Will Obama Give Hillary the VP Nod?

Advocate wrote:

It looks as though Hill will get the nomination, and the rumor is that she will pick Evan Bayh. Bayh is a moderate Dem, well spoken, very presentable, carrying little baggage, and smart.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Look for a Southern Democrat with moderate views.

Ford might be a good candidate, but she will not pick him. As a female, she has all the minority feeble-minded vote she needs. Why tempt fate with another minority candidate for VP?

It's too bad she can't turn to an Al Gore in 2008 - he would be perfect.

Instead, look to moderate Democrats in NC, SC, GA, TN, FL, or Alabama.

Maybe even a Texas Lefty.

As much as she might need the Heartland, she needs the South more.

No one votes for VP and so it is all about the fringes. Nevertheless, Hillary will need a mollifier from the South.

Edward is far too Leftist. Obama brings her nothing she does not already have.

Howard Ford would be a brilliant pick, but she will not avail herself of him because she is afraid that a Woman/Black ticket cannot win.

Byrd is way too old but she might otherwise consider him.

Maybe Richardson. Clearly he attracts the latino vote, and he's a man with a Euro name.

Of the current crop, Richardson looks most appealing, but I doubt he will be the pick.

Hillary will be looking for a staid old Euro Democrat from the South.

If they are out there, they have a chance.

Of course she may make an incredible political blunder by selecting someone like Obama or Richardson...I certainly hope she does, but I suspect she will not.

No one really cares who the VP candidate may be, unless that person is an a-h*le, defective, or a criminal. We vote for the president, not the vice-president.

To the extent a VP candidate helps it will only be when the candidate is a favored son of places like Florida, Ohio, or New Mexico.

Good night Irene.

0 Replies

Mark Warner is a Southern Democrat who hasn't been mentioned -- he had a ton of buzz in the lead-up to the campaign and then decided not to run, but he's a pretty formidable presence.

Not much experience though, and I do think she'd want experience to balance her lack thereof. Unless she's completely sold people on the "First Lady = presidential experience" thing and has effectively added those 8 years to her resume.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

not a "what he said" here, but a "what he didn't do"... which is that he didn't bother to vote for or against the labeling of the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization last week.

that's disappointing.

Yes, I thought that was disappointing too, though I dont think that au1929 minded.

On the other hand, at least he didnt actually vote for it - like Hillary did.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Mark Warner is a Southern Democrat who hasn't been mentioned -- he had a ton of buzz in the lead-up to the campaign and then decided not to run, but he's a pretty formidable presence.

He's running for the Senate in the race to fill John Warner's seat. (He announced last month).

0 Replies

Oh, I missed that.

Does that necessarily preclude a VP slot?

Yeah, of the three current senators in the big 7 (Hillary Obama Edwards/ Giuliani Romney McCain Thompson) , Hillary was the only "yea" -- both Obama and McCain skipped it. (Of the non-big-7 candidates, Brownback voted "yea" and Dodd and Biden boted "nay.")

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Mark Warner is a Southern Democrat who hasn't been mentioned -- he had a ton of buzz in the lead-up to the campaign and then decided not to run, but he's a pretty formidable presence.

Not much experience though, and I do think she'd want experience to balance her lack thereof. Unless she's completely sold people on the "First Lady = presidential experience" thing and has effectively added those 8 years to her resume.

Warner is a terrific leader. He is almost beloved for his fine work as governor of Virginia. He was a successful business man and is very pragmatic. As far as I know, there are no skeletons. He would be a fine running-mate pick.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Oh, I missed that.

Does that necessarily preclude a VP slot?

Well, Virginia would be a crucial Senate win. Warner has an extremely good shot in winning it, while any other Democrat would have slim chances. Especially if that other Democrat would have to suddenly step in mid next year after Warner drops his bid in favour of the Veep spot. So I would think the DNC would strongly lean on him - and on the Presidential nominee - to discourage that scenario.

0 Replies

I see, yeah.

Didn't Kerry campaign for Prez and Senate simultaneously? He may have been more of a Senate shoo-in though.

