Who would you pick as Obama's VP?

[Midway ®]

He needs to run on policy alone.  Blacks will vote for him anyway out of their ties to the Dem party and probably racial solidarity.  He does not want to turn the election into a racial referendum.  I think he has run a non-racial campaign thus far BTW.  Others have attempted to inject race into it but I dont think Obama has.

Yes you are right, others have attempted to inject race into his candidacy; just take a look at this:

Hillary won IN in a squeaker.  She should smoke Obama in WV and KY but may lose ND (or is it SD?) and probably will lose OR.  Puerto Rico could actually decide the election.  That would be interesting.  Still, it is tough to see how Hillary can make up the difference with her poor showing last night.

BTW, it is interesting how the "candidate of change" is benefiting from a racist vote (black in this case).  90+% for Obama in the Dem primary can be nothing else.

River, you should ban this guy from posting, he'll say anything, I think he may be, well, you know.

[vicupstate]

THE TOP TIER



Sherrod Brown
Another governor, this one from Ohio. Brown is a favorite among progressives for his economic populism and outspoken criticism of the war.

Pro: Could help deliver an important swing state.

Con: Doesn't really satisfy the idea of a unity ticket.

---


Wesley Clark
Rhodes Scholar turned four-star general and once-presidential candidate. A star resource for Democrats on military affairs.

Pro: John McCain would have to salute him. And he has Southern appeal.

Con: Backed Clinton early and has been a very active surrogate. Not always the best politician on a national stage.

---

Kathleen Sebelius
Talk about reaching across the aisle. This Kansas governor convinced a Republican to leave his party, become a Democrat, and run as her lieutenant governor. Kansas is rife with stories of Republicans undergoing conversions, and Sebelius gets a good amount of credit for this.

Pro: Another Red-state governor with an excellent post-partisan record. Having a female VP could be a strong ticket.

Con: Sebelius didn't wow anyone with her response to the State of the Union, which raises questions about how she would do on the national stage. And her location in Kansas doesn't add much that Obama doesn't already get from Illinois.

---


Mike Bloomberg
Sure, most voters have never heard of him. And sure, he's never been a national player. But the current mayor of New York has been a darling of the media, as they spent months seeing if he would get into the Presidential race. Coupled with some private conversations with Obama that caused a tizzy in the fall, a Bloomberg candidacy could cause some media attention that would rival that of even John McCain.

Pros: Excellent economic record. Interested in policy minutiae. Post-partisan (former Republican switched to Independent). Media darling.

Cons: Unheard of outside his home state. It's tough not to seem like an elitist when the world 'billionaire' applies to you.

Sherrod Brown is an Ohio US Senator, not the Governor.  As a Senator, Brown would not bring Executive branch experience.

The actual Governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, is a strong contender for the VP slot for Obama.  He is popular in a state Obama had real problems with.  He endorsed HRC, and as such, would be a olive branch to her partisans, if he were picked.  At 66 he brings age balance as well.

Picking Strickland would not put his office at risk for GOP takeover, the way selecting Webb would.   

Lastly, no Republican has won the Presidency without winning Ohio.  That will be tough to do if Strickland is on the Dem ticket.  That said, there is always a FIRST for everything.  However, taking Ohio would be a huge leg up towards the 270 electoral votes needed. 

Bloomberg is my personal favorite.  He would bring a hugh amount of credibility on economic policy, while still having broad appeal to the Democratic base.  His biggest downside, IMO, is he doesn't bring geographic appeal to the Democratic ticket that Strickland, Clark, Sebelius and many others would.       

If Obama wants someone with a military backgraound, then Clark is the default pick there, although others have been mentioned.

Sebelious is popular and would shake up the GOP's strategy, but I think she will only be picked if Obama feels he MUST make amends to women voters, and yet can't live with H. Clinton on the ticket.     

       

[RiversideGator]

He needs to run on policy alone.  Blacks will vote for him anyway out of their ties to the Dem party and probably racial solidarity.  He does not want to turn the election into a racial referendum.  I think he has run a non-racial campaign thus far BTW.  Others have attempted to inject race into it but I dont think Obama has.

Yes you are right, others have attempted to inject race into his candidacy; just take a look at this:

Hillary won IN in a squeaker.  She should smoke Obama in WV and KY but may lose ND (or is it SD?) and probably will lose OR.  Puerto Rico could actually decide the election.  That would be interesting.  Still, it is tough to see how Hillary can make up the difference with her poor showing last night.

BTW, it is interesting how the "candidate of change" is benefiting from a racist vote (black in this case).  90+% for Obama in the Dem primary can be nothing else.

River, you should ban this guy from posting, he'll say anything, I think he may be, well, you know.

