Daily Kos

Is Daschle right about the path to unity?

Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:33:57 AM PDT

I have a lot of respect for what Tom Daschle has done behind-the-scenes for Barack Obama.   This Washington Post story suggests that he is urging Obama to pick a Clinton supporter like Strickland, Clark, or Bayh be his running mate for the sake of party unity.

In addition to the fledgling attempts to merge the fundraising operations of Obama and Clinton, there is growing talk that the best -- and perhaps only -- way to truly mend the rift is for Obama to pick a top Clinton surrogate as his vice presidential nominee.

"There's gale-force pressure for Obama to choose a Clinton loyalist as a running mate to heal the party but avoid putting her and her formidable baggage on the ticket," said one Obama ally in Washington. "You hear the names [Ohio Gov. Ted] Strickland, [Indiana Sen. Evan] Bayh, and [retired general] Wes Clark almost constantly, and it's no secret that Jim Johnson and Tom Daschle are purveyors of that wisdom."

If the Washingtonpost is correct and this is Tom Daschle's argument, I think he may be wrong on this one.

I actually think the idea of picking a Clinton supporter is great - in theory.

I am sure that that Bayh, Strickland, or Clark work their hearts out for Obama on the ticket.  

But my concern is that this might unify the party at the washington insider/fundraiser level, but would it really be all that impressive to Hillary's rank-and-file to pick a white male supporter of hers to be VP?  Wouldn't Kathleen Sebelius, though an Obama supporter, do more to unify the party at the grassroots level where it counts?

I think many of these folks are terribly disappointed right now, not only because Hillary is not going to win the nomination but because of a sense that if she couldn't do it, no female will be able to do so for the forseeable future.

I happen to disagree with that thinking.  I think Hillary's candidacy showed us that a woman can be elected.  She got a lot of men to support her and it doesn't hurt that the electorate is majority female.  She had the bad luck of running against a once-in-a-generation political talent in a political climate uniquely suited to him.  I think if she had run in 2004, she might be running for re-election right now against Jeb Bush (wouldn't that be an interesting race?).  

But I can understand why Hillary supporters may not see things this way at this time.  I think they have to feel like Patriots fans did after the Super Bowl.  It's hard to get them excited about Obama like it would be to get a Pats fan happy about the Giants.

But what if Obama picked a well-qualified female like Kathleen Sebelius to be his running mate?  I think the Washington-based Clinton crowd wouldn't prefer this selection, but I have a feeling many of her supporters would.  

What do you think?  

Poll

What type of VP choice would most unify the party?

29%61 votes
70%144 votes

| 205 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Barack Obama, HIllary Clinton, Party Unity, Tome Dashle (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 121 comments

  •  No to Bayh (8+ / 0-)

    and Clinton will likely veto another female, as it would make her power less as Clinton would no longer be the biggest woman in politics.

    Clark or Strickland are decent.

    John McCain's Something for Everyone Plan: Military draft for youth, SS benefit cuts for elderly, Middle Class destruction, stock market plunge for wealthy.

    by IhateBush on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:35:46 AM PDT

  •  Imo Obama should tell Hillary (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    bookkillrr, pgm 01, kafkananda, MAORCA

    to talk to the hand.

  •  Poll Error (23+ / 0-)

    Personally, I think Hillary would have picked her own V.P. based on what SHE wanted.  I feel Obama should be given the same respect.  He should choose who HE feels is best.  You left off every single choice I believe would be his best choice on your poll.  They all happen to be Male Obama supporters.
    Let Barack Obama continue paving his own way. He is doing a pretty good job so far.

    Help, my country has been hijacked by a retarded cowboy.

    by bookkillrr on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:37:48 AM PDT

  •  Strickland or Webb is my pick (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    sam07, joemcginnissjr, Cordwainer

    Obama needs to do something to make sure he doesn't undererform even Kerry's numbers in rural SE Ohio. I still like Webb because he won't take any of Mccain's shit but if Obama's pollsters think Strickland gets him Ohio then Obama would be nuts not to pick him. Part of Obama's strategy is going to have to be getting some white voters in industrial states to vote for him despite being "uncomfortable" because of economic concerns. Strickland can make the Ohio campaign a referendum on Bush's economic disaster instead of Obama's race/heritage.

