Nader’s stupid comments probably help Obama.
I’m still holding out hope that, in spite of everything, Obama will have the imagination to give Nader a Cabinet post.
No, not head of the EPA.
Not Secretary of the Interior.
Attorney General.
Wall Street would shit! 
OK, BG, I’m going to ask you to explain that one.
And here I thought the Idea behind Sebelius would be to pick A Woman Who Is Not Hillary.
Nader is viciously against corporate power. The thinking is that as the AG he wouldn’t hesitate to sue the heads off any corporation that so much as looks at a wild life refuge in the [wrong way.](http://www.votenader.org/issues/corporate-crime/\)
It’s both. Hillary would be a good choice if she was more manageable, but she isn’t. Another woman without the managing issues, who can get the woman vote, is a worthwhile option.
Nader has spent his entire career going after corporate malfeasance – but only as a private citizen-lawyer with an organization. I want him to have the entire power of the U.S. Justice Department and FBI in his hands. A salubrious shift in the department’s priorities, especially compared to its priorities under the current Admin.
Oh!
That’s… brilliant! OK, how do we convince/bully/subvert Barry O. into doing this?
This article claims that an unnamed “GOP strategist” calls Dick Gephardt “the one we’re most afraid of”. I don’t know anything bad about Gephardt, and he does seem to score well with blue collar voters, but… is there any substance to this idea? Would Gephardt bring anything to the ticket? Is there any indication that Obama is considering him? Or is it just a GOP guy making noise?
A little futher research…
it looks like Bill Kristol brought up the same idea in May.
A blog about that time on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website gives Gephardt high marks for policy knowlege but also makes the good point that “while Strickland might bring Ohio along, and other possible nominees would help with their own states, St. Louisan Gephardt would provide less help in the swing state of Missouri, where he’s adored by Democrats and urban voters but disliked by Republicans and many rural residents.”
“Heh heh. Next week I’ll do Tip O’Neill! Hee hee. And then Walter Mondale! Ha Ha!”
And, it turns out ol’ Dick was heavily behind the AUMF. As a Missourian (not at the time), I should have known that. And been ashamed.
Shoulda googled more before I posted.
The first time I heard of Dick Gephardt was a bunch of local pro-lifers protesting his switch to voting pro-choice. So would he lose socially conservative democrats in Missouri? Eh, maybe not. Being a local boy goes some way. I don’t know how swing voters in general feel about him, though. He’s an organized labor guy, & the union members seem pretty mobilized for the Dems already.
–Whatever, I’m just making noise here, I have no real data. Interesting idea, but Gephardt just seems so old for a BHO VP.
I’ve never figured out the Dick Gephardt “thing” myself. He’s a quadrennially-mentioned possibility for a presidential run, but the man just has no personality that I can discern. He’s been a possible (and occasionally actual) presidential candidate since I was in freakin’ grade school, and I just do not get it.
Naming a woman only to pick up ‘the woman vote’ assumes that they supported Hillary merely because of her gender and will happily transfer their allegiance to any random female that Obama chooses to pick. The women who supported Hillary in the primaries would see this as an insult, and frankly, I can’t blame them.
Obama needs to choose whomever will be the strongest for his ticket regardless of gender; someone who is seen as capable of picking up the reins if need be and yet won’t overpower him. The women mentioned so far seem happy to get his coffee, but I wouldn’t trust any of them in the Presidential role.
What, not even Sibelius? At least she has executive experience.
Obama is already an unknown quantity; he would hurt the ticket by naming another unknown quantity. None of the women listed has the national name recognition that would benefit the ticket, including Sebelius.
I disagree. Hillary isn’t anything special. She was a female democrat who women rallied behind because they didn’t like the sexism in the media, she shared their views, and because she had a shot at winning. Breaking the glass ceiling was her biggest appeal to women voters. She can be replaced by any competent woman.
Obama isn’t unknown any longer. He’s the hottest news ticket in town. Everyone’s listening to what he has to say.
That said, I still don’t think that going for the women vote is Obama’s best strategy. His biggest trouble is with white men. The VP should be chosen to appeal to them.
He was the majority/minority leader (as appropriate) in the House for 14 years. He was high up in Democratic leadership. He’s been on the serious short list for the VP slot at least twice. His time has passed.
So Obama should choose Jenna Haze?
It doesn’t have anything to do with Hillary being special, but Hillary was someone that voters were familiar with in terms of her policies and what she cared about. That sort of recognition is what the ticket needs.
He is still relatively unknown by many voters in terms of having a recognizable track record on the issues - sort of a reflex ‘okay, this guy has voted for things that I support’ thought that allows people to feel comfortable with him as a candidate.
But I agree that Obama shouldn’t focus on women voters by naming a woman; I think he should name the strongest person for the ticket, and I think it would benefit him to name someone with a long-term record of national service who has wide name recognition through the country. It would help even more if that person is able to reach to the working class voters in a way that Obama seems incapable of doing.