldn't pursue his trade in DC.

by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't know (none / 0)

Trig was born with down syndrome...that's very sad.

She's a frighteningly popular Governor, but her Lt. Governor is running for Congress. I don't think she'll consider herself for a national job with her Lt. Governor also in a race where he could vacate his job as well.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree. (none / 0)

I also think Jodi Rell would make a much better choice.

by JimR on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I disagree. In the WSJ poll, 22% were less positive toward Obama with Clinton on the ticket and 22% were more positive. It was a wash.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:36:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

These national polls don't mean much.

The big question is whether Clinton would cause Obama to win or lose any individual states.

Surely all of Obama's internal polls are geared in this direction.

by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Sure - And I still don't think Clinton is helpful in swing states. That whole argument has been predicated on the view created by exit poll analysis of good/bad blocs for Clinton/Obama which have been shown to NOT carry over to the Obama-McCain matchups.

For example, Clinton decisively won Hispanics against Obama, but Obama is decisively winning Hispanics over McCain.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:58:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Sure - And I still don't think Clinton is helpful in swing states.

You mean swing states like FL or MI or OH or PA or NJ?

Those swing states???

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

You got to be kidding. As a Michigander I can tell you that Obama doesn't need Hillary to take Michigan. Not by even the wildest stretch of the imagination.

by GeeMan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Obama will need all the help he can get. Whether from Hillary or another VP choice (yes even in MI), but they must be at least able to shore up his deficiencies and help him project knowledge and a forethought on foreign policy.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I have yet to hear the average person in Michigan have much nice to say about Hillary. Oh sure, you have the usual party toadies such as Granholm, Brewer and few others. Doesn't mean much when it comes down to the vote.Hillary got about 329,000 votes in Michigan for the primary. Michigan will turn out 2 1/2 million plus voters for the general election.So she has so far about 13% or 14% of the possible vote,not exactly a ringing endorsement.

by GeeMan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I hear plenty of good things from plenty of people of MI about Hillary, and how they want her and not the DEM candidate they have now.

It means a lot when it comes down to the vote, Hillary got 329,000 more votes than Obama, and even if MI turns out 2.5M voters, not all of them will be voting DEM., and your 13-14% is based off of the 329k votes she had. If you do that then Obama is dead in the water. Street runs both directions my friend.

Right now RCP has McCain up 2, but Rass has Obama up 3 w/ the latest poll from 2 weeks ago. Not exactly a ringing endorsement either.

Once you move out of your bubble, the entire playing field becomes clear. You should step outside once in a while.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't you just cite a national (2.00 / 1)

poll upthread to show why he should use Clinton? Seems kind of strange that you are now saying national polls don't mean much.

Guess we all use them when they help make our point, eh?

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:48:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Well, I've been far more amenable to the idea as of late. The thought of Clinton as Prez used to terrify Republicans, but they've spent the last few weeks praising her, so what can they do?

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

If she doesn't energize the opposition against Obama, I'm all for it.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:16:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

ALso, where was the WSJ poll? I missed that one.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Don't answer. The big one. I missed that question.

We shall see. I still think Edwards was the best choice. But he has no interest in it anymore.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:19:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/docume nts/WSJ_NBC_SURVEY_June2008.pdf

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Obama Mccain

47 / 41

Obama Clinton Vs Mccain /Romney

51 / 42

That doesn't seem like a wash to me.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

Romney is also one of the most hated politicians in the country. So that may have something to do with it ;)

"Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around." --Thoreau

by Populista on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

I'm not sure where you get that idea from, but Romney was certainly never hated in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the country.

Unless you mean people would never vote for a Mormon, I have not seen high negatives for Mitt.

People much more hated than Romney:

Hillary
Bill
McCain
Giuliani
Lieberman
Gore
Nader
Bush
Cheney
Buchanan (not sure if he still counts as a politician)
Ted Kennedy

I'm not sure how Romney cracks the top 25 of most hated politicians.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm crushed by this. Obama/Warner would be a dream for me. I have just written a diary about this.