    After Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

    by nevadadem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM PDT

    •  Strickland doesn't bring any foreign policy (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MAORCA

      experince to the table.

    •  Webb could be problematic (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      SecondComing, NY John, kat68, Angry Mouse

      For example, he voted with the Republicans in favor of telecom immunity.  And, among other things, he has a bit of a problem controlling his temper.  On the other hand, he'd make a great attack dog for Obama on the ticket.

      Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States

      by winsock on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:52:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And he has a "woman" issue... (6+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        askew, Sychotic1, mcfly, sc kitty, Wufacta, RKA

        During the senate race in 2006, when I lived in Virginia, I heard all the excerpts from articles he'd written about women in the military -- and they were pretty damning.  Webb was not particularly liked in VA, and although he ultimately won, I think that was more attributable to George Allen losing because of all of his slip-ups.

        But if Webb is on the ticket, all his anti-woman rhetoric comes back.  And for those female Clinton supporters, that is one hell of a slap in the face.

        •  A really good point. I had forgotten that. n/t (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          sc kitty, Angry Mouse
        •  What do you think of Richardson? (0+ / 0-)

          I like him, but rumors are that he has some female problems of his own as well.

          While I generally think this stuff is of marginal relevance in theory, it seems to me that there needs to be some special consideration given the unique circumstances of this election.

          •  No to Richardson. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            KayCeSF

            I don't really see what he brings to the ticket.  He wasn't able to inspire much enthusiasm while he was in the race, so the idea that he could deliver New Mexico or any other state in the southwest, or the ever-fickle Latino vote, is, in my opinion, more wishful thinking than anything else.

            And yeah, I think Obama's got to be damn careful about vetting a VP to make sure the VP has a totally pure feminist background.  Anyone about whom there are even rumors of sexism, mysoginy, or the like -- that's just going to piss off all of Hillary's voters all over again.

            (Plus I think Richardson was an embarrassment in the debates.  Maybe he would fit in a cabinet position, but the thought of him on the trail and in debates kind of freaks me out.)

            •  I think he would make a great Sec of State. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Cordwainer
            •  Fickle Latino vote? (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              askew, kafkananda, Rabbithead

              With a Latino running, I don't think so...and he brings all the right balance "experience" wise...And on foreign policy he is a great match as he certainly believes in diplomacy, and he has chief executive experience to boot.

              And with Richardson, Obama would be "doubling down" on the unity ticket theme, big time...As Clinton did when he picked another "new Democrat", Al Gore With Obama at the top of the ticket we don't need a good public speaker, and besides, Richardson was damn impressive when he endorsed Obama. Inspiration does tend to do that to a guy.

              Remember poblano's models? Where he/she discusses the three groups with higher turnout, the youth, the AA's, and the Latinos. Obama's got the first two in his pocket, and his nomination will drive the turnout numbers higher, especially in the AA community. Richardson on the ticket will do the same for Hispanics.

              It's a no brainer. Oh, and since he is bi-racial too, you still end up with one white guy on the ticket.

              ;)

        •  Can't agree more. Webb is a bad choice (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          askew

          for many reasons. But especially women issues. He has a misogynistic streak that will not play well with women on both the Obama and Clinton sides of the primary.

          I have been leaning to Kaine, lately, as he was not only a strong Obama supporter, but he will have lots of cred with rural voters as a former minister. Adn he can really blunt any "Wright" issues that might arise.

          Obama does not need a VP pick so much to appease women. That is something I believe he will be able to do himself once they get to see more of his wife Michelle and his daughters on the stump. This is a man who has lived his whole life surrounded by and respectful of strong women. His mother's history is enough to make that point clear.

          All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -- Thomas Jefferson

          by DWKING on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He's apologized and says he's changed (0+ / 0-)

          I don't know how one judges real change rather than politically expedient claims-to-have-changed, but at least he's not sticking by all that.

          I'd rather see someone else just because I want the Dems to have 60+ Senate seats, and that district wouldn't necessarily elect another Dem to replace him.

