Obama's Veep Vetting Team Discussing "Former Military Leaders," Other "Outside The Box" Names
Here's a bit of a glimpse into what sort of potential candidate Obama's vice-presidential vetting team has been asking about on Capitol Hill...
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential vetting team discussed roughly 20 names with a senior Senate Democrat Tuesday, including some well-known options and others that are "outside the box."Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota told CNN that some of those on the list are "top officials now," others are "former lawmakers" and others are "former top military leaders."
"Former top military leaders"? Another report says that one such military type talked about was Retired General James Jones, the former Marine and NATO Supreme Allied Commander.
Still, more than one former military leader was apparently discussed.
Wes Clark, anyone?
Late Update: To be clear, I'm skeptical of Clark as a choice, but it seems logical that he'd be one of the "former military leaders" discussed. Anyone have any thoughts as to what other ones might have come up?
Meh, Wes Clark is okay, but he'd make a better National Security advisor (followed by Sec. of Defense after he is eligible). VP? There are better choices, like Richardson, who has a great resume, fits with the character and feeling of Obama's campaign, and is hands down the best in terms of helping us demographically.
June 10, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I'm glad there were no hints of a nightmare ticket dropped there. That would be a horrible idea:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/06/why-no-nightmare-ticket-lets-count.html
June 10, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree, I'm skeptical of Clark as a choice. But he seems like a logical one that they would discuss.
June 10, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know people like the idea of a military guy like Clark or Webb on the ticket, but I just don't think that is playing it smart, I don't think that is playing to Obama's strengths, it just takes away from his strengths and makes us look like we are trying to overcompensate for some kind of deficit in Obama, and there is no deficit because he is kicking McCain's ass on foreign policy.
He needs someone who will reinforce his message and the character of the ticket, I think someone with a strong diplomatic background, like Richardson, would be of great help to Obama's image. He has a great resume, he doesn't play the kneecapping politics game, and it wouldn't look like we are adding a big tough military guy to babysit Obama.
June 10, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold.
June 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I LOVE Feingold, but I don't think he wants it.
I would DIE if Obama picked him though, wow, what a dream team.
But in lieu of Feingold, I'd say Richardson is definitely best out of the choices being floated.
June 10, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold already does not accept money from lobbyists.
June 10, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Among former top military people, I would think Wes Clark, Anthony Zinni, and Eric Shinseki would get the most consideration. Would be cool if Shinseki got the nod and we had an all-Hawaiian ticket. John Shalikashvili is ineligible (not a natural-born citizen).
June 10, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they really want outside-the-box: Gov Brad Henry (D-OK)
June 10, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to think you ARE Gov. Brad Henry.
June 10, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another interesting excerpt from the article:
June 10, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A) Hillary should not be on that list, no nightmare ticket!
B) Why is Richardson not on that list? He is DEFINITELY one of the best options, a hell of a lot higher up there than many on that list.
June 10, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: How many times does Edwards have to say NO before people will stop putting his name on the list??
June 10, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
yawn on all of those.....
I want a meat and potatoes person...
In the interest of adding to the discussion about a "true" hispanic democrat for VP - Charlie Rodriguez, who endorsed Clinton in PR - was born in New York.
June 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colin Powell? He may have a problem adequately separating himself from the Iraq issue, but he meets everyone's short list of "Ready on Day One"
June 10, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ick, he is a Republican and totally lost all credibility when he whored himself out to Bush in front of the UN. Not to mention it probably is playing up the racial aspect a little too much to have two black guys on the ticket.
June 10, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4583256">Colin Powell is a war criminal.
June 10, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops. lets try that again.
Colin Powel is a war criminal.
June 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much.
June 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if this vetting team looks at other people, do we just assume that it's for the VP? It could be for other positions within an Obama admin. No? Yeah, I get that's the main mission and the name of the team, but perhaps they are vetting a lot of people to see where else they will fit? Just asking.
June 10, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
June 10, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be way pre-mature to be thinking about cabinet appointments now. The VP choice needs to be announced by August, which makes it a pressing matter. Cabinet posts get announced in December and January after the election -- vetting for those positions never happens this early.
