Last night (watching the Obama/Hil debate) was the first time that I had a fleeting thought that, while not likely, that these two could work together on a ticket.

That said, and I'll admit that I haven't been following this as closely as some of you, so maybe you can enlighten me, who do you think would be good choices as VPs for each? (Hil, BO, McCain)

This might not be smart, but what about Obama picking John Kerry? I know that Kerry is a supporter of his, and it might help counter the McCain "military" advantage. I'm sure that there are some that would view Kerry's military service as a negative, especially after he was Swift Boated.

Bill Richardson seems likable enough, too.

Is John Edwards still in play?

Who is McCain looking at?

Yeah, I had that same thought last night re: Hillary and Obama. I think she's pretty close to throwing in the towel now. Everything she's tried lately has been a disaster - that "plagiarism" thing was dead on arrival. Her will to fight is draining out of her, and who could blame her? Barack is so dreamy.

But I still don't necessarily see her taking the VP job. It's neither prestigious enough nor busy enough for her. I don't necessarily see John Kerry as the man either - I could be wrong about this, but I don't think he wants it anymore. Richardson would be an enormous help with the Latino vote, but he's also a walking calamity who can't keep horrible mistakes from falling out of his mouth, and he'd be better kept to a behind-the-scenes job. Edwards kind of had his own reasons for being a candidate, and the fact that he hasn't endorsed anyone so far kind of kills his chances of being the running mate, because loyalty and support matters a lot.

But far more than all this, you gotta look at strategy. First and foremost, the Obama running mate can't come from the Senate, or else the Democratic majority could go bye bye, and even the Democrats aren't dumb enough to piss away the opportunity to have a Dem presidency with a Dem Senate and a Dem HR. So he's got to pick someone outside the top tier of political life, and that means it could be a somewhat unconventional choice.

As far as McCain goes, I guarantee you he at least seriously considers Joe Lieberman. They are close allies in the Senate and Lieberman was an early endorser of McCain. We all know that Joementum is a DINO and he'll probably be up for it.

Don't you think McCain needs to go way to the right with his choice to woo the neocons?

Obama would NEVER take Hillary on as a VP. His whole campaign is built around change, and that would totally derail that premise. I could see Edwards or Richardson, but no way on Hillary. Any attack Obama would have on McCain could simply be deflected by McCain saying Hillary is the same way. I could see Hillary taking Obama as her VP, but not the other way around. Not in a million years.

They'll still be friends, and I'm sure he'll enlist her help, but she'd do more harm than good on the ticket with someone preaching change.

Don't you think McCain needs to go way to the right with his choice to woo the neocons?
Isn't that what I said?

Lieberman is not my idea of a strongly right-leaning VP choice , maybe I misunderstood you.

Sarcasm Glenn. Staples is out of green font.

Lieberman is pretty far to the right on just about everything. Defense, social issues, media, foreign policy (I mean, he's the only guy in the Senate currently advocating open war with Iran), etc. The only issue I can think of that he's even moderate about is immigration, and that's only because he mirror's McCain's position because of the benefits to business. In no way is Lieberman anything other than a conservative's wet dream. That's why Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly manage to actually refer to bills that are sponsored by 15 GOP senators (and Lieberman) as "bi-partisan" with a straight face. He's one of the worst enemies the Democrats have ever had.

Don't you think McCain needs to go way to the right with his choice to woo the neocons?
If I were McMaverick, I'd pick Meg Whitman, retiring (at age 52) CEO of eBay as VP. She's a Romney right-winger, a powerful woman with economic savvy who shores up McCain's weakness big-time. She doesn't have a political record, but that's less square footage to attack her with. "I'm a billionaire. I know all about buying and selling. I can't be bought or sold."

For Obama, I dunno... Bob Graham would be an interesting choice.

Is Liddy Dole too old?

Is Sonny Perdue clear of that land scandal yet?

Is Liddy Dole too old?
I think she's got a reputation for being kind of a lightweight. She's more like a daytime talk show host than she is a politician, and I don't think that style plays well in the post-2001 era.

Don't you think McCain needs to go way to the right with his choice to woo the neocons?

McCain needs to pick someone who is breathing to appease the neocons, and even that might be debatable. Especially if he runs against Hillary or Obama. 1) The neocons HATE Hillary, and would vote for a republican even if he performed a partial birth abortion at the Super Bowl halftime show and professed his love for Satan, sacrificed a virgin, and EVEN declared that capitalism is evil.
2) If Obama is the candidate, I lack faith in Americans to elect a Black Man, and the right wing controlled press would destroy him.

dude, the right wing on wtfdetroit is as impotent as bukdow's genitalia(sorry tahoe). what else are you worried about?

get ready for 8 years of obama socialism, good feelings. and as we china overtake us as the #1 country in the world, it'll be like easing into a nice warm bath.

Peeps make too much obout the VP choice. Just don't make a mistake. I don't think peeps think about the vp guy when they go into the thing to vote.

It's important to me.

If the Prez goes down, the VP needs to be President-ready material.

I'm pretty sure we haven't had a Prez that goes down since Bill Clinton . . . .

Jenna Jameson for VP?

The VP nod can be useful for shoring up weaknesses in the presidential candidate themselves.

Cheney was picked to offset Bush's relative federal, military, and foreign policy inexperience. If not for Iraq, I have to believe that Cheney would've "stepped aside for medical reasons" and an heir apparent selected. Edwards was selected to shore up the southern younger vote, but was too much of a lightweight to matter.

Gore was picked to offset Clinton's draft-dodging liberal side, having been pro-life, anti-music-video, some military experience, clean family life, etc. Their only path to the presidency involved breaking the South. Dole picked Kemp to attempt to unify Republicans without bringing a total wingnut like Forbes or Pat Robertson into the fold.

No one knows why the fuck Potatoe-head Quayle was picked, other than being young. That was the biggest waste of a VP pick on any side in recent memory. He'd have been better off picking McCain. Bentsen was picked to shore up Dukakis lack of federal experience, but just made Dukakis look even less presidential by comparison.

Bush was picked to get moderate Republicans to buy in. This turned out to be important with a serious moderate Republican independent, John Anderson, in the mix. Carter could've conceivably won if Reagan had gone off with a more extreme VP choice, and that would've been Reagan's preference. It was Bush who coined "voodoo economics" after all.

Beyond that, things get messy, but the VP was a different kind of job prior to Mondale, who reinvented the position. (To be fair, in the wake of Nixon and Ford, the job called for reinventing.) VPs were largely spare tires. Cheney's reinvented the job too, and it'll be interesting to see if anyone picks a VP in the Cheney mold.

I'm pretty sure we haven't had a Prez that goes down since Bill Clinton . . . .

Jenna Jameson for VP?
You're confusing American politics with Italian politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Cicciolina

You'd think you'd start hearing a little something from McCain by now. Maybe he's hell-bent on getting Huckabee as his running mate, and Huckabee won't drop out.

McCain needs a "Mr. Republican" to be his running mate. Someone synonymous with the party. Like, you hear this guy's name and you immediately start thinking about the GOP.

You'd think you'd start hearing a little something from McCain by now. Maybe he's hell-bent on getting Huckabee as his running mate, and Huckabee won't drop out.

McCain needs a "Mr. Republican" to be his running mate. Someone synonymous with the party. Like, you hear this guy's name and you immediately start thinking about the GOP.
Now that I think about this post, I think McCain's running mate should be Jack Abramoff.

I'm pretty sure we haven't had a Prez that goes down since Bill Clinton . . . .

Jenna Jameson for VP?

YOWSA! Sheer genius. giffman for Secretary of State!

You'd think you'd start hearing a little something from McCain by now. Maybe he's hell-bent on getting Huckabee as his running mate, and Huckabee won't drop out.

McCain needs a "Mr. Republican" to be his running mate. Someone synonymous with the party. Like, you hear this guy's name and you immediately start thinking about the GOP.

http://www.queenoftheoddballs.com/newsimages/bozo.jpg

You'd think you'd start hearing a little something from McCain by now. Maybe he's hell-bent on getting Huckabee as his running mate, and Huckabee won't drop out.

McCain needs a "Mr. Republican" to be his running mate. Someone synonymous with the party. Like, you hear this guy's name and you immediately start thinking about the GOP.

There's always Grover Nordquist

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/graphics/hitler_fuhrer.jpg

I vote we change the thread title to "Peeps that could be Veeps"

http://blogs.chron.com/whitehouse/archives/peeps.jpg

McCain needs a "Mr. Republican" to be his running mate. Someone synonymous with the party. Like, you hear this guy's name and you immediately start thinking about the GOP.
Of course, if such a person existed, they'd be the Presidential nominee, unless they had so many holes in their resume that they'd repel as many votes as they would attract. Newt Gingrich would be a great example here.

I vote we change the thread title to "Peeps that could be Veeps"

http://blogs.chron.com/whitehouse/archives/peeps.jpg
That owns. So do Peeps, though I prefer purple.

I prefer eating real duckies.

I vote we change the thread title to "Peeps that could be Veeps"


Tahoe approves

Of course, if such a person existed, they'd be the Presidential nominee, unless they had so many holes in their resume that they'd repel as many votes as they would attract. Newt Gingrich would be a great example here.
Aaaahahahaha, just as I started reading that, I thought for a split second: What about Newt Gingrich? Meh, you're right. Gingrich would repel independent voters. And I'm pretty sure that Gingrich wouldn't touch McCain with a 10-foot pole by now.

Newt Gingrich would be fucking AWESOME!!!

