Who Should Be VP?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

Hillary is done as far as VP is concerned. She has said so many f'ed up things that it would be counter to Obama's message to have her as his VP. I would definitely keep Hillary at a distance and take my chances, she's f'ing crazy and Bill in the white house would be an unruly scene.

Colin Powell would be an interesting pick but I don't know how the America people would feel about two black men on the same ticket. Plus Powell's stock as fallen mightily since he gave that speech at the UN. I suspect the poor bastard was duped but then again he did do some serious dirty fork for the Bush administration. I wouldn't mind seeing him as the secretary of Defense and a shot at redeeming himself by overseeing the withdrawal from Iraq.

Who would I like to see as VP? I really would like to see Jim Webb. The dude is no bullshitter and has mad creds. He would bring VA home too.

As for the women vote, tell them what will happen with the Supreme Court if McCain wins and they'll line up. Sure he'll lose some of the Hillary crazy die-hard fans but the majority will support him.

Jindal is a nut job in terms of his beliefs but I'm sure glad to finally see some color in the GOP. I doubt he will be picked as VP because it would negate the whole experience attack flight pattern McCain has been using against Obama. If he picks Jindal McCain would simply look foolish to attack Obama when he has someone 10 years Obama's junior as his VP ("if your VP is ready at 37 I'm ready at 47").

Naturally I want McCain to pick Lieberman but alas he is not that dumb. Right now, there's no quicker way to unite the democratic party than to have Joe "Darth Sidious" Lieberman as McCain's running mate.

I suspect McCain will pick Romney to help him bring home Utah and Colorado.

Romney has deep, deep pockets too which won't hurt

Do you think McCain would lean toward picking a VP who will pull in certain voters but basically have nothing substantial to do as part of the administration (a la Quayle) or one with significant imput (Cheney)? Same with Obama.

Tim Pawlenty is another name that has been mentioned a lot.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Romney has deep, deep pockets too which won't hurt

Do you think McCain would lean toward picking a VP who will pull in certain voters but basically have nothing substantial to do as part of the administration (a la Quayle) or one with significant imput (Cheney)? Same with Obama.

Tim Pawlenty is another name that has been mentioned a lot.

In an ideal world you should pick someone who is on the same page as you, a "yes" man who knows when to say "no" and "you're wrong," but with billion dollar elections at stake it's all about winning. It's all about who can help you win more states. Of course you don't want to end up like that idiot John Kerry who picked Edwards even though he didn't want to pick him and then come out after he loses the election and whine about it. I lost all respect for John Kerry after that bitch ass move.

Tim Pawlenty is 48 and has less experience than Obama, so unless the experience pellets are going to be shelved I don't see it. Plus Minnesota is blue country so I don't think he can bring home Minnesota and he has as much national recognition as the turkey I had last thanksgiving.

[4mrusmc]

On a slightly different topic, could someone tell me what is Obama's position on (slavery) reparations is? I think that if it is what I think it is, it would doom his presidential hopes. That is a question I would love to hear him answer in a debate.

Regardless of who is running for prez, this is going to get ugly and nasty.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by 4mrusmc

On a slightly different topic, could someone tell me what is Obama's position on (slavery) reparations is? I think that if it is what I think it is, it would doom his presidential hopes. That is a question I would love to hear him answer in a debate.

Regardless of who is running for prez, this is going to get ugly and nasty.

Yeah, I'm not touching this one. I'm sure you've all seen the Chapelle Show's take.

[4mrusmc]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Yeah, I'm not touching this one. I'm sure you've all seen the Chapelle Show's take.

I just did a Google search, trying to stay away from the far right sites so that I could get an objective answer. And, all I found was a whole lot of nothing concrete.

But, no I haven't seen Chapelle's take, and would that necessarily give any insight to Obama's stance. That is unless he (Chapelle) has any inside knowledge about what Obama's real stance is.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 4mrusmc

On a slightly different topic, could someone tell me what is Obama's position on (slavery) reparations is? I think that if it is what I think it is, it would doom his presidential hopes. That is a question I would love to hear him answer in a debate.

Regardless of who is running for prez, this is going to get ugly and nasty.

Without doing any research as to what his specific stance, if any, on reparations, I can tell you he's not in favor it. At least not publicly.

First of all, you have to take into consideration that Obama is just as much white as he is black. And from what I've read from both of his books, while he understands our sordid history as it relates to slavery, he doesn't believe that in and of itself defines our country. So to highlight that, would certainly cut across some of his fundamental beliefs about our country.

Secondly, this would be political suicide. Plain and simple. With race being injected into this election so much over the past several months, why on God's green earth would he take a position that would further divide the electorate, or at least have the potential to do so.

