IF a military man then who? Zinni, who opposed the war and has been critical of Bush and agreed with the surge? Clark, who would help heal rifts with the Clinton wing? Or?
You know reading up on Zinni makes me really think he might be a very good choice. You’d have to presume that Pennsylvania and Ohio are wins without a Strickland or Rendell on the ticket and that the Clinton forces don’t really need the chip to come home; the hunger for a Dem in the WH will be enough.
A Zinni would neutralize a lot of the military inexperience argument with someone who was always against the war. He also has post-military corporate experience and some global warming creds. He may appeal to Obama’s desire to go for broke as someone like him not only helps put places like Virginia into play but even threaten in Texas. (Remember that while Texas has gone big for their faux native son the last two times, it was within 5% there for both Clinton runs. It is not totally off the table.)
Here’s Zinni’s thoughts before we went into Iraq.
If the need is for a White male then this military man “Hagel-Powell Republician” fits the Obama narrative very well.
I’d love to know if this guy is on Obama’s short list.
I’ve been thinking that Kathleen Sebelius would be a good choice for Obama for a few reasons. I don’t think the article below is a big deal, but whoever Obama picks has got to be squeaky clean. It’s a good thing that he’s got time now to start scrutinizing people.
About the only thing I’ve read against Webb in the VP spot is it would vacate his Senate seat when the Democrats’ majority is already razor thin.
His aide got in trouble for packing the senator’s loaded pistol in the Senate Office building though. How’s that for appealing to moderates? 
I hate to tell George Will this, but we white guys are a diminishing portion of the electorate. According to CNN’s exit polls, white males were 39% of the electorate in 2000, and 36% in 2004.
That should keep on dropping this year, for a few reasons: women are increasingly more diligent about voting than men; Obama’s nomination will have black turnout at its highest level ever; the Hispanic share of the electorate will steadily grow, year in and year out, for decades to come; and the GOP GOTV machine simply won’t replicate their amazing success of 2004.
So let’s assume that white guys are 1/3 of the electorate in 2008. Obama would like to do better among white guys than Kerry did in 2004 (Kerry lost the white-guy vote by 62-37, while losing overall by less than 2.5%), but it’s more important that he at least pull even among white women, who Kerry lost by 55-44 in 2000.
If Obama wins among white women, and blacks and Hispanics of both sexes, he can lose white men the way Dems always lose white men, and do fine.
Like I said about Hagel, he would be a wonderful Sec.Defense, but as far as the economy, healthcare, judges, usual wedge issues(abortion, gay marriage, etc…) he is still a Republican and does not fit the generally liberal/progressive type of agenda that an Obama Presidency would mean.
I don’t know enough about Zinni to speak on him. Jim Webb has a fairly solid voting record, but is still fresh enough to the Democratic side(switched in '06) that I am a bit too wary of him for VP.
If something should happen and he got into office, Hagel’s would be a completely different course for the country than Obama. In looking for someone to be the successor for the President I would want someone who has the same values, ideals and goals. The Vice President is not just for bringing in other demographics, but to carry the same torch of the President, should the worst happen.
To be perfectly honest, I would rather that the VP also be sort of an actual insurance policy, and a step further to their side than the President is, ala a Kucinich for Obama. That way there is no incentive for any rouge elements to try “the next inline”, or also to stop a potential, partisan impeachment as well; just look at how well it has worked for Bush/Cheney.
As an aside, any one else think Jim Webb bears a uncanny resemblance to Rainn Wilson (aka Dwight Schrute)?
I dunno, I don’t think that would really be a big issue/distraction at all. Rather I think the number of voters that she could bring in and appeal to, far, far out number those that would be the type to be turned off by something like that.
Plus, I also think the Obama team is savy enough, as they’ve shown through the distractions of these primaries, that they could spin it to their benefit in a large way. It would be a chance for Sebelius to be presented in a sympathetic light as a perhaps dissapointed, though still ever loving mother.
It could also, and I know this is a bit of a stretch, open up a conversation for much needed prison reform.
Hagel might be good for a cabinet post, but nominating a Republican as VP just ain’t gonna happen.
The game actually looks pretty funny to me. It appears to be edgy, anarchic sort of satirical game akin to the humor of the GTA games. One of the goals is to avoid getting cornered in the shower, but there’s no goal to DO any raping, and that’s only a small part of the game. I think it looks pretty witty and dark and would probably appeal to my sense of humor. I think trying to read homophobia into the game is rather a stretch and it’s an even bigger stretch to suggest it means anything about Sibelius. No doubt Sean Hannity will go wall-to-wall with it for a month, though, if she gets the pick.
I get a real sense that Hillary’s surrogates are pushing hard behind the scenes to get Hillary on Obama’s ticket. Suddenly we’re seeing a lot of polls saying that “most Democrats” want to see Hillary on the ticket.
Well that’s deceptive, since the “most Democrats” includes the almost 50% who are Hillary loyalists.
Anyway, a VP pick shouldn’t be particularly geared to appeal to Democrats. A VP pick should appeal to moderates and potential crossover voters, in my opinion.
But it is important that in trying to appeal to the moderates and crossovers that the President picks some one not only who’s policies are similar, but who’s values and ethics are as well. Nixes- Clinton and Hagel. Also, when trying to appeal to crossovers, you don’t want some one who is more of a ‘fighter’(mouth) than the President, especially in this election. One careless soundbite can get mighty twisted, and will. While I likely would not disagree with them, nor would those already intending to vote Dem, an overly agressive shot, then looped and out of context, could push fence sitters backwards. Nixes- Webb and Gravel 
.
Traditionally that’s not true, and I think it will be true this year too. The VP/Veep nominee is often used to say negative things that the top guy doesn’t want to say, so he can continue to act “Presidential.” Supposedly Kerry and Edwards had a problem in that area because Edwards didn’t want to do that.
I’m assuming you meant "Traditionally that’s not true, and I think it will not be true this year too.
On paper, it looks good to pair these two up but it’s just not practical. Besides the fact the Clinton has already made statements about Obama that will be brought up time and time again and be a distraction, including her on the ticket will cause people to continually ask about Obama assertion that he’s all about the new way of doing things, not the Washington insider way.
However, picking a VP candidate that Clinton can approve of and push her supporters to back would be a prudent approach to this quandary and give the pundits and voters less opportunity to be confused by the selection.
I don’t think that Obama will go for the attack dog. Too standard issue.
He does need Ohio and/or Pennsylvania so Strickland or Rendell are possible. They help assure a safe but not overwhelming win.
More so though he wants to play out the uniter story line. The issue is who he prioritizes uniting with. Poor uneducated White folk? The rest of the Democratic base that loves Hillary? Hispanics and reaching to the West? Independents and Republicans?
I think the last appeals to him most, and that he’ll take his chances on Ohio and Pennsylvania and the base coming along for the ride if he does that. A bit of a gamble but going more for the sweep kind of victory that really rewrites the rule books. Sebelius does that and appeals to the female base, but they really may be a given when push comes to shove. Zinni does that and appeals to a different demographic with his military stature.
Fascinating speculation. Of course it’ll entirely be Obama’s call, based on the best advice of his aides, his read of the political calculus, and what his gut tells him. But I will bet any Doper $100 it won’t be Hillary.
Some Senators have responded to a hypothetical VP offer:
McCaskill: “If I were asked, I would ask some mental health professionals to visit Barack Obama. I just think Sen. Obama is way too smart to pick me. I’m not a good pick, and he’s smarter than that. That’s why he’s going to make such a good president.”
Webb: “I’m not really interested. That’s all I want to say.”
Brown: “No, I want to continue serving the people of Ohio as their senator for as long as I’m able.”
A lot more (on both sides of the aisle) responded, and some of the answers are quite funny:
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa): “No, I’d have Jon Stewart stand in for me. Jon Stewart. That’s my guy.”
John Barrasso (R-Wyo.): “We already have a vice president from Wyoming. So we’ll have to see if Sen. McCain asks me to chair his selection committee. That seems to work well. It certainly seemed to work well for the last guy from Wyoming.”
Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): “I plan to stick with my current job until I get the hang of it.”
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii): “If I were asked, I would say, ‘You’re out of your mind.’ ”
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.): “No. I don’t like going to funerals.”
Tom Carper (D-Del.): “Yes. Sign me up. I’ve been kidding people for years: The hours are better, the wages are just as good — whoever heard of a vice president getting shot at? — and it’s a great opportunity to travel. And actually since time has gone by, the job is robust … So sure. Anybody here would, if they’re going to be honest. The chances are slim to none. But I promise you, I would deliver all three of Delaware’s electoral votes.”
Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.): “No, I can already preside over the Senate, and I do not enjoy spending a lot of time at ‘undisclosed locations.’ ”
Bob Bennett (R-Utah): “Of course. Big house, big car, not much to do. Why not?”
Fair enough Marley23. I just think that this election is different. Granted you can’t you can’t have wimp like Harry Reid who will just take abuse and act like he likes it. However, in the spirit of Obama’s message and campaign, as well as with how the msm already trying to play the role of dividers and how they’re doing it; I think it is better to have some one who will speak strong and firm on the issues, but will do so with a smile and a style that is not open to counter attack.
Case in point when (my pick) Kathleen Sebelius gave the rebuttal to the State of the Union, the biggest criticism around Democratic camps was she was too nice or didn’t bite enough. What would that solve though? It might make us already on the left feel a little more sure of ourselves, but it will just push back against those in the middle and on the right. She absolutely went after Bush’s policies, but did so in a way that some of our better posters here do; by that I mean that she didn’t give the opposition something to be angry at, or attack her personally for, but made it so that only the actual policy issues could be debated. That is a debate the Dems will every time this year. I don’t know how many of those on the left that criticized her for being “too nice” saw Faux Noise after her rebuttal, but if they had, they would have seen Brit Hume looking absolutely stunned. He couldn’t counter her arguments on the facts of the issues, but more importantly, had no openings to get his little digs in either. Sebelius left a Faux talking head speechless, that is no small task. Seeing his face, after she spoke- that’s when I decided I wanted her to be Obama(well, Kucinich at the time)'s VP.
Earlier in this thread, while talking about cabinet appointments, it was said you don’t want to pick a big name that would take Obama out of the spotlight; that too is a fair point. At the same time you don’t want a big mouth that will do the same. If you have a attack VP stirring up the pot that is all the press will focus on and the spotlight will shift. The politics of division tag that Obama has successfully avoided will then be associated with his campaign.
As for Kerry, yes, he did probably need Edwards to go negative more than he did, but that is because he didn’t know how to fight his own battles(the swiftboaters). This is not a weakness that Obama needs to address since he has proven he is more than capable of sticking up for himself(rev. wright).
I guess what I’m trying to say with my ramblings is- when you go negative and attack, you are pushing and putting people back on their heels. You are separating at a time when you need to come together. And if they are back on their heels you can maybe knock them on their butts easier and leave you standing alone. What you can not do is bring them forward to stand beside you. You can bring them forward, but they will still be falling and just might take you down with them.
Looks like consideration of my pick Chuck Hagel is being bandied about a bit by the punditry.Obama could do worse, IMO.