The party of the "Moral Majority" having to swallow the whole load of Jizz with two philandering skirt chasing adulterous drunks. Man, this would be great.

If McCain/Gingrich get elected, they'd make Clinton?Lewinsky look like child's play. It won't be long before we'd see a picture of them pulling the Train on Britney Spears.

EDIT: Of course, they'd get MY vote. I'd want to be in on THAT party!

I think Biden would be a solid choice for Obama. Everything about him just screams "second fiddle" and he'd bring some experience and a dash of gravitas to balance out the ticket.

Usually though, the vp choice comes down to a political calculation of who can deliver the states where the top of the ticket is weak.

the 'dont take a seat from the senate' premise is cogent.

i still got my money on not senator john edwards. but i think the likeliest is a governor.

my other choice is tim kaine, gov of virginia. you may remember him from the 2006 democratic response to bush's state of the union. at that point, i was so impressed with his speach i thought he might be in THIS race.

turns out he was one of obama's first endorsers.

jim webb, the guy who gave the 2007 democratic response, might be an even better candidate than kain, but for him being in the senate. he has also stated he doesnt want the vp, for what thats worth. hes older (kaine is only 50), and i guess is fairly moderate, also with military service. he also is from virginia.

from wikipedia about webb:


On November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb declined to stand in the line to have his picture taken with the president, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. According to Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, aides warned the President to be "extra sensitive about talking to Webb about his son, since Webb's son has had a recent brush with death in Iraq."[25] Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." Webb was so angered by the exchange that he was reportedly tempted to "slug" the president and later remarked, "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall."

put webb in as my dream selection.

I'd avoid Webb. He's needed too much in Virginia. He won by a narrow margin, and I suspect Republicans would be able to retake his seat if he leaves it early.

Former Virginia governor Mark Warner is the man behind both Webb and Kaine's success. The guy embodies "straight shooter with upper management written all over him". If he weren't running for Senate, he'd be the near-ideal choice for Obama. There were a lot of people calling for him to run for president.

From a military experience standpoint, Jack Reed from Rhode Island would be ideal. But, I don't think he needs a warhawk as VP. He just needs someone to bring a dimension he doesn't have, who isn't going to cause him shit otherwise.

Condi Rice's name was in the news today as a potential running mate with McCain. She immediately denied it.

Many feel that this would be a bad move cuz it would keep McCain too close to the Bush Admin...fwiw.

How about this guy?

http://www.spleenworld.com/coverart/images/dr-z.jpg

Yes, he'd be good on a Hillary ticket.
3vb9fyyzxI4

Me thinks GDs choice is John Edwards.

Not sure if he can bring the blue collar vote to the ticket, but he wouldn't hurt the ticket, imo. And that is the main consideration, imo.

I don't know if Edwards is up for another VP run. I guess he'll consult with the missus again.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senators-say-whether-theyd-agree-to-be-vice-president-2008-05-12.html

Edwards flatly rules out running with Obama
Posted: 01:10 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-ticker-producer-alexander-mooney/)
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
(CNN) — Seeing John Edwards and Barack Obama on the same stage (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch) earlier this week left political pundits buzzing: Could these two be an unbeatable presidential ticket?
They appeared to have natural chemistry — something Edwards and then-Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry seemed to lack in 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/07/kerry.edwards/index.html?iref=newssearch) — and the former North Carolina senator remains popular among a key demographic that has been reluctant to support Obama — working class white voters.
But Edwards flatly said Friday, as he had before he endorsed a candidate, that he's not interested in making a second run for vice president.
"No," Edwards said in no uncertain terms on NBC's the Today show when asked about the possibility. "Won't happen.…It's just not something I am interested in."
As for another position in an Obama administration, specifically Attorney General, Edwards was decidedly more coy.
"I don't really want to get involved in that speculation," he said. "Right now we have to focus on getting Barack Obama elected to President of the United States, then we’ll worry about those things."
Edwards formally endorsed (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html?iref=newssearch) Obama Wednesday evening, the day after Clinton scored a 41 point victory (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/wv.primary/index.html?iref=newssearch) over the Illinois senator in West Virginia. Edwards also said Friday the timing of his announcement was not specifically designed by the Obama campaign to direct the media coverage away from the New York senator's win.
"That's not true," he said. "I know it's not true because I am the one who made the decision about when to do this. I believe this was the right time to do it. I made a decision that the public should know at this point my view."

I had this 'eureka' last night, this 'moment of clarity' <--yea right, I was wondering what y'all thought if McCain picked a female to run as his VP.

With Dem women getting a lil pissy these days with the BO campaign, there might be a voting block there to take advantage of.

Then again, those things never seem to work out. Just don't make a mistake with the pick.

I heard Wesley Clark's name mentioned a couple times last night for Obama. It would bring in a military expert that may not allow McCain to trumpet his military experience.

This is a nice list (not sure if a better one is out there):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/obama-vice-president-pick_n_100869.html

Hillary ain't happening. You can't really pick someone else out of the Senate, especially if Obama is going to be leaving to go to the White House. Webb doesn't want to do it. In general, sitting public officials are mostly out of the question.

Bill Richardson has a potential for too much embarrassment. Robert Reich, despite being quite possibly the world's coolest dwarf since the death of Joe C, is out of politics now. Edwards needs to stick close to home for a while, so he's out. I think that makes Clark the best option right now, and it's not a bad choice considering his military experience and anti-Iraq-war cred.

I just figured out that Obama could pick a Dem governor, but most of the good choices are in the West, and Obama is already a lock in a lot of Western states. He needs someone from the East, and there are not many Eastern Dem governors available or willing to give up their jobs for 4 years of ribbon-cutting ceremonies and college graduation speeches.

I had this 'eureka' last night, this 'moment of clarity' <--yea right, I was wondering what y'all thought if McCain picked a female to run as his VP.

With Dem women getting a lil pissy these days with the BO campaign, there might be a voting block there to take advantage of.

Then again, those things never seem to work out. Just don't make a mistake with the pick.
The problem is that there's not many good women to choose from amongst the Republicans. I doubt they want to put another Senate seat in play, and the female Republican governors are young unknowns on the national scene. The last candidate who could get away with putting a national unknown on the VP ticket was Bush-Quayle in 1988.

McCain/Hillary= 8 years of love.

McCain/Hillary= 8 years of love.
^^^The joke I was too nice to make.

The last candidate who could get away with putting a national unknown on the VP ticket was Bush-Quayle in 1988.
And it was probably the #1 reason why there wasn't a 2nd GHW Bush administration.

EDIT: it was a lot like having Sheed play 48 minutes with Darko as his only backup.

Indeed, another solid Sheed backup eliminates the Prince on Duncan fiasco and wins us a #2 championship. Nice analogy, kudos.

I think I saw a press conference once where toward the end, Bush wrapped a towel around his neck and walked out of the room. Everyone started going "WOOOOOOO! DAN! DAN! DAN!" Quayle stepped up to the podium and the entire press corps started heading for the parking lot. Then Quayle broke a finger on the mic stand.

And it was probably the #1 reason why there wasn't a 2nd GHW Bush administration.
I don't get why either Bush kept their VP for their second term. If your current VP isn't looking like they're gonna be Pres 4 years after you're out (assuming you win), why the fuck do you keep them on the ticket for another 4 years?

I don't get why either Bush kept their VP for their second term. If your current VP isn't looking like they're gonna be Pres 4 years after you're out (assuming you win), why the fuck do you keep them on the ticket for another 4 years?

A decision that really could change things dramatically. I can't remember the short list when 41 was going for reelection, but there was someone that I really liked. Was it Colin Powell?

Anyway, if he would have picked Colin, we prolly would be saying President Powell at some point.

Powell fucked up by backing off his personal beliefs and following the leader. That's probably burned him on politics forever, and it's burned most of America on Powell.

Rice and Powell had it right.

Powell would have been an extraordinary first black President, no doubt. But we already had one Eisenhower - a Republican President who had come from military command and was pretty much ignorant of Republican politics. The GOP hated Eisenhower, and they never would have allowed Powell to happen either, I think.

Big Swami is very intelligent.

Just thought I'd put that out there.

Powell would have been an extraordinary first black President, no doubt. But we already had one Eisenhower - a Republican President who had come from military command and was pretty much ignorant of Republican politics. The GOP hated Eisenhower, and they never would have allowed Powell to happen either, I think.

Well, I think many would say that about a McCain prez nomination too, and that happened.

Its up to the peeps, not some Super Delegates. Oops, wrong party.

Tahoe, the difference is that while Powell has had nothing good to say about his time in the White House, McCain has spent the last 4 years proving to the GOP that he can play ball. The party doesn't have much pull with Powell, but it has a lot more pull with McCain.

P.S. Man do I ever hear you about the superdelegate thing. It stinks to high heaven for the Democratic Party to have such a fundamentally un-democratic convention process.

Big Swami is very intelligent.

Just thought I'd put that out there.
Now if I can only convince my wife.

She's happy enough with your big penis. Stop while you're a head.

Tahoe, the difference is that while Powell has had nothing good to say about his time in the White House, McCain has spent the last 4 years proving to the GOP that he can play ball. The party doesn't have much pull with Powell, but it has a lot more pull with McCain.

P.S. Man do I ever hear you about the superdelegate thing. It stinks to high heaven for the Democratic Party to have such a fundamentally un-democratic convention process.

I would be railing on this, but I think it would taken, by some, as partisan bull. But the Dem party process, to me, is utter shit.

There are a lot of things that just suck with the way the 2 parties have a stanglehold on the process, but that stands out as one of the worst things.

re: Powell the Repubs (I guess more specifically Rummy and Cheney) absolutely ruined, potentially, one of the best peeps to be up in Washington.

