home

Spanish Newspapers: Edwards Say No To VP

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:47:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

John Edwards makes a Shermanesque statement about the VP slot:

John Edwards has ruled out being Barack Obama's running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket, according to interviews carried by two leading Spanish newspapers on Friday. "I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won't do it again," Edwards was quoted by El Mundo as saying. El Pais, the country's other leading daily, carried similar comments.

Well, that is one less person who has to go through the vetting process.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Off to Aspen for NORML Drug Law Seminar | Obama's VP Dilemma >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Spanish Newspapers: Edwards Say No To VP | 124 comments (124 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    John Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by weltec2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:00:41 AM EST
    I don't blame him. He's barely 55 years old and looks ten years younger (he remnds me of Dick Clark on American Bandstand). But he has a lot of chances still ahead of him.

    those polls.... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:11:35 AM EST
    Edwards was the only candidate in the VP slot that improved Obama's chances against McCain (except for HRC of course)

    At first I thought it was just name recognition -- but now I'm thinking that "I don't know this OTHER person either" may be a factor for Obama -- that he can't pick a Sebelius or anyone else without a national profile, just to help the ticket geographically.

    He may (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:50:02 AM EST
    be a good candidate for the future but I'm sure he wouldn't want to be associated with the Obama campaign right now. He'd be better to sit out this election than become a VP and have to overcome that baggage at another time.

    Parent
    Edwards as VP was always (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:03:39 AM EST
    a non-starter for me -- Dems don't renominate the same guy for VP who was part of a losing ticket the previous cycle, absent unusual circumstances, and JE's 08 campaign was a big bust.  Hardly the sort of positive momentum Obama is looking for.

    Plus youngish O needs someone who's not only older but who actually looks older than him, and preferably someone with substantial elective office experience.  One-termer Edwards does not fit that bill.  But a two-term governor who looks older and projects leadership (Sibelius) would.  And she would also help further the Change/New Politics theme.  

    Parent

    That would be a complete slap (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:04:58 AM EST
    in the face to Hillary supporters.

    Parent
    They are clueless masslib. Anyone who (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:14:25 AM EST
    thinks that picking a woman not Hillary would help is just clueless. They just don't get it.

    Parent
    No they're not clueless, and they see (none / 0) (#70)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:26:46 AM EST
    Hillary's nearly successful historic candidacy as one which opens doors for women rather than keeps them open selfishly only for one person.

    Parent
    The door is barely open brodie. I kind of think (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:46:09 AM EST
    they slammed it in our faces. I'd like to see the first woman be the one who earned it.

    Parent
    Well, I see Sebelius as a eco selection (none / 0) (#75)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:32:01 AM EST
    as the only governor to stare down King Coal successfully.

    As someone who prefers our brilliant policy wonk with a real plan for clean energy (excuseme: dastardly racist assassin who will do anything to win), a Sebelius pick would reassure me that he at least has a minder in the WH on clean energy....

    or...wait

    could selecting her be a way to remove a very effective roadblock to King Coal in Kansas?

    Parent

    Right now, you're probably (none / 0) (#58)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:14:20 AM EST
    right, at least wrt a fair portion of HRC backers.  But this will be a two-month process, and there will be a public foundation laid, I suspect, which either seriously dampens prospects for a Hillary VP pick or seriously upgrades it.  

    Once (hopefully) it looks like she's not going to be on the ticket, possibly including a joint appearance where they make clear they've talked about it and decided it isn't the best solution for either party, then the nominee can be much freer to contemplate people like Sibelius.

    But again, for this HRC backer, I'm going to continue to argue against her becoming his #2.  At the same time, I also see her historic candidacy as more than just about getting her nominated -- as clearing the path for other women to step up and make history too.  

    Parent

    Opening the door for other women? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    As Gloria Steinem said, a woman with two years in the senate running for president would be laughed out of town, but not a man.  Truer words were never spoken and that doesn't bode well for women in our country today.  There are pitifully few around that could come close to Hillary. She set the bar pretty high yet she couldn't cross it.  Who else do you have in mind that could cross it in the next 10 years?

    Parent
    Not saying this as a slam but.... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:11:58 AM EST
    ...Sebelius doesn't project leadership to me.

    Parent
    Maybe one day I'll learn to spell her name right. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:18:00 AM EST


    Parent
    she did the one thing I care about leadership on (none / 0) (#77)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:34:35 AM EST
    (see my link upthread), but she does have a mundane persona, all right

    Parent
    I don't think we're in Kansas! (none / 0) (#79)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:37:35 AM EST
    Somehow I doubt that his progressive wing would be very happy with that descision either. I would hardly think a 2 term gov of Kansas has much in the line of progressive credentials. But then that could be his attempt at unity. It won't matter. She wouldn't be able to deliver Kansas for the Dem's. I wonder when was the last or even first time a Dem carried Kansas?

    Parent
    The wine rack wing (none / 0) (#96)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    has already achieved two major objectives this cycle -- defeat the Evil HRC and nominate The Anointed One.