The others I am talking about injecting race into the campaign are other Democrats.  I do find it ironic that the candidate of change relies on old school racial block voting and that his pastor spewed hate from the pulpit for 20 years.  I am sure that if things were reversed and Obama were a white Republican, you and the media would give him the same pass.   

BTW, in another thread I expounded on this.  Here is an excerpt:

1)  Black voters have been voting by margins of 90-10 for Obama even though his views are closely aligned with Hillary and her husband was a popular former President;
2)  If white voters voted in such a clear block their motivation for doing so would probably be labeled racist resistance to voting for a black candidate.
3)  I think such racial block voting is bad for the country in general and for the black community in particular as it is in danger of being taken for granted;
4)  I didnt invent this issue.  This has been talked about by many prominent Democrats and political pundits.

[RiversideGator]

vic:  Strickland or Webb would also be canny political choices.  I think Obama also needs someone with a little more age than him as VP (assuming he is the nominee as now appears likely).

[vicupstate]

He needs to run on policy alone.  Blacks will vote for him anyway out of their ties to the Dem party and probably racial solidarity.  He does not want to turn the election into a racial referendum.  I think he has run a non-racial campaign thus far BTW.  Others have attempted to inject race into it but I dont think Obama has.

Yes you are right, others have attempted to inject race into his candidacy; just take a look at this:

Hillary won IN in a squeaker.  She should smoke Obama in WV and KY but may lose ND (or is it SD?) and probably will lose OR.  Puerto Rico could actually decide the election.  That would be interesting.  Still, it is tough to see how Hillary can make up the difference with her poor showing last night.

BTW, it is interesting how the "candidate of change" is benefiting from a racist vote (black in this case).  90+% for Obama in the Dem primary can be nothing else.

River, you should ban this guy from posting, he'll say anything, I think he may be, well, you know.

The others I am talking about injecting race into the campaign are other Democrats.  I do find it ironic that the candidate of change relies on old school racial block voting and that his pastor spewed hate from the pulpit for 20 years.  I am sure that if things were reversed and Obama were a white Republican, you and the media would give him the same pass.   

BTW, in another thread I expounded on this.  Here is an excerpt:

1)  Black voters have been voting by margins of 90-10 for Obama even though his views are closely aligned with Hillary and her husband was a popular former President;
2)  If white voters voted in such a clear block their motivation for doing so would probably be labeled racist resistance to voting for a black candidate.
3)  I think such racial block voting is bad for the country in general and for the black community in particular as it is in danger of being taken for granted;
4)  I didnt invent this issue.  This has been talked about by many prominent Democrats and political pundits.

You are overlook a few things:

1) 100% of all presidents have been white, and 100% of all white voters have voted for a white candidate in 100% of the General Elections.
2) Very, very few whites have ever voted for a black candidate for president, until this year.
3) You completely ignore the numerous foot-in-mouth comments of Bill Clinton, which have no doubt played a part in her going from 30% black support in the polls to her current 10%. The Clinton's are not blameless in their loss of support.
4) I don't have the figures in first of me, but I'm certain the Catholic vote was overwhelming for JFK, as the first Catholic with a genuine chance of winning.  Does that make Catholics religious bigots or simply proud Catholics?

       

[RiversideGator]

You are overlook a few things:

1) 100% of all presidents have been white, and 100% of all white voters have voted for a white candidate in 100% of the General Elections.
2) Very, very few whites have ever voted for a black candidate for president, until this year.
3) You completely ignore the numerous foot-in-mouth comments of Bill Clinton, which have no doubt played a part in her going from 30% black support in the polls to her current 10%. The Clinton's are not blameless in their loss of support.
4) I don't have the figures in first of me, but I'm certain the Catholic vote was overwhelming for JFK, as the first Catholic with a genuine chance of winning.  Does that make Catholics religious bigots or simply proud Catholics?

1)  I am not saying that there have not been white racist voters in the past (or even today).
2)  True, but not many black candidates have run either.
3)  Bill Clinton did not help her out in that respect.  The Clinton's may attempted to slyly play the race card although I think this is debatable.  I am no fan of the Clintons either way.
4)  This (ethnic pride) is the nice way of stating it.  It doesnt mean that it is a positive thing or that it doesnt represent a double standard.

I would add that many blacks are actually personally conservative entrepreneurs and church goers who would be natural Republicans.  But unfortunately many of them still vote for the Dems who then go on to betray their trust and undermine their communities with failed liberal policies.  Hopefully day this will change.  After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.   

[Midway ®]

I would add that many blacks are actually personally conservative entrepreneurs and church goers who would be natural Republicans.  But unfortunately many of them still vote for the Dems who then go on to betray their trust and undermine their communities with failed liberal policies.  Hopefully day this will change.  After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.   