I'm now advocating Obama/Gore.

by Makey on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:30:05 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I thought Gore already took himself out of the running, months ago. And honestly, just like with Clinton, it would be a silly move for his career. He's internationally recognized, and has one signature issue - much better for him to be able to push that issue than be tied to playing a supporting role on all kinds of issues.

Gore, Edwards and Webb all said they didn't want it months ago. You can push for them, but you'll probably be disappointed.

by NoBlinkers on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama/Biden (none / 0)

That's my prediction.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:51:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Biden (none / 0)

Novak wrote a column saying his name (Biden's) was floated the most before Johnson stepped down.

by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Biden (none / 0)

I like Biden. He's a bit of a hot head. And he made the weird, unfortunate comment about Obama being the first "clean" AA to run for office. I don't think he is going to be picked.

On CNN Napolitano was asked about being a pick. She said "I already have a job". I know that is the standard answer when asked though.

by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Biden (none / 0)

In light of all the more recent comments by Obama, Hillary, and McCain, Biden's "clean" comment looks like not even a blip on the radar. I highly doubt that miniscule gaffe has any impact on whether he's chosen. The bigger problem with him is that he probably doesn't help win any specific states.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama/Biden (none / 0)

I'd love it. He IS a hothead, but he's a pretty lively hothead, and when has that ever been a bad thing. McCain's fresh new voice for VP would have to be pretty damn sharp during the debates to keep up.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

We needs Democrats to step up and provide the flank now for Obama. In this historic journey he is taking.

Gore we need you.

by Makey on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Clinton is the clear choice for VP and I say this as an Obama supporter who was annoyed with her campaign style during the primary.

by agpc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:32:40 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I'm with Ed Rendell on this. Clinton is a poor choice because the vp is supposed to be in a support role and she and Bill would have a large spotlight on them.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:37:48 AM EST

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Very true, but he needs to win first. That list of 20 is now down to 15 or so, with only one or two high profile candidates left.

I would only be opposed to having Richardson on the ticket. He doesn't impressive me at all. Very weak speaking skills and not very authoritative.

by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:43:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

I don't like Richardson either. I saw him speak once and though he was awful.

But I don't think Clinton would be good on the ticket. Her negatives are very high and they turn off independents who are open to Obama. And it undercuts Obama's message of change. I like Kaine, Webb, Sibelius, Schweitzer, Clark.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:49:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio would also be a good potential choice. He's been consistently anti-war and opposed to bad trade agreements, with very close ties to unions. And Ohioans strongly support him.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Did he actually say that? I only remember his saying:

A) He would like to see her on the ticket.
B) She shouldn't bargain for the position.
C) Obama may be able to win without her.
D) He is not interested in VP.

- Matt

by mjc888 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

Ed Rendall did not say that.

by Scotch on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

"The rule for the vice president is make sure you never upstage the president," said Rendell. "It's rule one. You know, Hillary Clinton in some ways couldn't help but upstage, even if she was trying not to."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/06/rendell-cools-o.html

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:42:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

In context:

Last week, Rendell seemed optimistic that Clinton would get the V.P. nod. By Wednesday, the Governor had changed his tune, fearing that Clinton could overshadow Obama.

"The rule for the vice president is make sure you never upstage the president," said Rendell. "It's rule one. You know, Hillary Clinton in some ways couldn't help but upstage, even if she was trying not to."

Rendell also thinks that former President Bill Clinton could greatly complicate matters if his wife was the vice presidential nominee. Clinton has made several controversial remarks while stumping for his wife on the campaign trail, such as comparing Obama's victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's win in 1988, then later claiming that the Obama camp had "played the race card" on him. Earlier this week, the former President issued a tirade against the media for its alleged Obama bias.

"The Obama campaign would have to make strict rules, you know, about what President Clinton could and could not do during the campaign," said Rendell.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner out of VP contest (none / 0)

That does not say that he thinks that she SHOULDN't be offered the VP, it only shows that he is doubtful that she would be offered it because she is bigger than he is. I doubt that he would tell her to turn it down.

by Scotch on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]