Who would you want to see as VP

[ShadowBoxing]

You can assume anyone in the race becomes the Pres.Nominee.

[Steve Rogers]

Wesley Clark.

[StorminNorman]

J.C. Watts

[ShadowBoxing]

Originally Posted by Steve Rogers

Wesley Clark.

[ron burgundy]I'm with you 100% of the time, all the time, with that. And that does make good sense [/ron burgundy]

[rdh007]

For Clinton; Clark if it's McCain or Edwards if it's Romney (someone's gotta battle that hair)

For Obama; Mark Warner or Tim Kaine or *drumroll* Chuck Hagel

For McCain; I'd like Lieberman but it'll be Giuliani (the 9/11 ticket) or some Southern fascist

For Romney; Fred Thompson or Huckabee (though Huckabee would in a fit of irony probably think of Romney as a cultist)

[Malice]

You are ALL incorrect!


McCain - Huckabee on VP, but Guiliani will be Homeland Security and Lieberman, Sec of State

Romney - no idea

Clinton - no idea

Obama - no idea on VP, but Edwards might be Attorney General

[rdh007]

Originally Posted by Malice

You are ALL incorrect!


McCain - Huckabee on VP, but Guiliani will be Homeland Security and Lieberman, Sec of State

Now there's a war waiting to happen.

[cookiva]

Originally Posted by Malice

You are ALL incorrect!


McCain - Huckabee on VP, but Guiliani will be Homeland Security and Lieberman, Sec of State

Romney - no idea

Clinton - no idea

Obama - no idea on VP, but Edwards might be Attorney General

Exactly what I'm thinking.

Romney - No idea

Clinton - Wes Clark or Evan Bayh

Obama - Honestly starting to think that it WILL be Tim Kaine. For some reason, I just see it....

[The Senator]

This is who I want, though I don't see them as actually getting the position:

Clinton: Barack Obama, solely for the reason that our party NEEDS to win this election, and we cannot go into the election divided... especially if we're up against Walnuts McCain.

Obama: Brian Schweitzer. Two charismatic populists on one ticket?! Well I never...

[cookiva]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

This is who I want, though I don't see them as actually getting the position:

Clinton: Barack Obama, solely for the reason that our party NEEDS to win this election, and we cannot go into the election divided... especially if we're up against Walnuts McCain.

Obama: Brian Schweitzer. Two charismatic populists on one ticket?! Well I never...

See. thats true, but threre is too much bad blood right now between them.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by cookiva

See. thats true, but threre is too much bad blood right now between them.

I think Hillary is running scared at this point. Huge negatives coming out of South Carolina, McCain almost sealing the deal with independent voters... despite all the bickering back and forth, I see her people trying to work some sort of arrangement with Obama. "If I win, I'll take you on as my VP, but if you win... don't feel obligated to do the same." And why wouldn't Obama take it? His chances of going somewhere else in politics is over after he loses the nomination.

Also, you have to remember... this is politics. People say things, do things, act a certain way throughout a campaign or a debate on a bill, but at the end of it all, they learn to suck it up and go on with their lives. The public is seeing an all-out brawl; in actuality, I've heard the interactions between her and his campaign are quite civil on a personal level, snubs and handshakes aside.

The other thing is, the inevitability of McCain winning the nomination and possibly the presidency will make the leaders of the Democratic Party sit Hillary down and say, "look, this is what you have to do, we're not going to let you screw this one up." I think she wants to win, and I think she knows that Clinton-Boring '08 isn't going to do it for her.

But... I said this is how I want this to play out, and would crap myself if it actually happened.

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Malice

You are ALL incorrect!


