Obama has to pick a white woman for VP

Quite possibly. But if Ted Strickland can bring Ohio with him, that would be huge.

QueEx

Yep. For all the strategy about who would look "good", I think Obama's campaign will take a more pragmatic approach. They are going to go for someone who can probably delivery a state. So my Jim Webb theory will probably be shot. He may just go with someone like Strickland. He's learned the lessons from Kerry... picking a vp like Edwards who got raped in the debates by Cheney and then couldn't even help delivery his home state :smh:... that's a reason why Richardson stands on no chance... can't debate to save his life and can be be reckless with the gaffes although is foreign policy resume is tough to beat...cabinet position..but no VP position..just like Biden...foreign policy resume is no joke, but he can't delivery votes
 
Hell no. Obama does NOT have to pick a woman as VP.

The nation wants a strong MAN to stand the fuck up and LEAD! Woman don't want to be lead by a woman and men definitely don't want that.

Men will talk that shit if they are paid to say it, if the cameras happen to be on or they are gay or Van whats his name. But men aint about it.

-VG
 
Keep it up eewwll and your phone will soon start ringing from
the Obama Committee on Successful Selection and Staffing.

QueEx
 
I think that in order to heal the democrats after this primary campaign, I think that Obama has to pick a white woman age (45-55) as his VP in order to consolidate the woman vote.


What do you think and who do you think it would be?


I respectfully disagree. To pick a White woman just to be doing it would be a blatant pander and go against the message he's been putting out.

If there's been damage done to the party, it's been done by the Clinton camp and they need to do the repairing.
 
<font size="4">

I heard Republican Party political media consultant Alex Castellanos say on CNN's The Situation Room this evening, if Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama's Vice President, "he will need a food tester."
</font size>

Someone off-the-set but close enough to be heard laughed loudly in the background.

QueEx
 
<font size="4">

I heard Republican Party political media consultant Alex Castellanos say on CNN's The Situation Room this evening, if Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama's Vice President, "he will need a food tester."
</font size>

Someone off-the-set but close enough to be heard laughed loudly in the background.

QueEx

I was watching that shit too. :lol:
 
<font size="5"><center>Sen. Obama’s backers see dream ticket as nightmare</font swize></center>

The Hill
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 05/19/08 08:03 PM [ET]

Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) allies in Congress do not want Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as his running mate, even though many Clinton supporters are pushing the “dream ticket.”


The latest to tout a joint ticket is Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), co-chairman of Clinton’s national campaign, who said on MSNBC Monday that she would like to see Clinton and Obama run together.

But Obama’s congressional backers say former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) or former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would be the better choice.


Some are wary of putting Clinton on the ticket because they believe she has run a racially divisive campaign.


Former President Bill Clinton enraged Obama supporters when he predicted Obama would win the South Carolina primary because voting would fall along racial lines. The former president later compared Obama’s victory to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s win there in 1988.


Mrs. Clinton recently riled Obama’s allies by talking to USA Today about her greater popularity among white working-class voters.


Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), an Obama supporter, said Edwards would make a better running mate because “he hasn’t made as many people angry. Some of the things she has said and done and her husband has said and done have disappointed people in a serious way. The comment that she was there for [the] white working class was divisive. I would hope there is a black and Latino working class she would be there for.”


Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), another Obama ally, said choosing Clinton could unify the party but also anger black supporters. “The downside is the divide that has occurred over the last year in this primary is pretty wide,” Clay said. “I’m not sure the Obama supporters will fall in line and support her. It’s evident that she and her husband started down this racial path shortly after the South Carolina primary and they continue to hearken back to racial divides in this country.”


Pro-Obama lawmakers say the running mate needs to be “a fresh face” or should have better foreign policy and national security credentials than Clinton. They worry that Clinton, who was embroiled in bitter partisan disputes during eight years as first lady, would undermine Obama’s claim that he would unite people from across the political spectrum.


“I think you’d have to go for a fresh face,” said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), an Obama supporter, adding that it would make sense for Obama to choose from among the party’s “wide range of experienced foreign policy and national security experts. Sam Nunn, he’d be my first choice.”


Nunn, one of the party’s most respected authorities on defense, served 24 years in the Senate and is two years younger than presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). He might help refute Republican charges that Obama lacks national security experience.


Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), another Obama ally, also prefers someone like Nunn.

“Clinton’s forte has been domestic policies; I would prefer someone with a heavier experience on defense,” he said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), one of Obama’s most prominent backers, said, “What about John Edwards? He might make a more appropriate vice presidential candidate.”