Here we go:

Quote:

In the months leading up to the election, there had been much discussion of the special election that would have been held to fill Mr. Kerry's Senate seat, had he won the presidency. It would have been the state's first open Senate seat since 1984, when Mr. Kerry won the race to succeed the ailing Paul Tsongas.

Among those who had been talked about for the position were Representatives Barney Frank, Edward J. Markey and Martin T. Meehan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04sbmassachusetts.html

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
not a "what he said" here, but a "what he didn't do"... which is that he didn't bother to vote for or against the labeling of the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization last week.

that's disappointing.

Yes, I thought that was disappointing too, though I dont think that au1929 minded.

On the other hand, at least he didnt actually vote for it - like Hillary did.

yeah, that's a little perplexing. like to hear her give a reason.

re: harold ford. the word in tennessee is that he wants to run for governor.

0 Replies

Some friends in TN say that people there are a bit leery of Ford. For one thing, a lot of corruption has been tied to his family. And during his losing campaign, I think there were allegations that he is a bit of a playboy.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

And during his losing campaign, I think there were allegations that he is a bit of a playboy.

Ack! Please dont.

In 2004, Ford was well placed through much of the race, leading his Republican opponent until near the very end. His downturn coincided with a political ad run in Tennessee by the RNC that will go down into history as a shameful return to race-baiting.

The Republican campaign had unearthed that Ford was one of more than 3,000 people who had attended a 2005 Playboy-sponsored Super Bowl party. So they ran a TV ad. In the ad, a platinum blonde with no visible clothes on acting as a Playboy bunny says, "I met Harold Ford at a Playboy party." She then winks at the screen and curves her hand into a phone gesture, mouthing, "Call me Harold!"

Now consider the implications. This the South. For a black man to be seen flirting with a white woman would have been reason for a lynching just two or three generations ago. If there is one visceral prejudice that survives more strongly than all, and there certainly more than elsewhere, it's that of the lustful, sexual black man who's after "our" women. Primitive though this instinctive gut reaction is, it's there, still, widely spread.

Meanwhile, it's not like Ford ever had any relationship with a Playboy chick or anything; there was no there there. Rightly, even former Republican Senator William Cohen called it "a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment."

But it did its job. His numbers dived, and the Republicans won the race.

A video of the ad and some links are here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010545.php

0 Replies

nimh's pretty much spot on.

i was in east tenn. for three months last year for a family illness. watched it happen.

i thought it was interesting, but not surprising, how the rep talking points waved across the small town where i was.

especially the "ford family corruption". nobody seemed to know what exactly the corruption was... but "he's a crook" came out of more than one mouth anyway. 'spose i could google it...

the "call me" ad was the real had a real impact. for the obvious reason.

parts of the new south aren't all that new i'm afraid. Confused

0 Replies

Traditionally, the VP pick was expected to carry the State he/she was from. That this tactic doesn't always work (Witness Edwards in '04, carry NC? Nyet.) goes without saying.

Look for the Dems to start looking at straw polls to find a State that might go Rep, but is iffy. Choose someone from there to pick up the State. Nothing new in that tactic. But, you never know.... Senator Clinton might pull a fast one on the Democratic Party Leadership (Who has been behind her, pushing all the way, since she stepped onto the Senate floor.)

Halfback

0 Replies

Tonight is the night to revive this one, I think. Very Happy

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

Tonight is the night to revive this one, I think.

LOL...indeed it is.

Here's an example of where my predictions were influenced by the general and fairly broad consensus that Hillary would end up as the candidate. Of course, that could still happen, but it now seems to me that Obama might be able to achieve some of the things that many of us initially hoped. That's very good news to me. I'm really pleased as punch with the results including Huckabee's win.

But two elements in all of this discourage me. First, I have come to conclude that cultural resistance to a female president is deeper and more tenacious than even I feared. Lots of folks will argue that the real problem is Hillary, the 'type' of female or person that she is or appears to be. That's not a thesis I find explanatory. Most of us found all the male dem candidates attractive and acceptable. And there would be many other potential male dem candidates who didn't run who we could add to that list. But what women come to mind? It's not merely that their number is much less (a point of evidence in itself, of course) but I think even more telling is the way we tend to think about women...the cliched assumptions about weakness or flightiness or unseriousness or high voices or bitchiness. Can anyone name some females other than Hillary who don't bring such associations (or other similarly dismissive associations) immeidately to mind?

