Great choice. He was my pick for the last year and a half, in the event that Obama got the nod. I'm marginally favoring Sebelius over him now but he's definitely in my top three and I'd be very happy if it was him.
This list of potential Obama V.P. choices reminds me of my opinion of the GOP field last fall. There were so many reasons for each one not winning the nod, I couldn't pick a favorite.
Batman, for someone who gets such apparent pleasure attempting to belittle those who disagree with you, couldn't you be a bit more creative? Impeach Bush.
i haven't commented in this thread, until now. i voted edwards. i think that would be obama's wise choice, or so i thought. i'm not sure who he should go with... but seeing how weak mccain is on economics, and strong on military, obama needs to be able to exploit these. 1 - how is obama on economics? could he provide a better answer to the question ron paul posed to mccain? 2 - mccain has the military backgound, but he also wants to keep us in iraq for 100 yrs (which most people really really don't want). wesley clark appears to be a smart choice. he is strong militarily (former general), and is of course white so that should help in kentucky and virginia. but edwards is white/common folk too. i typed many words, but didn't say much.... i think this is obama's election to lose regardless of who he picks as a VP. furthermore, i think a choice such as kathleen sebelius would present a problem on two fronts. one, name recognition. who the F is she? second, depending on who mccain chooses as his VP, she could get eaten up in a debate. maybe not, but john edwards getting b**** slapped by cheney is pretty familiar if not funny. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ZMSlhemSOc&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ZMSlhemSOc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> and i don't care about the honest figures (i realize vp dick uses questionable numbers). what matters in a debate is who can make the other look like a clown. will KS be able to prevent that, and still make obama look like the best choice? edit #2: then again, maybe it doesn't matter? <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O-7gpgXNWYI&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O-7gpgXNWYI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Bingo. The polls show Hillary as a 3pt bump right now. Interestingly enough, they show about the same for Edwards as VP. The reality is that 3 pts is nothing - statistical noise. And frankly, that's what a VP does for you. People are going to choose between Obama and McCain - outside of a small group, no one is going to go for the opposite candidate simply because of a VP choice. The main exception is if you put a seemingly crazy person there - kind of like Perot's VP (Stockdale?). Gore didn't gain Clinton much in terms of votes, and Quayle didn't cost Bush. But beyond all that, the reason the polls are meaningless is that they don't account for the enthusiasm gap. They ask whether you're a likely voter - a binary question: yes or no. What they can't measure is HOW likely a voter. And right now, Dems are much more enthusiastic voters. What I suspect the poll fails to measure is when you add Hillary to the ticket, the GOP voters become much more enthusiastic voters. So while the poll won't show a different because they were likely voters in both cases, I'd bet money that you'd see a difference on election day. Ultimately, it's possible to get a VP choice that attracts a few people, puts to rest some doubts, and doesn't piss a whole bunch of people off. Clinton does the former two but not the latter. So why take the risk? A VP choice should never be controversial - and at the end of the day, that's what Clinton is. She attracts drama and controversy, whether her fault or not. That's the last thing you want distracting from your message.
off topic, but WHAT THE HELL happened to this candidate? where did this one go? when did he change from this, <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vkk3mhk3N0I&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vkk3mhk3N0I&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> to present day?
I agree that the "enthusiasm" measurement is an important one. I was reading about the huge edge Dems have this year in that regard. Over a third of GOP voters were simply indifferent to their party's chances in the Fall. (I probably should look for it) But it doesn't measure what percentage of Democratic voters were enthusiastic self-identified Clinton supporters, or what impact adding her, or not, had to that measurement. I think something like 67% of Democrats were "enthusiastic," compared to about 37% Republicans. Compare that to the GOP numbers for 2004. It really affects your turnout and that can win elections. Impeach Bush.