      •  EVERYONE could be problematic, and everyone (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        PLS

        has issues...the only people who don't have issues are people with not a lot of experience...and then that's an issue.

        Every person on every list for possible VPs has problems, usually more than one, that's life.  

        Richardson has problems, Webb has problems, Biden has problems, Edwards has problems, Rendell has problems, Strickland, and on, and on....not to mention HRC, who also has problems.

    •  isn't he (0+ / 0-)

      "pro life"? If he is I would think that would disqualify, especially since the whole point would be to make Clinton supporters happy

    •  Hasn't Webb already said (0+ / 0-)

      he doesn't want to be Vice President?  I like Richardson.

  •  VP is too important to treat as a pacifier (5+ / 0-)

    I want a VP who had the judgment to see clearly the importance of this primary, and to put themselves on the right side of history.  Otherwise we end up putting a Clinton-winger in line to be the next president - ideologically dangerous and a strategic mistake, as their appeal and importance will decline with changing demographics over the next few years.  

    "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain, as quoted by Barack Obama 6/30/08 Independence, MO.

    by SunWolf78 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:47:59 AM PDT

    •  I totally agree with SunWolf78 (0+ / 0-)

      putting a DLCer that close to the presidency makes me really uneasy. And, I really do think Obama can and will pick who best understands the direction he not only wants to take the Democratic party, but the country as well. I also think as far as voters in job-challenged Ohio are concerned, that Obama's argument is going to trump McCains. Who can forget McCain telling MI voters before the primary - the jobs are gone and they're not coming back. That needs to be an ad that plays continually in OH, MI and PA from beginning of Sept. until election day. Webb has a good article in Parade today and I'm going to get his book and read it. Does anyone know what his rationale was for voting for telecom immunity?

  •  I just hate how there is pressure on Obama (6+ / 0-)

    He's done almost everything right. His campaign, who he has surrounded himself with and how he's energized voters and at the end he is rewarded in part with pressure for unification of gap that he didn't even start.

    •  If he'd knocked her out... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jj32, limpidglass

      early in the race, yes, I would agree.  However, the party is pretty evenly split, and even with voting in every single state, he still won't have the required pledged delegates to seal the nomination.

      So I think this is a unique situation.  In 2004, Kerry knocked out all the competition fairly early, but he still picked Edwards.

      In this case, with the party far more divided, I think Obama has no choice but to consider how best to unify the party by appeasing the other half that didn't vote for him.

      •  no - that is the old style of politics (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        peraspera, Sassy

        he can accomplish the same by picking someone who might also appeal to others.

        In fact, running an old style of campaign, and dangling the possibility of picking Obama as her no.l 2 might have made this more important for Clinton.

        Obama will pick someone who

        1. may bring him some help in the general
        1. with whom he can conceive an appropriate working partnership

        Please remember about Jim Johnson - he is old-time Washington, having served in a key role with Walter Mondale.  He - and to a lesser extent Daschle - are still thinking in old paradigms that might no longer be relevant.

        do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

        by teacherken on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:53:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To your first point... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Wufacta

          Yes, Obama needs someone who can help in the general.  And I think that means someone who can help him to pull the party back together.  I think Obama's supporters ignore or dismiss the outrage and hurt and frustration of the older women who are among Hillary's strongest supporters.  And the idea that any Democrat can win the White House without those voters is, well, far-fetched, in my opinion.

          I know I'll get shouted down for this, but I think Clinton on the ticket is the obvious solution.  I know everyone on the Obama side thinks it's a horrible idea, she'd drag down the ticket, she has nothing to offer, etc., but she DOES have something to offer -- the half of the Democratic party who still supports her.

          Is there anyone else in the party who is guaranteed to deliver that?  I don't think so.

          •  She will drag down the ticket (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            peraspera, shayshay

            and independants and moderate Republicans will NEVER vote with her on the ticket. Plus, where are these "older women" going to go - to John McCain? I really believe that many of her older female supporters are very strong Democrats and at the end of the day will vote the party even if they may not be thrilled about it. For the last two election cycles, my husband and I voted D while not being terribly thrilled with the choice, but we are loyal to the party and what it stands for and supported the majority choice.