    They are going to be far less purist about the VP pick.  Some of them might even want to win this thing, and might be aware that a smart Veep pick could enhance The One's chances in the fall.

    Sibelius wouldn't be there so much to win KS as to, first, (after the necessary groundwork has occurred) solidify his Dem support.  Second, she could assist in the appeal to mod Dems, indies and Rs in the MW and Rust Belt.  With her strong family ties to OH, she would be an asset working that state.  

    KS itself would still be unwinnable, probably, but it most likely could be made close enough to make Rs nervous enough that they squander funds shoring things up there.  It's a Dem year after all, and I like our chances of making things interesting in some red states with the right VP pick.

    Parent

    Another (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:12:20 AM EST
    Bush/Cheney ticket? Where the candidate needs a father/mother figure to help them out?

    Obama/Sebelius? Bad ticket there. I find it funny that we have a presumptive nominee who needs a VP to solve all his electoral problems. If he can't carry it on his own(which is probably true) then we're pretty darn stupid to nominate him in my book.

    Parent

    You think young and green Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:20:42 AM EST
    is better off with a brother/sister figure then?

    As for solving all his electoral problems, well that's what the Dream Ticket folks think will happen.  I merely offer a name who could help improve his chances both with our base and in picking off moderate indies and sane Repubs.

    Could be far worse picks for our side -- right now, the MSM is pounding hard on O to choose Sam None.  Also a fave of our Jimmy too.  

    Sibelius ticks some people off right now, but I predict she will be looked on more favorably 6 wks from now once the groundwork has been done.  A solid mod-lib Dem with few negatives on the major issues.

    Demican Sam None gets Dems out of their seats and outside to form an angry torchlit mob to move on O headqtrs to stop the insanity.

    Parent

    Picking (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:31:45 AM EST
    another green candidate doesn't help either.

    He's not going to pick up Republicans. That is a fallacy. Pretty much the Pfelger/Wright business killed his chances with independents too.

    Sam Nunn? He wouldn't help anywhere and has been out of politics.

    Sebelius is a bad candidate. Did you see her response to the SOTU? It was bad. And she does nothing to help with his huge national security deficit. His NS problem is why people are suggesting Nunn but he really can't help Obama either.

    All this just keeps reinforcing the fact in my mind that we have a very bad candidate.

    Parent

    18 million angry FDR Democrats to the left of him (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:38:25 AM EST
    spurned by his New Politics party for Libertarian Latte Drinkers, and you still think he's gonna scrounge more Republicans???

    Have you checked RedState recently? They are so over him.

    Parent

    No, Obama is green. (none / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    Sibelius is an older, experienced two-term very popular gov from an influential political family.  She's got politics in the blood.

    As for her post-SOTU speech, I've already commented here that by the logic of one less than sensational speech being a deal breaker, Bill Clinton never should have made it out of the primaries in 92.  

    And hers wasn't even remotely as bad as Bill's.  She was too low-key.  Bill (just following orders from TeamDuke)  was so long-winded that it became something of a big embarrassment, the type which required major rehab work on the late night comedy shows.

    Parent

    odds are he doesn't want it... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:11:06 AM EST


    Parent
    I don't think Obama really wants anybody for VP (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Saul on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:18:49 AM EST
    if he had his way.  I think deep down inside Obama wish he did not have to pick a VP.  It's just something he has to do.  You never know what skeletons are in the closet in the selected VP.  One thing you could say about a Hilary choice is that she was safe.  There isn't much we do not know about her.  

    When he was campaigning Obama wished Hilary would go away so why do you now say I need you voters.  People see through all that.  Like Jeralyn said if he is so good and got himself the nominee slot then let see what he can really do without wooing Hilary.  You can't say on one had in your theme of your campaign the Clinton's are the past, they represent wants wrong with Washington today and I am the future and then turn around and make statements that I want and need  Hilary's voters and also say I need  Bill to go out and campign for me like he did for Hilary.  This makes you look like a hypocrite.

    There is a limit of what you want people to do to let bygones be bygones in order to unite and win the election.  

    You (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:32:42 AM EST
    misunderstand (IMHO) Barack and the people who got him the nomination.  They don't have to ever make sense or ever be consistent or rational.  The deck is stacked in their favor.

    Parent
    polite correction: (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:45:48 AM EST
    WAS stacked in their favor.  Now that he's the presumptive Nominee, you'll see the media narrative subtly begin to change in favor of McCain and decidedly against Barack Obama.  All those things we here at TL are aware of but were never brought up in the National Press or during the debates will suddenly see the harsh, consistent, never-ending glare of daylight.

    People "turning him down" for the VP slot is only the beginning.

    Parent

    not only that (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:49:27 AM EST
    but now that Clinton is gone, leftist activists motivated by CDS will now be confronted with Obama's centrism.

