Hello GD and WELCOME to the VP Discussion!

[FlyingSquirrel]

question everything (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-04-08 10:01 AM

Original message: Where do discussions about running mates belong?

If it is Clinton - here, but if it is someone else - OK in GD?


muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-04-08 10:04 AM

Response to Original message: They're OK in GD

Mods and admin have just been talking about this. (We didn't specify about the case of Hillary being the VP nom, but my personal take on what we did say is that would be OK in GD too, as long as it's a proper discussion, and not a disguised rehash of the primaries).


Maeve (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-04-08 10:05 AM

Response to Original message: Yes, it's okay in GD

Keep continued talk of the primaries here, but otherwise...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6270882

-----------------------------------------

So welcome to the discussion, those who have blocked GDP from their latest & greatest pages!

I've listed the possibilities in what I believe to be their current order of popularity on DU based on my compilation of a wealth of polls in GDP over the last few months. It will be interesting to see if this order changes once people who have been avoiding GDP begin to voice their opinion.

I did not include an "other" option because I wanted to fit all ten of these candidates in this poll. Just reply to the thread with your candidate of choice if you don't like any of these ten.

Some other names that have come up (again in approximate order of popularity):

Fmr Gov. Mark Warner (VA)
Sen. Russ Feingold (WI)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO)
Gov. Tim Kaine (VA)
Gov. Ted Strickland (OH)
Sen. John Kerry (MA)
Gen. Anthony Zinni
Myr. Michael Bloomberg (NY)
Fmr Sen. Bob Graham (FL)
Fmr Sen. Sam Nunn (GA)
Sen. Chris Dodd (CT)
Gov. Ed Rendell (PA)

[MrCoffee]

1. Second 1st vote for Edwards

I'm hardcore, man! :rofl:

[underseasurveyor]

4. LOL

hardest of the hardcore

[question everything]

2. And EarlG's clarification

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3384963&mesg_id=3385063

Just been clarifying this with the mods

Sorry if enforcement has been a bit fuzzy, we didn't give the mods clear enough instructions on how to handle this situation.

Here's what they've been told now: we would like to keep threads that are specifically about the primaries in GD:Primaries, while allowing threads that are about other things related to Obama and Clinton - for example, Obama's general election campaign, or the VP selection process - to be posted in GD.

Please note that these are just guidelines for the mods to work with, and it may not always be clear to them what should be done with a particular thread, so I apologize in advance if there is any uneven enforcement. These are temporary measures as we transition from the primaries to the general election.

[FlyingSquirrel]

6. Thanks!

It's gonna be crazy around here for a bit

:silly:

[NJmaverick]

3. In my opinion, we must be wary of being too short sighted

While some candidates would seem like good choices now, they may not seem as good, a few months from now. Obama's choice needs to shore up his perceived weaknesses (lack of experience, lack of military experience and foreign policy experience). Beyond that, his historic candidacy, makes many voters nervous. As such a white male, would seem like a good idea.

So while the idea that a VP could unite the rift in the party, sounds good right now, it may not be a good long term choice.

With that in mind

Webb, Clark and Nunn would all seem like good choices

[question everything]

5. Agree on all

As I originally posted (which was locked and generated that quoted post in the OP) he needs someone with a military background.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3384665

[bdamomma]

7. yea, he needs someone who has military experience.

and have Biden as his SOS. Wow what a combo. But again, it is Obama's decision.

[FlyingSquirrel]

8. ...

[anonymous171]

9. Schweitzer or Edwards

[FlyingSquirrel]

10. Quite a bit less support for Sebelius and Biden here in GD so far..

but a lot less participation in the poll. Will have to babysit it for awhile maybe.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. Biden will make a good Sec of State, I think. nt

[Fireweed247]

11. RFK Jr ...... is inspiring!

and this country needs inspiration! I just love listening to him talk, he is so intelligent and has so much to say. He uses every moment to educate people not just bullshit them.

Obama/Kennedy would be a beautiful team!! (God we deserve it after the last eight years)

[rucky]

12. IS THIS SOME KIND OF JOKE???!!111

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6279394#6279504

[Swamp Rat]

13. John Edwards

:)

[NewJeffCT]

14. wow, four way tie at nine votes each

maybe we should start GD:VP?

[ThomWV]

15. There are some tough choices there

I think the top 3 are well chosen, Clark, Richardson, Webb. It could go to any of them but if there really is any vote to be pulled in by the VP choice then I suspect Webb might be the best choice. He fills what many see to be holes in Obama's base of experience. My own choice would be for Richardson in a perfect world. I have a great deal of respect for him, but of course I feel the same way about General Clark. Senator Webb is an extremely strong asset to the Party and of course the thought of losing a Senate seat is intolerable.

I dunno, hard to say.

[roguevalley]

16. someone brought webb up on tv and said it would be two senators

with limited national experience.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. Wesley Clark.

I don't think Clinton is going to happen (although I don't think it would be a horrible thing if it did.) Edwards is better suited for AG and besides I think we need a new name as VP nominee this go around.

I'm thinking it might end up being Richardson as I think that may have been part of the endorsement deal.

No to Sebelius. Too unknown, obscure, no strategic rationalization from it, and despite the fact she is a woman, I don't think she would do a whole lot to bring in Clinton supporters given she was always a strong Obama supporter. (At least Richardson has some tie to the Clintons).

But Wesley Clark is great. He is outside of Congress and outside of Washington. He was a Clinton supporter but one that is well liked by both parties. He brings in the military and counteracts McCain in that respect. He is my number one choice right now.

[LWolf]

19. Other: I don't have a preference.

My only preference is for presidential election stuff to stay in GDP, so that it doesn't overrun other topics of conversation.

[PATRICK]

20. Edwards?

There is no great frontrunner out there and no one is exactly sure of the criteria. The one that Obama needs someone with experience(foreign policy) is not so strong now and that if anything has widened the field. Nor with such a large field is anyone quite sure of the negative vetting, which is a place many of these fine people shouldn't be dragged into for the sake of a veepstakes. Process of elimination I am sure is taking place behind the scenes after a long list of positive candidates gets presented. No positive attribute trumps the negative.

For example: Al Gore. Simply speaking, he has grown too large for the role and very likely is one of the
ones who actually don't want it, even with victory assured. On the other end of self-elimination is Hillary Clinton whose multitude of pros and cons can even penetrate her handling of a self-invitation to be considered- or else. Within the turmoil of disappointment and controversy it seems less likely a woman will be chosen, in a peculiar way dragged down by Hillary's approach. As the elimination process creeps forward the process becomes more wary with vetting and displeasing running parallel with the search for a team soul mate.

If it gets too complex you get to someone whom I would never otherwise have mentioned this year, since like Al Gore, he has been there and is doing larger stuff outside the box. Edwards last time was not as good a fit for the kerry team as I thought he would be since the balancing act did not work. The main objections about the past and his popular appeal I could keep on arguing have not been fairly tested, but tested and defeated they have been. He might not "deliver" the south or seal all the wounds between two diverse kinds of populism or get to that height the primary performances have never let him reach. He might just bring a hint of aftertaste(or taste of payback?) about past defeats. Yet in that balance he is certainly vetted and experienced for the campaign and free for the job. There would be no fear he would outshine or change message or provide some negative weakness to the ticket. Not only safe but an exciting choice.

I am not sure about this but I wager this one against Jimmy Carter's Sam Nunn choice any day. If Obama wants someone closer to himself and I couldn't guess who that might be, that is the main thing and a shame to be spoiled by messy party politics. How the vetting would shake out I have no idea, yet it has already begun on DU, the discouraging education about some otherwise fine picks. if the elimination process is going to knock them all down Edwards is one of the few left standing, a constantly progressing Dem, well known and out of the various conflicts.

If this seems like a rationalization of my own favorite it probably is so I modestly settle for putting the possibility out there if only as the safest known immediate choice should the process get bogged down, clock ticking and the MSM getting far too used to making us ALL about the HRC continuing drama- which itself is the most exemplary disqualification proof one ever needed about the negative distraction her mere presence would cause on the ticket(whatever her attitude or intent).

Now as for the other choices I could be enthused about them all, recognize the humanity and failings of all, worry about all, but none of them deserve to be trashed in a speculation contest. All would make genuine fine chief executives and in comparison to Bush and any imaginable Republican I would pick any of them out of a hat and replace the current horror any day.

We also have argued about positive and negative criteria in the past and this year might be a bit different. JFK, a liberal centrist did achieve balance with a Southern "centrist" and LBJ never suffered from his own negatives in an election. Who knows? We may not need to win a squeaker but a massive mandate is more than a pleasing luxury for the incredible tasks that need to be done in a party not itself united toward the best progressive solutions. The nominee determines the criteria. A charismatic powerhouse has the luxury of reaching into the possibility bag of balance, bloc attraction,
harmonious message and new talent. Strong negatives help to make the field narrower because "do no harm" still comes first.

[hokies4ever]

21. SEBELIUS!!!

First, she's a governor. Brings some much needed executive experience to the table. Also, she has a very good rapport with Obama. Watching them campaign together you would think that they've been friends for decades. Most importantly, she reinforces his political message the most. She's well-known for bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle. Sounds like change that we can believe in. Finally, she strikes me as the kind of person who can get people to like her and bring in more supporters.