Yes, I agree, if only the republicans would stop attempting to exclude black people from the polling places they might actually be able to vote for them, if they could only get through the door!

Yes they're personally conservative and have families and stores and restaurants and everything, and they even believe in God!

I guess this is an epiphanal moment for you, kind of like when Bill'o went to Sylvia's for a grilled cheese sandwich and discovered that they weren't saying "pass the iced tea, mofo".

http://www.youtube.com/v/_PtUgeouswY&hl=en

[Driven1]

In fact, whats a good example of a failed liberal policy?

hahahaahaha!!!!  ladies & gentlemen, we have a contender for "dumbest statement of the year".

pouring tons of $$ into the black hole that is the current public education system
roe v. wade (fails in that it murders - yes MURDERS - millions of unborn children - and the radical left wing wants to call conservatives "extremists")
gun control (aka - criminals in control)
and this makes no mention of "cuttin & runnin"

[Midway ®]

In fact, whats a good example of a failed liberal policy?

hahahaahaha!!!!  ladies & gentlemen, we have a contender for "dumbest statement of the year".

pouring tons of $$ into the black hole that is the current public education system
roe v. wade (fails in that it murders - yes MURDERS - millions of unborn children - and the radical left wing wants to call conservatives "extremists")
gun control (aka - criminals in control)
and this makes no mention of "cuttin & runnin"

Stop baiting Stephen and behave yourself!

[Driven1]

i will quote an anonymous individual...

"he is a piece of _____ who doesn't have any compunction about just making up ______ ."

now...i don't know who "he" is - or what goes in the ____ - or what "compunction" means for that matter, but it sounds FREAKY.

[Driven1]

over 80 percent of the women who have abortions are self professed fundamentalists.  Isnt the problem of abortion more a right wing christian epidemic? 

i would be beside myself if some kind of proof was provided.  but i speculate it is the kind of "proof" that you provided to show the world how they have been misspelling "separate" for all these millenia. 

no - actually it is a left-wing radical liberal extremist-contrived, baby daddy problem.

boo.  and   yao.

[Driven1]

you lied.... you said "over 80 percent of the women who have abortions are self professed fundamentalists."

the "fact" from this anti-abortionist website is "18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical"

those "born-again" types are the ones you call fundamentalist right-wing wackos.


as sure as seperate, you lied to us.  twenty lashes.

[Driven1]

LOL - hahahahahaha!!!!

you think catholics are fundamentalists....

ROFL!!!!!

even if you were right (i'll reiterate again how wrong you are and how you lied to us)... would only be 50% - not 80%).

that extreme right-winger john kerry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Driven1]

case closed indeed.

hahahaha.

[vicupstate]

You are overlook a few things:

1) 100% of all presidents have been white, and 100% of all white voters have voted for a white candidate in 100% of the General Elections.
2) Very, very few whites have ever voted for a black candidate for president, until this year.
3) You completely ignore the numerous foot-in-mouth comments of Bill Clinton, which have no doubt played a part in her going from 30% black support in the polls to her current 10%. The Clinton's are not blameless in their loss of support.
4) I don't have the figures in first of me, but I'm certain the Catholic vote was overwhelming for JFK, as the first Catholic with a genuine chance of winning.  Does that make Catholics religious bigots or simply proud Catholics?

1)  I am not saying that there have not been white racist voters in the past (or even today).
2)  True, but not many black candidates have run either.
3)  Bill Clinton did not help her out in that respect.  The Clinton's may attempted to slyly play the race card although I think this is debatable.  I am no fan of the Clintons either way.
4)  This (ethnic pride) is the nice way of stating it.  It doesnt mean that it is a positive thing or that it doesnt represent a double standard.

I would add that many blacks are actually personally conservative entrepreneurs and church goers who would be natural Republicans.  But unfortunately many of them still vote for the Dems who then go on to betray their trust and undermine their communities with failed liberal policies.  Hopefully day this will change.  After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.   

Martin Luther King SR. was a Republican.  What evidence is there that MLK Jr. was as an adult?

Many Blacks are socially conservative, some are fiscally conservative.  From my white male point of view, I suspect the reason Blacks don't vote Republican is because the GOP talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.

They talk about equality but yet they exploit racial divisions to win elections.  Starting with Goldwater's opposition tot he Civil Rights Act, Nixon's Southern strategy, Reagan's 1980 'states rights' speech in Mississippi, Jesse Helms' anti-affirmative action ads, continuing through to the race baiting in the 2006 Tennessee US Senate race.  Add to that the GOP candidates being too 'busy' to attend an NAACP debate earlier this year.   

Until such tactics cease for a continued period of time, Blacks will understandable view the GOP with suspision.