And the second discouraging element relates to all the above, in how it has played out as regards common notions about Hillary and how many of us on the left have, I believe, succumbed to an abusive anti-feminism PR campaign of long duration run against this particular woman.

A Hillary win is still quite possible, if now unlikely. If it happens, and if she then goes on to lose in the general, it won't be because she 'triangulates'...everyone of the candidates triangulate, they must and they should. It isn't a character flaw but just a reality about finding a way to appeal to as many voters as one can short of being purposefully deceitful (eg Bush..."I'm a uniter, not a divider.")

Growling moment over.

Assuming an Obama win, it does bring up the interesting question of who he might choose as VP candidate. I think Lieberman is likely out. The campaign will have access to all the usual polling and focus group techniques to help winnow the possibles but I'm not even sure who might be placed on that list. Experience will be helpful but only if it isn't readily associated with 'the past' or 'the establishment'. Bayh? Edwards? Richardson?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I'm keeping hope alive. (Just donated again through the matching thingie, my match was in Madison, we chatted a while, it was fun.)

I think no, though, for a lot of the same reasons that I think the other way round won't happen. They have too many of the same positives and too many of the same liabilities. The VP -- either way -- is likely to be old, white, male, and extremely experienced, to provide ballast to the atypical and relatively inexperienced Presidential candidate. (And despite her campaign's excellent effort to convince people otherwise, yes, Hillary is relatively inexperienced as well.) Southern preferred but unlikely given the possibilities, I think.

I think you hit it right on the head. One of the two Dems who just dropped would make a good choice.

0 Replies

I agree, engineer. I'm thinking Biden might fit the bill, though he's a bit too northern. Man's got experience up the wazoo, though.

Blatham, I'll respond to the Hillary stuff if you want me to, but you won't like it.

OK one brief thing... I don't have problems with her because of her "type." There are people of her general "type" who I like a great deal -- public figures and IRL. Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards are two that come to mind right away. Smart, assertive lawyers.

I have problems with her because of her. Hillary Clinton. Just her.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I agree, engineer. I'm thinking Biden might fit the bill, though he's a bit too northern. Man's got experience up the wazoo, though.

Blatham, I'll respond to the Hillary stuff if you want me to, but you won't like it.

OK one brief thing... I don't have problems with her because of her "type." There are people of her general "type" who I like a great deal -- public figures and IRL. Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards are two that come to mind right away. Smart, assertive lawyers.

I have problems with her because of her. Hillary Clinton. Just her.

soz

Understand that I'm making a broad sociological sort of statement or thesis which leaves huge room for individuals falling outside the thesis.

The two women you name aren't themselves politicians. That takes them off of a whole assortment of hooks. Can you think of women relatively high in US (or even other nations') politics who don't carry those sorts of connotations I mention?

0 Replies

Sure.

Angela Merkel seems interesting.

I love Tammy Baldwin.

I like a whole lot about Diane Feinstein.

Jill Klobuchar seems really cool -- I read her dad's columns, growing up.

I'm not sure how many politicians I'm familiar enough with to say that I like them, period. But there's certainly a hearty percentage that are female, especially given the options.

(That's not what I was answering. I was talking about the "type" statement you made, which I think is false.)

0 Replies

soz

Sorry, I meant 'type' in the sense of her as a person as perceived by many (cold, calculating, etc).

Merkel I don't know enough about to imagine how she'd fit into american cultural notions. Feinstein, whom I also like, if she ran would (if my thesis is correct) accrue similar gender-based derogations. I can't imagine a woman escaping them. The only 'protection' seems to be the sort that Rice would wear...warrior maiden, or in other words, an aggressive and humorless man trapped inside a female body.

There was a group of older women (60 - 70) down in our laundry room yesterday and I asked them whether they thought a woman or a black male might have a tougher time achieving the presidency. One for one they said a woman would have a tougher time. Of course, age might be a factor in these perceptions (and mine) but I'm guess not.

Anyway, if Obama can manage to continue, this becomes a question for future interest. But if Hillary changes the tide, it will sit front and center.

0 Replies

Will Obama Give Hillary the VP Nod?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know