            •  That's the problem... (0+ / 0-)

              I think the voters who are told "hey, where are you gonna go?" are pissed off at being taken for granted.  Consider these women, who have solidly voted for and worked for Democrats for decades.  They've stood by, and taken their lumps.  They've watched Democrats turn away from focusing on women's issues.  They've watched Democrats stand by as Roe gets ripped to shreds.  

              Remember the Year of the Woman?  That was inspired by watching the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee destroy Anita Hill. And as a result, we sent another eight (?) women to the Senate that year.

              Well, I think we may well be facing the same sort of frustration of Democratic women that we saw in 1992.  And that frustration should not be underestimated.

          •  I won't shout you down... (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            DWKING, SDuvall, Angry Mouse

            I am not 100% solid against the idea of Obama-Clinton.  I think the harsh things previously said could be forgiven, etc.

            My main concern is that the media and the GOP have held back a lot of their ammo against Clinton.  The RNC has 1200 pages of oppo they are going to have to throw in the cash.

            If Obama picked Hillary, the media would make her the new Jeremiah Wright to have giult by association with every questionable ethical thing done by the Clintons ever.

            It's not necessarily fair, but it's the truth.

            I don't think she would pass vetting standards applied to any other candidate.

            But I think Obama will vet her if she is open to it.  I am guessing she would not want to go throug the process.  Everybody assumes she wants it, but I am not sure she does.

            •  yes... (0+ / 0-)

              I'm sure the RNC might be sitting on some Clinton material.  I'm sure they're sitting on Obama material as well.  (Accusations of "kitchen sinks" notwithstanding.)

              However, I think that the positives of what she brings to the ticket overwhelms whatever negatives she brings to the ticket.  She can be the fierce VP attack dog, she can kick anyone's ass in a debate, and, again, she can guarantee the other half of the party that didn't vote for Obama.

              •  Obama Campaign Doesn't Need An Attack Dog (0+ / 0-)

                Clinton's "attack dog" mode is part of what turned off many voters in her run for the nomination and that style of politics hardly fits with Obama's philosophy.

                Clinton brings only a lot of old baggage and old style politics to the party.  There are plenty of people out there, male and female, who would be stronger, fresher candidates for the ticket.

                Would it really be healthy to have the Bill and HIllary team as co-vice presidents?  Obama would have to spend all his time watching his back.

                We're taking our country back. Si, Se Peude!

                by Justina on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:32:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton on the ticket would not gain Obama (6+ / 0-)

            anything that a good choice might. I know a great many older women like myself who when the dust settles would rather beat McCain and another four years of Bush policies than hold onto a grudge. I was at a aprty last night with a lot of them who were strong Hillary supporters. And though they are strongly disappointed, they all agree that anyone is better than McCain.

            Frankly, I feel many who say they will only vote Democratic is Hillary is on the ticket will come around to the reality of the situation by November. Those that don't Obama can likely compsensate for with a strong VP choice that will be able to deliver either a state he needs in the GE or those blue collar voters.

            All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -- Thomas Jefferson

            by DWKING on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, but... (0+ / 0-)

              Although I think a lot of those people will ultimately pull the lever for Obama, I don't know how much added effort they'll make on his behalf.  Will they make calls?  Go door to door?  Put out signs and bumperstickers?

              These efforts are also important in elections.  So while those people might vote for him, they might not be willing to make much additional effort on his behalf.

              •  I also worry about turnout... (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Angry Mouse

                I am less worried that a lot of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain, but more worried that some will stay home and not vote.  I feel like we have to not just give them something to vote against, but something to vote for.  And its going to be hard when many were so invested in Hillary.  

                •  Shame on them if they do. And I suggest that many (0+ / 0-)

                  of those may have sat out races before. There have been stories of older women who are voting for the first time because of Hillary. So in the grand scheme they have made themselves inconsequential to a Democratic victory.

                  All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -- Thomas Jefferson

                  by DWKING on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:40:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  In case you haven't noticed, Obama has (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                highacidity, peraspera, kafkananda

                an even more mobilized organization than Hillary has already. Not that we won't welcome additional volunteers, but his campaign has been energized and is being grown constantly.