The most hilarious thing about all this is that you accuse me of making this personal. All I did was argue my side well enough that you got your feelings hurt by your failure to argue back. And then you decided to make it about me and my style. If you had the courage of your convictions you would have at least tried to argue against my points. But you never did. I repeated a good five times or so my points in the primary season and you chose to ignore them each time in favor of taking a dig at my style of arguing instead. An easy example would go like this: Batman: Obama's leading by 19% among women. Deckard: No he's not. He's leading by 7. B: No. The 7 is only white women. D: You're a dick. You are maddening. I realize that my style of argument is sometimes nasty. But this is the internet after all and arguments sometimes go that way. But I didn't start out nasty with you at all. I only got nasty when you refused to answer a single point I was making but continued to make the same old well squashed arguments as though they hadn't been thoroughly refuted. Like Jorge. I don't get that much pleasure belittling people; I get pleasure arguing politics. (But I will admit, when people suck at it and when they do so with prideful gusto as you have, I do sometimes enjoy belittling them.) You pretended you were ready to have a debate about the election and then you got so deeply offended that I disagreed with you that you decided you didn't want to talk to me anymore. Problem is, you kept making the same arguments. Worse, you kept pretending they hadn't been utterly refuted. I love arguing with Democrats because I am one. I love arguing with someone that basically shares my values, because it challenges me to defend those values and to figure out the best path forward for those values. You seem to hate arguing with anyone that's not a clear and total villain. That's too bad. But that's not on me. (Or on my sense of humor or relative creativity) All I'm doing is saying what I think on a forum that's designed for that. What you're doing is getting pissed off that I have the opinions I have and finding yourself unable or unwilling to argue against them. That's weak, dude. And it has no place in this forum. Argue or don't. But if you give up, you should just give up. Otherwise you should answer my arguments. I don't ask anymore than I would of those dorks basso or George, but don't expect me to ask less either.
The "enthusiasm" and "turnout" factors are one of the main things that make the wait for November very hard for me. I want to know how much (or if) the overwhelming advantage the Dems had in the primaries translates to the general election. I have my doubts, but if it does, McCain is truly dead in the water and Obama wins this thing by 10+ points. But there is a long way to go and the flavor, feel and dynamics of McCain vs. Obama could be a lot differnt in 4 1/2 months.
You guys are arguing like...like...Democrats. Any information yet on how Obama/Sebelius polls with women? Screw someone delivering a State if someone else can deliver an entire gender. I could see how her candidacy could fire up some enthusiasm from women. If she's the pick, I'd like to see the choice made before the GOP makes theirs. An innovative candidate could make the GOP pick stale or any women selections copycat. (If I were placing a bet though , I would take the favorite, Edwards)
Batman, at 3:45 in the morning, shouldn't you be having relations with one of your more attractive cast members, or perhaps one of the tens of people in the adoring crowd at your play? Is this the best use of your time at that hour? I salute you for the limited (but not eliminated entirely) use of vulgarity and curse words in your post. That marks improvement. In the meantime, you remain the most un-civil poster in this sub-forum. Keep the intramural struggle going, libs! I love me some lib-on-lib keyboard violence! HO HO HO
at 3:45 in the morning or any other time, shouldn't you be accepting Sam Fisher's challenge, or is this another case where you are all talk, and won't back it up?
Some of what I've read recently, which you will dismiss as irrelevant. WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for president, is looking to shore up support — especially from Latinos. During the primaries on Super Tuesday, he received only 35 percent of Latinos' vote, while former rival Sen. Hilary Clinton's received 63 percent. "There really wasn't an opportunity for Barack Obama to introduce himself to Latino voters. "He needs to get out there and do that and he needs to listen to Latino voters and understand what they care about," said Arturo Vargas, of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ A hypothetical Obama-Clinton ticket would currently get 52 percent of the vote, compared with 46 percent for a hypothetical McCain-Romney ticket, according to the poll. If Clinton is not on the ticket, 60 percent of her Democratic supporters said they would vote for Obama, 17 percent would vote for McCain, and 22 percent would stay at home in November and not vote for anyone. "That's just one estimate of the 'Clinton factor,' " said CNN polling director Keating Holland, "and it may not be an accurate predictor since it piles several hypotheticals on top of each other and asks people to guess their state of mind five months