Thirdly, Google Barack's position on Affirmative Action or at least the last response he gave in the most recent debate. Based on that, I think it's safe to assume where he stands on something like reparations.

[saden1]

I vaguely remember him saying he's not for it a while back (it was in a debate or some interview). i have no sources to back this up but the question was put to him and he said no from what I recall.

As for reperation itself, it's a dumb idea much like the gas tax holiday. It's a gimmick play by idiots like Sharpton to pander to some who believe that America still owes them 40 acres and a mule. It would do nothing for the black community. I would rather see more investment in education in inner city schools than hand out checks.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

It would do nothing for the black community. I would rather see more investment in education in inner city schools than hand out checks.

This is pretty much Obama's position. If -- if -- the government wants to do something, then invest more in inner city schools. I still maintain that's more of an opinion he holds than an actual policy position.

[SmootSmack]

Edwards against reparations; Obama suggest money for education instead - MSN Video

[The Goat]

I think McCain has a much more difficult job than Obama in terms of choosing a veep. It's relatively apparent what Obama could use most in a veep: someone w/ military background who can swing white, working-class and working poor voters (and who can help in economic policy). While I think Bloomberg would add some serious muscle to the Obama camp in terms of policy prowess (and the Jewish vote in Florida etc) it does nothing for him among white working class/poor voters. Jim Webb fits almost perfectly and could swing VA. Bob Kerrey or Chuck Hagel, both of Nebraska and extremely talented politicians, are less obvious but still interesting personalities.

With Mccain's veep the criterion is more complicated IMO. If the democrats actually run a 21st century campaign McCain will have to be very careful in who he chooses. First off, McCain needs somebody w/ a strong comprehension of economic policy. His admission that it is not a strong point for himself will be low lying fruit for tough campaign adds starting this summer, so he needs to bring someone to the table that can hit back hard. Then McCain has to choose someone to energize the religious right and I think it will be a tougher challenge than people expect. My maternal relatives are evangelical conservatives to the bone - they f'n hate McCain almost as much as they hate democrats, Europeans, most minorities and well... anybody who doesn't look, act, talk, and think the way they do. Romney, Huckleberry, or Paul could probably help but I don't really know how much (I don't understand the way they think). But the issue that could play biggest, depending on how clever the dems want to be, is that the veep on the republican ticket is essentially running for pres as well because of McCain's age and the immense stress of the oval office. For the first time ever the veep could see as much scrutiny as the pres, which means a much tougher road to travel IMO.

[12thMan]

I think Obama goes with either Kathleen Sebelius or Chuck Hagel.

Kathleen Sebelius, as has already been stated, can definitely help Obama with the female vote. Especially now that many feminist feel, rightfully or wrongfully, that their girl has been given a raw deal by the media and the good old boy network trying to elbow Hillary out of the race. Or at least so they claim. So someone like Sebelius may go a long way to heal the rift between Obama and many Hillary supporters who have vowed to support McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. One other plus to her being a Governor and not a Senator is, the last time two Senators were on a winning ticket was Kennedy and LBJ; 1960

Chuck Hagel. Like Sebelius, Hagel has that mid-west appeal coming from Nebraska. He's one of the few Republicans that have been very vocal in opposing the war and has been equally critical of the Bush Administration's handling of it.

On the other hand, he has publicly praised Obama for some of his foreign policy ideas. Also, I think Obama would further demonstrate his desire to change Washington, as he puts it, by having a bi-partisan ticket with Hagel as a running mate. This would shake up the establishment on so many levels and give Obama instant credibility. The downside to this ticket is, of course, the second man in charge is Republican and that can't sit well with top brass Dems.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think Obama goes with either Kathleen Sebelius or Chuck Hagel.

Kathleen Sebelius, as has already been stated, can definitely help Obama with the female vote. Especially now that many feminist feel, rightfully or wrongfully, that their girl has been given a raw deal by the media and the good old boy network trying to elbow Hillary out of the race. Or at least so they claim. So someone like Sebelius may go a long way to heal the rift between Obana and many Hillary supporters who have vowed to support McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. One other plus to her being a Governor and not a Senator is, the last time two Senators were on a winning ticket was Kennedy and LBJ; 1960

Chuck Hagel. Like Sebelius, Hagel has that mid-west appeal coming from Nebraska. He's one of the few Republicans that have been very vocal in opposing the war and has been equally critical of the Bush Administration's handling of it.