McCain - Huckabee on VP, but Guiliani will be Homeland Security and Lieberman, Sec of State

Romney - no idea

Clinton - no idea

Obama - no idea on VP, but Edwards might be Attorney General

We can't be incorrect since the title is "Who Would You WANT To See"

If we are going to guess WHO the VP's are:

McCain will be either Huckabee or Gov. Crist

[Chris B]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

I think Hillary is running scared at this point. Huge negatives coming out of South Carolina, McCain almost sealing the deal with independent voters... despite all the bickering back and forth, I see her people trying to work some sort of arrangement with Obama. "If I win, I'll take you on as my VP, but if you win... don't feel obligated to do the same." And why wouldn't Obama take it? His chances of going somewhere else in politics is over after he loses the nomination.

Also, you have to remember... this is politics. People say things, do things, act a certain way throughout a campaign or a debate on a bill, but at the end of it all, they learn to suck it up and go on with their lives. The public is seeing an all-out brawl; in actuality, I've heard the interactions between her and his campaign are quite civil on a personal level, snubs and handshakes aside.

The other thing is, the inevitability of McCain winning the nomination and possibly the presidency will make the leaders of the Democratic Party sit Hillary down and say, "look, this is what you have to do, we're not going to let you screw this one up." I think she wants to win, and I think she knows that Clinton-Boring '08 isn't going to do it for her.

But... I said this is how I want this to play out, and would crap myself if it actually happened.

The problem is having a woman at the top of the ticket and a black guy at the bottem seems too risky. It has always seemed to me that Hillary and Obama would both go with a white guy to balance the ticket.

[Chris B]

Evan Bayh.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by Chris B

The problem is having a woman at the top of the ticket and a black guy at the bottem seems too risky. It has always seemed to me that Hillary and Obama would both go with a white guy to balance the ticket.

Keep in mind, that's what I want to see.

BUT... If it's Clinton vs. McCain, and McCain already has an edge over her with the independents, what would she have to lose? Obama as a VP could bring in a good chunk of the supporters he (BO) already had. And I would be under the impression that, given the fact she wants to win, she'll let Obama overshadow her campaign more than her husband has throughout the primaries.

[Chris B]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

Keep in mind, that's what I want to see.

BUT... If it's Clinton vs. McCain, and McCain already has an edge over her with the independents, what would she have to lose? Obama as a VP could bring in a good chunk of the supporters he (BO) already had. And I would be under the impression that, given the fact she wants to win, she'll let Obama overshadow her campaign more than her husband has throughout the primaries.

But would a woman/black guy ticket turn off independents due to the whole "too much diversity too soon" argument? I think that it would make sense for either one to pick a white guy to simply serve as a transition to a non-white man President.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by Chris B

But would a woman/black guy ticket turn off independents due to the whole "too much diversity too soon" argument? I think that it would make sense for either one to pick a white guy to simply serve as a transition to a non-white man President.

It raises an interesting question, but I think there's a notable difference. Both candidates are well known and have transcended race and gender expectations during this contest. There's a difference between Hillary picking Obama and Hillary picking James Clyburn, or Obama picking Hillary and Obama picking Janet Napolitano. Hillary and Obama have name recognition and Americans already have an opinion of them one way or another, whereas Clyburn and Napolitano need to become better known among the American people. Putting an unknown minority on a ticket would draw more attention to that candidate's campaign.

I only see it happening if Clinton barely becomes the nominee, which is looking more and more likely since she's lost her lead in Massachusetts, and California and other western states are starting to tighten with each day. Obama would be stupid to pick her as a running mate, because she doesn't add anything. Obama would be the one to pick "generic white male with executive experience from some place other than the Northeast."

Would it be risky? Yes. Would it be stupid? Not entirely. Would it be bold, attention getting, and a way to generate excitement to the ticket? Yes. The Democratic Party would be wise to break a boundary this time around, because if Clinton-Boring loses in 2008, it's going to be incredibly hard to pick the party up from a loss they should have been able to avoid. If Clinton-Obama loses in 2008, then they can at least say they united the party, they did something groundbreaking... and the strategy simply didn't work.

Like I said, what more would she have to lose?