Conyers cited Edwards’s outsider campaign for the White House, which echoed Obama’s. But Conyers said he would support Clinton if Obama picked her.


Ellison said Edwards would help Obama more than would Clinton but added that it was Obama’s decision. Edwards, who was Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) running mate in 2004, has emerged as a popular possible running mate because of Obama’s difficulty attracting white, blue-collar voters in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.


Edwards structured his campaign to appeal to working-class whites, and he remains popular with them. He said last week, however, that he is not interested in the vice presidency.



Clinton supporters are enthusiastic about an Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket.

Several, such as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), have endorsed the “dream ticket.”


“If Sen. Obama becomes our nominee and he wants someone to carry the Clinton banner there’s no question in my mind he should ask Hillary Clinton,” Rendell told CNN.


Schumer told reporters: “Hillary and Barack have both run very strong and great races, and I think they’d be a strong ticket together.”


Two former Clinton aides are among the most outspoken advocates for a joint ticket.


Adam Parkhomenko, who worked as an assistant to former Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, and Sam Arora, who worked for Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns, recently started a group called VoteBoth to promote a joint ticket. It has adopted a logo that melds the Clinton and Obama campaign designs.


They argue that Obama and Clinton would win because together they have attracted the votes of more than 30 million people and raised more than $400 million.


“We think that change and experience can not only coexist on a ticket but make it much stronger,” said Arora. “Change and experience has moved 32 million voters. It will unite the party.”


That argument has persuaded at least one Obama supporter in Congress, Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), who first endorsed Clinton but then switched to Obama.


“We cannot win with just black voters, college students and liberal voters,” said Scott, referring to Obama’s core supporters. “We’ve got to have working-class whites; we’ve got to have the support of white women; we’ve got to have Hispanics, Jewish voters and Catholics. These are the very people that form the core of Hillary’s support.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...see-dream-ticket-as-nightmare-2008-05-19.html
 
Why everybody always trying to tell Obama what to do? He should pick this he should say that blah blah blah. GTFOH
 
<font size="5"><center>Sen. Obama’s backers see dream ticket as nightmare</font swize></center>

...

Several, such as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), have endorsed the “dream ticket.”


“If Sen. Obama becomes our nominee and he wants someone to carry the Clinton banner there’s no question in my mind he should ask Hillary Clinton,” Rendell told CNN.

...

If Obama wants someone to carry the Clinton banner, he would be better off asking Ed Rendell than he would be asking Hillary Clinton.
 
<font size="4">
Absolute proof that he shouldn't pick Hillary:

</font size>

Why_Choose.jpg
 
Palin is Hillary's Gift to Obama

September 13, 2008
Palin is Hillary's Gift to Obama
By Toby Harnden

Spare us the instant Hillary Clinton nostalgia. Half of the Democratic party seems to have persuaded itself that the former First Lady would have been cruising to an effortless victory by now had primary voters shown the wisdom to select her as their nominee.

Even many of those who remain intensely loyal to Barack Obama are beginning to rue the day he decided not to pick her as his running mate. Clinton and her sisterhood of traveling pantsuits, they fret, would have sewn up the female vote, reassured rural white men and doubled down on this year's election theme of change.

Republicans who spent several years salivating at the prospect of facing a polarizing candidate with more baggage than Heathrow airport, an unfavorability rating hovering around 50 per cent and the persona of the archetypal calculating politician now hail her as a gutsy heroine callously cast aside by Senator Obama.

Of course, most of the new conservative love for Clinton is tactical. By lauding the senator for New York, they undermine Obama and highlight her case - which looks more compelling by the day - that he could not defeat John McCain. The old adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", Republicans calculate, should hold true until November 4th.

We will never know whether Clinton would have beaten Senator McCain, though there are powerful reasons to be skeptical about her camp's conviction that victory would have been a certainty. But while she may not have beaten Obama in the primaries, she may well have sown the seeds for his defeat in 52 days time.

It's not just that Clinton continued to battle for the nomination beyond the point at which her winning became impossible and the major political damage to the Illinois senator became inevitable.

The crucial point is that if it wasn't for Clinton, Sarah Palin - who now could well become America's first female president whether or not McCain wins the White House - would have remained in relative obscurity in Alaska.

The New York senator knew that Obama would never choose her to be his running mate. Even if he'd asked her, she might well have refused. Her looming presence, however, spooked Obama into playing it safe with his vice-presidential pick.