                Had the situation been reveresed and HRC been the nominee, many Obama supporters like myself would have voted for her but not worked on her behalf. Given the weakness of her current organization I'd say her candidacy would suffer more than Obama's will.

                All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -- Thomas Jefferson

                by DWKING on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:44:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Obama has enough people to contribute (0+ / 0-)

                and volunteer.  

              •  Any woman who'd let the man who's on record as (0+ / 0-)

                supporting repeal of Roe v. Wade win this election - via either voting for him OR NOT ACTIVELY SUPPORTING HIS OPPONENT - gets exactly the SC they're asking for. It's the Supreme Court, stupid.

                GWOT - Global War on Terra(-firma) - Bush's War on the Planet.

                by grndrush on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:35:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  She's not as bad a choice... (0+ / 0-)

            ...as some people here think, but she's also got some serious negatives, too. If we knew she'd be loyal, she could be an effective attack dog and a fierce campaigner, which is necessary for a running mate. But one of her problems is that she has some very high negatives with Republicans and independents, though, admittedly, people vote for President and not Vice-President- as Danny Quayle proved. Clinton also might outshine Obama, since she and Bill are such huge celebrities. You don't want a VP who outshines the top of the ticket.

            •  Okay, consider her self-interest then... (0+ / 0-)

              If she's on the ticket, she's got a personal vested interest in not only getting Obama elected, but re-elected, and having a successful presidency.  That's how she gets to the White House in eight years.  Even as the VP, she still makes history.

              So, even assuming the very worst of her (which I don't), I think it is safe to assume that if she's on the ticket, she's busting her ass to make sure that ticket wins.

          •  Yeah, (0+ / 0-)

            well then Kerry should have picked Dean. Believe you me, there is no one more pissed off than a political virgin right after her white night gets run through. My first political event was a meet-up for Dean in May '03, so I should know. Obama is a far better candidate than Dean, and on track to be a great president, but I still haven't gotten in as deep.

            In the end I would have voted for anyone to get Bush out of office, so of course I voted for Kerry.

            Hillary's female supporters will too, once they realize any shot at equality is on the line. If abortion goes, women can once again be controlled by the men in their lives...it's that simple.

      •  Not gonna be HIllary. (7+ / 0-)

        Even Shrum on MTP this morning:  Hillary will not and should not be on the ticket.  And you don't get more CW than Bob Shrum.  

        Obama would have to babysit Hillary and Bill throughout the campaign.  

        Obama didn't knock her out of the race because he came from nowhere, built grass roots and was against the CLinton name and brand.  Any other candidate would have been knocked out.  I'm sick and tired of this being Obama's fault anyway.  He's achieved a monumental win here.  Against the Clinton brand.  Of course she would stay competititve.  And any other candidate would have bowed out by now.  Hillary would have run Obama out of this race months ago under the same conditions.

        •  Not saying it's Obama's fault... (0+ / 0-)

          But the reality is, for whatever legitimate reasons, he hasn't had a knock-out.  The party is still divided.  And despite delegate math, yes, Hillary has about half the vote of the party.

          That doesn't mean it's his fault, but in order for him to win the White House, it's up to him to fix it.  Fair or not.

          (Oh, and yuck to Bob Shrum.  Seriously, can't we just ban these political "strategists"?)

          •  You are assuming that all Hillary voters (5+ / 0-)

            will only vote Dem if she is on the ticket and that is flat out wrong. I think numbers in Ca., for example, show that is ceratinly not thecase. And I can attest that not one of the people I know who voted for Hillary in the primaries (and given my age group I know quite a few), will vote other than for the Democrat in Nov.

            This has been the false assumption all along: that half the party ONLY supports it's candidate. The majority of Dems want to win the Presidency. Period.

            And you forget that Obama needs to hold true to that "other half" by sticking to the principles that got him the nomination to begin with. So he has to adhere to his message of change. Hillary represents the old politics. Period. Her campaign even mmirrors McCains in that it was funded primarily by PACS and lobbyists, poorly managed, and deeply in debt. That is failure.

            I trust Obama to pick someone who, like Obama himself, will attract Independents and disaffected Republicans as well as many of those rural and blue collar voters.

