Gore!!! Now you have me excited. Schwartzneger for Energy Czar. Wouldn't it be good to be going for energy independence instead of the satus quo of polluting and fighting wars for energy? I think Gore would probably lock up the election.
The environmentalist approach as compared to low energy prices is a loser in today's commodity price environment. Gore is on the wrong side of the issue. Remember, Gore has gone berserk since leaving office -- the fawning media and international community are propping him up in the public eye today, but he has had some outlandish moments since 2000. In 2000 his selfish ambition was disgraceful. He held our political process hostage while they tried to figure out how many recounts he could lose. He's a proven loser and carries too much baggage to do Obama any good.
Proven loser with you maybe [take the bet] but he has a high approval rating with Democrats. I think he would go a long way to nailing down the Clinton vote.
I think Gore would be a mistake. He is a polarizing figure and a strong focal point of distain/dislike/hate among many who aren't already strongly in the Democratic camp. In fact, he is alot like Clinton in that respect. He brings nearly as much in negatives as he does in positives. With the exception of the most recent instance (which also happens to have had one of the most ruinous outcomes ever) you don't win by appealing to the most radicalized elements of your party. You play to the center. Also, if you choose Gore, you counteract the central theme of your campaign. Could you really describe Gore using the slogan Change We Can Believe In©™? To me, this makes no sense. I have to guess that it is more fanboy wet dreaming from the same people who were sure that we would be seeing a 'dream team' Obama/Clinton ticket.
Agree with Ottomaton here. What about Gore represents change? And if the democratic party is hoping to bring some "reagan republicans" into the fold this November, Gore's polarizing effect could interfere. Also, I don't see Gore agreeing to such a position at this stage. By the way, none of this is meant to suggest I have a negative opinion of Gore in and of himself. I think the criticisms of him are largely unfounded and that's he done a great lot of good.
The problem here is that change and experience are basically conflicting goals. If you pick experience - Biden, Bayh, Clinton - you're definitely not getting change. If you pick change - Sebelius, Kaine - you're not getting experience. Clark might be an exception, but most indications are that he's not in the mix. Hagel would be experience and change simply in terms of partisanship, but he's also not really in the mix.
I appreciate that you and many others value experience. But I can’t see the least bit of evidence that Obama values it as you seem to. Is it possible that the Obama campaign might have chosen to place value in criteria different than you? It sounds like you are talking about who you would choose for Obama, rather than trying to figure out what Obama might choose for himself. It seems pretty clear to me, from the way he has run things, that he has chosen to resolve the conflict between change and experience in favor of change. If Obama placed great value on experience, why would he have talked to people like Sebelius, Kaine, and Bayh in the first place? (BTW, I see you isted Bayh as experienced, I don't see that he has much more than Obama.) Why would he skip over the most experienced voices like Bill Richardson? Biden is the only name that has been seriously discussed that could genuinely be described as experienced. In fact, I can remember a couple of interviews early in the process where Obama specifically said that he doesn't need to balance the ticket and he isn't looking for someone with lots of experience. I think you are allowing your own desires to cloud your vision if you think he is going to suddenly turn it around 180º.
So who do you think Obama should pick? Assume Obama's goal is to increase his chances of winning in November.
1 When discussing potential running mates, Presidential nominees NEVER admit the need to "balance the ticket". Even if he chooses Biden (or someone else with the "experience" label), Obama will say it was because he likes the guy for X, Y & Z reasons, excluding the need to add experience because of his own perceived inexperience. 2 Secondly, another practice in the process of selecting a running mate is casting a wide net. This is why the pool of possible choices is so diverse. Part of it is a smokescreen to prevent the media and public from zeroing in on the real contenders. The bottom line is neither you, nor anyone else knows what the main criterion are for Obama's choice because he's not foolish enough to reveal them. Misdirection is the one constant you can expect from a candidate choosing a veep, even from Obama.
Edit: Oops, misread the question. I think any of the other names are fine. I think since he has built a campaign on change, and that seems to be what energizes everybody about his campaign, it would be a mistake to choose any of the people who are 'Washington insiders' or household names.
This rumor says it's Bayh, who I've believed was the choice from the beginning. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/08/18/will-it-be-an-obama-bayh-ticket.html
I thought you just said campaigns are inscruitable and nobody can see through their misdirection? How did you aquire the special talent to read the tea leaves that eludes us mere mortals?
Oh I don't care for experience at all - I'm looking at it from where I think Obama will go. Personally, I think trying to win the experience argument against McCain is silly. No Governor or Senator is going to do that. But if you ARE going to try to win that argument, a former VP will do it. Absolutely - I get the sense that he's going with someone with experience. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. That's not clear to me at all. He's certainly the change candidate - but he's left up in the air whether he'll double down on that or balance the ticket. I suspect at the end of the day, he'll do the latter. Same reason he'd have talked to Biden, Richardson, Edwards and others - to see as many options as possible. Not doing so would be pretty stupid. Huh? Obama's been in the US Senate since 2004. Bayh's been there since 1999. And he was a governor since 1988. He gave the Dem keynote address in 1996. He's been in national politics long before Obama. Richardson and others were discussed as well. The initial list was something like 40+ names long. Just because the media didn't obsess over them doesn't mean the campaign didn't look at them. There are only about 6 people who really know how seriously any of the candidates were looked at - Obama, Michelle Obama, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and the two primary vetters. Obama also said Hillary was on the short list and McCain has said he's open to a pro-choice VP. The candidates have both said a lot of things in terms of VP selection. It doesn't mean it's particularly relevant. I think you have no idea what you're talking about. My suspicion is that it's not going to be any of the names that have been most often mentioned (Kaine, Bayh, Biden, Sebelius).
I thought the same for a while - but I've switched on this. But the VP is not supposed to energize - he/she is supposed to reassure. People vote based on the top of the ticket - the main thing a VP does is, if one has doubts, he/she helps mitigate them. No one is going to vote against the ticket because of the VP. You could get the least change-oriented person out there and it not likely many existing Obama voters would change their mind and say "oh, he's not about change anymore!". The purpose of the VP is to take the people that sorta like a candidate and might vote for them and make them more comfortable with him. From that perspective, doubling down on change doesn't do that. If you like Obama and are nervous about his inexperience, adding another inexperienced guy doesn't help. And inexperience is the biggest negative Obama has right now with voters. He may go a different route and pick someone to try to help win a state (Virginia, Indiana) or something like that, but I don't think he goes with change for the sake of change. Though I'd still like to see that in a Sebelius type - but that would be to pull in older female voters, where McCain has a real opportunity due to Hillary backlash. Part of this also depends on how confident he is in winning. That affects whether he picks someone to help him lead or to help him win. More often that not, people are picked to help win than lead, unfortunately.
I should say, if it IS any of the big 4, I think it would be Biden. Him and Sebelius would be my preferences over Bayh/Kaine as I think each brings more to the table (in very different ways).
For what it's worth, Drudge is reporting that the NYTs is ready to announce Obama has made his choice and will start the roll out Wednesday morning with "the text"
Say what you want about how Obama would run the executive branch, but you've got to be impressed with the discipline his campaign has had in containing leaks or rumors. All of this speculation and we still have no idea who he’ll pick for his Vice President.
Dude, calm down. I never claimed to have any "tea leaves" and my guesses were no better than any others. It's all in fun. I also never said "nobody can see through their misdirection". Try chilling out, learning to read and drop the stupidity about mere mortals. You take this a bit too seriously. Lighten up. If you disagree with what I posted, tell me why I'm wrong.