What has happened in the past is that candidates with a viable chance will have some staff working on "transition" issues for a few months before the election, planning on what will happen if they win. They may informally start making lists of potential appointees, but the actual vetting process for these appointments never happens until after the election. I doubt Obama is handling things that differently from previous examples. (Not least of all, if word leaks out that you're picking out your cabinet before the election, there tends to be a nasty backlash and accusations of arrogance, taking voters for granted, etc etc)
June 10, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rhymes with Rhine mold......
June 10, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that means Jessica Alba's out.
Sucks!
June 10, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, really sucks that Jonathan Rhys Meyers or Taye Diggs or Jeffrey Dean Morgan or Wilmer Valderrama are out too.
Damn. I cannot vote in Nov.
June 10, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Sherrod Brown?
He's won statewide in both federal and state elections in Ohio
He's got executive experience as a former SOS
He remains somewhat a Washington outsider despite his 6 terms in the House
He brings some sorely needed populist credibility in an election sure to be fought largely on economic lines
He can be trusted with the presidency after two Obama terms, unlike Webb, Hagel or the other former military officials under consideration
June 10, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the person saying a military background is not necessary. Experience yes. Richardson is well liked, experienced in foreign affairs, even energy.
June 10, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree too, we buy into military experience as a compliment to BO's perceived lack thereof at the cost of capitulating to the McCain's effort to frame this election in terms of foreign policy
June 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, we need someone to compliment him, not a military person. Someone with a military background would be good for Sec. of Defense, it isn't necessary for VP, nor is it advisable for this ticket.
Obama is owning McCain on national security right now, he doesn't need a VP choice who will make him look weaker on those issues.
June 10, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Wes Clark, anyone?"
You mean this Wes Clark, right?
http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html
June 10, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC Demo Veepstakes is up with 32 names!
Anthony Zinni is one
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24955780
Only Veep Campaign I care about is Mentum08
June 10, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
32 names -- some quite far-fetched (Phil Bredesen?) -- and yet not on the list is a candidate I think is one of the strongest and who has a high likelihood of getting the nod -- former VA Gov. Mark Warner.
What's with that?
June 10, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the assumption is that Warner is committed to the Senate race, and that if he dropped that to run for VP, we'd risk Gilmore ending up in the Senate.
June 10, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a legitimate worry, though the conditions for November with an Obama-Warner ticket might well be so favorable that Don Beyer or somebody could come in and still beat Gilmore.
June 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are Napolitano and Sebelius facing off in the first round? I think they could have thrown a few more women into the pool and that they should have avoided having them matched up in the first round unless there were at least 6 women included.
I'd have added (and these are just possible candidates, not necessarily my choices):
Barbara Boxer
Nancy Pelosi
Jane Harmon
All women from California, which admittedly is not in play, but all with resumes that qualify them to be considered.
June 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why Obama's VP should be Senator Russ Feingold (great blog)....
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/best-vp-for-obama.php
Drop your cynicism. Drop you fear. If you want someone that lines up with Obama's message and will keep him on the right track. Well, there ya go.....
June 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama/Feingold 2008-- Change from the Heartland!!!!
June 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
# Committee on Foreign Relations
# Committee on the Budget
# United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
# Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
June 10, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's up for Oprah for VP?
O/O in '08! Oh, Oh!
June 10, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please forgive the directness . . . As a red-blooded male, Oprah scares the shit of of me . . .
June 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, why are you skeptical of Clark? (Just curious. He would have been my choice for Hill's VP....)
Obama's got a tough job--keeping up with his core message while getting someone with some kind of street cred. Bill Clinton did a great job with this with Al Gore--that seems like a good model. Young and fresh, but with some experience.
I would adore Feingold, but he's the only one in the Senate with any cojones.
June 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than half of Americans felt the same as Clark did about the Bush admin --- at least he found out and admitted he was wrong about them once the facts came out --- most didn't do that till very recently.
June 10, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem with Clark is, his own words, like Hillary's will come back to haunt them --- what they said about Obama being 'qualified'.
