Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

Here we are with the Obama/Clinton Vice-presidential paradox I predicted months ago in this very thread. If Obama fails to offer the VP job to Hillary, he will alienate millions of Hillary supporters, and possibly hand the election to John McCain, who I believe will win regardless. I truly hope Obama does snub Hillary on being his running mate so that the Democratic party stays in turmoil.

When Obama debates McCain on foreign policy and domestic issues, the experienced senior Senator will hand him his head. While Obama gives good speeches when they are written for him in advance, I just don't think he can think on his feet well enough to hide his naive thinking and inexperience. My opinion, and I have held my tongue for quite some time.

Well hurraaaa for the first African/American candidate for president, interesting that it has to be the Democratic party the first to bring a Woman and a Black man as candidates.

GOP still as rich and white corporate as it can be.

Now is not over and taking into consideration the bigotry that still plagues our nation I will not rule out that some of the delegates will not feel comfortable with Obama.

So we will have to wait and see.

While many countries as voiced support for Obama as a candidate Israel is not so supportive.

But then again Israel only support is for US to fight their wars.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by marg6043]

The jury is still out on the matter of Clinton as Vice President. We should know something by the end of this week. My question for anyone who cares to answer is this...why should she take it? What are the positive for her and her party?

reply to post by marg6043

Well hurraaaa for the first African/American candidate for president, interesting that it has to be the Democratic party the first to bring a Woman and a Black man as candidates. GOP still as rich [male] and white corporate as it can be.

Now is not over and taking into consideration the bigotry that still plagues our nation I will not rule out that some of the delegates will not feel comfortable with Obama. So we will have to wait and see. While many countries as voiced support for Obama as a candidate Israel is not so supportive. But then again Israel only support is for US to fight their wars.

McCain has already pulled the RACE card. In NC, where the local GOP ran an ad showing Rev. Wright and his infamous remarks, McCain claimed he asked the locals not to continue running the ad, but they did anyway. McCain wants the best of both worlds. To look tolerant but also to benefit by the ugly GUILT by association ad. A LO DOWN dog!

But Barack comes back on McCain’s shenanigans within 24 hours of his hokum. Hillary can take care of herself! She weathered 8 years of ENDLESS GOP harassment and came out smiling and smacked them hard in NY in 2000. Wow! And she did it again in ‘06!

Yes, we’ll see all the typical GOP racism at work this fall. Get out the old Willie Horton ads. Ramp up the Jesse Helm ads showing the white man being pink slipped while a black man waits in the background for his job, Affirmative Action you know. Maybe they’ll rerun the Ronnie Reagan Welfare Queen and her Cadillac at the food stamp store? You can be sure it will be dirty if it comes from the Republicans.

But Barack has touched a nerve. I see him wining in the Fall and Hillary becoming the first woman as Vice President!

You’re right on Israel, too, M43. There will be NO peace in the Middle East until we reign in our lap-dog Israel and make peace between them and the Palestinian Arabs who lived there before 1948.

[edit on 6/4/2008 by donwhite]

I'm not sure that today's political environment will allow old school race baiting. The problem faced by many Republicans today is that they don't know how to do combat in the modern arena.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama.

I, for one, don't want Uncle Sam to get in to the health care business. I would oppose any candidate who insisted on doing so. In this case, its a Democrat. some day, it'll be a Republican.

The environmentalist regs that are proposed by Dems would result in higher taxes at a point when we don't need higher taxes. I dislike the idea of using taxes to change social behavior. Legal reform is one thing. Taxation as a form of social engineering is just not cool.

A lot of people are going to be seriously honked off at President Obama when he renegs on his promise of a total Iraq pullout. Even he will be surprised to see that the world looks "different" when you are actually the President.

For these reasons, and others, it will be possible to challenge the Obama candidacy without race.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama. I, for one, don't want Uncle Sam to get in to the health care business.

Hmm? Health care business? How about Medicare. Medicaid. Part D. Public Health Service. Merchant Marine Hospitals. 1.3 million Active duty Armed Forces. CHAMPUS for I don’t know how many military dependants. Veterans Administration. 2 million Federal employees. I’d say the Federal government is already in the health care business.

I’m pretty sure the US government pays between 20 and 25% of the nation’s health care bills. I’ve heard Medicare described as the “engine” that pulls the health care train. See Foot Note.

The environmentalist regs that are proposed by Dems would result in higher taxes at a point when we don't need higher taxes. I dislike the idea of using taxes to change social behavior. Legal reform is one thing. Taxation as a form of social engineering is just not cool.

Cry babies! How long ago was it that Weyerhaeuser cried they would be put out of business if we 1) stopped them from clear cutting and 2) did not let them kill off the Spotted Owl? I’m thinking it was the 1970s. I think Weyerhaeuser is still in business.

The just proposed Climate Control Act features “selling” pollution permits. It was mentioned that system worked better than anyone expected when it was used to stop acid rain.

A lot of people are going to be seriously honked off at President Obama when he reneges on his promise of a total Iraq pullout. Even he will be surprised to see that the world looks "different" when you are actually the President.

Last night in St. Paul, he said, may I paraphrase, “We are at the end of doing the Iraqis job. They must take up the work for themselves.” This issue may be moot before the November 4 election. It may be the Iraqis have grown weary of the killing and are ready to sit down. We’ll see but it looks that way to me. Which is just what I have thought for years and years.

The Iraqis have been around at least 5,000 years. The Holy Bible puts the Garden of Eden in Iraq. And Noah's Flood. The Iraqi will fight until fighting no longer is working for them. Each side tries to play us off against the other side. When we’re gone, it will be as in Isaiah 11:6 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together . . “ KJV

Foot Note. Health care in the Czech Republic

Beginning in January, 2008, the Czech government applied a fee to doctor’s visits. $1.85. A month’s supply of prescribed medicine is also set at $1.85. The new fee schedule sets in-hospital services at $3.70 per day. Czechs visit the doctors more often than any other Europeans. The new fees have caused outrage in the Czech Republic.

In neighboring countries, Hungary for example, the assessment of health care fees was soundly defeated in a referendum and the Health Minister was fired. In the Czech Republic the Prime Minister was forced into Constitutional Court in Brno to testify as the court weighed overturning the fees. In the end, the Court said the government was empowered to assess the fees.

The Czechs have had free health care since the end of World War Two. Their system is paid for by payroll deductions and general tax levies. The newly imposed fee system has a $300 annual cap per person. There are numerous exceptions, but most Czechs do not like the idea of a cap. The fee system is new and will be modified as it works into the lives of the Czech Republic.

[edit on 6/4/2008 by donwhite]

I'm going to give this the serious answer it deserves.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as they exhist now....serve to make my point. Veteran's medicine has been merged with these functions, and we're all familiar wit the recent scandals that have resulted from that.

It's very tempting to use government as a social engineering mechanism. High minded goals seem acheivable when you make the case that only government can do certain things. Competent regulation and competent enforcement of those regulations can achieve same or similar results, when a majority of society members agree that those things need to be done.

social programs consume as much of a national budget as they are allowed to. Social Security, by itself, could bankrupt the Federal treasury if we allowed it. It's laudable to provide for those who don't have, but let's not forget that a government that takes punatively from those who have also teaches those who can to...not do.

There's an old saying that half a loaf is better than none. I've been poor. I know how true that really is. Experience has also taught me that social programs need to strive for a mid-range solution. Too much in the wrong direction ends up taming the inventors and entrepreneurs. Why bust your chops for a reward that may or may not come. Why not play it safe and take the government check?

I'm not telling any secrets when I say that I work for myself. I am self employed. I risk everything I have for rewards which may or may not come. If the carrot is big enogh, even I could be convinced to stop what I'm doing and take the Federal check.

The unspoken "thing" about socialized medicine is that the "cure" is worse than the disease. In the short run, everyone would have gold plated coverage, but...in the long run...the society would be robbed of its ability to innovate and progress. Medical coverage of the type most desired would inadvertently expand the ranks of the unemployed. It's not hard to find a doctor who would certify that you're incable of work. Why would you work when you can have free money and free medical?

I'd like to use myself as an example.

I am legally blind. That's not a secret. I CAN have $2,400 each month, plus medical, through Social Security. That's about $28,000 a year, just for breathing. I'd lose four dollars for every one dollar I make in honest work. If I make as little as little as $7,000 I'd lose my check and my medical. My bank accounts would be monitored, and I'd be penalized for an accidental savings.

As an up and coming writer, I have the potential to make millions, if I don't take that check and the medical that goes with it. The average freelance writer in the United States makes just $2,000 per year. Most have day jobs while they're doing this. The average writer with a day job makes just $16,500. Bear in mind that the U.S. government povery line number is $23,600 or so.

As you can see from these numbers, its rather silly for me to keep working. A person in a country that insisted on socialized health care and the welfare that goes with it would...not...be obliged to even try any chance at wealth.

I know that Don has a background in the insurance biz, so let's look at one more factor. If enough of us decided to play it safe and take that check, national GDP falls like a rock. For some of us, that check is actually a pay increase. For other, the loss in pay is offset by the medical and all the spare time they have.

Giving in to the temptation of social medicine and the enhanced welfare programs that would follow, utimately leads to a managed economy. Managed economies lack spontenaity and the ability to innovate. the collapse of the Soviet Unon made that point, and today's E.U. continues to make that point rather provacotively.

Don and I have had this discussion before, so he's not going to see anything new here. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. Even so, I hope this is food for thought.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I know that Don has a background in the insurance biz, so let's look at one more factor. If enough of us decided to play it safe and take that check, national GDP falls like a rock. For some of us, that check is actually a pay increase. For other, the loss in pay is offset by the medical and all the spare time they have.

Paying disability insurance is a social compact. It says that as a society we do not want people unable to work to either have to beg for their food, or die. Those were the basic choices one so unfortunate as to acquire a disability or to be born with one. In the latter case, when the parents died, shortly thereafter, the disabled child would perforce die.

In 1935 the US enacted OASI. Old age and survivors insurance. Total disability coverage was added later. We pay 6.2 % of our wages up to $80,000. Our employer matches that amount. Should a covered worker die with minor children, the surviving spouse/parent is paid an amount to support the child or children into adulthood. And kept together and not sent to an orphanage. Because it is also a state sponsored social measure, everyone is IN, no one can choose to opt out. That makes it very workable.

As an insurance policy it has proved to be a magnificent workable plan. OASI remains solvent in 2008, some 73 years on. And it has $2+ trillion in the bank! It makes our little part of the world a better place for everyone to live. I personally cannot imagine living in a country without such a plan.

Giving in to the temptation of social medicine and the enhanced welfare programs that would follow, ultimately leads to a managed economy. Managed economies lack spontaneity and the ability to innovate. the collapse of the Soviet Union made that point, and today's EU continues to make that point rather provocatively.

But what alternative plan can be offered? Not everyone is born equal in any talent, any personality, any intuition. Luck plays a significant role in our lives. It’s encapsulated in the saying, “There but for the grace of GOD go I.” Or, the man with no shoes complained until he saw a man with no feet. Which reminds me, when I was a small child, we used to see a man on a “skate board” who was legless, and pushed himself around with his hands to the pavement. I’ve seen people with wooden sticks made into a leg substitute.

Most of those limbless or one-limb people had been injured on the job. Most states had next to nothing in Workers Compensation. My home state of KY paid benefits only for 400 weeks. Yes, the R&Fs “owned” the state legislature. Workers laws were written by their lackeys. The Doctrine of STATES RIGHTS keeps it that way even in 2008. We can do better. But it is hard to do against those with all the money and talent. Advocating for the helpless and homeless gets you not much in the way of approval or accolades.

Don and I have had this discussion before, so he's not going to see anything new here. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. Even so, I hope this is food for thought.

Yes, that's true, but J/O is the most civil person to discuss these issues with. I get worked up easily, but J/O keeps his cool. J/O is like Barack. Unflappable. I’m more like McCain. Too short on politeness sometimes. But you cannot change the way you are born. You just try to work around it.

I am going stand by the notion that the Republicans are going to lose out on the issue of health care and thus most likely lose the White House . Doing hardly anything on the home front due to the fact that Bush was overwhelmed by events in Iraq should come back to aunt the Republicans .

On another note could Hillary not still flip the Superdelegates at the convention in her favour ?

There may be one more twist left in the game.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by xpert11]

reply to post by xpert11

I am going stand by the notion that the Republicans are going to lose out on the issue of health care and thus most likely lose the White House. Doing hardly anything on the home front due to the fact that Bush was overwhelmed by events in Iraq should come back to haunt the Republicans. On another note could Hillary not still flip the Superdelegates at the convention in her favour? There may be one more twist left in the game.

Yes on your First Note, Mr X11. As I reminded in my earlier post, the Federal government is already (and perhaps has always been) the biggest player in the health care providing business. I use the word “business” with qualifications.

Private business and public government are not twins. The rules for one are not the rules for the other. Government is about service, business is about profit. Wishing to the contrary notwithstanding all too many people either want to make it so or think that it is. (The 2 interchange). Government perforce must be involved in business to keep it honest - the level playing field - and to protect the public from miscreants, but that is not to imply a reciprocal arrangement!

As to your Second Note. Could Hillary flip the S/Ds? Not likely. I don’t know the rules, but I’d say a vote is not FIXED until it is CAST. The only restraint on the delegates who switched would be imposed vis a vis their people back home. But Americans (and maybe everyone) hates a flip-flopper! Just ask John Kerry.

Which by way of argument is a terribly dumb thing to ask your politicos never to change their minds. Now you’re talking as John McCain. As you did not mention Mr X11, but I’m sure you know, some S/Ds have changed, notably John Lewis of GA, a leading black congressperson who was first in Hillary’s camp but then moved over to Barack’s as he saw Barack was riding a popular wave! An irresistible force had overcome an immovable object!

[edit on 6/5/2008 by donwhite]

IMO at least Hillary wont come out and formally say that she is dropping out of the race kind of like the US has gotten involved in conflicts post WW2 without formally declaring war . Hillary will want to leave the door ajar for the Superdelegates to switch to her side . As has already been noted if this takes place she will owe some massive favours .

reply to post by xpert11

IMO at least Hillary wont come out and formally say that she is dropping out of the race kind of like the US has gotten involved in conflicts post WW2 without formally declaring war. Hillary will want to leave the door ajar for the Superdelegates to switch to her side. As has already been noted if this takes place she will owe some massive favours.

1) It is now assumed she will do that this weekend. I think her choice to “suspend” her campaigning is a legal ploy allowing her to continue to receive donations whereas if she admits it is all over and quits, then she cannot pursue donors. She is $20+ million in the RED.
2) The last S/D count for June 4 - Wednesday - was 50 S/Ds for Barack, 3 for Hillary. I think it is OVER.
3) Barack has “won” with over 2200 delegates. It is politically impossible to BACK UP and cut him back to say, 2000 delegates then declare Hillary the winner.
4) If the Dems did that, they would lose to the GOP about 75/25%.

The only speculation now is over the TWO vice president choices. I do hope Hillary is offered and she accepts the VP slot with Obama. I believe NOW that McCain will go with Romney, not Huckabee who I earlier thought would be his choice. Romney just makes more sense for McCain. Young. Handsome. Articulate. Free of scandal. Successful businessman. A decent governor. And LOTS of money!

[edit on 6/6/2008 by donwhite]

Hey, folks. I was not able to log in to ATS yesteday. Today is June 6th, which has many of us talking about the D-Day landings.

Senator Clinton is due to give a speech tomorrow which should shed some light on her options. I'll stick with what I have long since maintained on this board. If Barack Obama does not choose Hillary Clinton to be his running mate, it'll mean a vast improvement in the odds for John McCain.

I understand Don's point about Romney, but I disagree. Obama and Clinton have it in them to make peace, if they so desire it. Romney and McCain do not have the desire or the will to make peace for the sake of political power. Both are driven ideologues, who would not make that compromise.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

If Barack Obama does not choose Hillary Clinton to be his running mate, it'll mean a vast improvement in the odds for John McCain. I understand Don's point about Romney, but I disagree. Obama and Clinton have it in them to make peace, if they so desire it. Romney and McCain do not have the desire or the will to make peace for the sake of political power. Both are driven ideologues, who would not make that compromise.

All day I’ve heard a lot of sensible people explain why Hillary is NOT a shew-in for the VP slot. 1) Obama must show strong signs of independence in his selection. 2) The ClintonS are both TOO strong and their light shines TOO bright for anyone less well know and much shorter on experience to purposely bring into the White House. 3) Although this is the American dream, the Clinton’s making $100 million between 2001 and 2007 is a lot of money and much if not most came from HEAVY SPENDING LOBBYISTS, the BANE of Obama who is the AGENT for CHANGE and will run on taking back the government from the lobbyists.

I have to agree with that reasoning. Now I flip one more time. The issue then comes down to this: Can Barack win without her? She is strong where he is weak, as the primaries demonstrated over and over. In crucial states, especially in the Iron Belt and in others like VA she is needed. And she can better put FL into play for Obama than he can on his own. (Rich old white women by the droves).

Who is Obama most likely to choose then? I say it will be Mr X11's own favorite candidate, Governor Bill Richardson of NM.

If McCain does not choose Romney then I suggest he will not choose the Huckster who I was touting until the first of this week. The Huck has too much baggage and may have too much money swapping hands in Arkansas problems too. The Huck seems to have a sense of entitlement to other peoples money. The issue there is what did he do to get into their pocketbooks?

Aside: the president of the University of West Virginia is resigning over the issue of granting a degree to the WV governor’s daughter which the WV U faculty said she had not earned. Shucks, if you can’t help your friends who can you help? State university president jobs have always been political plums in America. (That's how Bush43 got his 2 degrees IMO).

That leaves Charlie Crist of Florida. Add an “H” to his last name and who do you have then? Well HIM he is not, but he is popular in FL even if we do not know him either. He was the hand picked successor of the popular Jeb Bush. That guy from LA sounds more like Ron Paul than a genuine Republican. He is a freak of nature due to the Katrina fall-out. IMO.

[edit on 6/6/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


BUT LOOK HERE
June 7, 2008. Tehran. Nouri al-Maliki's visit to Iran comes as opposition in Tehran mounts to a proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement which is shaping up to be a major political battle between America and Iran. The U.S. and Iraq hope to finish the agreement by midsummer. It is likely to be among several issues discussed during al-Maliki's visit to Iran. It is al-Maliki's second visit to Iran in a year. Associated Press


Friday Headlines:
Oil zooms nearly 9 percent higher to record $139
Jobless rate leaps to 3-1/2 year high in May at 5.5%
Dow falls 394.64 points on jobless rate, record oil price
German SPD leader breaks customs, backs Obama
Russia blames U.S. for global financial crisis and said Moscow's growing economic muscle could be part of the solution.
Women suicide bombers show shifting insurgent tactics in Iraq
US military deaths in Iraq war at 4,092. Thank you George, you’re doing a heck of a job!

[edit on 6/7/2008 by donwhite]

I watched Hillary Clinton's concession speach today. Her specific words, her tone of voice, and her body language strongly suggest that ehre is no Vice Presidency in her future.

If anything, I'd say her 'support' was perfunctory. She said the expected words, while at the same time planting a few seeds to be cultivated and exploited at a later date. It's possible that hte price for her leaving the race was the retirement of her campaign debt.

By taking herself out of contention fo the Vice Presidency, she's clearly going to take the gambler's chance that Obama will lose the general election to John McCain. That is altogether possible, since the Clinton supporters will be vengeful, and Obama's choice of VP may further divide the party.

Let's be clear on one thing. Obama has to pick a white Southerner in oder to maximize his chances to win. Putting Bill Richardson on the ticket would be allow the GOP to turn the white vote against the Dems, and they'd do it, too. Racism would be their best political weapon. This makes John Edwards the next best choice, in terms of white Southerners. Even so, the Republcians can smear Edwards easily enough by harping on his wealth and the fact that he was the Democrat's second best choice for the Vice Presidency.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


The hypocrisy of politics never ends . If a Republican who has done well for him/herself cops flak there are accusations of dems wanting to confiscate profits . A well to do dem is somehow always an elitist .
Justin puts forward some sound logic as to why Edwards is a genuine contender for the VP slot . On a personal level Edwards would be motivated to reserve the result of four years ago .

This next bit is my own personal thoughts rather then any claim of facts .
Hillary strikes me as being a whore for power rather then any break out role model or figure for women or people in general . Hillary could have dropped out of the race a long time ago and used back room deals to try and get the VP slot . The other way of looking at things is that Hillary genuinely thought that things could still go her way and by the time she and Bill clued on that they wouldn't they had gone past the point of return in terms of pride .



