Pennsylvania isn't really in play for the GOP, in my opinion, so why pick Wendell? Virginia, on the other hand, is and has gone Republican in every election after 1988. Trending Democratic, it's very ripe for moving solidly into the Democratic column. It's a Southern state, which would help Obama there. It provides balance. My problem? The guy from there I want as VP is Mark Warner and he's already running for the Senate. I guess there's no reasonable way to get him to switch to Obama's ticket. Bummer. Kaine is boring. Webb is someone I like, but I'd like to keep the seat and, frankly, Warner would be a better VP, IMO. May need to look at another state. Florida? Ohio? Impeach Bush.
I think Hagel has to be (or should be) frontrunner for Defense Secretary. I'd love him in the VP role, but given that Obama has bridge-building to do within his own party, I can't see it working. If he had the full support of his party already, Hagel would be a brilliant choice for VP.
I like the idea of a Republican or two in the cabinet (Lugar would make a good Secretary of State), but I'm leery of this. Clinton already tapped a R for Secretary of Defense so it feels a little less like a fresh gesture of bi-partisanship and more like Democrats agreeing with the outdated conventional wisdom that Republicans are better on defense. One Democrat naming a Republican Sec. of Defense is one thing; doing it twice is saying something. I especially don't like that at a time when Americans are turning the corner as to which party they trust more on national security. I appreciate Hagel's position on the war, but why not Clark instead?
My thinking exactly. I imagine Obama would choose 2 or 3 Republicans for his cabinet with Hagel among them. I was disappointed Hagel didn't make a run for president.
I think there are a few benefits to this - one, it signifies a more towards less politicization of the war. If you have an otherwise-conservative Republican and a Democrat trying to get us out Iraq, it helps signal to the country that this is right for the country, as opposed to Democrats simply disagreeing with Republicans on the war. Plus, I think it would help reduce the opposition from the right - or at least tone it down a bit. Also, at the end of the day, with Dems holding control of Congress and Presidency, I think whatever happens is going to be credited or blamed on the Dems. I don't think having a Republican SecDef really changed the blame/credit Clinton got. That said, Clark would be a good choice also. He was my candidate early on in 2004. The more he opened his mouth, though, the less I liked him. He just needs to be kept away from domestic policy, so he'd be a good fit at SecDef. I just am a huge Hagel fan in general. Like A_3PO, I was disappointed that he didn't run for Pres. He's probably my favorite of the Republicans that was considering a run. I'd love to see him rewarded for standing up to the party.
Hagel talked a good game after the fact. He never did anything to seriously challenge the administration when it mattered. There's not a Republican I would put in the cabinet. They made their bed... they refused to oppose policies outside the American mainstream, they acquiesced to administrative calls to go easy on oversight, they never voted against the administration when their vote meant something, they never filibustered. Screw 'em. Let 'em lie in it for 8 years. Putting a Republican in a cabinet post is not going to keep the GOP lunatics from obstructing and trying to drive up Obama's negatives every chance they get. There's no reason to put one in, especially in Defense. Every freaking Republican out there with maybe the exception of GHW Bush and a couple of his buddies were wrong on Iraq and certainly wrong on trusting this administration. None of those people need to be near power ever again.
Dubious already provided the answer that being a Senator with seniority will be more powerful than being VP. Clinton might accept the VP if a strong good of the party argument is made but I don't think the Obama campaign will make that argument to Clinton.
I think the primary reason for Clinton to want VP is as a stepping stone to President. It's the only way she controls her own destiny. If Obama loses in 2008 or 2012, she's the frontrunner the next election. If Obama were to serve out two terms, she's the frontrunner in 2016. If she's not VP and Obama is successful, she's done. Obama's VP would be the front runner in 2016, so you'd be looking at 2020 at the earliest - and she's be in her 70's by then and the Clinton brand would no longer be THE brand. If Obama fails either this year or in 2012, it still leaves the door open, but again, that's out of her control. And, it's not unreasonable if he were to pick her for VP, that he would give her one big project - probably health care. She'd have more control over the health care debate in that scenario compared to being a Senator and having to deal with Obama's plan. That said, I still don't have a good sense of her motives, so I'm not sure if she's interested in that or not.
8 years is an eternity in politics... 8 years ago, nobody knew who Obama was. This was Hillary's shot. She won't get another.
She was NOT repeatedly asked the rationale for the vote. She was asked multiple times several years later after the consequences of the disastrous invasion. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Have you (or Hillary) ever heard of regret? Discussing this with you is like pulling teeth.
Ah, we part company on something. Hillary is done as a candidate for president. Stick a fork in her. The reason why she is scorching the Earth so much is she will not have another chance at the big prize. If Obama serves out 2 terms, she would be 69 years-old in 2016. I doubt she would even be a candidate after 2 terms as veep. At some point White House fatigue has to kick in, even for Hillary (not to mention public fatigue for her). Even if Obama fails this year, I don't believe she will get the nod in 2012. For that matter, would she even run after such a painful loss this time? IMO, her whole purpose for being in the Senate was to run for president this year. Now that she has lost, I'm not sure what's going to happen. Earlier this year, I thought for sure she would be elected Senate Majority Leader. After scorching the Earth, that is very questionable. Losing a race for president is very hard, especially for an "inevitable" nominee. I'm gonna guess she goes out to pasture in 2012 or gets some other kind of appointment or assignment that allows her to leave sooner. It won't be easy sitting in the Senate watching President McCain or President Obama.
This has been beaten to death. Articles and columns have been posted showing that many, many Democrats (and some republicans) that voted for the resolution thought they were voting in order to exert pressure on Saddam to truly open the country to UN inspections. It worked. The problem was that those members in Congress were lied to by Bush, who never intended to reach an accommodation with Saddam and always intended to invade and occupy Iraq. You and those who believe as you do have always had it wrong. So has Barack Obama, who knows better and used it for political gain. Who was against the invasion and occupation (as were some here, like myself, and many in Congress who voted for the resolution and subsequent invasion), but wasn't in Congress to cast a vote and when he was, voted for the funding of that war, which goes against the view he keeps harping on. Now, I'm not surprised that he did either, but to continue to pretend that he had some incredible act of intellectual brilliance, compared to those who voted for the resolution, is seeing what you want to see, in my opinion... when he wasn't in Congress to vote on the resolution and when he was, voted for funding it. Cool. I just get tired of reading it. As for the statements of support prior to the invasion and occupation by various Democrats (and some republicans), if one looks at it without the rose-tinted glasses, what else would they be saying when the idea was to pressure Saddam, if they were attempting to support the lie of George W. Bush, not knowing it was a lie. Impeach Bush.
It is true that is what Bush told congress he was doing. He even said words to the effect that the vote was a vote to keep the peace. The problem is that Hillary didn't learn her lesson, and gave Bush the power to do the same thing within the last year or so on the Iran resolution.
FB, you're ignoring that Barack knew, in my opinion, that those members of Congress were lied to and has used the vote for political gain anyway. That he voted for funding for the war and occupation after he was elected to the Senate, despite ardently saying now how against the war he has been. Now, like I said, I understand the political reasons he did so, but the fact remains that he did. He is a politician, after all. I didn't mention Iran. Impeach Bush.
Not you too? Here are two facts about my view that may surprise you. 1 I understand the rationale for the vote, completely. I know Bush lied! The vote was for authority, not for a decision to attack. In 2004, John Kerry was unfairly lampooned and roasted as a "flip-flopper" over Iraq. The problem was he didn't communicate to the public very well and the GOP clobbered him over it. 2 I don't hold Hillary's vote for authorizing Bush against her. If you notice, the actual vote isn't even under discussion. It's her refusal to admit she regrets it after seeing the consequences. Please tell me you get it. If not, I guess clear discussion loses this time.
