tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post8194283284637120580..comments2008-07-15T07:55:07.520-04:00Anthony Palmer, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-74291205878708164462008-07-15T07:55:00.000-04:002008-07-15T07:55:00.000-04:00Brett,<BR/><BR/>I'll write about Biden next in my "Veepstakes" series. I disagree with some of what you wrote about him, but I'll save that for the actual post.<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>SWA,<BR/><BR/>I am not so sure an Obama-Clinton ticket would satisfy the left. Liberals are blasting Obama for FISA. So would adding Clinton assuage them? After all, she voted for the war which helped make FISA necessary.<BR/><BR/>Is Bill Clinton even eligible to be a senator? If he worked his way up to Senate Majority Leader or Senate Pro Tem, he'd be in the line of succession to the presidency in the event of a catastrophe. New Yorkers might vote for him, but I think that might renew Clinton fatigue.<BR/><BR/>I still don't see Edwards being tapped for VP for the same reasons you cited. He has very short coattails.<BR/><BR/>And I don't think McCaskill will be tapped either even though she could be a good choice. Like James Webb, she is holding a senate seat that not just any Democrat could win. And the governor of Missouri is currently a Republican. For Senate Dems with dreams of making it to 60, that's not a risk they'd like to take.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments.Anthony Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-53764402153165767482008-07-10T03:19:00.000-04:002008-07-10T03:19:00.000-04:00We are having a little fun at the presidential candidates' expense over at my blog:<BR/><BR/>http://americansweatpants.blogspot.com/2008/07/things-you-will-never-hear-presidential.htmlThomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892964135889989419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-55613783774998354662008-07-10T00:08:00.000-04:002008-07-10T00:08:00.000-04:00Something's seriously wrong if Gen. Wesley Clark really has no chance of being picked as Obama's running mate because of Clark's recent questioning of McCain's qualifications. And that something wrong doesn't rest with Clark.<BR/><BR/>Clark is fully qualified and exceptionally well suited to be president. If he was V.P. and a tragedy resulted in him stepping up, the country would be in really good hands. If Clark isn't picked to run with Obama, I hope he will run again in a future year.<BR/><BR/>Brett, I think you greatly underestimate Biden. There's more to him and his legislative record and skills than you give him credit for. He's not a static personality. Yes, he made a misstep a long time ago. He learned from it.<BR/><BR/>Biden is one of the sharpest tools in the Democratic shed, not only smart and wily, but with the knowledge that comes with years of experience and the wisdom that comes with age. <BR/><BR/>Sen. McCaskill is also plenty sharp, and bringing Missouri along would be a coup. However, picking McCaskill over Clinton would surely enrage Clinton's supporters and split the party. Especially so since McCaskill is only a first-term senator. <BR/><BR/>It's more wspecially so because if an Obama-McCaskill administration were to prove highly successful and popular, a definitely older Clinton would face really tough <I>female</I> opponent, if McCaskill were to run for president herself.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Edwards, unfortunately, there's a feeling he had his bite of the apple in '04 where running as No. 2 is concerned. He probably feels that way himself.<BR/><BR/>As I've thought more about Edwards in recent weeks, it occurs to me he needs to build himself a power base, in North Carolina and in the Democratic Party. He could do that by running for governor or running for the Senate again. I hope he do one or the other.S,W, Andersonhttp://wpblog.ohpinion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-26222851462220665062008-07-09T23:35:00.000-04:002008-07-09T23:35:00.000-04:00A few more observations on a very interesting, thought-provoking post.<BR/><BR/>IMO, the meme about Clinton undermining Obama's change theme is given too much weight. Look at it this way: HRC would be the first female vice president in U.S. history. That's change, big time.<BR/><BR/>Whether as V.P. or Senate majority leader, it would be in Clinton's best current and future interest to be the strongest player in Congress on Obama's team. The only way to burnish her reputation would be to deliver for him. Anything less would discredit her, do further damage to Congress' already badly tarnished reputation, hurt the Democratic Party and reflect poorly on her gender being entrusted with leadership posts.<BR/><BR/>If Clinton should become Obama's V.P. choice, the best thing Bill could do is fill her Senate seat as an appointee, running for re-election to it when the time comes. In the Senate, Bill Clinton could enjoy some limelight moments while making a real contribution in formulating strategy and dealing with complex matters his policy-wonk side is well suited to. <BR/><BR/>Bill Clinton would have to discipline himself to be more of a team player. I think he's capable of doing that.S.W. Andersonhttp://wpblog.ohpinion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-32482655421962977132008-07-09T23:13:00.000-04:002008-07-09T23:13:00.000-04:00I wish I could be as confident of of burgeoning Democratic unity as you are, AP. <BR/><BR/>The first commenter above (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, by chance?) is far from alone in her/his feelings. Second, there was that vote today OK'ing warrantless, mass snooping in what should be Americans' private communications coupled with retroactive immunity for some big telecomm outfits, protecting them from <I>civil</I> penalties for past complicity in violating people's privacy rights. Obama's willingness to go along is not being received well among some of his heretofore strongest backers.<BR/><BR/>I trust Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia to provide Obama their electoral votes about as much as I trust George W. Bush. That's regardless of what polls say now and regardless of who is No. 2 on the ticket. I hope my skepticism proves unfounded.S.W. Andersonhttp://wpblog.ohpinion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-29866371959412590672008-07-09T14:54:00.000-04:002008-07-09T14:54:00.000-04:00Correct that last part: <I>ideally</I>, it would be Sebellius. I have a sickening feeling that it probably will end up being Hillary Clinton, to please all those rather irritating Clinton cultists who would rather ruin the chance of Clinton's policies getting passed rather than not having the person they want in office.Brettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-17862939543986593322008-07-09T14:53:00.000-04:002008-07-09T14:53:00.000-04:00Clinton, Sebellius, or Biden, then. Biden's only real attraction is that he is a very experienced senator on foreign policy. Other than that, he has little appeal; he won't bring a state, and he has made some gaffes on the campaign trail before (that's how he got knocked out in 1988). <BR/><BR/>It's probably going to be Sebellius, if she agrees to it. Sebellius is a moderate western female Democratic governor, which is pretty much all the traits Obama could possibly want in a single running mate.Brettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-48616633864861564052008-07-09T12:06:00.000-04:002008-07-09T12:06:00.000-04:00she is not a good choiceTorrance Stephens bka All-Mi-Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08843040863123899426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-69577680306124503932008-07-08T22:55:00.000-04:002008-07-08T22:55:00.000-04:00Brett,<BR/><BR/>Here's my take on who's out of the game and who's left:<BR/><BR/>Wesley Clark has disqualified himself through no fault of his own.<BR/><BR/>Jim Webb has taken his name off the list.<BR/><BR/>Ted Strickland has taken his name off the list.<BR/><BR/>Mark Warner has taken his name off the list.<BR/><BR/>Kathleen Sebelius is still in.<BR/><BR/>John Kerry should not be on the list to begin with.<BR/><BR/>John Edwards should not be on the list to begin with, but is marginally better than John Kerry.<BR/><BR/>Joe Biden is still in, and he does not obfuscate about it.<BR/><BR/>Hillary Clinton is in, but not because Obama put her on the list.<BR/><BR/>Sam Nunn is in, but does he really excite Democrats?<BR/><BR/>Claire McCaskill is probably going to pull a Jim Webb. And besides, not just any Democrat could hold that Senate seat in Missouri.<BR/><BR/>Tim Kaine is in, but he's probably the least appealing of the three pols from Virginia, and that's saying something because competing with Warner and Webb is tough.<BR/><BR/>Eddie Rendell is in because he continues to dodge and demur when asked. Until he gives a firm "no way" like Webb did, he's still on the list.<BR/><BR/>Janet Napolitano is in, but Sebelius and McCaskill seem like better choices.<BR/><BR/>I'd say it comes down to Clinton, Biden, and Sebelius. I plan on writing about Biden after I finish my write-up on Mark Sanford. I speculated that Biden could make the shortlist when he dropped out of the race in January.<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>It seems strange to me that Democrats who remember Ralph Nader's run in 2000 would consider voting for McCain simply because they're angry that Clinton lost. Is that Obama's fault? What does he owe her, and why?Anthony Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00043374303541804437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-19088855654489750392008-07-08T22:43:00.000-04:002008-07-08T22:43:00.000-04:00Unfortunately, the "Hillary Clinton" choice is seeming more and more likely, since the governors of Pennsylvania and Ohio have backed off, Wesley Clark is probably out because of the badly misinterpreted comment, and Jim Webb recently announced that he's not interested (although he wasn't as firmly negative as the Ohio Governor, so we don't know if that will stick). Who else does that leave other than Clinton? Sebellius in Kansas? Tim Kaine in Virginia? There's not a lot of remaining options that have received much publicity?<BR/><BR/>You are probably right on the risk of ending up with a rival Hillary Clinton as Senate Majority Leader in Congress (assuming she gets that soon; I haven't heard much about knocking Reid off that perch). Even just having her as a rival senator would be annoying; Bob Kerrey caused Bill Clinton a lot of grief when he was trying to get his economic plan passed in 1992-94.Brettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-865494184012705718.post-54738871156065445432008-07-08T12:40:00.000-04:002008-07-08T12:40:00.000-04:00Obama the supposable great uniter- is uniting no one... with Solis and Richardson on his team. Obama needs the millions of Hillary Clinton Supporters in order to win the White House. Obama would be wise to appoint HRC as VP to get my vote... and millions of supporters like me. Do not underestimate how many Clinton supporters will not settle for less.<BR/>United we stand- divided we fall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com