            All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -- Thomas Jefferson

            by DWKING on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:28:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  No way. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            askew

            Clinton is antithetical to the entire Obama message.  Sorry, come along for the ride, or don't.

            I think Sebelius would be a fine choice.

            "The thought of McCain being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." --Thad Cochran

            by Initiate Plan B on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:18:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  no pressure I'll be happy (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      peraspera, mcfly, jj32

      whoever he picks, but I think Strickland is a very good choice on the merits. If he brings in Ohio it makes Obama's trip to 270 a very easy one. Obama also needs to see where he is in August if he's having a hard time getting Hispanics but doping pretty well in the rust belt then Richardson will get a longer look.

      After Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

      by nevadadem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  For me only... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    True North

    Picking a Clinton "supporter," such as Strickland, would mean nothing in the way of "mending" or "unifying."  That's a Washington insiders game, but really, I don't think it would go far with Hillary's rank-and-file supporters.

    •  frankly the Hillary supporters (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      peraspera, Sychotic1, SDuvall, shayshay

      that won't come around becuase of abortion or other issues aren't coming back. To be blunt there are some Hillary supporters who won't vote for Obama because he's black, Wright, Muslim ect...those people aren't voting for him no matter who he puts on the ticket.

      After Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

      by nevadadem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not talking about those... (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, Sychotic1, Wufacta

        Look, the racists in the party are lost in this election.  And may never come back.

        But I don't think that they comprise the majority of Hillary's supporters.

        And while yes, a lot of those women would never vote for a Republican specifically because of the Supreme Court, Roe, etc., I think they are feeling incredibly disgusted and disappointed with their party at the moment.  And that is something the Democratic party needs to address now, before the next election.

  •  Fie on Evan Bayh (7+ / 0-)

    Senator Dial Tone is a milquetoast, he voted for the war and caved in to George W. Bush on foreign policy and national security issues, is a card-carrying DLCer, bores people to death when he speaks, and has become a junior-varsity shill for Team Hillary.

    No sale.

    John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:50:54 AM PDT

  •  Patty Murray (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    cph, mcfly, jj32

    Clinton supporter, voted against the Iraq AUMF and is from a western state.

    •  Maybe... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jj32

      My concern is that if you pick a senator not well known, it looks like Ferraro '84.

      I think you can pick an unknown governor like Sebeliub, but I don't know about 2 senators on a ticket.

      But I need to know more about her to really judge...

      •  Why is an unkown governor more acceptable than (0+ / 0-)

        an unknown Senator?  Especially an unknown governor from a state which the Democrats are very unlikely to win, even with that unknown governor on the ticket?  

        •  Perception and Sexism, frankly (0+ / 0-)

          I think that any VP has to be seen as a credible president.

          Senators, regardless of gender, are at a deisadvantage.

          A female senator is at a further disadvntage, unfairly I might add.

          I think that a governor gets some props for "exectutive experience."

          That being said, the stock of senators has risen in the post 9/11 era.  Both parties have nominated one this time.

          A 2 senator ticket is possible.  

          But I wonder if a 2 senator ticket with a black man and a woman might just be thought of as a little too green.

          It's not fair, but I think it may be political reality at this time.

      •  I think you'd have that with Patty Murray... (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        aisling, Wufacta, gabberdoodle

        Obama won here in Washington pretty handily.  And even though Clinton beat him in California, I'm not all that concerned about California voting for McCain.

        So, other than being a woman, I don't see what Murray (or Cantwell) add to the ticket.  And the choosing a woman, mostly because she's a woman, as a way of trying to appease Hillary's voters, is a HUGE mistake.  It looks like the men of the party think vaginas are interchangeable -- so, you can't have Hillary, but hey, here's Patty!  What's the difference?

        I don't think that would fly.

  •  I think Mike Easley would be a good choice (0+ / 0-)

    A Clinton supporter, but I dont think he really criticized Obama that much. He is a moderate Democrat, popular two term governor(and I think former Attorney General) of NC, a state that could definitely be in play. He certainly adds executive experience to the ticket, and helps Obama with more conservative Democrats. Strickland might be okay too.