June 10, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
McPeak is probably not viable -- he made a few verbal gaffes during the primaries, and he would be a hard sell in the Jewish community based on past statements and perceptions of his mideast policy.
Personally I think Biden is the best choice - he brings the gravitas on international and defense issues that Obama needs and he's proven he can be an effective campaigner, debater and attack dog when needed. Jack Reed fulfills many of the same needs, but with a much lower profile. Chris Dodd also meets the same bill.
But plenty of other "out of the box" choices come to mind - beyond the more commonly mentioned suspects of Biden, Dodd, Strickland, Clinton, Edwards, Rendell, Bayh, Richardson, Schweitzer, Warner, Webb, Sebelius, Clark, etc.
In terms of military leaders -- Anthony Zinni has been suggested by some. Seems too gruff to me, not sure how he'd be as a campaigner.
A name I haven't heard floated is Claudia Kennedy -- I honestly don't know that she is a viable choice, but she would fulfill the military, female and Virginia cards all in one -- not a bad idea on the surface.
Beyond military leaders:
George Mitchell -- he's old but still quite active, and he has major gravitas and good political instincts.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln -- second term US Senator from Arkansas -- young, southern, moderate, woman who is supposed to be an effective campaigner.
Bill Bradley -- I actually think he only reinforces Obama's base -- how many basketball playing intellectuals do we need on a ticket?
Mike Easley -- has he definitively said he isn't interested? He brings southern roots, home state popularity in NC, and strong Clinton ties/ identification.
Sam Nunn personally frightens me -- but I understand why he might be politically strong on a ticket. (But would also potentially hurt in the gay community and the left of the party).
Bob Graham -- retired FL Senator and Governor, major league defense/intelligence credentials, would help put Florida in play. Was on Kerry's short list.
Bill Nelson -- also would help in Florida. Not sure how he and Obama get along.
Sherrod Brown -- more populist than Strickland.
Richard Rubin -- if the campaign is to be fought on economics, he would bring his treasury and Wall Street experience (which is both a plus and a negative), a strong Clinton identification, and presumably would help with the Jewish vote.
Roy Romer -- ex Colorado gov and DNC chair. Probably too old to be a serious possibility.
William Cohen -- Republican defence secretary in Clinton administration. Not sure if he still considers himself a Republican or not.
Christie Todd Whitman or Jodi Ruell-- I don't think so, but if Obama wanted to have a Republican on the ticket, these two women would probably be the most credible. (Still a bad idea in my book).
---
What other "out of the box" ideas do people have?
June 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The darkhouse, and true Maverick of the Senate--- Russ Feingold.
I would work my ass off for him on the ticket. Hell, I'd quit my job and work for the campaign.
June 10, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, when I first read that I thought you said you'd cut your ass off for him to be on the ticket. Wow, dedication.
But hey, I'd give up a cheek.
June 10, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!! Me too, for a solid progressive ticket like that!
June 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Graham would've been perfect in 2004 or 2000. I wonder if people just don't like him personally or something. He seems great on paper.
June 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I heard they were worried his, essentially, excessive compulsion to take notes would make him look crazy... Yeah.
June 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's seriously the only thing I've heard about him. Maybe they're worried about the prospect of a VP who creates a trail of evidence.
June 10, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's go way outside the box with a member of the House -- Chet Edwards of Texas. Despite repeated onslaughts from Tom DeLay to redistrict him out of office, Edwards remains, much to the chagrin of his most famous constituent, George W. Bush.
I know there is not the slightest chance, but Chet would be terrific on the ticket.
June 10, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link for Chet:
http://www.chetedwards.com/
June 10, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I was taking a Texas representative, I think Lloyd Doggett would be a better choice ... much closer to the Democratic mainstream... =Chet is too conservative to be on a national ticket (but he is a good match for his district)
June 10, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link for Gen. James Jones--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Jones
Another general I like (though not for VP, but who knows?)- Gen. Scott Gration--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Gration
June 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold would be a wonderful choice, as would Brown
Yet I don't think either will be selected as their economic thinking leans a bit too far to the demand side, undercutting Obama's "freakanomic" micro message of neo-liberal "empowerment"
I'll do anything I can to get Obama elected, the stakes are indeed too high
But I've counted this election at least a partial victory since Dean's maintained control of the DNC: a robust commitment to the 50 state strategy represents the best opportunity for realizing a truly progressive agenda
June 10, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian Schweitzer of Montana
June 10, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that choice...