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:58:33 AM EST
    good luck putting THAT genie back in the bottle, Barack

    ain't gonna happen

    he's created a monster which will help destroy him in November.  and not in one fell swoop, but in week-by-week, day-after-day coverage which puts him on the defensive and "forces" him to throw yet more people under the bus.

    of course, this will be interspersed with footage of John McCain's bravery in Vietnam and constant reminders of how well he's served his Country since then as a Senator.  And not a peep about the Keating 5 or his wife's immense wealth.

    Welcome to the General Election, Barack.  And good luck with controlling the press narrative as well as you did in the Primary.

    Doesn't he know the Press loves political pinatas?

    Parent

    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:06:19 AM EST
    but as long as it's perceived to be from a further left point of view  I predict obamablogs will be more critical of obama now than they were during the primary.

    Parent
    obama's money (none / 0) (#114)
    by laurie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM EST
    will let him swat McCaine into the ground, thru tv ads and superior organisation on the ground.
    This is a link to an excellent article in Open Left
    on "Obama's consolidation of the Party."

    Here is an excerpt on BO's money:

    "Money: MyBarackObama.com:  With 1.5 million donors, this campaign has blown away anything we've ever seen in terms of grassroots fundraising.  The technology is all centralized, so Obama knows the name, address, giving patterns, and occupation of every donor out there, as well as social networking information, like who the best raisers are.  He has bypassed Actblue, and will probably end up building in a Congressional slate feature to further party build while keeping control of the data.  

    One email from Moveon to their full list can bring in between $100k to $1M for a candidate, with $1M being the very top end of the range.  With one good email to his list, in a few months, Obama will probably be able to bring in $1-3M for a Senate candidate under attack or split that among several.  10-20% of the money going to Senate candidates this cycle might come from Barack Obama's internet operation.  Stunning.
      MyBarackObama.com is the cornerstone of the campaign, and it will have between 10-15 million opt-in members by election day.  This group can be used for lobbying on legislation, GOTV, and donations.  It's a cross between Moveon.org and the DNC, and with the White House, it can transform progressive politics and further amplify the power of the Presidency.  As coordinated campaigns pick up, and the top of the ticket brings coattails, organizing power is going to further flow to the Obama campaign."

    furthermore
    "I have heard from several sources that the Obama campaign is sending out signals to donors, specifically at last weekend's Democracy Alliance convention, to stop giving to outside groups, including America Votes.  The campaign also circulated negative press reports about Women's Voices Women's Vote, implying voter suppression."

    Before reading this I was convinced that McCaine had superior resources, now I'm not so sure.

    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5637

    however McCaine could win see (British left article)
    http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/04/obama-mccain-vote-usa-clinton


    Parent

    Excellent post and one reason the DNC (none / 0) (#118)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    was so eager to get Obama nominated.  All the caysh!!!!  The Hillary voters are mostly poor and don't contribute much.  It is always about money and always has been.  We can only hope that the guy who went to elite schools doesn't forget them.

    Parent
    Thx (none / 0) (#120)
    by laurie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    That's why Hillary on Tues made that speech about not forgetting the "invisible" people, and of course Universal Health Care.

    Parent
    As (none / 0) (#50)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:10:40 AM EST
    Much as I love both Clintons, neither has, while in office, been a progressive or true liberal.  Obama hasn't either, for that matter.
    Fire when ready.

    Parent
    Depends on how you define it (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:32 AM EST
    bringing 7 million people out of poverty seems pretty progressive to me.

    But then I understand a lot of people only consider it progressive if you bring them out of poverty by expanding welfare.


    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#90)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:53:29 AM EST
    To clarify: He was a great President.  He just wasn't able to be as progressive as he wanted to be.  

    Parent
    You know what (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:57:08 AM EST
    Me too.

    I don't think he himself was as good a progressive as he wanted himself to be.


    Parent

    Some of his legislation (none / 0) (#121)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:33:14 PM EST
    in Arkansas was pretty progressive but I think Clinton has always been for the most part moderate. He did create the DLC. In their heyday they (Clinton excluded) could rage against liberalism better than a lot of conservatives.

    Parent
    He had a pretty rough time with the (none / 0) (#119)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    GOP and GOP controlled media finding a new "scandal" every week.  His Christmas card list was the cause of hundreds of investigations, more than Bush's national security lapses even.  He did a lot considering the vicious GOP.

    Parent
    with the recession/oil depression (none / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:18:17 AM EST
    crisis looming, this will give our next president theopportunity to govern far outside of the center, I think. It's in crisis when the left or right governing occurs... or when the congress is toothless.

    That stated, I expect Obama to be much more centrist that people think. He has that problem of wanting to bring everyone together.
     

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#76)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:34:17 AM EST
    Your point but mine was that neither WHILE IN OFFICE behaved in a progressive/liberal way.  I'm sure Bill Clinton wanted to do great things--why else would he have given the health care initiative to Hillary Clinton?  Problem was, he was fighting off the repub revolution...I think that was when people without a brain started hating Hillary.

