Obama/Chafee

[LordJFT]

Tell me why not. He is a former republican and current independent and could give Obama more cross-over appeal than he already has. And before people go hammering away about him being a republican and voting with Bush a lot of the time keep in mind that on some of the really important issues he acted like more of a democrat than some people with a D after their names. He voted against the IWR, which the majority of democratic senators didn't even do, spoke out in support of gay marriage, which only 4 democratic supporters at the time were willing to do. He has a strong pro-environment record both in the senate and when he was a city councilman, he supports AA, he voted against the Bush tax-cuts, is pro-choice and pro stem cell research. I can't think of any stances he has that would piss off our party's base, but at the same time being a former republican he gives the illusion of bipartisanship and will bring many independents to the table.

He also jives well with Obama's message of change since he wasn't in the Senate that long (7 years) and part of the reason he was voted out was because he wasn't willing to play the Washington game while he was in the Senate. The only downside I could see is that he doesn't give any geographic advantage because he is from the northeast in a state the democrats have locked up.

[Skinner]

1. Here's why not:

No executive experience.
No national security cred.
Rhode Island is solidly Democratic. And small.
He lost his last election.

[tritsofme]

2. I think that pretty much sums it up

[LordJFT]

4. He was mayor of Warwick, so he does have some executive experience

Do you consider no national security cred and being from a democratic state to be autmatic disqualifiers? Because if so that eliminates a lot of people being mentioned like Biden (from Delaware), Sebelius, Kaine? (not sure if he has fp experience), Edwards

[saltpoint]

22. His being a mayor would suggest executive/leadership experience, and

his ideological bent is definitely not of the standard GOP variety.

Lincoln had no national security cred either and less legislative experience than Chafee or Obama. Chafee was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a pretty astute bunch of folks for the most part.

Obama has a lot of great Democrats to choose as his veep nom, but he could make a very historic statement choosing Chafee -- as opposed to Hagel, for example -- in rewarding the kind of Republican who stands for many people-directed policies and programs versus the Coburn/Cronyn/Stevens Republicans who did everything they could to pressure Chafee to recant his more liberal positions.

It would frame the notion that the exception, Chafee, deserves to prevail over the prevalent Republican when a real president sits down to begin solving problems the prevalent Republicans substantially created in the first place.

[grantcart]

3. not presidential but he might be a cabinet choice

[BlooInBloo]

5. People advocating for non-Democrats, when our bench is deeper than any, suck.

[LordJFT]

6. when it comes to the issues he's more of a democrat than a lot of people being mentioned

you shouldn't just automatically look at the D,R or I after someone's name.

[PBS Poll-435]

7. Actually...

You should.

This is a historic year for Democrats.

It isn't even going to be close.

And, yet, some people are advocating for Republicans to be on the ticket.

People have even mentioned Chuck Hagel.

Chuck Fuckin' Hagle. ES&S Chuck Hagel.

No thanks.

:rant:

[anonymous171]

8. Chuck Hagel would be a bad choice.

The only way it would even seem to be an even slightly good choice would be if McCain decided to pick Liberman as his vp. But it would still be a bad choice.

[LordJFT]

15. no disagreement on that one

[LordJFT]

10. It wouldn't take away from the historicness at all

Chafee would of course change his party affiliation to democrat, the party he should have been in from the very beginning if he were to become vp and it would be victory for a ticket with two liberal democrats, one of whom is black. And by the way I don't support Hagel at all. He's sided with democrats on only one important issue whereas Chafee sides with democrats on virtually all important issues.

[BlooInBloo]

9. So advocate for the GOOD Democrats. Fucking DUH.

[LordJFT]

13. But a lot of them wouldn't help the ticket like Chafee would.

As much as I would love to see Feingold, Boxer, Klobuchar or Kennedy in the white house what would they add to ticket? Feingold maybe could get some indies with his pro-gun rights stance, Klobuchar could maybe lock up Minnesota, but I doubt they could help the ticket as much as Chafee could.

[Faygo Kid]

12. Wouldn't put it quite that way, but let's get a Dem on the ticket.

[kentuck]

11. There are a lot of VP possibilities out there..

and Chaffee would not be in the top ten. I think it might be nice to take a Democrat?