[cookiva]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

It raises an interesting question, but I think there's a notable difference. Both candidates are well known and have transcended race and gender expectations during this contest. There's a difference between Hillary picking Obama and Hillary picking James Clyburn, or Obama picking Hillary and Obama picking Janet Napolitano. Hillary and Obama have name recognition and Americans already have an opinion of them one way or another, whereas Clyburn and Napolitano need to become better known among the American people. Putting an unknown minority on a ticket would draw more attention to that candidate's campaign.

I only see it happening if Clinton barely becomes the nominee, which is looking more and more likely since she's lost her lead in Massachusetts, and California and other western states are starting to tighten with each day. Obama would be stupid to pick her as a running mate, because she doesn't add anything. Obama would be the one to pick "generic white male with executive experience from some place other than the Northeast."

Would it be risky? Yes. Would it be stupid? Not entirely. Would it be bold, attention getting, and a way to generate excitement to the ticket? Yes. The Democratic Party would be wise to break a boundary this time around, because if Clinton-Boring loses in 2008, it's going to be incredibly hard to pick the party up from a loss they should have been able to avoid. If Clinton-Obama loses in 2008, then they can at least say they united the party, they did something groundbreaking... and the strategy simply didn't work.

Like I said, what more would she have to lose?

The presidency?

[Chris B]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

It raises an interesting question, but I think there's a notable difference. Both candidates are well known and have transcended race and gender expectations during this contest. There's a difference between Hillary picking Obama and Hillary picking James Clyburn, or Obama picking Hillary and Obama picking Janet Napolitano. Hillary and Obama have name recognition and Americans already have an opinion of them one way or another, whereas Clyburn and Napolitano need to become better known among the American people. Putting an unknown minority on a ticket would draw more attention to that candidate's campaign.

I only see it happening if Clinton barely becomes the nominee, which is looking more and more likely since she's lost her lead in Massachusetts, and California and other western states are starting to tighten with each day. Obama would be stupid to pick her as a running mate, because she doesn't add anything. Obama would be the one to pick "generic white male with executive experience from some place other than the Northeast."

Would it be risky? Yes. Would it be stupid? Not entirely. Would it be bold, attention getting, and a way to generate excitement to the ticket? Yes. The Democratic Party would be wise to break a boundary this time around, because if Clinton-Boring loses in 2008, it's going to be incredibly hard to pick the party up from a loss they should have been able to avoid. If Clinton-Obama loses in 2008, then they can at least say they united the party, they did something groundbreaking... and the strategy simply didn't work.

Like I said, what more would she have to lose?

Hillary has lost her leads in California and Massachusetts? I'm surprised, not so much with MS, as I am CA.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by cookiva

The presidency?

Well I mentioned that as a possibility. But if she's up against McCain... why not? It at least puts the focus on her campaign.

[cookiva]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

Well I mentioned that as a possibility. But if she's up against McCain... why not? It at least puts the focus on her campaign.

No, I was just joking. What it does is it gives her the change card. She basically steals Obama's platform of "change" to use against McCain, which is what she would have to have against him.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by cookiva

No, I was just joking. What it does is it gives her the change card. She basically steals Obama's platform of "change" to use against McCain, which is what she would have to have against him.

I figured you were joking, but I have to respond. I always have to respond.

[rdh007]

I'd think she'd have to offer Obama something to do as VP. My guess would be a strong role in foreign relations, but that's only a guess.

[Venom'sDad]

I think the question is would he offer her the VP or any other position in his cabinet... I say he will not in both cases, because he wants to distance himself from the Clintons and their way of doing things, at the same time, have people he can trust... as he said tonight; and yes, that was a swipe at her.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Chris B

Hillary has lost her leads in California and Massachusetts? I'm surprised, not so much with MS, as I am CA.

Actually if you look up at RealClearPolitics which pretty much shows every relevant poll, she is still in the lead in both Massachusetts and California.