[edit on 7-6-2008 by xpert11]

Here's my official prediction: Edwards for VP

In a speech earlier today, Senator Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign for the presidency of the United States. Her words and her body language made it clear to me that she wasn't going to be Barack Obama's running mate.

A closer study of her words suggests to me that she's hoping that he will lose to John McCain. If you examine what she SAID, it's clear that she didn't concede, drop out, or step down. She 'suspended' her campaign. That's an important sematic and tactical consideration because it means two things. 1) She doesn't actually "endorse" Obama. 2) It allows her to keep her State delegates in play, which she will use during the convention.

It's possible that these two could hate each other more than we know. It's not a secret that Mrs. Clinton carries a grudge. She's well known for her pay backs. In general terms, the Clintons are vindictive. Yeah, heah ,heah. I know. Show me a politician who isn't. Your point is well made. Even so, Bill and Hillary excel at the pay back.

Media figures around the world are lauding the Clinton's "magnonymity" becasue Bill and Hillary have each said that they won't push Barack Obama for the Vice Presidential nomination. They've stated quite clearly that its his choice to make. Once you get past the venom, it's clear that the Clintons are hoping that Senator Obama will choose a running mate that'll actually handicap him during the general election.

That's not hard to imagine. Hold on, and let me explain. Obama's people are going to tell him that he can't risk having Hillary as his VP because he can't control her, and she'll overshadow him. As a political novice, he's likely to believe that. So, what does he do? He chooses somebody whom he feels he CAN control (or work with).

Who can Obama work with without being over shadowed? He has to pick somebody who has fewer "friends" and less leverage. He needs to pick somebody who has less name recognition than he does. He needs to pick another novice, or somebody who is not going to mind playing the role of Vice President.

He can't pick anotehr novice. He'd be crucified by his own party, and the Republicans would tear him apart. His defeat would be painful and ignominious. So, he needs to pick somebody who will not have the political will to challenge him. His best choices would be, a) John Edwards, or b) Bill Richardson. Both have a high profile, but neither of them eclipses Barack Obama.

That sounds like a 50-50 coin toss...until...you realize that Obama NEEDS a white Southerner on his ticket if he really wants to win. The Clintons may be willing to bet that Obama picks Richardson. It's no secret that many in Obama's camp hold Edwards in low regard. Rumor has it that Obama himself has a few choice words to describe Edwards. If you look at this from Bill and Hillary's point of view, it's worth a roll of the dice to see if Obama will make that mistake.

Why is that gamble worth taking? Be-cause the next four years are going to be Economic Hell, and it's likely that anyone who lacks the will power to "rule" ends up as a one term President. Barack Obama has one thing in common with John McCain in that both men are prone to moments of indecision when the stress meter gets pegged. One will be painted as indecisive due to his youth, the other will be painted as such due to his age. I don't care for Hillary, but neither she or Bill are known for their dithering.

Months ago, in this thread, I said that it was possible for Obama to win his party's nomination, and still lose the general election. His choice of running mate will prove me write, or wrong.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Here's my official prediction: Edwards for VP!

Senator Clinton suspended her campaign . . Her words and body language made it clear she wasn't going to be Obama's running mate. That's important because it means two things. 1) She doesn't actually "endorse" Obama. 2) It allows her to keep her State delegates in play, which she will use during the convention. A closer study suggests to me she's hoping that he will lose to McCain.

You have a great track record J/O, for perception and insight. BUT in this case, I cannot agree that Hillary “held back” for the very disingenuous reasons you assigned to her. I see nothing more sinister in using “suspend” rather than using “quit” than her desire to be LEGAL in collecting money to apply to her $20+ million debt. I have heard this explanation [suspended] offered in other cases where a candidate “suspended” rather than “quitting” outright. Regardless, the Dems will not allow any post-primary hanky-panky at Denver. IMO.

In general terms, the Clintons are vindictive. Yeah, hah ,hah. I know. Show me a politician who isn't. Even so, Bill and Hillary excel at the pay back.

I was not the author of the first two rules of politics although I oft post them: Rule 1: “Never forget your friends” and Rule 2: “Never forget your enemies.”