... after Richardson, Biden, Gore, and Edwards (at least 2 of whom don't want it and I'm squishy on Biden)
June 10, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Hagel certainly would be outside of the box. And Bill Richardson is not a viable option. He doesn't have all that much pull with Hispanics, and he's entirely milquetoast as a candidate, as evidenced by his abject failure in the primary.
June 10, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with Hunter on this one. Richardson is an excellent paper candidate, either as VP or as president (or pretty much any other public office, imo). However, in reality and on TV... not so much. What's needed is someone who can speak confidently, authoritatively, and who can go on the attack effectively without tripping over his own tongue or creating a gaffe. I think Richardson's awkward and shuffling performance in the primary debates disqualify him from serious consideration. Just not 'fast on his feet' enough. Just my opinion, though.
June 10, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure Russ Feingold would endear Obama to the Clintons. Being for impeachment and all. http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/feingold.shtml
Anyway why not some qualified women like Sen. Maria Cantwell or Sen. Barbara Boxer? Sen. Evan Bayh? But the best choice would be Edwards. Hand down. This is someone who could be President someday and should be able to represent the broad consensus on policy within the Democratic Party.
Folks who like Richardson should really want him to be Sec. of State. Just like folks who like Hillary should want her to be on the Supreme Court or eventually Senate Majority Leader.
June 10, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Boxer but I think she'd be seen as too liberal; her state is in the bag already; and she's important in the Senate for climate legislation.
June 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bipartisan cred for Feingold, right there.
June 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's a great statement, and Feingold was right to make it.
June 10, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an armchair quartback, NO Senators and NO ex-military complex types.
June 10, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fer sure, no generals, no defense contractor execs.
June 10, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the Senators charge: I would argue that Senators are in a great position to know how Washington works. How do you change Washington without knowing how it works?
Just a thought, though I do understand the arguments against choosing a Senator.
June 10, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama-McLovin '08!
June 10, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genius. Sure to get the Police Unions! They love them some McLovin!
June 10, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fits fabulously with Grampy McSame picking McIndignation.
June 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
or even McJobless
June 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wes Clark floats Obama-Sebelius
looks like Wes Clark has taken himself out of the running for VP
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Wes_Clark_floats_ObamaSebelius.html
June 03, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama
Wes Clark floats Obama-Sebelius
Wes Clark stopped out in Texas yesterday to drop by a fundraiser Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius headlined for Michael Skelly, a Democrat running for congress in Texas.
Clark introduced Sebelius and, according to a regular correspondent and reliable source who was there, said:
"The London odds-makers say that Kathleen Sebelius is the odds-on favorite to be the next vice
president. I can tell you, she'd make a great vice presidential choice."
He then introduced her as "The next vice president of the United States...."
June 10, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I blogged on the subject back on May 29th. Here is what I wrote then.I hope it gives you some food for thought and discussion.
Veep Thoughts
avatar
By liam - May 29, 2008, 2:10PM
Who I do not want to see picked as a running mate for Senator Obama.
Any current Republican.
If they are a Republican still, after all that has transpired since 2001, I do not want them on the ticket.
Why would any Democrat want to see three Republicans and only one Democrat in the fall campaign. Why would you want to see two Republicans in the VP debate.
The VP candidate has to play the role of attack dog so that Senator Obama can stay above the fray. No Republican can fill that role.
I do not want a Republican casting the tie breaker votes in the US Senate, and I do not want a Republican to be just a heart beat away from the Presidency.
The need for the VP candidate to play the role of attack dog also makes me wonder if a woman candidate can actually take on that role without being typecast as a you know what. I am not saying I do not want a woman picked for the VP slot, but I do want to hear your thoughts on the prospect of them being able to play the attack dog role.
I do not want any candidate who has never won a state wide election in one of the larger states. That is one way to vet someone on their actual campaign skills. A national ticket is no place to launch an unproven amateur. That is why I do not want to see a Military person picked. We have no way of knowing if they are any good at campaigning. Far too risky.
Finally, I do not want a Mayor or a Congressperson picked for the same reason. They may be very popular in their own city or district, but so are most mayors and congress members. If they have not carried a sizable state wide election, which proves that they can appeal to a broadbase of voters, then they are also too risky. Look at the history of such people not cutting it. I give you Dick Gephard for example. If ever there was a Congress person that was well situated to take off, it was him, but he was a complete flop. Of course, had ever run a state wide race before, we might have seen that he was not up to the task. The same applied to Geraldine Ferraro.
OK. Folks. What are your thoughts on what I have outlined?
June 10, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with pretty much every word.
Once you get to the next level of desirable characteristics, you start encountering incompatible ones -- a white NASCAR-friendly man, and a woman (but a person who could meet both those -- a true "change" candidate, would be too far outside the box); a non-Beltway person, but with foreign police experience, etc.; a bridge-builder to the Clintons, but someone keyed to the bottom-up Obama approach.
I tend to think Obama should go with someone he feels very comfortable with personally and who can embody his different kind of politics theme. He's shown strong judgment so far, and I think he'll pick someone good if he doesn't outsource the decision to a groupthinking committee bent on satisfying all needs at once.
I lean toward Warner, Kaine, Richardson, Bob Graham, maybe Sebelius (even though she violates a Liam Rule).
June 10, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama is showcasing military types as potential VPs to emphasize that, like most Americans, many military personnel (and the institutions they serve) have had enough of the Bush/McCain/Neocon/Chickenhawk "long war" themselves: not a bad way of parrying McCain's pretensions to foreign policy expertise.
June 10, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Sebelius, Biden and Dodd. But, I trust that these vetters have more info than I do, so I'm more interested to see that list shorten.
June 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama/McCartney!
June 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I see Webb on these lists, the more annoyed I become. I don't believe it will happen, but if Obama chooses a guy who said that the military is a "horny woman's dream," I'll be deeply disappointed.
It's striking to me how the vastly male blogosphere glosses over his downsides, esp with regards to women.
June 10, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to defend Webb, but that was a long time ago, and he seems to have no problem with women in the military now.
That said, it is a HUGE issue, and I think the fact that his name is still paraded around is because he would be such a strong choice against McCain.
But, yes, Webb is quite possibly the WORST choice if the goal is to reconnect with Hillary voters. And for that reason alone, I don't expect him on the ticket.
June 10, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not convinced that Webb is a winner. Is he really a proven campaigner, or did he get lucky in the fact that his opponent shot himself in the foot with his racist comment on video, and also that in 2006 the country was ready for wholesale change. As I recall, Webb still only won by a very narrow margin.
June 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree -- he's an exceptionally smart (imagine -- two real authors on one ticket!), and can be devastatingly effective on military issues, and has thoughtful and important things to say to the party about how to bring class to the fore, and win back lower middle class folks. But, even apart from the gender-related issues regarding statements and actions when he was at DoD -- itself a real issue, as evie notes -- I'm not sure he'd be the strongest campaigner and I'm not sure his dour demeanor is the best complement to Barack. For me, the two more affable Virginians -- Kaine and Warner -- would be a better fit.
June 10, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama/Gracie Slick...never too old for a revolution!
June 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If musicians are in play, Dylan is the obvious choice -- from a key Nov state would garner Jewish, born-again and drug-addled secular humanist votes; capable of subtling changing positions; capable of writing words that are deeply meaningful to lots of people without being too specific; has massive cross-generational appeal. Oh, and he's already endorsed Obama:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4076339.ece
June 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely trust the choice that the Obama team will make for VP. I'm just excited to wowed again as he has been doing so far!
June 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Subliminability...Dylan would be a great choice...
June 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Wes Clark. He passes the Ned Lamont litmus test. (The few Real Dems who actually went to CT to campaign with Ned!)
here's his ad for Lamont:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4uPpQXBmPQ4
He also worked tirelessly to elect Dems in '06!
That's the kind of leader we need in a president and a vice president!!
Obama/Clark '08!!!!
June 10, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
ugh!! that should be leadership!!
June 10, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been saying this to anyone that will listen. Senator Chuck
Hagel from Nebraska would be an excellent VP choice. (I know he's a Republican, but he's getting over it:) A two term senator with experience on four committees including Foreign Relations and Intelligence & Rules. A Vietnam Vet that won numerous awards for his service including two Purple Hearts. I think that picking Senator Hagel would show the type of bi-partisan administration that Senator Obama has been talking about and paint some Red States
Blue!
June 10, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me thinks Obama is actually putting together an entire cabinet rather than just VP so it might be time to open up the discussion:
SOS - Biden or Richardson
VP - Biden or Richardson
Labor - Dodd
DOJ - Edwards
DOD - Jack Reed, Nunn, Hagel, ...
DHHS - Dashle or Clinton
Treaury - Rubin
...
June 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've wondered whether this might not be a bad idea (but let's make sure we don't give away too many Senate seats!). Critics of the idea say it's bad politics: you take away the incentive for potential candidates for the cabinet seats to work hard for you, and provide a variety of targets for oppo research. More likely that he will send strong signals that certain people will be on his team, without formally naming them.
June 10, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Secretary of State- Bill Richardson
VP- Russ Feingold
Attorney General- John Edwards
I could handle flipping Edwards and Feingold, or Richardson and Feingold.
Looks damn solid to me.
Also, Sven at Silver State has done much work taking polls on Obama's VP and Cabinet.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/7/114434/4601/261/531632
June 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retired General James Jones, huh...
June 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scratch one off the list:
June 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/oh-guv-shermane.html
June 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about....
Kucinich?
If you want outside the box.
June 10, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kucinich: not so much out of the box as outside this particular astral plane.
June 10, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
to me Wes Clark is kind of tired and picked-over for the VP job. He lacks the dynamism to stand hip to hip with Barack Obama. I also don't think that a military selection would be as wise as someone with strong Economic creds. The world is celebrating Barack Obama as a change candidate who might just somehow bring Peace to at least some quarters of the World. I know that there are thousands like me who are sick of killing and War, which seems never-ending. With Dick Cheney and his trolls cooking up an October surprise a Military Vice President might make some sense, but the Economy is number one right now and has to be. We haven't seen weakness like this since the Great Depression, and the American people need a team in the White House who can respond first and foremost to their needs. Cheney might just not get his wish-
June 10, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tough choice for Obama. Almost anyone he picks will disappoint some people. OBama's a unique politician. It's hard to see who would live up to that.
June 10, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
VP = Michelle Obama!!!
John McCain will be quaking in his flipflops.
Talk about "out of the box"
June 10, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Outside the box"? Colin Powell. Both Defense and foreign relations pedigree, and his presence would certainly prove Obama's "bi-partisan" claims.
But, I don't believe Obama NEEDS to shore up any military cred with his VP choice. He'd do much better adding economic development and trade to the playbill -- and bring along a swing state in the bargain -- if he could.
June 10, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shinseki!? Wonderful idea!
Campaign slogan: *TWO* guys who had it right all along.
June 10, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama-Clinton is not a nightmare ticket - except for those who insist on holding resentments. Resentments are a total waste of time and energy. Get over it and get on with it.
Obama-Edwards would be awesome. Can you imagine eight years of Obama followed by eight years of Edwards? We might wind up with social justice and peace on Earth.
June 11, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whither Bob Wexler?!?
June 11, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS JUST IN!!!
FLASH -- it ain't gonna be Feingold! Nor Edwards! Which really is a shame, because either of them would compement Obama to make it just such a wonderful ticket.
Especially if you are very liberal, unlike U.S. voters.
Wes Clark would be a *really* exciting choice if he weren't so totally boring and unable to deliver even a single state.
June 11, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink