Again, Hagel as SecDefense is a great idea. Hagel as a VP is a horrible idea and potential Republican trojan horse. He is Rush-right on every issue outside of Bush’s foreign policy. What sense would that make? The punditry talking up the idea, does not make me feel any better about it in the least.
I like these:
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
“Are you kidding? Every senator would accept that offer. My guess is that almost every senator looks at themselves in the mirror in the morning and sees either a future president or vice president.”
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
“The chances of that are so remote that I’m more likely to be hit by an asteroid.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
“No. I enjoy life too much.”
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)
“I would say ‘No, Hillary.’ ”
I still say John Edwards for VP. Especially after listening to this inspiring stump speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Edwards was asked if he was interested in the job recently, and flatly said he doesn’t want it. He said it was “premature” to discuss the AG job - so I think we can interpret that to mean he endorsed Obama in return for being promised the job of Attorney General, or at least, promised consideration.
If New Mexico is any sort of bellweather, he might want to reconsider.
We’ll see what SurveyUSA’s other 16 states have to say as they release the data, but in NM, Obama/Edwards beats McCain/anyone, and Obama/anyone-else loses to McCain/anyone.
To be fair, SUSA only looked at four veep choices for each candidate: Huck, Romney, Loserman, and Pawlenty for McCain, and Sibelius, Rendell, Hagel, and Edwards for Obama. So no Strickland or Sherrod Brown, no Jim Webb, etc.
I sincerely hope Obama doesn’t go with a white man if a good alternative presents itself, if just to irritate naysayers. All the hemming and hawing here about “hrm…I’m so sorry to have to think this…but…herm…the vice president has to be a white guy” is gross; I think it says as much about the speakers as about the public. To overcome bigotry, we have to be aggressive.
I think a big factor in this is that people know Edwards, while Sibelius and so on are unknowns to most voters. They might as well be asking about Brown or Jones for running mates.
They apparently didn’t ask about Obama/Richardson. I can’t believe that Edwards would do better in Bill Richardson’s home state than Richardson himself would do.
That may well be the case. But the fact remains that Obama/Edwards does better against McCain/whoever than Obama does against McCain - not only in New Mexico, but in Pennsylvania too.
The Democrats need to win in November. Now is not the time to be foolishly aggressive, they have to be strategic and practical.
One groundbreaking step at a time.
On the other hand, we really need a majority of Clinton’s “womyn” supporters who’re angry that Obama “stole” the nomination from the first woman who was supposed to become president (in their opinion). Women like that bitch Geraldine Ferraro, who’s now saying that she might not even vote for him because she thinks he ran a “sexist” campaign. :rolleyes: She’s giving women “permission” to use that as an excuse not to vote for him, regardless of the facts. Having a woman on the ticket with him utterly demolishes the contention that he’s in any way “sexist”.
And given that there are some outstanding women with excellent credentials, especially my first choice, Kathleen Sebelius, I see no reason not to continue with the “groundbreaking” theme on his ticket. I really don’t see it as being foolishly aggressive at all. In fact, I think it would indeed be strategic and practical (in addition to being good for the country).
I just see his potential election as A GIANT LEAP forward for this country in terms of engrained habit, if not engrained attitudes.
I think Obama is going to pick a hellavu of a running mate – whoever and and whatever sex they may be. I’m still kind of sad that things just couldn’t work out that he could pick her, i.e., the campaign she ran, his running as the new idea and she’s same-old, same-old) and Sebelius would be a great choice.
You might be right, but I’m just worried that, for those people who might be ready to take ONE GIANT LEAP forward might be a litttle more hesitant to take TWO GIANTS LEAPS all at once.
I wish it wasn’t so but my heart tells me it is.
Welcome back.
deleted - double post.
Thanks! It’s nice to be back. 
You could be right, of course. However, consider this; a lot of people were talking about Obama/Clinton (or the other way around) as the “Dream Ticket”. The people who were against it, weren’t against it because of the race/gender issue, but because these two particular candidates are so extremely different in their approach and style. As you said, he’s the new wave and she’s the old school.
So if the “Dream Ticket” was so appealing to so many people, and it had both a black man and a woman on it, I see no reason to think it would be less appealing – or as you’re concerned about, too big of a leap – if it was a different woman. (If any of that rambling made any sense – I think my jet lag is starting to kick in. ;))
We now have odds on the Democratic VP nominee!
Ron Paul
20 - 1
Barack Obama
15 - 1
Michael Bloomberg
15 - 1
Mark Warner
15 - 1
Ted Strickland
10 - 1
Wesley Clark
10 - 1
Kathleen Sebelius
8 - 1
Al Gore
8 - 1
Jim Webb
5 - 1
Bill Richardson
4 - 1
Hillary Clinton
3 - 1
John Edwards
5 - 2
Incidentally, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney are the Republican favorites.
Those Ron Paul odds are off by several orders of magnitude.
Better chance than Obama nominating himself. These are newly posted odds. Once the marketplace gets to mess with them for awhile they will start looking more realistic.
Whose odds? Where can I get a bet down against Al Gore?
I don’t think it’ll be Edwards or Hillary. I’m positive that Al Gore has better things to do with his life than run for veep, given that he decided awhile back that he had better things to do than run for President.
Do they take odds exceeding a gazillion to one?
In more Sebelius news and, I admit, my promoting of her-- how’s this for an Executive using the power of the veto for good?