Okay, I'm going to say it. It does not matter who Obama picks for VP.

[beachmom]

His campaign will rise and fall based on .... Barack Obama. He is such a rock star and a charismatic figure that any VP he picks will be largely overshadowed. Which states he wins or loses will be based on Barack Obama. Not the VP.

Now AFTER the election, who he picked for VP may well matter. He needs help getting his legislative agenda through, and a strong argument could be made that a VP well versed in Capitol Hill matters would be of great help.

Odds are still that he'll pick a governor. But I think it is ridiculous to dismiss any Senator who has a wealth of experience in Congress and foreign affairs.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Correct. nt

[RichGirl]

2. I agree....

but I would so, so loved it to be Hillary. With his inspiration and her ability to fight, we couldn't lose.

Help Sam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxvzNBqDrfQ

[comtec]

22. Impossible, she not only burnt that bridge, she blew it up

then she took those bits, made compost out of them, burned THOSE fragments, then took a 15 ton hammer that they use to pound foundation pillars, and pulverized it
THEN she mixed it in water with a solution of acid, then dried that out, then pulverized THAT!

there is Z E R O chance in HELL of that ticket ever happening, and it's all Hilary's fault!

she K N E W she would loose way back in April, and she S T I L L kept on going!!!!!

Would she have made a decent VP, sure. It would have COST Obama votes, because of how polarizing she is, but he still could have won. And I think she would have been capable at the job, and maybe in 8 years she;'d be able to make a passing bid at prez. Passing being 50+1%, because you still have that white hot hatred for her from the reich, who still controls a sizable number of votes. In addition she's an "uppity" woman.

so yes, she COULD have been VP, if she'd stopped sooner, and bowed out GRACEFULLY.... and I think she would have done a good job of it too, for what it's worth.

[beachmom]

3. Thanks. I guess that is why I haven't been all that interested in the VP

speculation. However, I am against the negativity being leveled at Politician X or Y when their name comes up. It's really uncalled for, and is based on the foolish notion that a VP is going to affect the outcome in November. It won't.

[Captain Hilts]

17. I don't think FDR would have recognized his Veeps in a police line-up, and neither...

would the US people.

Who needs a vice president? Why go out for hamburger when you've got steak at home?

[npincus]

4. not sure I agree...

in the case of HRC. Repubs are about as disaffected, apathetic and unethusiastic about their candidate as I've ever seen...HRC's selction would be about the best news for them, so many have a visceral dislike for her she may be the only thing to rally them, give them a "reason" not to stay home on election day. Independents don't care for her either. Her selection may tip some red states we have a chance of winning. And, she doesn't bring in any states Dems don't have already in the bag.

But I'll have to check my crystal ball to confirm! :)

[RichGirl]

6. Hillary would rally the republicans.

That's what the MSM has been telling us for months. And if they say it, it must be true. Bullshit! She is not nearly as polarizing as we've been lead to believe.

1/ She brings 18 million votes. NO ONE else can do that. Even our beloved John Edwards didn't make it through the first few primaries.

2/ Everyone says we need someone with a military background. We had that guy...in 2004...John Kerry, DECORATED war hero, with our beloved John Edwards, a man of the people, a southern man as VP.

When John Kerry "lost" (I don't believe he lost.) by a hair and there were a million voting irregularities, what did our fighting military man do...HE CONCEDED! Whose heart didn't drop to the floor listening to that speech????

We don't just need an experienced fighter, we need someone who knows who the enemy is: the right-wing slime machine.

Hillary is experienced and able to fight off all the crap that will be tossed at Obama. And...she won't quit if it's close and there are questions. When everyone was begging her to drop out, she didn't. That's what we need in a VP.

[SeaLyons]

8. She brings 18 million reasons....

If he picks Hillary, we will win the election. She is his BEST choice.

[ProSense]

11. Kerry brings 59 million

That's a silly measure. In the 2004 primary, Kerry got 10 million votes even though the nomination was wrapped up in March and there was not the same media fanfare (primarily because of the first woman and African American as the top candidates) surrounding the campaigns.



edited to clarify

[RichGirl]

16. 59 MILLION

Hearts were broken when he conceded.

He is not a fighter. He let them run over him with the swift boat crap with no response. He is a quitter. With all the crap of the 2000 election and proof of voter fraud, with his numbers being so close and so many voting irregularities he concedes as soon and the MSM decides he should. He lost those 59 million votes.