  •  I don't think we know. (5+ / 0-)

    Both sides of the issue are sound -- we do not know how it will play out.  And there are many things to consider:  

    What states would be in play with the VP pick?  

    Would a female candidate be "too much change" for independents and Republicans (but Sebelius has been an effective governor in a red state -- who's to say)

    Foreign policy experience (becoming less and less of an issue as we see the stark contrasts betweeen McSame and Obama).  

    Would Strickland/Bayh/Clark bring along HIllary supporters?  

    It's impossible to say how it would play out.  Personally for me, Evan Bayh is a non-starter.  He really does represent a kind of politics that  works against Obama's message.  

    Strickland.  One word:  Ohio.  It's a big word.  

    Clark would be my personal favorite.  I wonder if he regrets latching his horse to the Clinton post.  Military experience -- a plus.  Southerner -- a plus.  Authentic when he speaks -- a plus.  My goddaughter ex-military during Clark's tenure absolutely loves him.  

    I expect Democratic women my age and older who identify themselves as feminists to be physically incapable of pulling the lever for McCain.  Hell, as much as I believe with my whole heart and soul that Hillary would be a disaster as a president, could I sit home and/or vote for McCain?  In November -- not a chance.  Now -- my wounds would be very deep.  It's a stupid question to ask right now.  

    Ultimately, it's about chemistry:  Obama needs a VP who has the same kind of energy and forward-thinking.  There are many great choices.  By November, believe it or not, a lot of what we are consumed with now will no longer be important.  Democrats will coalesce; Obama will work hard to do so.  I still doubt that Hillary would work very hard to win us back.  But I have more faith in women my age:  they have fought long and hard against everything that Bush is and McCain represents.  They won't let it happen.  

    Gloria Steinem may stay home.  We'll bring 10 younger or usually disillusioned non-voters to the polls to counteract her hysterical non-vote.  

    It'll be fine.  

  •  No appeasement! (5+ / 0-)

    Obama has won.  Yes, he needs to unite the party, but he will, in time.  No need to grovel to Hillary and select her or one of her henchmen as VP.  He needs someone who believes in the change that he talks about so much.

    •  Time To Look To the Labor Movement for VP (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      cotterperson

      It would be a dramatic move to nominate someone who is not a politician for the VP spot.

      Successful leaders in the big labor unions have great management credentials  and would galvanize white, black and hispanic workers.

      Visionary labor leaders such as SEIU' president, Andy Stern,  or it's secretary- treasurer, Anna Burger,come to mind.  The SEIU has been a leader in health care reform issues and represents  almost 2 millions workers.

      Anna Burger is a strong feminist and advocate for choice and healthcare.  She  has great organizational and management experience as SEIU's secretary-treasurer.

      It is time to recognize the important contributions labor leaders could bring to national governance.

      We're taking our country back. Si, Se Peude!

      by Justina on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:15:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  convince Mark Warner to run for both (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DWKING, Sychotic1

    VP and the Senate.

    Lloyd Bentsen did it (and lost one)

  •  I'm happy that Daschel was an early supporter (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    peraspera, Horsefeathers, Angry Mouse

    but, I would treat his advice and advocacy with a good deal of skepticism..

  •  In your poll (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    cotterperson

    I picked neither.

    He should pick the most excellent person for the job, of any gender.

    Politics is like sports, it doesn't build character it reveals character.

    by Sassy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM PDT

  •  If we had to take one of the three I would choose (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, ryangoesboom

    in order:

    Wes Clark
    Evan Bayh
    Ted Strickland (Rated pro life by Naral) this could pose a problem considering after 8 years he would be in line to run as President.

  •  If I were a Hillary supporter (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    peraspera

    I would be P.O.'d if Sebelius were chosen as the V.P. candidate. I would feel pandered to and I would feel that Hillary was getting the ultimate snub. Of course, if I were a Hillary supporter, I'd be P.O.'d no matter who Obama chooses.  

    I want unity as much as the next person, but Obama needs to make this choice with a forward looking posture. Ardent HRC supporters will never be pleased and shouldn't be aggressively pandered to.

    •  Sebelius won't be chosen. (0+ / 0-)

      She doesn't have any foreign polict experience.