Again and again, Clinton supporters made clear that for him to choose another woman to be on the ticket would cause uproar in Hillaryland. Obama was inclined to choose a Washington outsider who embodied change, had appeal in the heartland, would highlight his change message, had shown personal loyalty to him and with whom he was comfortable and in synch.

Either Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas or Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri would have fitted the bill. But Obama, afraid of a Hillary backlash if he chose a less qualified woman, blinked.

Clinton had trumpeted 35 years of experience. So Obama selected Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, who could boast nearly 36 years on Capitol Hill. Biden was acceptable to the Clintons because he'd never taken shots at Mrs Clinton (indeed, he didn't even endorse Obama against her). Even his Scranton roots were something of a nod to the former First Lady.

What Obama hadn't reckoned with was the opportunity he'd be handing McCain. Having calculated correctly that Obama would not choose Clinton, the Arizona senator embarked on what looks in hindsight like a masterful diversionary move. All summer, he dangled boring white guy governors Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty as his likely veep picks.

He floated Joe Lieberman, and appears genuinely to have wanted to choose the Connecticut senator before concluding he would have been unacceptable to the Right. But all along, Governor Palin was on his list. The rest were decoys.

Palin's inexperience made her a risk. When Obama went for Biden, however, the pluses were too good to overlook - a play for soft Hillary supporters, an outsider, an embodiment of change, a cementing of the jittery conservative base, a much needed jolt of excitement to McCain's campaign.

The secrecy of McCain's veepstakes process squashed whatever convention bounce Obama might otherwise have enjoyed. Palin neutralized Biden by making him seem a quaint throwback. And Biden, true to form, has already obliged by describing Palin as "good looking" and condemning her selection as a "backward step for women" - innocent comments but easily capable of provoking outrage, both real and synthetic.

Palin's presence on the trail has ensured that Clinton will remain to the fore - a constant reminder to her supporters of what might have been. Fearful of losing women voters, the Obama-Biden ticket is showing deference to the New York senator. Biden's musing that she might have been "more qualified" than him and a "better pick" as Obama's running mate was a gaffe of breathtaking proportions.

It's now obvious that Palin has left Obama badly rattled and his campaign flailing. It must stick in the craw of a man brought up by a single mother, who married a strong woman and adores his two daughters but he stands accused of being sexism not just once but twice.

The "lipstick on a pig" slip-up was no more intended to be sexist or demeaning than his ill-judged "likeable enough, Hillary" quip in the New Hampshire primary debate. But it illustrated once again the perils of a rookie on the national scene jousting with a female politician who has passionate supporters and is poised to make history.

It's folly, of course, for Obama to be engaging with Palin. It diminishes him by equating him with the number two on the other ticket. And far from neutralizing the question mark over his experience, the discussion of her qualifications has ensured that his thin resume will remain front and center.

Obama should be giving Palin a good ignoring while his campaign hammers away at her record and McCain's linkages to President George W. Bush - not his vetting process (a Beltway preoccupation of no relevance beyond whether it missed anything damaging) or her family.

Clinton has made clear she won't be attacking Palin. And why should she? A McCain-Palin victory would make Clinton the Democratic front runner in 2012. It would vindicate everything she said about Obama during their primary battle.

Palin, and what picking her telegraphed about McCain, could be Obama's nemesis. Hillary Clinton brought us Palin. The Alaska governor is her gift to Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/palin_is_hillarys_gift_to_obam.html
 
Re: Palin is Hillary's Gift to Obama

September 13, 2008
Palin is Hillary's Gift to Obama
By Toby Harnden

Spare us the instant Hillary Clinton nostalgia. Half of the Democratic party seems to have persuaded itself that the former First Lady would have been cruising to an effortless victory by now had primary voters shown the wisdom to select her as their nominee.

Even many of those who remain intensely loyal to Barack Obama are beginning to rue the day he decided not to pick her as his running mate. Clinton and her sisterhood of traveling pantsuits, they fret, would have sewn up the female vote, reassured rural white men and doubled down on this year's election theme of change.

Republicans who spent several years salivating at the prospect of facing a polarizing candidate with more baggage than Heathrow airport, an unfavorability rating hovering around 50 per cent and the persona of the archetypal calculating politician now hail her as a gutsy heroine callously cast aside by Senator Obama.

Of course, most of the new conservative love for Clinton is tactical. By lauding the senator for New York, they undermine Obama and highlight her case - which looks more compelling by the day - that he could not defeat John McCain. The old adage that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", Republicans calculate, should hold true until November 4th.

We will never know whether Clinton would have beaten Senator McCain, though there are powerful reasons to be skeptical about her camp's conviction that victory would have been a certainty. But while she may not have beaten Obama in the primaries, she may well have sown the seeds for his defeat in 52 days time.

It's not just that Clinton continued to battle for the nomination beyond the point at which her winning became impossible and the major political damage to the Illinois senator became inevitable.

The crucial point is that if it wasn't for Clinton, Sarah Palin - who now could well become America's first female president whether or not McCain wins the White House - would have remained in relative obscurity in Alaska.

The New York senator knew that Obama would never choose her to be his running mate. Even if he'd asked her, she might well have refused. Her looming presence, however, spooked Obama into playing it safe with his vice-presidential pick.

Again and again, Clinton supporters made clear that for him to choose another woman to be on the ticket would cause uproar in Hillaryland. Obama was inclined to choose a Washington outsider who embodied change, had appeal in the heartland, would highlight his change message, had shown personal loyalty to him and with whom he was comfortable and in synch.

Either Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas or Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri would have fitted the bill. But Obama, afraid of a Hillary backlash if he chose a less qualified woman, blinked.

Clinton had trumpeted 35 years of experience. So Obama selected Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, who could boast nearly 36 years on Capitol Hill. Biden was acceptable to the Clintons because he'd never taken shots at Mrs Clinton (indeed, he didn't even endorse Obama against her). Even his Scranton roots were something of a nod to the former First Lady.

What Obama hadn't reckoned with was the opportunity he'd be handing McCain. Having calculated correctly that Obama would not choose Clinton, the Arizona senator embarked on what looks in hindsight like a masterful diversionary move. All summer, he dangled boring white guy governors Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty as his likely veep picks.

He floated Joe Lieberman, and appears genuinely to have wanted to choose the Connecticut senator before concluding he would have been unacceptable to the Right. But all along, Governor Palin was on his list. The rest were decoys.

Palin's inexperience made her a risk. When Obama went for Biden, however, the pluses were too good to overlook - a play for soft Hillary supporters, an outsider, an embodiment of change, a cementing of the jittery conservative base, a much needed jolt of excitement to McCain's campaign.

The secrecy of McCain's veepstakes process squashed whatever convention bounce Obama might otherwise have enjoyed. Palin neutralized Biden by making him seem a quaint throwback. And Biden, true to form, has already obliged by describing Palin as "good looking" and condemning her selection as a "backward step for women" - innocent comments but easily capable of provoking outrage, both real and synthetic.

Palin's presence on the trail has ensured that Clinton will remain to the fore - a constant reminder to her supporters of what might have been. Fearful of losing women voters, the Obama-Biden ticket is showing deference to the New York senator. Biden's musing that she might have been "more qualified" than him and a "better pick" as Obama's running mate was a gaffe of breathtaking proportions.

It's now obvious that Palin has left Obama badly rattled and his campaign flailing. It must stick in the craw of a man brought up by a single mother, who married a strong woman and adores his two daughters but he stands accused of being sexism not just once but twice.

The "lipstick on a pig" slip-up was no more intended to be sexist or demeaning than his ill-judged "likeable enough, Hillary" quip in the New Hampshire primary debate. But it illustrated once again the perils of a rookie on the national scene jousting with a female politician who has passionate supporters and is poised to make history.

It's folly, of course, for Obama to be engaging with Palin. It diminishes him by equating him with the number two on the other ticket. And far from neutralizing the question mark over his experience, the discussion of her qualifications has ensured that his thin resume will remain front and center.

Obama should be giving Palin a good ignoring while his campaign hammers away at her record and McCain's linkages to President George W. Bush - not his vetting process (a Beltway preoccupation of no relevance beyond whether it missed anything damaging) or her family.

Clinton has made clear she won't be attacking Palin. And why should she? A McCain-Palin victory would make Clinton the Democratic front runner in 2012. It would vindicate everything she said about Obama during their primary battle.

Palin, and what picking her telegraphed about McCain, could be Obama's nemesis. Hillary Clinton brought us Palin. The Alaska governor is her gift to Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/palin_is_hillarys_gift_to_obam.html

Good article.

Especially true about this:
Clinton has made clear she won't be attacking Palin. And why should she? A McCain-Palin victory would make Clinton the Democratic front runner in 2012. It would vindicate everything she said about Obama during their primary battle.
 
Back
Top