    Parent
    Well, he did do great things (none / 0) (#81)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:43:52 AM EST
    most of which Bush destroyed, like raising taxes on the rich, creating the COPS program(one of the single most successful domestic programs in the last 30 years that no one talks about), etc..  But, actually, his lasting progressive legacy is playing out before our eyes though no one see's it.  He put as many minorities and women in high profile positions possible, and it wasn't easy. His efforts were met with great resistance.  It took three tries to get an african american confirmed as Civil Rights attorney.  My Governor, Deval Patrick, was the third try and in the Senate they called him "Quota King".  And, that's in large part how we ended up with a tie for our nominee between and african american and a woman.

    Parent
    He really (none / 0) (#87)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:57 AM EST
    was not a pogressive or a true liberal IN ACTION.  All your points are completely correct, but having read several books about the Clinton WH, and having been alive then...I think there's a reason Kucinich is still pretty popular with a lot of people.

    Parent
    Yeah, well, I think that kind of (none / 0) (#91)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:08 AM EST
    lasting progress where we expand the pool of leaders to include every man and woman is worth more than some policies.

    Parent
    So the progress (none / 0) (#99)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    Has been lasting, has it?  Bad news: GWB is finishing his SECOND term.


    Parent
    YES! (none / 0) (#105)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:10:53 AM EST
    Crissake, I do not think I'd have an african american Governor right now, or we'd be left with two winners in the Dem primary that are an african american man and a woman had it not been for Bill laying the groundwork in the 90's.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#107)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:24:22 AM EST
    To return to an earlier point, how's the economy doing?  How 'bout our armed forces?  Who's that hurt?  Oh yeah, women and minorities (in greater numbers than whites.)

    Parent
    Right. I said most of his progressive (none / 0) (#109)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:28:49 AM EST
    policy work was destroyed by Bush.  And, of course, he had to deal with a Republican Congress, so his hands were tied as to how much progessive work he could do.  And, he's a centrist.  He's no Kucinich.

    But, I do think this part of his legacy, moving women and african americans into the most visible positions of the federal government, has had a lasting effect that should not be ignored.  He expanded the pool of possible leaders and we are seeing that play out today.  

    Parent

    the last two comments (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:52:40 AM EST
    sort of prove my point, whether I agree with them or not, I can't imagine people discussing Obama's centrism a week ago.

    At least not people who were consumed by beating Clinton to the point of ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist.


    Parent

    In what way (none / 0) (#92)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:13 AM EST
    do they prove your point?  There's a difference in believing you have made a point and having someone prove it for you.

    Parent
    Just (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:58:44 AM EST
    That it's being discussed now, that's all.

    I say "Obama's a centrist" now and it's valid criticism.

    I say "Obama's a centrist" a week ago and it's slander.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#101)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:02:15 AM EST
    Yeah.  There's nothing wrong with saying Obama's a centrist.  He may well be.

    Parent
    I feel Edwards sees a losing candidate after (none / 0) (#125)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:12:29 AM EST
    being allowed in the inner circle.

    Parent
    Maybe Axelrod would be his choice. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:45:44 AM EST
    Heh. But Edwards did not look that gun ho when he endorsed Obama. And Elizabeth not even going because she disagreed on the health care plan was a slap in the face to Obama. At that time the press made a big deal of it and it took away from the endorsement. It made Edwards' endorsement seem like a forced push in order to quell Hillary's big win

    I believe Edwards took himself out before they could even gloss over him. This way, it was on Edwards term and not a slight by Obama.

    As for Hillary, Bill said she wanted it and now they are saying she does not. She would have a good chance in 2012 I believe and maybe she just will take her time and wait. She can become a powerful Senator and hold on to her base if she does not become VP. I was against it and then I was for it but then I have my doubts and Jeralyn is right too. So, I will leave it to Obama. His actions will tell me a lot.

    Parent

    Edwards handled it well.... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:50:09 AM EST
    ...I would have preferred a Hillary endorsement, but as things worked out, his endorsement changed nothing and it makes him very viable for 2012, which is a good thing IMHO because I don't consider it a sure bet that Obama will win and we will be needing more than one good candidate in reserve. But who knows if Obama loses, the Dems would probably nominate him again in 2012, if the media so narrates it.

    Parent
    Don't know if I could handle such a long primary (none / 0) (#42)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:02:16 AM EST
    again. This one was a doozer for sure. I am glad they went the entire nation though. It was fair to the people in all the states.

    Maybe Edwards endorsement was IMO so so because I was so thrilled with Hillary's victory the day before. But the Elizabeth not concurring with him took away from it a bit.

    Parent

    When did Bill say that? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Davidson on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:51:56 AM EST
    When did Bill specifically say that HRC wanted to be Obama's VP (with link please)?

    The most important VP pick will be McCain's.  If he picks the right one, perhaps Sarah Paulin, it'll put Obama in a whole world of hurt--even more than now.

    Parent

    McCain/Palin (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:08:49 AM EST
    would be the kiss of death for Obama. I just checked her out and you're on the money with that one. With Obama's already huge problems with women voters, McCain putting a very appealing woman on the ticket would blow a hole in his candidacy.