On the other hand, he has publicly praised Obama for some of his foreign policy ideas. Also, I think Obama would further demonstrate his desire to change Washington, as he puts it, by having a bi-partisan ticket with Hagel as a running mate. This would shake up the establishment on so many levels and give Obama instant credibility. The downside to this ticket is, of course, the second man in charge is Republican and that can't sit well with top brass Dems.

Very goods points IMO. I wonder if Sebelius would make some Hillary supporters feel they're being patronized? Anyway, her most ardent supporters may not join the Obama camp no matter what. Hagel is pretty fascinating to me. I get the sense he's at an age/stage of life where the petty partisanship no longer influences his policy, and yet because he is not a sycophant he cannot become a heavyweight in the Senate. I think if the white house or a serious cabinet position is not on the horizon he will bow out of political life.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think Obama goes with either Kathleen Sebelius or Chuck Hagel.

Kathleen Sebelius, as has already been stated, can definitely help Obama with the female vote. Especially now that many feminist feel, rightfully or wrongfully, that their girl has been given a raw deal by the media and the good old boy network trying to elbow Hillary out of the race. Or at least so they claim. So someone like Sebelius may go a long way to heal the rift between Obana and many Hillary supporters who have vowed to support McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. One other plus to her being a Governor and not a Senator is, the last time two Senators were on a winning ticket was Kennedy and LBJ; 1960

Chuck Hagel. Like Sebelius, Hagel has that mid-west appeal coming from Nebraska. He's one of the few Republicans that have been very vocal in opposing the war and has been equally critical of the Bush Administration's handling of it.

On the other hand, he has publicly praised Obama for some of his foreign policy ideas. Also, I think Obama would further demonstrate his desire to change Washington, as he puts it, by having a bi-partisan ticket with Hagel as a running mate. This would shake up the establishment on so many levels and give Obama instant credibility. The downside to this ticket is, of course, the second man in charge is Republican and that can't sit well with top brass Dems.

And what about McCain's veep?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I think McCain has a much more difficult job than Obama in terms of choosing a veep. It's relatively apparent what Obama could use most in a veep: someone w/ military background who can swing white, working-class and working poor voters (and who can help in economic policy). While I think Bloomberg would add some serious muscle to the Obama camp in terms of policy prowess (and the Jewish vote in Florida etc) it does nothing for him among white working class/poor voters. Jim Webb fits almost perfectly and could swing VA. Bob Kerrey or Chuck Hagel, both of Nebraska and extremely talented politicians, are less obvious but still interesting personalities.

With Mccain's veep the criterion is more complicated IMO. If the democrats actually run a 21st century campaign McCain will have to be very careful in who he chooses. First off, McCain needs somebody w/ a strong comprehension of economic policy. His admission that it is not a strong point for himself will be low lying fruit for tough campaign adds starting this summer, so he needs to bring someone to the table that can hit back hard. Then McCain has to choose someone to energize the religious right and I think it will be a tougher challenge than people expect. My maternal relatives are evangelical conservatives to the bone - they f'n hate McCain almost as much as they hate democrats, Europeans, most minorities and well... anybody who doesn't look, act, talk, and think the way they do. Romney, Huckleberry, or Paul could probably help but I don't really know how much (I don't understand the way they think). But the issue that could play biggest, depending on how clever the dems want to be, is that the veep on the republican ticket is essentially running for pres as well because of McCain's age and the immense stress of the oval office. For the first time ever the veep could see as much scrutiny as the pres, which means a much tougher road to travel IMO.

I mildly disagree with a couple of points you make. Very respectfully I might add.

This idea that Bloomberg can add something to a ticket, I just don't see it. First of all, no one really knows what his appeal is outside of New York. Sure he's the Mayor of the largest city, has deep pockets, and he's pretty damn smart, but that doesn't always translate to votes. Which leads me to my second point about Bloomberg, if his being Mayor of New York would translate to votes in Florida, then Rudy Giuliani would have never been forced to drop out of the race so early. Rudy had a one state strategy - win Florida. If he couldn't carry Florida with all of his connections to the Jewish vote, then what good was he afterall? Well guess what happened, McCain took his ass to the cleaners in Florida, and Bloomberg took pause.

If Rudy, with all of his popularity couldn't swing enough of the Jewish vote to his favor, I have serious doubts whether or not Bloomberg could do any better.

Secondly, the idea that Obama has white working class voter problem is seriously overstated. It's just not accurate. This is something that has plagued the Dems for years, it's not specific to Obama. Obama does have an up hill battle with a very specific white voter, within a specific demographic. But to suggest that he's not getting white working classs people, male or female, to vote for him just isn't true.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by The Goat

And what about McCain's veep?

I think McCain wil go with Charlie Crist or Jindal.