from now. "Nonetheless, it does indicate that unmotivated Clinton supporters may be a bigger risk to Obama than defections from the Clinton camp to McCain." http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html June 13, 2008 Media Charged With Sexism in Clinton Coverage By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JULIE BOSMAN Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a “Media Hall of Shame,” starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton’s rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter. But many in the news media — with a few exceptions, including Katie Couric, the anchor of the “CBS Evening News” — see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward. Rather, they say, as the Clinton campaign fell behind, it exploited a few glaring examples of sexist coverage to whip up a backlash and to try to create momentum for Mrs. Clinton. Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of criticism, said that although a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network’s overall coverage was fair. “I get it, that in this 24-hour media world, you’ve got to be on your game and there’s very little room for mistakes,” Mr. Griffin said. “But the Clinton campaign saw an opportunity to use it for their advantage. They were trying to rally a certain demographic, and women were behind it.” His views were echoed by other news media figures. “She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself, whether it was the Bosnian snipers or not conceding on the night of the final primaries,” said Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review. “She had a long track record in public life as a serious person and a tough politician, and she was covered that way.” Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, said: “I have not had a lot of regretful conversations with high-ranking media types and political reporters about how unfair their coverage of the Hillary Clinton campaign was.” Among journalists, he added, the coverage “does not register as a mistake that must not be allowed to happen again.” Taking aim from the inside, though, was Ms. Couric, who herself has faced harsh criticism as the first woman to be the solo anchor of an evening news broadcast. Ms. Couric posted a video on the CBS Web site on Wednesday about the coverage of Mrs. Clinton. “Like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued — and accepted — role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media,” Ms. Couric said. She went on to lament the silence of those who did not speak up against it. Candy Crowley, covering the campaign for CNN, said that for the most part, she did not see a drumbeat of sexism in the daily reporting, “but I certainly did see it in the commentary.” Still, Ms. Crowley said, “it was hard to know if these attacks were being made because she was a woman or because she was this woman or because, for a long time, she was the front-runner.” The perception that sexism tainted coverage of the Clinton campaign — a view expressed on Internet postings and in conversations among women — appears to be gaining ground more in political circles than in the mainstream news media. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, who says he was slow to pick up on charges of sexism because he is not a regular viewer of cable television, is taking up the cause after hearing an outcry from what he described as a cross-section of women, from individual voters to powerful politicians and chief executives. “The media took a very sexist approach to Senator Clinton’s campaign,” Mr. Dean said in a recent interview. “It’s pretty appalling,” he said, adding that the issue resonates because Mrs. Clinton “got treated the way a lot of women got treated their whole lives.” Mr. Dean and others are now calling for a “national discussion” of sexism. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/u...d=1&adxnnlx=1213395087-MqKR4zXUH9Lxq7b/fhsWPA Batman: Obama's leading by 19% among women. Deckard: No he's not. He's leading by 7. B: No. The 7 is only white women. D: You're a dick. Golly! I got a percentage wrong? Do you honestly think I did that deliberately? Oh, and show me where I said you were a "dick." Trust me... what I feel like calling you at the moment is not anything I would want to post on this board. Oh, and I've read reams of stuff that I use in posts that I make and call upon my memory to serve me. I don't have the links bookmarked. I'm not attempting to somehow "get something past Batman!!!" My mistake. I should start saving a link for every damn thing that might possibly be used in a discussion with Batman Jones. And if I don't respond to Batman Jones the way he wants me to, it could hardly be because I simply think it's not worth the trouble. Oh no... it has to be because I'm running from a "debate and discussion." Just like Trader_J, little texxx, and basso. According to you. You know what? The only thing larger around here than your ego is, well, sorry... I can't think of anything larger. My bad. What really cracks me up is that I made the mistake of supporting two Democrats during the primary. I didn't, like many here, become an Obama fanboy. A big mistake. In future, I'll be sure to put a finger in the wind and see which way it blows. That would save me a lot of grief. Cheers. Impeach Bush.