    •  I am not sure... (0+ / 0-)

      I think you might be right about the hard core HIllary supporter who blogs on the internet..

      But I think the masses of voters who are not as obsessed with politics like we are might really like Sebelius.

      It's not like she isn't qualified..she has been a great governor of Kansas.

      Her only limitiation is national security.  But Obama has hinted that he feels comfortable on national security and doesn't need someone to balance the ticket in that regard, even though the pundits might disagree.

      I think Sebelius would be a great choice.  Noboby is perfect, but I think she may be pretty close.

  •  He needs to win! (0+ / 0-)

    Of the Clintonites, I like Hillary and Clark for the shortlist.  Not sure if the other ones mentioned can help the ticket.  At the end of the day, BO must win this election so he has got to pick whoever can best help him do that.

    Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

    by Valhalla on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:20:56 PM PDT

  •  I'd rather have Daschle.... (0+ / 0-)

  •  Would (0+ / 0-)

    like to see Ms. Sebelius get the nod. At least at this moment. Not really that excited about the Veepstakes at this time. But, wouldn't that be a pretty cool ticket?

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM PDT

  •  Webb of Va brings so much to the table! (0+ / 0-)

    He is Va's junior senator and he stayed neutral.  He is respected by the military; he is respected by dems, independents and republicans.  He has served our country ;and has credentials in foreign affairs.   In addition he is a populist.

  •  Won't matter (0+ / 0-)

    I really don't think it will matter to the hard core Clinton supporters if Obama picks a VP from her camp. They don't really care about the other politicians around Clinton; they only care about her. I just don't see how this accomplishes anything.  Obama needs to pick the person who brings the most to the ticket, regardless of who that person supported during the primaries.

  •  Reminder of Clinton in Nixon impeachment (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    cph, mannemalon

    The reports of the pressure on Obama to select a VP who is a strong Clinton supporter always bring to my mind the diaries and posts about Hillary Clinton's work as a lawyer for the Senate committee that handled the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

    As I recall, what happened was the Clinton maintained her contact with the influential lawyer(s) who helped her get the job. Her direct supervisor later criticized Clinton's job performance.

    Personally, I'd be really surprised if Clinton's feminist supporters see the addition of, say, Wes Clark to the ticket as an acceptable olive branch.

    I wonder if this idea of a Clinton loyalist as a VP for Obama is just a way of ensuring that Clinton has a direct pipeline into the White House for the next four years.

    IMHO, Obama should choose a VP who supports Obama's agenda and methods; who can fulfill the job of President well eight years from now (or sooner if needed); and who can help the ticket get elected in November.

    •  totally agree (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      True North

      To me, this seems more like a shrewd move from the Clintons and their political allies than it does anything else.  

      And I don't like it.  Obama will hopefully balance his decision between someone who he can work with, someone who can help him win in November, and someone who he trusts shares and can execute his ideology.

      I'm an advocate of taking the perceived "riskier" way and doing it our own way, rather than placating the fat cats and party establishment and being "guaranteed" a win.  Because I think we can win regardless this year, and actually be in a position to really bring meaningful change this way.

  •  Yep, Sebelius. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    askew

    Progressive but conservative on organization, budget and other heartland issues.  Also, good for the female Clinton supporters, she appears to be a diligent, tough, fighter that many of the Clinton supportes could identify with.

    "The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving." Oliver Wendell Holmes

    by AvoMonster on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM PDT

  •  Diane Feinstein (0+ / 0-)

    although she is horrible, at least she's not detestable.

    ..to be healed/the broken thing must come apart/then be rejoined.

    by Zacapoet on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:45:15 PM PDT

  •  I vote Sebelius (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    askew

    Because I think she is the best pick.

  •  The more I think about it, the more I think (0+ / 0-)

    Edwards is the clear-cut best pick.  

  •  Whatever Daschle says, do the opposite (0+ / 0-)

    He is a decent guy who has no idea what politics is about, and should have stayed the hell out of it.  I am so glad he is out of the Senate.  We have our problems with Reid appeasing the Bushites, but Daschle did the same thing a hell of a lot worse.

    Hawkish on impeachment.

    by clyde on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:34:28 PM PDT

Permalink | 121 comments