[Danger Mouse]

14. I like Chafee...but he'd be a terrible VP pick.

[Rowdyboy]

16. I've got a novel idea! How about Obama consider a DEMOCRAT!

I've had enough Republicans in positions of power. I'd prefer a Democrat for a change.

[LordJFT]

19. Which potential vp do you think is more of a democrat than Lincoln Chafee?

Going by their stances on issues that is and not official party affiliation. And by the way Chafee is an independent now, not a republican.

[Rowdyboy]

24. I would prefer ANY potential Democrat to Lincoln Chafee...I don't share your respect

for Senator Chafee, Republican or "Independent". I want a Democratic ticket-no Republicans, no independents.

I want a clean break with the Bush and his party and I certainly don't want one of his former supporters on my ticket. Chafee is no better than Trent Lott or Mitch McConnell as a Bush enabler. I'm only sorry his sorry ass wasn't beaten earlier.

[Kermitt Gribble]

17. Yeah,

let's guarantee we have a republican heading our ticket in 2016. I like Chafee, but no way!

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Good choice.. BUT

he lacks the national security experience necessary... There are better cross over candidates with better experience in areas that matter.

Richard Clarke is my top choice. (Most national security experience of anyone on the planet... worked in several administrations and knows how to get things done... showed courage standing up to bush and forcing the govt to take responsibility for its own failures).

Wesley Clark is my #2 choice because of his military experience and public opposition to the war and geographics.

Mike Bloomberg is my #3 because he would bring a strong "pragmatist" appeal to the ticket and can speak on economy with authority.

People like Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Clinton are all pretty useless because of their war vote and weaken the ticket in the place that needs to be the strongest.

[LordJFT]

20. Thank you for your intelligent response

You seem to be one of the few people that actually read my post and responded with a cogent argument rather than just looking at the subject line and leaving a snarky retort. Do you feel that someone with strong nat'l security credentials in vp is necessary for the actual administration or do you just think it is necessary for the ticket in order to win? Because it seems that lot of times even when a vp is chosen because of national security cred they don't end up helping in the administration with foreign policy decisions as much as other advisors (e.g. Carter-Mondale and Kennedy-Johnson).

[Milo_Bloom]

28. A little of both.

However, the result depends a little on the candidate.

For the campaign:

I think that because of McCain's apparent "expertise" on national security, we need someone on the ticket with the ability to smack him down and smack him down hard. If there is a candidate with little foreign policy experience, McCain "wins" the argument by default. The ticket needs an expert and an expert who was always against the war... no flip floppers, no apologizers... someone with experience and forsight.

In the administration: Whoever Obama trusts most will have the most impact. If he picks somoene like Wesley Clark, of course he will listen to him, but there is no way he is going to have as much influence as someone Obama picked for his cabinet, since Clark wasn't around for the campaign. Since Obama's top national security advisor during the campaign is pretty much my favorite person in all of politics (Richard Clarke), I strongly suspect Obama would put him in a position of power and heed his advice.

[anonymous171]

27. Whoah. I'd forgotten about Clarke. Good call. nt

[Milo_Bloom]

29. He's been Obama's top security advisor during the campaign.

[Carlinni_22]

21. We need a Southerner

Two Northerners in the ticket would probably alienate the important South.

[Rowdyboy]

30. Alas, poor Carlinni, we barely knew ye.....

But we caught on to ya pretty damn quickly ddin't we!

[saltpoint]

23. Obama is at the control panel for the final call on the veep nomination.

We could get a few press leaks that so-and-so's on the shortlist, no wait, it's likely to be such-and-such, or what's-his-name or that woman from this or that state -- for sure -- and we won't really know until the official announcement is made and Obama asks the convention to affirm his selection.

It could be Wes Clark or General Jones.

It could be Bill Richardson or John Edwards.

It could be Kathleen Sebelius or Hillary Clinton.

It could be Brian Schweitzer or Bob Graham.

Or someone else.

Or Lincoln Chafee, if that's Obama's call.

[Blarch]

25. How about Obama/George Allen ?

Maybe Obama/Frist ?

:rofl:

[gregolson]

26. Milquetoast.