Well, I think many would say that about a McCain prez nomination too, and that happened.

Its up to the peeps, not some Super Delegates. Oops, wrong party.
Thou doth protest too much!

Republicans have superdelegates too, in the same proportion to Democrats. They're not called "superdelegates" because, unlike Democratic ones, they are typically party insiders, and not necessarily elected officials.

The reason the Democrats are in a superdelegate bind where Republicans aren't is because Republicans do more winner-take-all/winner-take-most races. They purposely disenfranching large hunks of people in any given state with the idea of being able to come to a decision quickly. It is the Democrats attempt to impose more fairness in how voters map to delegates that has led them into superdelegates being the difference makers.

^ Mxy, I'm going to appologize in advance, but I'll have to do some fact checking on that post.

re: Powell the Repubs (I guess more specifically Rummy and Cheney) absolutely ruined, potentially, one of the best peeps to be up in Washington.
We definitely agree on this. I don't know why, but for the Republicans, sometimes it seems like the person who's the most geeked to start some military shit is the person they take most seriously. Powell sez "whoa here, slow down" and they bulldoze him.

and Re: the superdelegate thing: it's a stupid concept, but luckily it hasn't really been any part of the nomination process yet. The supers have always voted for whoever was ahead in the elected delegates. If they ever vote against the popular candidate tho, there's gonna be a major crisis.

We definitely agree on this. I don't know why, but for the Republicans, sometimes it seems like the person who's the most geeked to start some military shit is the person they take most seriously. Powell sez "whoa here, slow down" and they bulldoze him.

and Re: the superdelegate thing: it's a stupid concept, but luckily it hasn't really been any part of the nomination process yet. The supers have always voted for whoever was ahead in the elected delegates. If they ever vote against the popular candidate tho, there's gonna be a major crisis.

Yep, big 'he man' complex. Wow, he must be tough. Powell and Rice both wanted to go back to the UN, iirc. Had dinner with the Prez, but Rummy, Wolfie and Cheney won him over.

If 41 were Prez, things would have gone much different.

^ Mxy, I'm going to appologize in advance, but I'll have to do some fact checking on that post.

The Republican national doesn't specify district-level "proportionality" rules to their delegate selection processes the way Democrats do. State parties have more freedom in how they award delegates the Republican way. Many states do "winner take all" or "winner take most" to make a strong stand, so that when a candidate wins a state, they've really WON something.

Over 60% of Floridians voted for someone other than McCain, but he got all their delegates. Tell me -- is that the will of the people, or the will of the state at work?

The Republican national doesn't specify district-level "proportionality" rules to their delegate selection processes the way Democrats do. State parties have more freedom in how they award delegates the Republican way. Many states do "winner take all" or "winner take most" to make a strong stand, so that when a candidate wins a state, they've really WON something.

Over 60% of Floridians voted for someone other than McCain, but he got all their delegates. Tell me -- is that the will of the people, or the will of the state at work?

I got ya on that part. I'm surprised to read we have Super Dels like the Dems do, but different rules.

As far as the will of the peeps...The Repubs run it more like the Electrical College. Not sure thats fair. I agree.

It's important to me.

If the Prez goes down, the VP needs to be President-ready material.

So does this mean you might vote for McCain if he picks the correct VP?

Note that if you were to apply Republican delegate selection rules to the results of the Democratic races, Obama would be ahead by proportionately more versus Hillary. Likewise, if you were to apply Democratic delegate selection rules to the results of the Republican races through Super Tuesday, we'd probably still have McCain and Romney slugging it out. Instead of the Democratic superdelegates, most of whom are elected and at least somewhat known, you'd be looking at the Republican equivalent where most of them are party insiders with much less of a public profile on the whole.

Of course, if they knew they were running on a different set of rules, they'd run a different campaign to optimize for those rules.

So does this mean you might vote for McCain if he picks the correct VP?

Nope. I don't swing that way.

If Hil had picked a strong running mate and Obama picked a shlub, it might have changed the way I feel a bit.

Nope. I don't swing that way.

If Hil had picked a strong running mate and Obama picked a shlub, it might have changed the way I feel a bit.:emo kid:

Nope. I don't swing that way.

If Hil had picked a strong running mate and Obama picked a shlub, it might have changed the way I feel a bit.

Fucking Liberal.

But why not tailor your process to the electoral process so you know what states are strong points/weak points?

Hillary would be way ahead under the Repub process...at least she would have been most of the way through the process.

I think Obama's running mate is going to be especially crucial, for reasons that we've discussed previously (his own personal safety).

Note that if you were to apply Republican delegate selection rules to the results of the Democratic races, Obama would be ahead by proportionately more versus Hillary.

I'd like to see the math on that (not because I think you are wrong, but because I've often wondered).

I'd like to see the math on that (not because I think you are wrong, but because I've often wondered).
I didn't think it was important because it was hypothetical bullshit, but lemme digg it up... ahh, here it is:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/13/01832/3725/56/514556

Yeah, it's from DailyKos, but it's pretty much just number crunching.

Thanks, I found it very interesting because it refutes another one of her hair brained ways of doing math. I've heard her claim that she'd be ahead if they were winner take all states. Perhaps she included Michigan and Florida in that calculation as well.

Thanks, I found it very interesting because it refutes another one of her hair brained ways of doing math. I've heard her claim that she'd be ahead if they were winner take all states. Perhaps she included Michigan and Florida in that calculation as well.
She argues that if you counted victories in an electoral vote way, she'd win. That's true. But, as part of that, she also says that's how the Republicans do their primaries, and that's false. Thee delegates in a Republican (or Democratic) primary aren't proportional to electoral votes that a given region will have in an election. And it's not always winner-take-all for the Republican primaries.

And she also assumes that every state she's won so far would equate to a win in November as well. She wants to tout her 10 point win in Ohio (her wheelhouse) against someone she says can't win the blue collar vote. Yet McCain won by 30 points in a meaningless contest. She only won by 15 points in Michigan going against nobody. In fact, she actually lost Washtenaw and Emmet counties to nobody. Most of the counties she won by large margains voted heavily for Bush in 2004.

And she also assumes that every state she's won so far would equate to a win in November as well. She wants to tout her 10 point win in Ohio (her wheelhouse)
Ohio was reported as a 10+% victory, but it didn't turn out that way once all the votes (including provisionals) were counted. It was only about 8.7%:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/OH-D.phtml

Likewise, the vote is close enough in Indiana where Obama might yet win. Her reported margin of victory on election night was 22000+ votes, but the provisional ballots and other recounting have driven it down to under 15000 vote. Indiana's not going to be done with that for a couple more weeks yet.

More on the topic, McCain is informally interviewing would-be VPs in Arizona this weekend. There's Charlie Crist, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney.

Romney would be the smart choice, except they can't stand each other. And I doubt that Bobby Jindal, having just been elected governor 5 months ago, would get the nod because it'd undercut any attacks on Obama's experience. Unless Crist is gay...

And supposedly, Mark Warner (former Virginia governor, running for senate) was pinged by Obama about a possible ticket. An Obama-Warner ticket seems unlikely (they really could use that Senate seat in Virginia), but it's amusing.

And of course, there's swirl regarding Hillary being Obama's VP which seems stupid as all hell, so of course media gasbags perpetuate it...

If BO and JM are smart they will make a raw political decision on who their Veeps will be. Regan didn't like Bush, JFK didn't like LBJ, but if it will help them win then they have to make it.

I'm not saying JM should select Romney or BO should select Hillary, I'm saying they shouldn't stop from doing it if thats what will help them get elected.

Does he pick Hillary?

I'm still riding the fence, 50/50.

Yeah, I really have no idea what is going to happen as far as Hillary VP goes..

Lots of reasons for and against:

Bad-

Bill + Hill overpowers Obama.
Prompts Licks to show
Hardly the change Obama talks about
No white man? Really?

Good-

Helps in Ohio, Michigan, Florida
Unites fractured Dems
Qualified
You think she and Bill would be a couple of bulldogs? Obama can keep playing the good cop gig and still have a monster wrecking ball who will get a shitload of media exposure.
She doesn't fuck up and do stupid shit like some of the veep guys.

Republicans will take every negative thing Hillary's said about Obama and use it in attack ads. Given the length of the campaign, that's a lot of ammo.

Thats pretty weak, Mxy. If BO picks a VP based upon what the other party might do, is a sign of weakness, imo.

My money is that Obama invites Hillary to be a part of his campaign, and probably promises her a cabinet spot, but picks Richardson as his running mate. He's not dumb enough to open the doors wide to Bill to come on in and start shooting his mouth off.

Thats pretty weak, Mxy. If BO picks a VP based upon what the other party might do, is a sign of weakness, imo.
There's other reasons, but that's the deal breaker. I doubt Reagan picks Bush if Bush were talking "voodoo economics" over a long campaign trail.

It'd be a sign of weakness in a lot of ways of Obama picked Hillary. "It's 3am in the morning, and Obama and Hillary are in bed together..."

I still like Clark as VP.

What I don't get is why people talk about how Hillary would help him get votes in blue collar areas. That may be true, but who's to say Obama won't get them anyway when he's not running against another democrat. Also, she doesn't help him on his biggest "weakness" that McCain will try to exploit. She doesn't know jack shit about foreign policy (as we've seen from her trumped up sniper stories). She also hurts him two of Obama's biggest strengths. She voted for the war, and she doesn't represent change. How is Obama supposed to attack McCain on the war when he could simply turn around and say "well, your running mate supported it"

Wes Clark went all-in for Hillary.

Obama doesn't need the "old hand at foreign policy" nearly as much as he needs to pump up the Hispanic vote and the old steel fart woman vote.

Apparently BO and Hillary are meeting at Diane Feinsteins house in DC.

DF popped into my head as a potential VP pick. Women, California are some pluses.

CNN says the meeting is in Hills house, FoxNews says DF house. who knows.

She's older than McCain. Boxer and Pelosi aren't much younger.

I have a hunch that in a general election, there'll be a significant number of WOMEN who'll somehow vote AGAINST whichever candidate has a woman. One thing that I agree with Geraldine Ferraro on is that women (in general, en masse) are their own worst enemies politically. The ratio of female to male voters -- 54-46 in a general election, moreso in special elections -- should have led to MANY female leaders by now, to women's rights being a settled issue independent of party.

BO can' take all the time he wants to pick his VP, but if he knows that it is NOT going to be Hillary, he/they/someone needs to come out and announce it isn't going to be her. End the story.

BO can' take all the time he wants to pick his VP, but if he knows that it is NOT going to be Hillary, he/they/someone needs to come out and announce it isn't going to be her. End the story.

They debated that last night and I strongly disagree. At first I thought that would be good because she'd know right away. I thought it would be a nice gesture.

Then I re-thought it and it would be a bad idea. He sat down with Candi from CNN and told her he has a process and he won't deviate from that process no matter who tries to pressure him. He said he has a list, which she is on, and he'll go through the process on all the canidates he has on his list. If he told her now that she isn't going to be it, then what he's saying is that she's not even worthy of going through the process. It's a huge slap in the face to eliminate her name prior to going through the process.

That and the media exposure is keeping the sun off the old man. He's become an afterthought in this thing.

McCain would love to know, wouldn't he?

Truth is, there really isn't a pressing need to Obama to announce his VP right now, IMO.

I agree and said that BO doesn't have to pick his VP for a long time. He is wise not too, imo.

But if he knows its not going to be Hillary, he should get it out there.

That would be another strategy error, IMO.

That knowledge helps McCain.

Keep him guessing.

I guess in some way, but small way, imo. I'd have to think about that one.

Waiting till 2 weeks before the Dem convention for Hillary supporters to find out that she isn't the candidate might help JM too.

If she isn't the pick, let eveyone know so the party has more time to heal.

I think the VP selection is sizing up to be a game of chicken.

Who will blink first?

There might be advantages to going first, but there are definitely advantages to knowing who the other guy picked before you have to decide yourself.

The Dem convention is first, iirc, so the Dems go first this year.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here but BO would not be selecting anyone if he simply deselects Hillary. That leaves about 299,999,999 other peeps that JM has to stratesize against.

Weighing the hurt feelings situation with Hills supporters, it makes sense to me for him to say it now.

Where's that dead horse emoticon?

Weighing the hurt feelings situation with Hills supporters, it makes sense to me for him to say it now.



To me, that's why it's on her now to deliver her supporters to Obama right now, VP bid or no VP bid.

It's her problem for now, if she fucks it up, then it's his.

To me, that's why it's on her now to deliver her supporters to Obama right now, VP bid or no VP bid.

It's her problem for now, if she fucks it up, then it's his.

It is, but we ARE talking about the Clintons here.

Under any other circumstances, candidates, I'd completely agree to just wait, but not with Hillary.

Well, if she fucks this up, she might as well become a Republican.

And I wouldn't put it past her...j/k a lil.

He needs to show some strength in dealing with her.

Ignoring her, or not changing from his process in picking a VP is one way, coming out and saying...'after much consultation/deliberation, Hillary will not be my pick for VP' is another way, imo. Let her go get pissed. She'll only make herself look bad under the 2nd scenario.

option...Haley Barber for JM

And I wouldn't put it past her...j/k a lil.

He needs to show some strength in dealing with her.

Ignoring her, or not changing from his process in picking a VP is one way, coming out and saying...'after much consultation/deliberation, Hillary will not be my pick for VP' is another way, imo. Let her go get pissed. She'll only make herself look bad under the 2nd scenario.
Agreed, ignoring her only gives her "outsider" status, which she can then leverage to make herself seem like a victim. Bad news.

Haley Barbour is not nearly as old as McCain, so that's good; he's also a prominent Southerner, which helps there; but he also brings back a lot of bad memories of how the GOP acted during the Clinton years.

I don't think he acted that poorly. But I don't remember. And they didn't treat any worse then the libs are now.

And they didn't treat any worse then the libs are now.

Treading dangerously into "lying about a BJ = lying to get us into a war" territory.

The libs are writting stories about Billy boy and how he's out there mentally and looking for some puntang. Vanity Fair.

Bill hasn't changed, the libs views of him has cuz they have a new favorite in BO.

I could only imagine the shit storm from the left if FoxNews had written a story like that about Bill. Actually it was intimated by the right and all the 'vast right wing conspiracy' things were said by Hillary and the left.

Obama is not ignoring her. He's going to put her through the same process as everyone else. Or, he told her last night that he's not considering her, but has to do so publicly so as not to embarass her. Either way he has to appear to give her a fair shot or he WILL piss off Clinton supporters. Yes, ruling her out earlier starts the healing process earlier. But, ruling her out early creates even more wounds to be healed IMO. If Clinton supporters see her ruled out right away, they'll be pissed. If you don't think so you are fooling yourself. He's best to not say she's out of the running, but find what role she is going to play and announce that. Whether it's senate majority or something else. It's much better to say "I have a better job for her" than to say "she doesn't fit what I am looking for."

But if he can group her in (to soften the blow)


'By mutual agreement, Sam Nunn, John Edwards and Hill are not going to be my VP' or something.

I never said don't allow her to be considered (not saying you said I did either) do the process but in a month from now, group her with some others and say shes out. Especially if they've come to an agreement on how much of her debt he will pay off, a potential ambassadorship for Bill, and something for her. If she buys in announce it.

Sticking to my guns on this one...so far anyway.

This IS a really interesting situation for political junkies though. Historic nomination on the Dems side, etc.

I think that he's already laid the groundwork for her to be involved in his administration in some (other) way.

In his speech the other night, he said something like "when we bring universal health care to Americans, I can assure you that Hillary Clinton will be a big part of that".

Of course, he could have meant what she has done already in the past, but the impression that I got is that he would have her involved.

Maybe "Health Care Czar" or something similar?

if he has a role for her, then yes announce it. But you can't simply say, no she won't be VP but she'll do something to help. That won't fly with Clinton voters. Wait until you have your VP, or her new role defined before announcing anything.

Hillary Care Redux? It didn't work very well the first time.

She wants Gov't mandated HC. The Dems better win the majority needed to push that through.

But I agree on including her in his cabinet, even though I'm sure he'd like to lock her in his cabinet.

Strickland is making a lot of sense for me. Obama is polling near even in Ohio. Without Ohio the math for McCain is really ugly.

It'll be close, but I doubt McCain pulls off Ohio. The Republican party there isn't strong at all, and there's no indication that McCain's going to do the party building there like what Kerry-Edwards did with Democrats there to make Ohio even close. I'd give McCain better odds to take Michigan, if he sucked it in and took Romney as a VP.

Strickland is a tool, AFAICT:

GPCBYZQC31s

I have a hunch that in a general election, there'll be a significant number of WOMEN who'll somehow vote AGAINST whichever candidate has a woman. One thing that I agree with Geraldine Ferraro on is that women (in general, en masse) are their own worst enemies politically. The ratio of female to male voters -- 54-46 in a general election, moreso in special elections -- should have led to MANY female leaders by now, to women's rights being a settled issue independent of party.
And on cue, it seems like Time wrote about the same thing:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812050,00.html

I don't necessarily agree with their lines of thought. Notably, I think how women have collectively allowed gay male designers to define their body image has lot to do with why female politicians don't rule the U.S. but that's hijacking this thread too far...

It'll be close, but I doubt McCain pulls off Ohio. The Republican party there isn't strong at all, and there's no indication that McCain's going to do the party building there like what Kerry-Edwards did with Democrats there to make Ohio even close.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ohio9-2008jun09,0,1838453.story

^good read. I found the choice of words here a little odd though:


This time four years ago, Triantafilou recalled, he had already taken leave from his county government job to work full time for Bush's reelection. "By June 1, we were humping hard on the presidential campaign," he said. While waiting for the McCain team, the county party has launched a voter registration drive of its own.

^good read. I found the choice of words here a little odd though:
I think it's "humping" in the military sense of the word, i.e. a punishing hike.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24672458

Veepstakes 08'

Maybe, but I wouldn't have used those words exactly. What about hunkering down? There are other phrases that probably would have been wiser. Anyway, it doesn't matter, I just found it funny.

Strickland is out. Webb is out, or should be cuz of his confederate sympathies. Oh thats right, we're talking Dems here. Only the Repubs get disqualified for those things.

Webb just doesn't want the gig. Simple as that. He just got elected to the Senate in a really ugly race, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to go through anything like that again.

I mentioned Webb because his name is mentioned often.

Did you hear the NPR interview with Strickland. He gave the "If asked, I will not accept. If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve" speech. So this genius at NPR says, 'but doesn't everyone say that" He's all "NO".

"If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve."

Webb is out because of his sexist remarks in the past.

I'm thinking "term-limited western governor" -- Richardson, Schweitzer, Sebelius. All have their strengths and weaknesses.

I had not heard that Webb was out. till Swami and you mentioned it.

I still hear Nunn too.

Webb's been saying NO from the beginning. And I don't think he'd be that good of a choice anyway, as I think he's got a lot of work to do in the Senate. He's honestly one of the best Democratic lawmakers out there. He's ex-military who is pro-gun but anti-war. He's not exactly the most polished politician out there, which makes him more likable, but not good for a VP slot. A good choice for a bureaucratic job like SecDef, but not so much at the Presidential level.

Howard Dean is probably only good in terms of his availability. His electability is probably more of a hindrance than a help.

Obama's currently tearing shit up as far as internal Democratic politics goes. As the nominee, he's getting the chance to remake the DNC into just about anything he wants, and he's really taking advantage of the opportunity. I suspect he's not going to tolerate anyone being foisted off on him in order to make friends within the party. He's going to pick someone who's very much like himself.

Webb said he wasn't interested, and the Virginia bench isn't quite deep enough where it'd be good to yank him.

Nunn's said he wasn't interested, for that matter.

I know if a BO is elected he will bring in his own Sec of Def, but Gates is kicking ass up there.

I just think that Obama needs to pick a military guy (to trump McCain's experience). Preferably from a swing state, but doesn't have to be. I'd rather have the foreign policy experience (to keep the white women with security worries from jumping to McCain) then to have someone simply from a swing state.

For the first time in my life time, the VP selections actually kind of matter.

Its interesting to see who BO picks, but I'm more interested to see if JM tries to secure his base by going to the right of himself with his pick, or goes further left (then his liberal self) to go after the Hillary voters.

McCain is in a bad situation and has to be careful about his selection for sure (and his campaign for that matter). He's trying to pull in conservatives on the heel of a bad administration while appealing to the middle ground as well. He has his work cut out for him thanks to Bush.

BO resigns under fire. Hows that for a headline?

BO repeatedly smashed CountryWide then picks a guy that has some pretty substantial biz dealings with them.

I stand by what i said. BO isn't giving me any confidence in his ability to pick peeps.

Rudy Gulliani for JM

Rudy Gulliani for JM
You really like Democrats, don't you?

Giuliani would be an awful VP candidate for McCain.

I think Hillary would be chomping at the bit to be Obama's VP just so she could destroy Giuliani... Biden too, for that matter.

What McCain needs, tactically speaking, is someone who's:

a) presidential material (especially given McCain's age)
b) NOT strongly allied with Dubya (aka Mr. Popularity)
c) shores up McCain's weaknesses (economy, evangelicals, women)
d) locks a state that might be swingy otherwise (FL, VA, MI, OH)
e) doesn't actually HURT him too badly where he's weak (see above)

Finding that trail mix is not exactly easy.

Hillary destroy Rudy? No way. Win? Maybe. Destroy? No way.

FYI...Rudy is pretty popular among independents, some Dems and some Reps. I think it'd be an ok pick.

As far as needing someone to help him with evangelicals...I'm not so sure. Its for a pay grade far above mine to see how many pissed off Hillary voters might be had vs how many evangs. The Evans have no place to go anyway, so I think JM could move to the center with his pick.

Rudy's campaign was put to an end by Biden's "a noun, a verb, and 9/11", even before Florida officially killed him. The states Rudy plays best in aren't ones that Rudy's necessarily going to tilt in the Republican column. Think about it -- two cancer victims on the ticket.

McCain needs evangelicals to actually come out and VOTE for him. They're already not inclined to vote for him as it is. Going with someone like Rudy or Mitt screams "stay home" (bad for McCain) or "form third party" (REALLY bad for McCain). He needs a less-batshit rendition of Huckabee.

BO didn't win New York, Rudy could help JM there. j/k

I don't think Don Mattingly could win J.M. NY.

Rudy Gulliani for JM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/nyregion/14giuliani.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Mxy, could you give me a couple lines summing up what the article said.

NYT;dcl

Here it is paraphrased from another source:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/13/Report_Giuliani_would_aid_GOP_for_a_price/UPI-75561213414927/


WASHINGTON, June 13 (UPI) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has offered to appear at GOP fundraisers if candidates help him retire his campaign debts, The New York Times said Friday.

Giuliani aides have notified the National Republican Congressional Committee and congressional candidates of the offer, the newspaper said. But a leading Republican Party strategist noted the party is struggling to raise funds and said the Giuliani proposal is "just another burden."

"This is not about helping the party," the strategist said. "This is about helping Rudy Giuliani."

Giuliani, who ran unsuccessfully for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, ended his campaign with an estimated $3.6 million in campaign debt -- including a $500,000 loan from his personal funds -- The Times said.

A Republican member of Congress said colleagues on Capitol Hill were surprised Giuliani was having trouble raising funds for his campaign debt.

Citing campaign finance reports, the newspaper said the National Republican Congressional Committee has raised $69.2 million and has a cash balance of $6.7 million, while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised $92.9 million and has $45.2 million in hand.

Representatives for Giuliani and the NRCC declined to comment on the report.

So your run a shitty campaign, lose and expect to get financial relief? wow.

A possible VP for McCain?
1EcQ03qRE1s

I can never get that 3:45 back. Thanks a lot turdface.

You watched the whole thing? I got about 30 seconds in and decided "fuck it, it's that dipshit McCotter". It's sad that SE Michigan keeps on re-electing him.

You watched the whole thing? I got about 30 seconds in and decided "fuck it, it's that dipshit McCotter". It's sad that SE Michigan keeps on re-electing him.

Maybe they just enjoy welcoming him back?

ugh.

Maybe they just enjoy welcoming him back?

ugh.

Vinny's last name is Barbarino... no joke.

Didn't watch the whole thing but 155 is spot on.

Rule #1 of presentations = Don't just read the Powerpoints.

Odds On: Who will be named as the Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election?

Hillary Clinton
7/5

Jim Webb
15/4

John Edwards
12/1

Bill Richardson
5/1

Kathleen Sebelius
5/1

Wesley Clark
18/1

Ted Strickland
20/1

Al Gore
30/1

Joseph Biden
9/1

Michael Bloomberg
30/1

Janet Napolitano
40/1

Evan Bayh
10/1



Odds On: Who will be named as the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election?

Bobby Jindal
8/1

Tim Pawlenty
5/2

Lindsey Graham
15/1

Tom Ridge
13/1

Mitt Romney
2/1

Mike Huckabee
7/2

Joseph Lieberman
15/1

Chris Cox
50/1

Condoleezza Rice
30/1

David Petraeus
60/1

Michael Bloomberg
50/1

Rudy Giuliani
35/1

Jeb Bush
100/1

Ron Paul
100/1

Fred Thompson
75/1

I wonder if those odds are still current. I have a fealing Edwards will be the guy in the end. Him or Biden.

Vinny's last name is Barbarino... no joke.
I actually have a cousin in California named Vincent Barbarino.

I wonder if those odds are still current. I have a fealing Edwards will be the guy in the end. Him or Biden.

They were current as of the day I posted them (3 days ago).

They were pulled right out of the sportsbook.

I like Biden, but he's too outspoken, IMO

Poll: 30% say running mate will mean a 'great' deal to them.

Just like I keep trying to tell GD. :)

My gut says Mitt Romney and Evan Bayh. I thought Obama might go for experience with Biden or Kaine (and geographically too).

Now I think he's going to simply choose who he feels most comfortable with (fits his message best) rather than trying to address any weakness.

I wonder if those odds are still current. I have a fealing Edwards will be the guy in the end. Him or Biden.

I kind of doubt it.

Now I do.

I kind of doubt it.

That prediction was from a month ago BTW. It wouldn't shock me to see Edwards (because I think he fits what I talked about in my last post), but I thought he said he wasn't interested anyway.

That prediction was from a month ago BTW. It wouldn't shock me to see Edwards (because I think he fits what I talked about in my last post), but I thought he said he wasn't interested anyway.

I agree with your thoughts...I thought sure he'd make the short list, at the very least, but after today, I doubt it.

Yeah, he's out.

I just hope he didn't lie again today on whether the child is his. He said definately not, but also said he has not taken a test yet.

Edwards' political career = DONE.

That said, imagine if he had gotten the nomination (or the VP nod) and this comes out today.

It's no coincidence that both this announcement and the news about McCain having to return an illegal $50,000 campaign donation to a Jordanian family were timed for the same day as the opening ceremonies of the Olympics.

MoTown will never know that these things happened.

Chances the child is Edwards??? This thing just doesn't sound good, imo. I think its his child. His screw up will be if it his and he didn't get it all out there today.

He's a good guy though. He was with his former mistress a day or so after the baby was born from 9pm to 3am. What a guy!

I just hope he didn't lie again today on whether the child is his. He said definately not, but also said he has not taken a test yet.
http://www.nbcuniversalstore.com/img/product/resized/00042537-921048_400.jpg?k=15c31d72&pid=42537&s=catl

Obama supporters to get VP announcement via text

By JULIE PACE, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is close to choosing a running mate, and the first person to find out could be you.

In an e-mail to supporters, Obama's campaign manager said voters can sign up to receive an e-mail or a text message "the moment" he makes his decision.

"No other campaign has done this before," campaign manager David Plouffe said in the e-mail. "You can be part of this important moment."

The e-mail asks supporters to pass the message to friends and family, another way for the campaign to collect information on potential voters and contributors.

Obama has run a technologically savvy campaign, using the Internet to build a network of 2 million volunteers and raise nearly $340 million, as of the end of June.

The campaign's efforts extend far beyond the official campaign Web site, to a variety of social networking sites that allow supporters to exchange messages with each other, and track the candidate on the campaign trail.

Some of those sites, like Twitter, deliver updates via text message, putting the campaign in near-constant contact with potential voters.

Obama's latest Twitter update details the campaign's plan to announce a running mate via text.

That announcement could be the first high-profile step in an otherwise guarded process. Both Obama and likely Republican nominee John McCain have been tightlipped about who they're considering and how the process is going on.

Obama is vacationing in Hawaii with his family until Aug. 15. He'll return with just nine days to go before the Democratic convention, giving him a short window to announce his running mate.

The Republican convention begins Sept. 1.

Hillary peeps say if the Edwards story came out during the Dem nomination process, she'd be the nominee.

Who knows if its true, but it makes some sense.

Polling at the time suggest otherwise. Obama was more Iowans' second choice than Hillary was. Of course, if Edwards never ran in the first place, the dynamic may have played out totally differently. Heck, Bill Richardson may have taken some Hillary votes instead. One big strike against a Hillary win in Iowa was her voting against ethanol. Who knows? There's lotsa woulda coulda shouldas that just doesn't matter anymore.

You Dems are .... conflicted. :)

We could play "woulda coulda shoulda" with Rudy Giuliani staying in through Super Tuesday, potentially forking away enough votes for a Romney win. :)

^ Would/coulda/shoulda been a good thing.

Polling at the time suggest otherwise. Obama was more Iowans' second choice than Hillary was. Of course, if Edwards never ran in the first place, the dynamic may have played out totally differently. Heck, Bill Richardson may have taken some Hillary votes instead. One big strike against a Hillary win in Iowa was her voting against ethanol. Who knows? There's lotsa woulda coulda shouldas that just doesn't matter anymore.

Yeah, only %26 of Edwards voters supported Hillary as their 2nd choice.

Polling at the time suggest otherwise. Obama was more Iowans' second choice than Hillary was. Of course, if Edwards never ran in the first place, the dynamic may have played out totally differently. Heck, Bill Richardson may have taken some Hillary votes instead. One big strike against a Hillary win in Iowa was her voting against ethanol. Who knows? There's lotsa woulda coulda shouldas that just doesn't matter anymore.

This is a different woulda/shoulda to me. Its about a Prez candidate lying about having an affair that could have swayed some votes.

This isn't if this person woulda ran or if this person woulda dropped out, its if what we know now woulda been out there back what might have changed.

Good try but different animal here.

Polling at the time suggest otherwise. Obama was more Iowans' second choice than Hillary was. Of course, if Edwards never ran in the first place, the dynamic may have played out totally differently. Heck, Bill Richardson may have taken some Hillary votes instead. One big strike against a Hillary win in Iowa was her voting against ethanol. Who knows? There's lotsa woulda coulda shouldas that just doesn't matter anymore.

And hopefully my last post on this point...Wolfson disagrees.

This is a different woulda/shoulda to me. Its about a Prez candidate lying about having an affair that could have swayed some votes.

This isn't if this person woulda ran or if this person woulda dropped out, its if what we know now woulda been out there back what might have changed.

Good try but different animal here.

I don't follow your logic at all. You are saying a canidate lying about an affair would have resulted in more votes for Hillary (the canidate with a husband that did just that)? There is no way to say how the Edwards news would have effected Iowa, but what is there to suggest it would benifit Hillary? If anything, it should hurt a family struck by poor family values (Bill).

This is a different woulda/shoulda to me. Its about a Prez candidate lying about having an affair that could have swayed some votes.
Depending on when and why Edwards is removed from the equation, many outcomes are possible. If Edwards were removed relatively late in the game, just before Iowa voted, the polling of the time doesn't suggest a Hillary win. If Edwards were removed early on, who the fuck knows? Wolfson's talking out of his ass.


This isn't if this person woulda ran or if this person woulda dropped out, its if what we know now woulda been out there back what might have changed.
Edwards' affair amounts to him dropping out and being out of the equation, especially in Iowa.

I don't follow your logic at all. You are saying a canidate lying about an affair would have resulted in more votes for Hillary (the canidate with a husband that did just that)? There is no way to say how the Edwards news would have effected Iowa, but what is there to suggest it would benifit Hillary? If anything, it should hurt a family struck by poor family values (Bill).

Its not my logic. Its Wolfsons and other Dems. I'm just repeating it. I can't say that I agree or disagree with it, but it does raise questions.

Ok, one last comment. For the liberal media to be bested by the National Enquirer is really comical to me. They (lib media) should stop promoting who they want to win and do some actual reporting and let us decide.

Ok, one last comment. For the liberal media to be bested by the National Enquirer is really comical to me. They (lib media) should stop promoting who they want to win and do some actual reporting and let us decide.
Yea we can't let the Liberal media win its like letting the terrorists win.

It's funny (funny-odd, not funny-haha) how something that has NOTHING to do with Obama can be spun to try and cause him damage.

No its conservative News Glenn. Catch up!!

I really feel the liberal medias number 2 peep was Edwards. It was a dream ticket for them. They wouldn't even investigate the story.

Yea, and thankfully FoxNews doesn't show any bias for its candidates.

Tahoe, wouldn't it be in the "liberal media's" best interest to get the Edward's story out ASAP so it wouldn't have blown up after it was too late?

I'm not following the logic of your accusation here.

Tahoe, wouldn't it be in the "liberal media's" best interest to get the Edward's story out ASAP so it wouldn't have blown up after it was too late?

I'm not following the logic of your accusation here.
Don't try to. He'll have to turn to fox news and decide on an answer.

Ok, one last comment. For the liberal media to be bested by the National Enquirer is really comical to me. They (lib media) should stop promoting who they want to win and do some actual reporting and let us decide.
Ok, I'll bite -- when did Fox report on this, relative to the "liberal media" and the National Enquirer?

AFAICT, the National Enquirer is like a stopped analog clock. It's still right twice a day, but that doesn't make it a good or useful clock.

Tahoe, wouldn't it be in the "liberal media's" best interest to get the Edward's story out ASAP so it wouldn't have blown up after it was too late?

I'm not following the logic of your accusation here.

They just didn't investigate the story (that was out there) at all.

Seriously, its not a big deal, but I do feel its an example of bias. The NYT did a story on JM that wasn't true but no lib outlets would touch this. If it had been a repub, the story would be all over and covered by everyone.

So you honestly think that a media outlet would make a conscious decision to not investigate a story because, well, they just don't want to because of (real or perceived) political leanings?

Many of these media outlets are public companies that answer to stockholders. If they see an opportunity to raise their profile/elevate their brand and have their reporting lauded (which increases advertiser interests, which is how they make money) they jump on it.

No offense, but I think you have a very skewed opinion of how the media operates. It's very competitive and if they were to actually operate the way that you are suggesting, they just wouldn't survive.

As much as I am disgusted by Fox News and their lack of journalistic integrity, I would bet almost anything that if one of their reporters got a whiff of a similar story about McCain, they'd pursue it.

My .02

And on the whole FoxNews thing.

I go with peeps like Tim Russert, etc who serously encouraged FoxNews and supported them. Some of you have it all wrong imo.

Take a page from Russert (which I need to do too from time to time) and disagree agreeably. He was friends with Hume, Snow, etc, not the lowlifes who cheered Snows death on KOS and Huffington.

I know there are right wing websites too (I seriously don't know what they are though) But they don't have the stronghold on the Rep party that KOS and Huff do. The Dem candidates cow tow to them.

IMO, Russert rolled in his grave when KOS and HUff did stuff on Snow.

I'm not familiar with the stuff you are referencing now, looks like you are slip sliding away from me, lol

If any media outlet that wants to be taken seriously as a news gathering organization made fun of Tony Snow or anybody, for that matter, who just died, then they'll get what they have coming to them in the end. (by that I mean they won't be respected)

I don't consider kos or Huffington as news outlets, they are legitimate businesses that use news to make themselves unique, but they are not in the same category as most time tested and well respected media organizations.

Yea, that was a bit of a left turn...or right turn from the topic.

There may be some shows on Fox News that show both sides, but I'll never find out. The few times I have turned that channel on it's been nothing but a train wreck GOP circle jerk. Those other shows are guilty by association (if Fox News allows that other crap I'm not supporting their channel, period).

Furthermore (as I allow you to drag me off point), I think Russert knew and acknowledged the difference between legit and respected newsgathering outlets and "Newsertainment" products like Fox News and even stuff that Russert was involved with like Olberman and Abram's shows. There's a place for both, but the confusion that arises is a big problem for traditional news outlets.

Brit Hume, Chris Wallace's FoxNews Sunday are 2 shows where can get good info and get both sides comments on.

There may be some shows on Fox News that show both sides, but I'll never find out. The few times I have turned that channel on it's been nothing but a train wreck GOP circle jerk. Those other shows are guilty by association (if Fox News allows that other crap I'm not supporting their channel, period).

But Olbermans is great, right?

That's why NBC puts Olbermann and Abrams on MSNBC, they clearly draw the distinction that I was referring to.

As far as I can tell, Fox News blends them all together and tries to make them equal and therefore, they get treated as such.

If you put something good smack dab in the middle of sensationalist, agenda driven talking heads, you are going to drag it right down to the ground. It's too easy to just lump it all together. There needs to be a very clear distinction between these "Newsertainment", agenda and opinion-based shows and the NEWS.

Understood.

But Olbermans is great, right?

Well, first off I don't try to pass it off as "both sided" or "strict news". I know it's slanted to the left and entertainment oriented.

Second, I've never seen anyone on MSNBC saying the world would be better off with Obama dead, etc like some of the shit that goes on with Fox News. There is a difference between bias and gutter news reporting.

Well, first off I don't try to pass it off as "both sided" or "strict news". I know it's slanted to the left and entertainment oriented.

Second, I've never seen anyone on MSNBC saying the world would be better off with Obama dead, etc like some of the shit that goes on with Fox News. There is a difference between bias and gutter news reporting.

That is so disengenuous Chris. But whatever floats your boat.

And to be fair, Olbermann/Abrams always have someone from "the other side" on their panels, too.

That is so disengenuous Chris. But whatever floats your boat.

how so? I don't watch anything else on there besides Olberman and Abrams. And as Glenn said, they both have republicans on there too. Yes, it's a slight uphill battle for those guests, but they certainly get their say.

Otherwise I'll watch Anderson Cooper (who has people from all angles on there). I didn't say I like to only get my news from liberal sources. I'm just not going to sit down and watch the propaganda that flows from Fox News.

Well, first off I don't try to pass it off as "both sided" or "strict news". I know it's slanted to the left and entertainment oriented.

Second, I've never seen anyone on MSNBC saying the world would be better off with Obama dead, etc like some of the shit that goes on with Fox News. There is a difference between bias and gutter news reporting.

This really isn't worth a response, imo, so I wont.

This really isn't worth a response, imo, so I wont.
So is half the shit you say about Fox News Clarity. Get off your high horse Tahoe. :sirdouche:

This really isn't worth a response, imo, so I wont.

Should I have said nobody on MSNBC has ever wanted McCain dead? Would that make the point valid in your mind?

I didn't see that, therefore it didn't happen, just like 95% of the other atrocities that occur daily on FAUXNews.

It seems like most of the Republican talking heads think it's going to be Evan Bayh.

It seems like most of the Republican talking heads think it's going to be Evan Bayh.

But fuck what those guys think, I care what the wise guys think:


Odds On: Who will be named as the Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election?

Al Gore
30/1

Bill Richardson
25/1

Brian Schweitzer
40/1

Christopher Dodd
20/1

Chuck Hagel
20/1

Ed Rendell
30/1

Evan Bayh
1/1

Hillary Clinton
10/1

Janet Napolitano
40/1

Jim Webb
50/1

Joe Biden
3/1

John Edwards
150/1

Kathleen Sebelius
8/1

Mark Warner
30/1

Michael Bloomberg
50/1

Oprah Winfrey
500/1

Phil Bredesen
35/1

Ron Paul
100/1

Sam Nunn
25/1

Ted Strickland
60/1

Tim Kaine
5/2

Wesley Clarke
20/1

Ted Kennedy
500/1

LOL@John Edwards at 150/1. Might as well be 1.5m/1

Odds On: Who will be named as the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election?

Bill Frist
35/1

Bobby Jindal
10/1

Charlie Crist
7/1

Chris Cox
12/1

Chuck Hagel
50/1

Colin Powell
75/1

Condoleeza Rice
12/1

Fred Smith
40/1

Haley Barbour
25/1

Joe Lieberman
15/1

John Kasich
22/1

Kay Bailey Hutchinson
25/1

Lindsay Graham
15/1

Mark Sanford
20/1

Michael Bloomberg
30/1

Mike Huckabee
10/1

Mitt Romney
5/6

Mel Martinez
75/1

Rob Portman
8/1

Rudolph Giuliani
40/1

Sarah Palin
7/1

Tim Pawlenty
3/1

Tom Coburn
30/1

But fuck what those guys think, I care what the wise guys think:



LOL@John Edwards at 150/1. Might as well be 1.5m/1

LOL @ Ted Kennedy on there. Come on.

Sometimes they throw in sucker bets, knowing full well that they have no chance, just to see if someone will be stupid enough to bite.

Also see: Oprah

Edwards might be in some fairly serious troub if campaign money went to her. Not good. But I saw his former campaign mgr or something, and you could tell he was not happy with Edwards cuz they were all lied to by Edwards and just having an affair while your wife was dealing with her cancer. Dood was just shaking his head.

Edwards will not be looked at the same way ever again. I think its the cancer thing that is really getting peeps.

Tahoe did you see the Rush Limbaugh thing the other day?

He was basically making fun of Edward's wife (always nice to make fun of someone with cancer who's husband just cheated on her) saying that "maybe Edwards just needed someone who was willing to use her mouth for something other than" blah blah blah.

He's catching a lot of flak over those comments, which I'm sure he actually enjoys.

I'll never get these talking heads like Limbaugh and O'Reilly who are raking Edwards over the coals, while they have their own skeletons when it comes to infidelity. Hypocrites, all of them.

I don't have a problem with them attacking Edwards. He deserves flak for cheating on his wife. I don't understand the attacks on his wife though. That's uncalled for.

What he really deserves flak for is a statement he made in 2007 in which he said every candidate has personal flaws and they should be taken into consideration by voters. The worst part about that is he had already told his wife in 2006 about his affair. So he's asking voters to evaluate personal behaviors while not telling them about his.

Tahoe doesn't need to watch this, but I thought some of you might enjoy it.

I love the ending.


Speculation surpasses fact in Edwards scandal

Aug. 13: Countdown’s Keith Olbermann gives his take on the latest details of the Edwards affair scandal and the ratio of fact to fiction as the story drags on. Olbermann also comments on Rush Limbaugh’s unflattering words about Elizabeth Edwards.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/26186923#26186923

I've never listened to Rush, so I didn't see those comments. He's a fucking clown. That doesn't mean he isn't right, imo, on some things, but I don't have the time nor inclination to sift through his show to find the things he's right about. That just crosses the line.

I saw Billy O and he wasn't that hard on him, imo, on the affair thing. He's still pissed about Edwards saying untruths about Vets coming back living under bridges everywhere. I always laugh when Billy O starts berating someone about sex when, as you said, he has his own past with a chick-on-the-side. And what he saw in that girl is beyond me. I do watch me some billy boy but its getting less and less cuz that fucking douche NEVER shuts up. Fuckin know-it-all.

I tried, but its not playing for me anyway. :)

http://fredpresident08.blogspot.com/2008/08/fred-thompson-is-mccains-vp-pick.html

Obama likely to announce VP this week

Glenn Thrush – Mon Aug 18, 5:49 am ET

Barack Obama is expected to choose his running mate this week in a key decision about the direction and narrative of his bid for the White House.

A person familiar with the campaign's planning noted that Obama's schedule at the end of this week is open, but said the announcement could come "as late as the weekend."

Obama and his inner circle have held his intentions tightly, while a wider circle of aides in Chicago has been kept far enough out of the loop that they’re willing to speculate freely on the possible choice.

There are plenty of tea leaves to read. Obama’s schedule this week takes him through the home states of a few possible contenders: He’s spending Monday in New Mexico (Gov. Bill Richardson) and Wednesday in Virginia (Gov. Tim Kaine and former Gov. Mark Warner).

On Saturday, Obama cited former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, 69, as a particularly wise adviser, touching off a wave of speculation.

There’s also a chance that the Summer Olympics, which run through next Sunday, could push the campaign to delay the move until the beginning of the Democratic National Convention the next day.

As a candidate whose currency has been his personal story, in choosing his running mate, Obama will also be choosing a narrative.

He can select someone whose life story mirrors his own, like Kaine, a fellow young Washington outsider and internationalist by biography — he was a missionary in Honduras — and a former civil rights lawyer. Or he can choose an old Washington hand like Nunn, who would add a sense of gravity to the ticket. His pick can send a message of racial reconciliation — one Democrat suggested he introduce Joe Biden as his “clean, articulate” choice, the cringe-inducing words the Delaware senator intended as praise for Obama in February.

Or he could use the pick to underscore his own early opposition to the Iraq war, which Nunn — alone among the candidates most mentioned — also opposed.

“I just get the sense with Obama that he has a clear set of priorities in his own mind that have nothing to do with ups-and-downs of the campaign,” said Democratic consultant Dan Gerstein, who thinks Obama’s focus on generational change doesn’t preclude him picking an older, more seasoned running mate.

“It won’t be dictated by age,” he speculated. “He doesn’t need someone who is young but it’s got to be someone who is not part of the baby boom, partisan culture wars" of the last two decades.

At the same time, though, Obama has a more immediate concern: reassuring those voters who might vote for him but have thus far remained skeptical of his candidacy — older working-class white Democrats, independents and some Republicans — that he is a safe, acceptable choice.

“The vice presidential pick is always more about telling voters what kind of a potential president the nominee will be, and it’s even more important for Obama than it has been for past nominees,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant. “Obama's central challenge in this election is to make a certain group of voters comfortable with him in terms of who he is as it relates to being able to do the job. And the vice presidential pick — along with the convention and debates — stands as one of the three tent-foundation events in the general [election] to connect with voters about who he is.”

Despite a steady drone of speculation, little is actually known about Obama’s considerations. Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd is the only aspirant to confirm he’s being vetted by Obama’s search team, led by Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder. Kaine has told associates he’s being vetted, but has not publicly confirmed it. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius at first denied it, then ceased denying it — which was seized on as evidence that she is being considered. Biden and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh have declined to comment on whether they’re being vetted, but are widely thought to be under consideration.

Two Republicans who are close to Obama, Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar and Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel have also been mentioned, and Lugar — whom Obama cited along with Nunn at the nationally televised candidates forum on Saturday as someone whose counsel he would value if elected president — drew attention on CNN on Sunday by defending Obama against attacks from Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.

A former top aide to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Howard Wolfson, recently suggested that Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry was under consideration. And while most chatter around Clinton’s own name has died down, some of her supporters are holding out hope.

Others once considered likely picks have explicitly ruled themselves out, notably Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. (The name of Warner, who is running for Senate, continues to surface despite his saying in June that he would not accept the slot if it were offered to him.)

Strickland and Webb both opposed the American invasion of Iraq, as did Obama, who has cast the decision on whether or not to support the war as the central test of judgment in American politics.

Curiously, then, all but one of those considered to be Obama’s most likely vice presidential choices initially supported the then-popular decision to go to war.

Anti-war Democrats were quick to note last week that Bayh headed — with John McCain —the pro-war Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Biden, too, voted to authorize the war.

Nunn, however, opposed it, and also opposed President George H.W. Bush’s 1991 war with Iraq.

Some Democrats, however, raised questions about Nunn’s appeal as a running mate. Paul Begala, Bill Clinton’s former adviser, said “major alarm bells” went off on Saturday when Obama mentioned Nunn.

Nunn, who helped sink the Clinton administration’s plans to integrate gays into the military in 1993, was “more confrontational about that issue than Jesse Helms and more adamant about discriminating against gay people,” Begala said.

And then there’s Clinton. Neither she nor Obama has given any hint she’s being seriously considered, but Obama’s decision to give her a formal roll call vote at the convention seemed to some to be a hint that the biggest head fake in American political history was underway.

“Look there’s no way this is going to happen, but I’ve been getting this weird feeling that he might pick her,” a former Clinton aide said. “If they were trying to fool us, to have us rule her out completely to maximize the pop — wouldn’t this be the way that they do it?”

A Clinton insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Clinton has been telling friends “that she’s not particularly interested in this at all ... and has really moved on.”

If Obama were planning an August surprise, Clinton and her husband would have to be kept in the dark to keep her sieve-like inner circle from leaking the news, a former Clinton fundraiser conceded.

The vice presidential nominee is expected to address the Democratic National Convention in Denver a week from Wednesday. Obama’s campaign has told supporters that the announcement will be made by text message — a move that allows the campaign to gather supporters' cellular phone numbers, for future use in organizing.

How Obama makes his pick, Lehane said, may be almost as important as whom he chooses.

“Whatever Obama does, this next week needs to appear very well planned, staged, thought out and coherent,” he said. "In other words, the bar will be set high by voters looking for comfort in how he makes decisions — but it should be a high bar he has complete control over.”

Good info/insight here:
http://news.yahoo.com/story//politico/20080819/pl_politico/12635

Good read. I hope McCain adds someone more towards the middle that pisses off the evangelicals (who already aren't really on board with him). I know plenty of middle aged people who voted for Bush simply because of their catholic faith. If McCain alienates those people they'll be forced to vote on issues (which is where I think Obama has a big edge).

BO's abortion record is prolly going to fire up the Evangs. As much as I'd like a conservative for VP, I think he should stay in the middle, pretty much where he is.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxVW-aUPQsPkU0JKEleSPNCyxSsAD92L2HJ80

For his part, Republican rival John McCain is seriously considering naming his running mate between the end of the Democratic convention Aug. 28 and the Sept. 1 start of the GOP convention in hopes of stunting any uptick in polls for Obama. McCain has at least three large rallies planned in top battlegrounds Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, before the Republican gathering in St. Paul, Minn.

His top contenders are said to include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Less traditional choices mentioned include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent.

It's going to be interesting if Joe Biden gets the nod as Obama's VP choice, as per the hot rumors right now.

Biden is a straight shooter with lots of foreign policy experience. He's very, very solid in a debate, too.

He'd do a very good (and aggressive) job being Obama's "bad cop" for the rest of the campaign.

The only thing that worries me is that brutal honesty is not necessarily a good thing in politics these days.

I think brutal honesty works in this campaign though. Obama talks about true transparency, so it fits that message. Also, McCain will be blunt with his words as well.

Also, McCain will be blunt with his words as well.
Is that because he's such a maverick?

Is that because he's such a maverick?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/2297214552_8977d6b7eb.jpg

The good thing about Biden is he can, as he has in the past, use other peeps stuff and call it his own.

why reinvent the wheel afterall.

The good thing about Biden is he can, as he has in the past, use other peeps stuff and call it his own.

why reinvent the wheel afterall.
The plagiarism charges against Biden are overblown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_1988

He has other problems. His mouth speaks faster than he can carefully word things. Sometimes, you get great one-liners. Sometimes, you get gaffes.

Biden was the last major Democratic presidential candidate to back Obama.

^ I was just sparing with Glenn there.

I used to like Biden but I don't have a lot of confidence in him anymore. I'm sure no one is surprised at that.

Biden has a tendency to let his rhetoric get out of control. He's not a bad politician or even a bad public servant, but it worries me what kind of media hay could be made out of the kind of crazy shit he lets slip every other week.

Biden has a tendency to let his rhetoric get out of control. He's not a bad politician or even a bad public servant, but it worries me what kind of media hay could be made out of the kind of crazy shit he lets slip every other week.

It won't matter anyway because McCain will do twice as much of that stuff. He's already pulled a couple of Hillary's tricks (like altering the sniper fire story).

Obama says he's decided on a running mate

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
9 mins ago

CHICAGO – Barack Obama says he's decided on a running mate, but he won't say who. The Democratic presidential candidate told USA Today on Thursday that he went with someone who is independent and would challenge him in the White House. He also said he wanted someone who is prepared to be president and would help him strengthen the economy.

He wouldn't say whether he's informed his pick yet. He says he won't reveal anything else about the decision until he announces it.

Obama is planning to do so in a text message to supporters sometime before Saturday afternoon, when he's scheduled to appear with his pick in Illinois. Asked by an Associated Press reporter when the text would be sent, Obama just grinned and said, "Wouldn't you like to know?"

And Biden says it's not him.

anybody else find this kind of gimmicky and not very presidential

I think it's innovative and brilliant!

The use of technology in these campaigns is just going to ratchet up every election from now on. Not only does this get people to sign up for his mailing list (a list that he can then use to garner contributions from) but it creates that viral buzz that these campaigns are really searching for. Especially with the young voters.

There has been a ton of media coverage simply about this concept alone, and that is all free publicity, baby.

I get that, howeva it kind of runs parallel with a Teen Idol fan club stunt

Evan Bayh or Hillary

And Biden says it's not him.

How would he know if Obama hasn't told him?

Barack Obama prepares to name running mate
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
16 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The suspense holding, Barack Obama readied an announcement by text message Friday of his vice presidential running mate from a list suddenly spiced by a dark horse from Texas.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects remained a mystery on a day full of them, although senior aides said the Obama campaign never requested financial or other records from her.

Three days before the party gathers in Denver to nominate Obama for the fall campaign, several officials said Rep. Chet Edwards, whose district includes President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, had made the list of finalists. Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Evan Bayh of Indiana were also in the mix, as were Govs. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas — and any unknown others Obama had managed to keep secret despite intense scrutiny.

"It'll be exciting news," Sebelius told reporters in Kansas.

Obama, his secret his own, went to the gym for a morning workout before heading to an office in Chicago to polish the convention acceptance speech he will deliver next Thursday night.

Obama told reporters on Thursday he's already made his choice, and aides have used the prospect of a text-message announcement to try and attract additional supporters by soliciting their cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

The Illinois senator has arranged a joint appearance for Saturday with his running mate at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.

Hundreds of miles to the west, carpenters, electricians, sound stage gurus and others transformed the Pepsi Center in Denver into a made-for-television convention venue.

Tucked away in one corner were thousands of lightweight rolled cardboard handles, meant to allow delegates to wave signs bearing the names of the ticket — once the identity of Obama's running mate was known.

And he wasn't saying.

"Obviously, the most important question is: Is this person ready to be president?" Obama told "The Early Show" on CBS. Second, he said, was: "Can this person help me govern? Are they going to be an effective partner in creating the kind of economic opportunity here at home and guiding us through some dangerous waters internationally?"

And, he added: "I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a 'yes person' when it comes to policymaking.

Among those believed in the running, Edwards, Biden and Bayh fit the mold of running mate with experience in defense or foreign policy — areas in which Obama performs relatively poorly in the polls compared with Republican Sen. John McCain.

Clinton's credentials were forged in the primaries and caucuses where she ran a close second to Obama in the battle for the nomination.

There was no shortages of other speculation, ranging from: GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who traveled with Obama to Iraq and Afghanistan; Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, or Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

Edwards is a favorite of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who praised his "extraordinary credentials" on ABC's "This Week" on Aug. 3 and said: "I hope he will be the nominee."

One Democratic official with knowledge of the conversation said Obama told Pelosi recently that she would be pleased with the choice. Other Democratic officials said he was on the short list. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Obama's selection process.

Edwards, chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, is a nine-term moderate Democrat representing the GOP-leaning Texas district. He is well-known in Texas but does not have a national profile.

Asked about Pelosi's praise, Edwards said in July that he "cannot imagine that many Americans would not consider it a privilege" to be considered a vice presidential contender.

Among the other potential choices, Biden was at home in Delaware, Kaine helped his son move into college housing in Washington and Bayh attended tennis camp with one of his children.

Several GOP officials said Friday that McCain had not settled on a running mate — nor offered the job to anyone — although former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty were under serious consideration.

Officials said the campaign also was preparing for an "unconventional" nominee, an indication that oft-mentioned former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter, or Connecticut Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman still could be in the running. That category also could include non-politicians whom McCain admires, such as Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

The GOP convention begins Sept. 1 in St. Paul, Minn.