Hey Deckard, I apologize for raking you over the coals. You don't need to forgive me but I really do. In fact, I was formulating my apology in my head while reading an old classic thread while you were posting your understandably angry reply here. I get a big kick out of both debate and argument and I hardly ever hold back. I know it's not an attractive quality and I know not everyone shares my enthusiasm for a good old fashioned knock-down drag out. So anyway, though you didn't actually call me a dick, I'm sorry for being one. While you were posting your last reply I was taking a ride down memory lane. 2006 was a somewhat happier time among Democrats, by virtue of the fact that a nasty primary season hadn't yet divided us at all. (I can't quite let your suggestion that such division here was a simple case of supporting two Democrats go without a little commentary though. We were divided not because people failed to fall at Obama's feet but because, in the desperation that seeing a sure thing slip away can cause, Clinton decided to employ the "kitchen sink" strategy, indeed going so far as to call it "the fun part." But whatever to that. This is supposed to be a mea culpa.) Funny story about how I found that old thread. I was reading a story about Giuliani participating in McCain fundraisers and taking a cut for himself to retire debt. The story made the point that Giuliani's failure was spectacular enough to be regarded as nearly historic. And that made me think of poor basso. So I did a BBS search on Giuliani just to have a little fun reading basso's old posts on the matter and accidentally landed on this thread (which has, to my recollection, virtually nothing to do with basso or Giuliani): http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=115104&page=1&pp=20 It's a sweetheart of a thread and well worth reading again for several reasons: 1. In it there are several predictions, all interesting in hindsight, about Obama's viability as a candidate. 2. It recalls a great article Obama wrote back in 06 -- one of the many that provided for my early and continuing enthusiasm about him as a potential president. 3. There is some damn classic back and forth between me and my old friend giddyup on various topics having nothing to do with the subject of the thread. 4. Again, it recalls happier times between Deckard and me, times when we were on the same side, times when we were both over the moon about a potential Obama run, and times when he went out of his way to recognize the sense of humor he lately believes I no longer possess. And it made me think, man, I've really been a jerk to Deckard lately. So anyway, sorry for beating up on you, Deckard. Sorry to you too giddy, for the thorough trouncing I gave you in the linked thread. I like both of you guys and I regret being a jerk to either of you. No apologies for you though, George. And no, I am not supposed to be hooking up with random actresses at 3:45. I have lived with the same woman for nearly two years now, we are still madly in love and I have no interest in anyone else that way. I hope you find similar happiness in your life one day.
Damn. Thanks, Batman and apology accepted. I'm sure I've been more than a little prickly, myself. Let's just forget about it. It's time to put the primaries behind and look forward to Barack Obama kicking John McCain's ass back to K Street. Impeach Bush before it's Too Late!
Word. Peace. Or, rather, as an old friend used to say, "Champagne for all my real friends and real pain for all my sham friends." Thanks for the water under the bridge, D.
Getting back on track...it looks like the Final Four looks something like (in no order): Hillary Clinton John Edwards Kathleen Sebelius Jim Webb with a Richardson and Biden as longshots Obama won't like being vilified on the "Change" slogan if he chooses Hillary. That and the childish potshots from her and Bill during the primary season have pissed him off. So we can say that the odds are stacked against her. Edwards is a smart guy, and a safe choice, although he's indicated that he's not that interested in the VP stakes this time around. He wouldn't vacate a Senate seat, so that's a plus. But, as someone pointed out earlier, Edwards would prefer to be AG under the Obama administration. That leaves the wild cards, Sebelius and Webb. Both are relatively low profile compared to Clinton and Edwards. Of course, Webb's Senate seat would probably be snagged by a Republican from VA, so that's a concern. But Webb has a lot of clout in VA, and might help lead the upset there. Both have been anti-war since day 1. The Sebelius pick might backfire on Obama, as women might see her appoitment as simply Obama pandering for the female vote. But, watch, the actual VP nominee might be someone not even on this big poll.
Good post, Baqui. Couple thoughts: 1. Reports are that there is very serious interest in Biden. He's apparently gotten an unusual amount of attention from the vetters. 2. Clinton's in an entirely separate category here. She'll only be considered if three things happen: She and Bill will need to agree to vetting, the vetting will need to come up clean and polls will need to show that there is still serious division among Democrats. I tend to think that none of these three things will happen and she will, therefore, not be considered seriously. But if all three do, I think she's the frontrunner. 3. Although Webb gets more buzz, a lot of experts see Kaine as a more likely possibility out of VA. 4. I think the chances of Edwards being asked and accepting are nearly none. I think the chances of him being AG or some other cabinet position are nearly certain. 5. It would not surprise me at all if he chooses someone that's not on this poll. Even the list that was leaked had 16 candidates on it (and Richardson, Clark, Hagel and Bloomberg were not among them). It would not surprise me either if he chose someone that was not on this poll or the 16 person list. It's completely impossible to predict now, but it sure is fun trying.
IMO, you can immediately strike Clinton and Edwards and I would bet on Webb being the choice IF it's one of those 4. Forget Biden and Richardson. My hunch is there is a very good chance it's none of the above. I will have a heart attack if Obama chooses Hagel as his veep. I have no doubt he will break the mold and have several Republicans in his cabinet. But choosing one as veep is just too radical. My top two guesses are Webb and Bayh.