[ProSense]

20. That is complete

nonsense.

[SeaLyons]

27. Sorry, but when I think Kerry, I just think

loser. He just gave up, didn't do a damn thing about Ohio, and I can't stand him. He brings 59 million disappointments.

[Growler]

29. Agreed. n/t

[high density]

10. I don't think we're supposed to be rehashing the primary season here

The fact is Obama has a great deal (>75%) of those 18 million votes already.

I will not touch the other comments because they've been debated 100000000000000000000 times before on this forum and doing it one more time changes nothing.

[npincus]

18. mine was a valid response to the OP

trust me, no wish at all to rehash history. Merely stating a (significant0 point of disgreement w/the OP.

[RichGirl]

23. Selecting a VP

...comes AFTER the primaries...you know...when they are over and a nominee has been chosen. This discussion is about the VP. Nothing to do with the primaries.

[high density]

24. You are bringing the primaries into it

Just so ya know.

[beachmom]

7. My main concern with her in the context of my post is that

she has not been on Capitol Hill all that long, and is not considered a foreign affairs expert. Biden or Kerry are more in that vein.

[RichGirl]

12. "she has not been on Capitol Hill all that long"

If she had been on Capitol Hill a long time you would say that makes her a Washington insider...don't want that.

All of you anti-Hillary people are so busy trying to find evidence against her that you can't see what's in front of you....she is the ideal VP candidate. If he doesn't choose her it will be a long, up hill battle and very hard to win.

Bottom line...in order to win there is only one thing you need: VOTES.

Not military experience, not someone who can get the red states, not a southern guy, etc....VOTES, VOTES, VOTES...AND SHE CAN GET THEM.

[PVnRT]

5. I tend to agree

The only real consideration I think he needs to put into a VP choice is someone with some foreign policy credentials, since I think that's where McCain and the GOP will try to hit him most.

[RichGirl]

9. That's the same logic...

...that got us another four years of Bush!!! As I stated previously, we had the foreign policy credentials!

Kerry: decorated Viet Nam vet, purple hearts, etc.

Bush: part time national guard, never left the country.

Logically that's a no-brainer. Why didn't logic work? BECAUSE THEY FIGHT DIRTY.

[beachmom]

13. Um, hello? Dick Cheney had been Defense Secretary. nt

[high density]

14. Bush started a war

And had every low information voter in the nation thinking that since he had started the war, he knew the most about it. We were supposed to believe there was a huge learning curve that Kerry would have to overcome. "Can't change horses midstream." Of course this wasn't true but that idea stuck with a lot of these idiots out there. Kerry was made into this wimpy cartoon character in August and simply couldn't overcome that.

[PVnRT]

19. Uhhhh.....what?

[TexasObserver]

15. Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

But I do think you have a good point. It's on Obama, and he should be able to win no matter who he chooses for VP. However, the VP nominee could turn into a big distraction. Geraldine Ferraro was an absolute disaster. So was Eagleton. And then there's Lieberman, who appeared to give no help at all to Gore.

Because he's younger, I think Obama will look for someone who a national politician with a history of foreign affairs expertise, someone with some gravitas. Someone like Richardson or Biden.

[RichGirl]

21. The number of votes....

...Biden and Richardson got in the primaries COMBINED were less than what Clinton got in some states she LOST.

If they were such great candidates, why didn't they make it past Iowa??? THEY DIDN'T GET THE VOTES.

[TexasObserver]

25. that's irrelevant to the general election.

This is the general election. You're talking about the primary.

I just got through explaining in fairly simple terms that Obama will probably want the kind of national stature and seasoning that Biden and Richardson represent. I didn't say anything about either of them helping Obama get more votes. I certainly didn't suggest that Obama's VP is supposed to help him get the votes of Democrats who voted in the primary. Those voters will almost certainly all vote for Obama, at least the REAL Democrats will.

The measure of a good VP nominee is not how they did in the primaries. They are being chosen because they complement Obama well and can be relied upon by him.

You're not one of those "the VP needs to be Hillary" posters are you? The VP needs to be whoever Obama wants, and if that's Hillary, fine, but I doubt it will be Hillary.

[windbreeze]

26. I disagree...

I think it's going to be very important..wb

[Monty__]

28. I agree

I used to think VP selection mattered more but in reality it really doesn't. Bush won with Quayle, I mean come on, there's enough proof there :).