Hold on, and let me explain. Obama's people are going to tell him that he can't risk having Hillary as his VP because . . she'll overshadow him. So, what does he do? He chooses somebody whom he CAN control (or work with). Who can Obama work with without being over shadowed? He needs to pick another novice, or somebody who is not going to mind playing the role of Vice President.

[BUT] He can't pick another novice. He'd be crucified by his own party and the Republicans would tear him apart. His defeat would be painful and ignominious. His best choices would be, a) John Edwards, or b) Bill Richardson. Both have a high profile, but neither of them eclipses Barack Obama. Here's my official prediction: Edwards for VP.

That sounds like a 50-50 coin toss .. until .. you realize that Obama NEEDS a white Southerner on his ticket if he wants to win. It's no secret that many in Obama's camp hold Edwards in low regard. Rumor has it that Obama himself has a few choice words to describe Edwards.

Why is that gamble worth taking? Because the next four years are going to be Economic Hell . . it's likely that anyone who lacks the will power to "rule" ends up as a one term President. Barack Obama has one thing in common with John McCain in that both men are prone to moments of indecision when the stress meter gets pegged. One will be painted as indecisive due to his youth, the other will be painted as such due to his age. I don't care for Hillary, but neither she or Bill are known for their dithering.

Months ago, in this thread, I said that it was possible for Obama to win his party's nomination, and still lose the general election. His choice of running mate will prove me write, or wrong.

Whether intentional or not, the GOP convention follows the Dems. That allows McCain the luxury of waiting for the Dems choice before naming his own. As choosing VPs goes, McCain is in the catbird seat. If as J/O suggests, Obama picks Edwards, then McCain might pick Charlie Crist of FL. OTOH if Obama picks Richardson, McCain might pick Romney.

I now understand why he is waiting and why he had those two at his ranch a couple weeks ago. Forget that closet Libertarian from LA. He was just a DECOY. And a SOP to the FAIR TAX fans of Ron Paul. I can accept J/O’s logic. But I offer instead of Edwards - he is old news - and John is by far too liberal for Obama to add to the national ticket. Sorry John, I really do like you!

I offer instead the sitting Governor of Virginia, the Old Dominion state, Tim Kaine! See Note 1.


Note 1.

Gov Tim Kaine’s career of public service began when he took a year off from law school to volunteer with missionaries in Honduras. He served as the principal of a small Catholic school that taught teenagers basic carpentry and welding skills.

Gov Kaine practiced law in Richmond for 17 years, representing people who had been denied housing opportunities because of their race or disability. He won many precedent-setting cases in this area and was recognized by local, state and national organizations for his fair-housing advocacy. Kaine taught legal ethics for six years at the University of Richmond Law School.

Gov Kaine entered political life in 1994 and was elected to four terms on the City Council, including two terms as Richmond’s mayor, where he worked to build new schools, cut taxes and slashed the city’s crime rate. Richmond’s success in reducing violent crime won national recognition from Pres Bush and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Under Kaine Richmond earned its first-ever listing in Forbes Magazine’s annual ranking of the top 10 cities in America for doing business.

Gov Kaine was elected Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor in 2001. He worked for four years with Gov Mark Warner to reform the state’s budget and invest new resources in education. Gov Kaine has been elected to become Chairman of the Southern Governors Association in the summer of 2008.

Short BIO: Birth Date: February 26, 1958; Birth Place: St. Paul, MN. Undergrad Degree: University of Missouri, 1979; Law School Degree: Harvard, 1983; Family: Married to Anne Holton; three children - Nat, Woody, and Annella; Religion: Catholic; Party: Democrat. www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/biography.cfm

[edit on 6/8/2008 by donwhite]

The only way I see Obama choosing Clinton is if McCain chooses Rice... which would be one more proof that McCain is out of touch since Rice, besides being the most ineffectual Sec. of State in my life time, is throughly sullied by her association with bush minor and the Iraqi war.

McCain might try and chose Powell but for some reason I can't see Powell taking it... after all he has been used once and I doubt he would go for it again.

McCain's best bet is Huckabee to shore up his sagging support with the funnymentalists... just as Obama's best bet is Bill Richardson to shore up his vote with latinos.