    Parent
    Palin: solid choice (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Davidson on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:25:50 AM EST
    For McCain to kill Obama in the GE he has to be able to reach out and capture the middle.  As a staunch conservative she secures the right-wing base.  However, she is not a scary right-winger--at all--so she won't terrify moderates.  In fact, she fits in perfectly with McCain's "maverick" reformist image as she has been known to take her own party to task and suffering the consequences for it.

    Oh yes, and her being a competent white woman will help McCain give some Clinton women an excuse to choose him over Obama.  And it puts Obama in quite the bind, especially if the media finally begin to expose the overt misogyny exploited by him or the gross corruption by the DNC to kneecap Clinton, the first woman candidate who would have become the first woman president.

    The only negative, thought, is that McCain needs someone to help shield him on the issue of the economy and Palin doesn't do that, but sure does give him a lot to work with.

    Parent

    The problem (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:36:38 AM EST
    I see with an Obama McCain election is that it's not going to be about the economy. Obama has zero economic appeal just like McCain. Talking in vague platitudes like Obama does just appeal to most voters. It also allows him to be defined negatively by the GOP.

    Parent
    Choosing a governor (none / 0) (#104)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:07:31 AM EST
    brings executive branch creds to McCain, though.  I like Palin as a choice. Any woman who can give birth in office and keep hold of the reins of her office, too, is a younger version of Hillary, strenghth-wise. I watched Jane Swift go down in flames in MA when she tried to do it.

    Parent
    She would certainly generate.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:16:42 AM EST
    ...a lot of attention. I read up on her too just know because the only thing I knew about her before this is that she was pregnant in office. I didn't realize that her newly born son had Down's Syndrome.

    Parent
    A link? (none / 0) (#47)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:07:13 AM EST
    Just go back on CNN or Yahoo political news or google it I guess. Those were the headlines. I guess he would not have been lobbying for it if she did not want it. Or maybe it was wishful thinking on his part. Doesn't matter anyway. Obama gets to choose. But you are right on the GOP VP. That will be very important to his run.

    Parent
    Bill said Clinton/Obama would be the winning (none / 0) (#126)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:14:13 AM EST
    ticket because you could get both!

    Parent
    I guess I had thought (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:18:58 AM EST
    that Edwards had already made it pretty clear he wasn't interested in the VP slot.

    I read (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:30:02 AM EST
    somewhere that he wants Attorney General.  That makes more sense, as he said: VP, been there, done that.  AG has much greater responsibilities--ask Gonzo.

    Parent
    I don't think that anyone really knows (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:00:14 AM EST
    what he wants except universal healthcare and economic fairness.

    Becoming AG might advance the latter cause to a degree, but it isn't likely to fix the healthcare situation.  He could I suppose look into price fixing in the healthcare insurance industry, but I think most people would just like to see the Congress step up to the plate and fix the mess rather than deferring this important issue to the courts.

    Parent

    If he truly wanted universal healthcare he would (none / 0) (#127)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:19:18 AM EST
    have listened to his wife and endorsed Clinton. He's an opportunist, plain and simple and a sexist too re:

    Edward's knocks Clinton for getting emotional on the campaign trail:

    Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."

    Parent

    I would (none / 0) (#60)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:15:33 AM EST
    Love to see Edwards as AG, and Clinton (assuming she turns down VP) on the Supreme Court.

    Parent
    I don't see S.Ct. as a good fit for Clinton (none / 0) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:31:24 AM EST
    The S.Ct. is very reactive and sedate.  Those folks lead quiet lives and are limited to what comes before that.

    Clinton has great energy and excels at engaging people.  She would be wasted on the S.Ct.  Not that Obama wouldn't be glad to shut her up in a political corner like that, I'm sure.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#82)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:44:41 AM EST
    missed Antonin on 60 minutes?  They lead whatever kinds of lives they want to.  And saying that the Supreme Court is a "political corner" is like saying that NYC is a quaint little town.  Engaging people is incredibly important on the SC, and Clinton has fantastic judgment.  

    Parent
    I think a lot of (none / 0) (#122)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    former Presidents might agree with you when it comes to putting a politician on the bench.  

    Parent
    agree (none / 0) (#93)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    I prefer her as a governor where she can try out all her terrific legislative ideas - mini presidency.

    Parent
    Role for Hillary (none / 0) (#85)
    by landjjames on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    I've long thought Hillary would be great choice for the Supreme Court.  Yesterday, it hit me - OB could make her his VP running mate to get through and win the election.  Once in office, he could nominate her to the Supremes when the first vacancy comes up.  If Dems   add to their seats in the Senate, her confirmation would be easy.  Then he could choose his VP from someone he really wants and not have to worry about how they'd impact his election - he'd already be in.  This is my current fantasy.  I must add, I don't think VP has much to do with how people vote in November - but perhaps this year is different.

    Parent
    use and toss when done, huh (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:57:26 AM EST


    Parent
    my opinion of Edwards started (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:45:52 AM EST
    degrading the day he wrote his op-ed apology.  And its only gotten worse since then.

    I can say picking Edwards would not have compelled me to change my mind about Obama.  Quite the contrary.   Just one opinion.

    With that in mind just to throw this out there what obama needs to do to earn my vote has nothing to do with his VP choice.

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:54:10 AM EST
    no surprise to me. Edwards has repeatedly said that he didn't want to be VP again. Think rationally about this: Why would he? With Elizabeth's health and young children it seems that he might not even be able to really put the energy into being a VP even if he did want it.

    OT BTD but did you see the Novak column talking about how McCain has a 10 pt lead among women according to some nonpartisan pollster? This leads me to believe that Obama will pick a woman as VP but it won't help him in the general election.

    Picking Another Woman As VP Would (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:13:55 AM EST
    IMO hurt not help Obama in the GE. Obama's campaign has been pretty tone deaf on women to date, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they went that route.

    Parent
    Sen. Obama should wait & wait & wait . . . (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by wurman on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:56:29 AM EST
    I would like to watch the lame stream media lizards flicking their tongues from now until August waiting for the Obama campaign to name a V-P choice. Too funny.

    Perfectly historical & traditional, Sen. Obama could, would, should announce his "preference" at the convention.

    The punditocracy would utterly implode by July.

    to wait, or not to wait.... (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:13:26 AM EST
    that is the question!  ;-)

    I think that Obama is in a really bad spot right now, because there are three months for him to crash and burn before the convention, and he knows it.

    If he doesn't pick a VP, or picks a VP who is a clinton supporter, the urge to undermine his candidacy before the convention will be irresistable...

    If he picks one of his own supporters for VP, he can wave buh-bye to what little chance he had of uniting the party.

    Obama is like the dog that chases cars -- and one day actually catches a car.  He reached a goal that made no rational sense; Obama ran for the nomination for the same reason that dogs chase cars -- its what they do.  And now that he has achieved his goal, he has no idea what to do with it -- the smart thing would be to let go, because when the car speeds up, he won't be able to keep up... and is gonna wind up as roadkill....

    Parent

    I think this might be the kind of situation (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:30:40 AM EST
    the phrase "sticky wicket" was made for...

    Because this isn't just about the immediacy of winning in November, although the Obama campaign has so far shown itself to be so short-sighted that it may be their only focus.

    This is also about an heir apparent for, presumably, 2016.  Every Dem - and maybe some Republicans who are considering a general election vote for Obama - is going to be looking through that lens to some degree.

    I think it's also going to send some kind of message to the Clinton supporters; if it isn't Clinton, but another woman, that could be a problem.  Suppose he picks Claire McCaskill?  Might set a Guinness Book record for number of people who simultaneously throw up.  Richardson?  Buy some stock in the company that makes Pepto-Bismol, cause there's going to be a lot of "nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea."

    I suppose, to be fair, that if I liked and supported Obama, I would find his VP pick - whoever that might be - just fine, because I would see all the strength needed at the top of the ticket.  My problem is that I don't see strength there, so the VP choice just compounds the problem.

    Sticky wicket, indeed.

    I don't think it's going to happen but (none / 0) (#2)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:03:30 AM EST
    I hope he picks Hill, and I think Chelsea should replace Hill as Senator.  I know, crazy right?  But it would be great for young people to have someone like Chelsea in the Senate speaking for them.  And, she's awesome.  

    Hillary..... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:22:05 AM EST
    Ms. Angelou wrote a poem in tribute of Hillary Clinton--

    "You may write me down in history
        With your bitter, twisted lies,
    You may tread me in the very dirt
        But still, like dust, I'll rise"

    Ms. Angelou..."Hillary has risen.   She has `dared'.    That is fabulous.    Just think of this young white woman coming out and deciding that she is going to be the President of the United States of America and to see her `sticking it' when people laughed at her.   There were those who decided she could not `stick it' and that she could not go on, and she `stayed'

    Ms. Angelou would love for Hillary to be on the ticket.  "She has all the qualities that I would want in a President.   She is intelligent and funny and strong...and she would be willing to go to the very end. I like that.   I want that in a President."  " I like idea that Barack and Hillary are talking."

       Ms. Angelou says she believes in going out with who she goes in with.  I believed in her and I stuck with her.

    (Taken from Maya Angelou interview on Larry King last night.)


    Parent

    Her support (none / 0) (#69)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:26:16 AM EST
    Is honorable but--for the record--Angelou is an awful poet.  Really florid, really over the top.  There are soooo many better AA poets.  It's Toni for me, baby! I remember a SNL sketch in which they had Angelou doing a fruit loops commercial...it was actually about on par with most of her verse.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#103)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:07:13 AM EST
    I don't like Angelou's poetry.  Her first memoir will always be a classic, especially (IMO) for adolescents.  That said: I've not read Toni Morrison's poetry?  If I were to pick my favorite living African-American female poet: Lucille Clifton.


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#110)
    by Claw on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:35 AM EST
    The memoir is a classic.  It's wonderful.  I also think it's a great way to get them into some better stuff.  For me, it's Countee Cullen all the way (yeah, I know he's a guy.)

    Parent
    No, no (none / 0) (#12)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:28:17 AM EST
    Robert Kennedy, Jr. will replace Hil as senator from his father's seat in NY.  We saw him in May and he more or less said that's his agenda.  He's going to run for that seat eventually.  He's a waaaaay better man than Barack Obama.  If he ever is presidential candidate, I'll vote Democratic again.

    Parent
    RFK is my second choice. (none / 0) (#17)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:34:23 AM EST
    Didn't know Senators had to be a certain age.  Well, so now he is my first choice.

    Parent
    Three ages are in the Constitution (none / 0) (#24)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:48:12 AM EST
    35 for president, 30 for the Senate, and 25 for the House.

    Parent
    Schumer on dream ticket: (none / 0) (#3)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:05:35 AM EST
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

    Schumer is drawing conclusions.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:14:28 AM EST
    from Clintons statement when she was asked if she was open to being the VP.

    Clinton answered with boilerplate rhetoric -- it was a non-answer to the question.

    Parent

    Schumer will do anything to ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:31:31 AM EST
    get on camera or get coverage in the papers.

    I've voted for him twice.  But the guy's shameless about getting himself press coverage.

    Parent

    As Bob Dole said, the most dangerous (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:42:26 AM EST
    place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.

    Parent
    funny true story: (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:52:05 AM EST
    a few years ago, I went out to the movie with my partner and in the line in front of us was Schumer and his wife and kids.  He kind of turned and acknowledged our presence, so I said "Hi" to him.

    And he ignored me!  So, thinking he hadn't heard me (I can be quiet sometimes), my partner said "Hello" and, again, no response.

    Then the man standing behind us piped up in a really LOUD voice and said "He only responds if there's a camera in the room and he hopes his mug will end up on CNN"

    The whole line started laughing and Schumer and his family left in a huff.  Felt bad for the kids, but it seemed like something they were used to.

    And all he had to do was say "Hello"!

    Parent

    My only Schumer story is when he was at (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:57:33 AM EST
    my commencement but didn't even get to be the main speaker. That honor went to the woman who played Trixie on the Honeymooners (my school was awesomely messed up).

    Parent
    cool, heh. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:21:44 AM EST


    Parent
    Another person to vet? (none / 0) (#6)
    by DoggieDaddy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:15:25 AM EST
    Why bother?

    BO's poeple did such a great job vetting him.

    Maybe they could look for someone with some ideas grounded in reality and someone with actual acomplishments. Or are those folks too afraid of being scapgoated too?

    Good. I'm glad. (none / 0) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:16:25 AM EST


    Obama will pick ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:38:05 AM EST
    a centrist, red state Dem from the midwest or the south, who won't upstage him, and is a Hillary Clinton supporter.

    So my guess ... Evan Bayh.

    He ticks all the boxes.  The press will get to retell the story about how his dad saved Teddy Kennedy's life.

    It's a very, very safe choice.  It won't cause much excitement.  But not much worry either.

    So that's my bet.

    Evan Bayh? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:51:20 AM EST
    Naw. I really hope he doesn't pick him. Why would Bayh want it anyway?

    Parent
    Uh, 2016. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:54:29 AM EST


    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:59:25 AM EST
    assuming Obama will win in Nov. Even if he does he's likely to be a one termer like Carter and being associated with that kind of candidate/president is a career killer. If Bayh has any aspirations towards the Presidency I would think that he wouldn't want to be Obama's VP.

    Parent
    My guess would be (none / 0) (#33)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:55:01 AM EST
    Governor of Pennsylvania - Ed Rendell - another machine politician who can help Obama win those swing states he lost to Hillary

    Parent
    Rendell (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:01:46 AM EST
    could help in PA but where else? I don't see it.

    I'm with Jeralyn on this this one: Obama wanted it so he's going to have to prove himself and not rely on anyother politician to deliver votes for him.

    Frankly, I don't think there's a VP candidate alive that can solve his electoral problems. Hillary seems to help but I don't think that she wants to be on that ticket and I can't blame her one bit.

    Parent

    He said the other day he didn't want it... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:02:01 AM EST
    ...cause he didn't want to be anybody's #2. He was used to being the boss. LOL. I can't remember where I saw this. The Today Show maybe? They were also interviewing Richardson and they had a split screen on both of them when Rendell said this and Richardson make a "scared" face cause he knew they were going to ask him next and he knew his hopey changey, once in a lifetime stock response wasn't going to fly after Rendell's blunt response. So he said something like, well if your party calls bla bla bla bla.

    Parent
    Rendell is too defensive a VP move (none / 0) (#48)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:07:52 AM EST
    for our side.  The Veep pick should be used to help take the offensive against the oppo and expand our range of possibilities, not narrowly defend turf we should already have.

     

    Parent

    What's next for Edwards? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:43:18 AM EST
    Will we see Mr. Edwards run for statewide office or continue speaking out on issues that interest him? Maybe the DNC, although if memory serves he once told Larry King he wasn't interested?

    Edwards would be perfect... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by landjjames on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    for Health and Human Services.  He could lead the charge for universal health care and fight poverty - both issues at the core of his platform.  It would also put him on the Cabinet. Passing health care would be great on his resume and he'd no longer have to run as a one-term Senator/failed VP candidate.

    Parent
    Obama wouldn't do it (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    Why on earth would a President put a person in charge of a Department who does not agree with them philosophically on how the nation should move forward on major issues controlled by that department?

    Edwards wants a national health plan that requires everybody to participate. Obama has run ads criticizing national health plans, even as he claims (falsely) that his plan is going to cover everybody. One of the biggest lies of this campaign is that Obama's health plan is the same as Clinton's and Edwards. It isn't even close. It is guaranteed not to work, because it does not mandate participation. It's as if we made social security optional - does anybody think that a 22 year old is going to pay a hefty chunk into a plan they don't think they'll ever need? Social Security would collapse.

    Parent

    FDR? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:18 PM EST
    Lincoln?

    Why on earth would a President put a person in charge of a Department who does not agree with them philosophically on how the nation should move forward on major issues controlled by that department?


    Parent
    Both very strong, confident men (none / 0) (#124)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:11:39 PM EST
    And untraditional. Obama isn't either Lincoln or FDR. However, your point that is has been done is taken - I stand corrected.

    Parent
    Follow the Money....... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kefa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:00:44 AM EST
    IMHO it will be Mrs. Clinton.

    What happens to Clinton's money? (none / 0) (#112)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:29:19 AM EST
    Everybody is talking about her debt, but she has a healthy chunk of money set aside for the GE that can't be used to retire her current debt. What happens to it?

    Parent
    He asked Edwards? (none / 0) (#44)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:04:31 AM EST
    Uhhhhh...

    Someone out of the loop (none / 0) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:11:33 AM EST
    I would expect him to pick someone totally out of the loop. It would fit into his "new" politic campaign. I don't think he will want anyone on the ticket that is better known or respected than himself.

    Hows about Josh Marshall... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:14:15 AM EST
    ...or Tweety, I hear he has political aspirations.

    Parent
    How about (none / 0) (#66)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:21:07 AM EST
    Obama/Olbermann in '08!

    Parent
    I have a bunch of non-traditional (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:02:01 AM EST
    choices for him:

    How about Oprah?  She used to appeal to Clinton's demographic, that is, until she endorsed Obama.

    Carolyn Kennedy?  She got name recognition.

    Katie Couric?  I hear she could use a new job...

     

    Parent

    How about BTD? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:13:20 AM EST


    Parent
    I think I might qualify... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:15:37 AM EST
    but just barely ;-)

    I mean, who isn't better known or respected than Obama?  

    Parent

    Selection Committee (none / 0) (#71)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:27:14 AM EST
    Caroline was an interesting choice. I'm sure she's aware of the dislike between JFK and Johnson and yet they were forced on each other. I wonder if she's reminded Obama of this. I don't believe she would accept position on the committee just as a token.

    envirowonk link on pandering did not work (none / 0) (#88)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:52:31 AM EST
    here it is - Envirowonk: Obama Pander Parade

    Obama will have 4 VPs (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ramonito on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:24:43 AM EST
    Whether he likes it or not, Obama will be forced by Repugs to run with or away from Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Fr. Pfleger, and Tony Rezko.

    They're going to have a hard time... (none / 0) (#111)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    ...filling the slot. I'm betting that most pols do not expect Obama to win, and they suspect that he could lose by a landslide. VP candidates generally are expected to give up their seat and campaign full time for the Presidential candidate, and even if they don't, a losing campaign will forever tarnish their careers.

    Edwards is smart. He has a life, and I don't see why he should spend another 6 months of it pouring his heart into a campaign that is likely not winnable for a candidate he doesn't particularly believe in (if he really supported Obama, he would have endorsed earlier).

    Hard time? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:01:08 AM EST
    Spare me the obama hate. Clinton is the most powerful choice for VP, but there are a lot of good candidates out there. He's got way more options than john mcstain, that's for damn sure. maybe there is a slot for jeralyn! i know you laugh, but she's a more serious choice than 99% of the republicans!  

    Parent
    I don't hate Obama (none / 0) (#116)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:45:39 AM EST
    I don't think he is qualified to be President at this time and I don't think he can win. That's not based on personal animosity, just my reading of the tea leaves. I have a strong dislike for Axelrod, but I think Obama was simply encouraged to run and chose to go along with the party line. I think that he is basically a good person who has been misled into thinking that he has to do some nasty things to win.

    Parent
    Spanish Newspapers: Edwards Say No To VP | 124 comments (124 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment