While we are all drumming our fingers waiting for the superdelegates to drop the final bomb on Clinton’s candidacy, we might as well engage in some idle speculation. So, anyone have any opinions on running mates, the size of Senate or House wins in November, or where either of the Clinton’s careers go from here?
Update [2008-5-8 16:8:1 by BooMan]: Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) has endorsed Obama.
Update [2008-5-8 18:40:33 by BooMan]: Rep. Rick Larson (D-WA) has endorsed Obama.
I’m all for the idea of a woman VP. That will help to attract the women voters who were backing Hillary out of a desire to see a lady in the White House. And it will drive the Republicans batshit crazy– they will be running their cranky old white guy against a black man and a woman- the contrast will be stunning.
I expect that Obama will devote a lot of effort to helping Democrats who are running for Congressional seats. His ability to drive turnout will make him a very popular figure among those who are seeking office.
Dollars to donuts, McCain will pick Kay Baily Hutchison as his running mate. And it’s a strong pick.
And it makes even happier to know that Edwards wouldn’t be the VP and have to try to get word in edgewise against Hutchinson during a debate.
Excuse me? Isn’t she like 160 years old?
Look, I wasn’t going to vote for McCain anyway, but if he picks Hutchinson for VP that just makes it double certain.
I can just see their official ticket portrait – – like American Gothic but instead of a pitchfork, McCain would have a shotgun and she’d have a sign with a picture of an aborted fetus on it and black tape over her mouth.
she’s 64.
She looks like she’s 160. I’d think McCain would want someone younger to balance out the ticket. Jindal’s name has been batted around.
Relatively youthful.
we tend to prefer illusions.
Clinton on the ticket raises the negatives.
People will.stay.home. Count on it…A McCain victory.
the Clintons’ time chart has expired. I’ve been writing this for over a year here within. Clinton’s campaign will implode, collapse. And if by fluke she’s the nominee, she will not win.
To have Clinton as a VP detracts from the Obama Administration – a former first lady and a former president occupying the most powerful VP office in history. What a betrayal. What an imposition.
Why not just let them have the whole thing, have Obama step aside?
This kinda talk – a hate-filled dream ticket – is silly. Identity politics does not solve the major issues.
. . . that Hillary should be the VP; merely that a woman should be. I would be all in favor of that idea . . . if there were any women in the party who could truly galvanize the country, with the right combination of experience, toughness, and humor. Yes, humor is very important in a female candidate. We need someone with a similar temperament to the late Texas Gov. Ann Richards (but who, unlike Richards, is married and has kids, thereby avoiding the GOP slime machine starting its whisper campaign of alleged lesbianism, which is ultimately what sank Richards).
Hillary is a policy wonk, and she has gone to great lengths to show us that she is tough, but she just doesn’t have that bold humor that is necessary to win the hearts and minds of the public. The other prominent female officeholders at the moment, such as Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, have public personae that are a bit too mom-ish; I know what they’re going for in terms of seeming kind-hearted, approachable, regular folks, but that type of persona doesn’t seem presidential.
I am a woman in my upper 20’s, and I’m confident that I’ll live to see a female president. But it may take a few election cycles before the right candidate shows up.
As for Obama’s VP choice . . . well, all along, I’ve said it should be Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, but I know he’s up for re-election this year, so he may turn down the offer. Perhaps if Obama picked an appealing military figure such as Wes Clark, and then, in, say, 2011, transferred Clark over to the position of SecDef (for which he will be eligible by that point, since he retired from the military in 2000, and you have to have been a civilian for ten years before you can lead the Dept. of Defense,) and picked Schweitzer as the replacement VP. Because of term limits, Schweitzer is barred from running for Governor a third time in 2012, so he needs to be VP before then, in order to keep from dropping off of the national visibility.
Ahh, but I’m getting ahead of myself . . .
interesting scenario….but l like schweitzer a lot now. why wait if he can be talked into it? sets him up nicely for a run in 2016, assuming obama’s a two-termer.
l think he’d get the “white working class”…aka… “redneck” vote, and would be solid hit in the mountain west/west. which obama’s got to have.
he’s obama’s match in intelligence and ability to speak the “truth”…which has been a big part of obama’s stump speeches, and, imo, is going to be a big part of the rhetoric during the GE.
It’s just that whenever I post anything about Schweitzer being the perfect choice (for all the EXACT reasons that you state,) somebody always comes along and says, “But he’s running for re-election, and he won’t give that up!” People are also quick to point out that Schweitzer’s brother Walter is a big Clinton supporter (to which I say, big whoop– look at the sister Congresswomen Linda and Loretta Sanchez of California– Linda is for Obama and Loretta is for Hillary. But I digress). My point in the post above is, in case Schweitzer can’t be talked into the VP slot this time around, perhaps he could be before the next election, thus still positioning him to be the nominee in 2016. He will make an excellent president someday, and, in the interim, the perfect VP for Obama, as they would both carry forward the message of change, and energize the country to get on its feet!
yeah, l’ve heard those arguments, and agree entirely w/ your sentiments….my response is always: “so? tell me the down side” ….<crickets>
Those poor Clintons. HRC will just have to move on and find some way to deal with the awful burden and shame that goes along with being a rich senator-for-life for the backwater shantytown that is New York State.
If she keeps up with the race-baiting remarks, even her senate seat may not be so rock-steady secure. She’s building up some bad karma. How are either her or Bill going to campaign in Harlem this time around and be taken seriously? She might have a primary challenger already laying plans…
She may have to graciously campaign for Obama just to save her senate seat come re-election time.
Agreed. She took the black vote for granted, and you can be sure they’ll want some payback for that calculation.
The strong working-class white people of newly re-gentrified Harlem. All 17 of them…Or maybe they’ll just Farar or Weinstein write really mean letters to the high-educated white people of Harlem.
I’m pretty sure Bill will go on to be that annoying used car salesman who does his own commercials at 2 AM
Like John Elway!
I don’t have any idle speculation to offer, but I thought this was a very pleasant story from today’s local birdcage liner.
Worlds unite: It’s not your average love story
Yeah it’s a feel-good piece of fluff, but right now that’s what I’m in the mood for.
While I’m pretty upset with the Clintons right now, if HRC stays in the Senate, she could have a great future ahead of her. She knows how to handle republicans and bless her heart, she’s a fighter (just not the right woman for President, IMO).
As for Bill, who gives a fuck what that asshole does. Someone suggested “car salesman”. Please. I wouldn’t buy so much as a bicycle off that cheap huckster.
I care what he does. In Colombia. In Kazakhstan. In Saudi Arabia. And so on.
Under the guise of “Idle Speculation”- When will the media decide that a discussion of a comparisson of
“Religious Supporters” become Newsworthy?
Lets see-
Obama- Wright
mccain- falwell, robertson, hagee, and the latest- parsley!
mccain wins hands down!
I keep hearing that if Hillary battles it out until the bitter end that she would hurt her legacy and possible future prospects in the Senate or as Governor, especially if it costs Obama the presidency. But, didn’t Ted Kennedy do just that in 1980, possibly killing off an already weakend Carter? And hasn’t he survived and become a lion of the Senate?
Teddy Kennedy’s campaign against Carter didn’t build up that much ill will for him at home. Hillary is going to have to do some serious fence-mending with some important constituencies in New York if she’s to avoid a significant primary challenge.
Agreed, but does she know that or care?
Obama should pick Senator Bob Graham to be his VP.
Read the rest at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/17/graham-i-never-wavered-i_n_91844.html
Graham is waaaaaaaay too old. His presence on the ticket would undermine Obama’s message of change.
I’ll tell you when Graham should’ve been the VP: on Gore’s ticket in 2000!
Or underscore it by saying age is not a barrier to change. And it would help combat the lack of experience. It would also protect Obama from claims of “agism” against McCain. 😉
I agree. “Change” doesn’t mean “under 50” or “no gray hair.” Graham’s smart and sensible enough to see the truth and honorable enough to follow through. He’s supposed to be quite the campaigner, the originator of the spending a day working alongside a constituent once a month or so.
He could have been president if he hadn’t had that inconveniently timed heart attack; AFAIK, his health is excellent now.
I think one of the main considerations in Obama’s VP pick should be “Grassy Knoll Insurance”. Someone to his left on most issues, but reasonable enough about it not to scare off voters during the election.
Grassy Knoll insurance. Food taster. Why does this not sound paranoid anymore?
So how’s Al Franken’s campaign doing? Wouldn’t it be a delight to have Limbaugh’s head explode twice (is that somehow physically possible?) with both Obama and Franken getting elected?
Sorry – I’ve never been very impressed with Franken. That would make me a bit nauseous!
I’m not that impressed with Franken, but consider the alternative.
I thought that Miller had the “testicular fortitude” to come out and endorse Obama before the election. It was sad to see his statement of “What will I tell my black constituents if I endorsed Clinton?” because it made him look like a weak-kneed weasel.
I fear this is going to the convention regardless of what the superdelegates do. Until she drops out, I’m a firm believer in Plan 2012. And this blatant race-baiting doesn’t suggest I’m wrong.
Hillary has rejected the new Michigan Delegate proposal worked out by Michigan Dems leaders
Chris Bowers has more
So. Perhaps she is not as interested in settling this thing as she lets on. At this point I think she has pretty much Hobson’s choice: this, or nothin’ (or something in between, but I doubt she’ll get anything better).
Here’s my question. If Michigan and the DNC and Obama say yes, and she gets more delegates in the deal, what is her explanation? That she thinks Obama should get zero delegates from Michigan?
That’s not going to fly. Reporters should call her on it.
about two months ago Sen Harkin said the Hillary campaign was running on fumes.
If it wasn’t then, it sure is now.
“The Clintons] have 17 field offices open in the six remaining primary states: seven in Oregon, five in Kentucky, four in West Virginia, one in Montana, and none in South Dakota or Puerto Rico. Obama, by contrast, has 44 field offices open: 17 in Oregon, 10 in West Virginia, seven in each of Kentucky and Montana, three in South Dakota, and none in Puerto Rico.”
I can tell you that people have gone to Puerto Rico to turn out the vote. They are all volunteers who are getting support as far as info from back in the states when we can get it for them. Otherwise they are contacting Family and Friends as most are form there originally.
The ultimate metaphor for this campaign:
Source