Who do you want for vee-pee?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
36 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
not Hillary
Anyone But Clinton.
Ain’t that the truth!
Gen. Wes Clark, just to make sure Obama wins. Then, after four years of Obamanation, the Republicans will realize he’s unbeatable and run some absurd sacrificial lamb, a la Bob Dole. Then Clark will step down and Russ Feingold will replace him on the ticket.
I’d be alright with Clark if not for his lame excuse-making for Clinton over Iran when he did Bill Maher’s show. Clark, from that point on, was a court jester.
Richardson, Kaine or Sebelius.
Yeah, Sebelius.
Not Kaine! Noooo!!!
Don’t get me wrong, I think he’d be EXCELLENT, but the Lt. Gov is repub. At least Kaine can appoint a replacement if Obama chose Webb.
Richardson. He’s the natural choice for three reasons: his general competence, his ability to swing Colorado and New Mexico to the Dems and help make TX competitive, and the fact that he is allied with the Democratic establishment, which gives him credits on that side of the party, which in the end will have to be placated. Moreover, I think he assures Big Business. Big Business runs this country. I think a big reason why Obama has been pussy footing around on specifics is that he has to keep them off his back until he’s election and can establish an independent power base. That’s extremely frustrating to the Left, but probably reflects the true balance of power in this country. We aren’t going to change that balance over night.
As much as I like Richardson, he is not a candidate. His extremely poor showing in any presidential debate before he withdrew from the race proved his is hopeless as a national candidate. While I know he is brilliant, he had hoof and mouth disease through out his campaign worse than Biden ever has.
i think dan quayle proves the vp choice might not mean as much as we would like it to mean….
If we go back to the good old days of do-nothing VPs, I nominate me. Good salary, private jet, great retirement benefits, anonymity – I’m perfect for it. I’ll even promise to never run for President.
And any right wing assassin would have serious second thoughts about shooting Obama with me as next in line.
Janet Napolitano, the current governor of Arizona, would be a great
I would like Barbara Boxer, but I wouldn’t like Ahnold appointing her replacement. Chuck Hagel, if he’d be willing to take it, would be a bold choice – the whole post-partisan thing – that could help Obama with the Bubba & Merle vote. Vice President Kucinich would assure that Barack was never assassinated, but ultimately I hope Obama nominates someone who, like him, will return respect and dignity to the executive branch, something that’s been lacking for most of my adult life.
Oops – that was supposed to be a general comment, not a reply. My apologies.
Steve Clemons would just love to see Obama choose Hagel, who’s been critical of Bush’s Iraq policy, and is considered a moderate R. But I think he may have ties to the voting mahine industry(Diebold?).
Right now, I’m thinking of 3 folks: Govs. Sebelius or Richardson or Sen. Webb. They’d be incredible candidates. I’m probably leaning toward Gov. Richardson because he’s an interior West governor as well as has an ability to get segments of the Latino vote. I’d be so excited with that ticket. But Sebelius and Webb also have their strengths, too, and I’d be just as proud and excited to work my behind off for them, too.
Either way, the ticket would represent change and a fresh, effective way of governing. Be still my heart!
first choice, obama
second choice, clark
third choice, richardson
Anna, can I ask a serious question?
I’ve seen you make several comments indicating your preference for Clinton, and I’m curious as to why. My bottom line for Obama is because he’s building a massive group of “we’re all in this together” people to invigorate the party and the nation. What’s yours?
Thanks-
my reason is i read her position papers and i read his….i listened to what they had to say as to their plans for iraq, afghanistan, healthcare, and energy….i watched very carefully the mtv piece with the two of them being interviewed by the young iraq vets….and i continually come away thinking clinton is far and away the better candidate with better, more progressive, more articulate plans and ideas….to me she comes across as more intelligent, has more of a grasp on the issues, and has more balls….time and again i am disappointed by his actual plans for things….i’ve never been enamored of his style or his presence and i’ve been puzzled by so many people’s response to him….i was more enamored of jesse jackson back in the day as far as style and message….i admit some of his speeches have been great and im excited that a black man might actually get elected president although i will believe it when i see it…i admit clinton has run the most fucked up campaign i could imagine…but the campaign will be history and when its time to actually put thru an agenda, i like clintons better….one example is people laud the idea that obama hasnt taken corporate money so he isnt beholden to them when dealing with healthcare….but his actual healthcare plan could have been written by the healthcare industry….i could comment on many other things and criticise both of them for things they have done or havent done in the past but im focusing on what they will do in the future and all i have to go on is their plans….and their grasp of issues….and in my opinion clinton has it all over obama.
but ill take either one. and i’ll feel equally good about voting for them….much better than i felt 4 years ago voting for kerry.
thanks for asking
Thanks for such a thorough, well stated case.
i agree with this analysis. well said, thanks. politically it may be the thing to do once PA is decided, and I hope that it goes to obama. i know booman has the thing for hilary but i don’t give a damn, as a democratic bourgeious candidate she’s totally capable and competent for either spot (i do hate her advisors and major donors), i just won’t vote for her as Pres because it’s a Republic and i’m not into dynasties of the clinton and bush families…
while i don’t think that voters give too much of a darn who the VP candidate is, i’d like to see John Edwards who in my book is the real vice president of the US already anyways get the spot. or else as the attorney general, he’ll be dynamic wherever he is….I assume that’s one reason he’s holding out on endorsing one or the other. Richardson might make a good secretary of the Interior and start the clean up on that mess. alas, Biden may be Secr of State, never liked him when I lived in DE and still don’t like him. same old imperial policies….
there are indeed so many messes, really we need a Hercules to clean the stables of this rotten and corrupt central gov’t.
and obama-clinton or obama-edwards ticket would sweep 40 states. (whoever mccain chooses as VP will likely end up as president before 4-8 years is up, just think about that…..)
I want John Edwards.
Dodd or Feingold both appeal to my idealism. As much as I still don’t really like Joe Biden, there’s somehting about that pairing that speaks to me. Richardson spoke out, props for that, and I like your pick of Jack Reed. Welstone’s dead, The Napolitano/Sibelius/Clinton nexus is odd.. not my thing but I get it (I want soneone clser to the San Francisco liberal I thought Pelosi could be).
I think Obama should double down on charisma (or at least follow suit), however he does it. Jim Webb would be serious dynamite. A very interesting choice would be Wes Walz (so-called Bush Dog, former Master Sargeant, high school football coach and well inside the tradition of Minnesota prairie populiusts whose historic region he represents.
I want Edwards fiery voice, (note: it is very fair to say that I still want to vote for Dean for the big office) I want the systemic critique. The legitimate paradigm shift thinking and not a poseur. I guess Edwards is the closest we’ve got.
I have been an Edwards supporter and I hope that his talents are tapped for a prominent role in an Obama administration. I’d rather see him as AG, Bushco has left such a mess there, that it will take someone with vision to set the office back on the right track.
At this point, I like Richardson or Sibelius better for VP.
Oh, and while we’re putting together Obama’s cabinet, could we appoint Bill as UN Ambassador? It would keep him busy in NYC. Not only could he hear himself talk all day, but he could get world leaders to listen to him too. Also, Hillary would know where he was at night.
silda didnt know where elliot was
easy ot get lost in nyc
and there are so many bad things to do
I’ll wait to see McCain’s choice for VP. Sure won’t be Bush’s help mate, Condi.
Her comments on Obama’s speech on Wright and race relations nixed that.
Condi sees race relations in the country as the legacy of slavery – a birth defect. (Condi uses the birth metaphor quite a lot, gets her into trouble..last was birth pangs).
i wouldnt be surprised if it was condi, recent comments aside.
then a McCain-Rice ticket will fit the moniker:
McSame as Bush.
joe lieberman- a true “independent”
Not anymore he’s not.
Lieberman has been baby-sitting McCain. I expect he’ll declare his true colors, soon.
Today he had a senior moment – Lieberman likens McCain to JFK
In November, if Lieberman does not depart the party, he should be shoved.
Loserman is a slimeball
I wanted Edwards after he bowed out but I believe as someone else said in this thread, he would be a fabulous AG. Maybe put the LAW back into Law and Order.
I would take Dodd, Feinstein, Boxer. Richardson may be smart but he is not very articulate at getting his points across as we all saw in the debates.
Senator Sherrod Brown. I really don’t think much of the others who are frequently mentioned for the vice presidency.
I don’t even pretend to know enough to make an intelligent guess.
I keep thinking Wesley Clarke for Veep. On the surface I believe he would bring a lot of military and foreign policy cred that would be tough for the Rethugs to challenge. But, I haven’t really studied him, so there may be some reasons why he would be inappropriate. Just keep getting that gut feeling (hopefully not like Chertoff).
A few have suggested Feinstein…you might want to check her record. She does a great job of publicly saying one thing and behind the scenes doing another. FISA for example. Plus Feinstein is about as old as McCain. Doesn’t look it or act, but still something to consider.
I really like Hagel, but on most issues other than Iraq, he’s very conservative. Obama or Clinton, hopefully the former, will likely nominate two Supremes in the near future. Don’t know how Hagel might influence that in the White House or via his control in the Senate.
Feingold…like him a lot. Outspoken, provocative, and pushes progressive issues. Strong on FISA matters. Excellent choice. Rethugs will throw the liberal label in heavy doses with an Obama/Feingold ticket.
Edwards – my original candidate. I want this guy in the Justice Department, my only concern is, he has never been on the bench, but I believe given his passion and campaign platform he would be perfect. I’d much rather see him there than VP. Not that VP is beyond his reach, but for now, I see the AG having a far more important role than the VP.
Sorry, no Clinton vote here nor do I think Obama will choose her unless the party absolutely forces him into, which I doubt he would acquiesce to without one hell of a fight.