http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248





Hillary is pathetic if this is true, I can imagine the rat begging for the VP spot.

Hillary Lost

Good for Obama, showing leadership.

I've sworn off discussing Hillary as a nominee any longer, but the veep slot seems like fair game. I think it's a bad idea and I don't think Obama goes anywhere near entertaining that idea seriously.

Personally, I like Webb for the spot, but there is certainly a short list of other compelling candidates.

Here's what Andrew Sullivan have to say:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... ess-1.html

I'm glad the Clinton-VP issue is scooting out of the way. Her hissy-fit this week might have to do with handling rejection poorly. Please, don't slash your crush's tires when he rejects you for prom date.

His choice will probably be aimed at winning over the blue-collar vote (i.e. Pennsylvania and Ohio).

I don't know who else is polling well with that demo, but Clinton is a bad choice. She'd be way too controlling and would probably spend her time wondering how she could win in 2016.

John Edwards is polling very well as VP.

I don't know. He didn't help Kerry with those voters. Obama isn't Kerry, but Edwards didn't seem to make any difference here.

In all of SurveyUSA's general election swing-state matchups, an Obama/Edwards ticket demolishes McCain, and vastly outperforms a generic "Obama-McCain" match:

OHIO
51-39 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Huckabee +12
53-35 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Pawlenty +18
50-38 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Lieberman +12
51-38 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Romney +13

VIRGINIA
53-41 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Huckabee +12
54-36 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Pawlenty +18
50-41 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Lieberman +9
53-40 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Romney +13

PENNSYLVANIA
50-40 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Huckabee +10
52-35 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Pawlenty +17
50-38 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Lieberman +12
52-37 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Romney +15

NEW MEXICO
47-44 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Huckabee +3
47-38 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Pawlenty +9
47-41 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Lieberman +6
48-42 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Romney +6

I think this is a good case for Edwards as VP if he chooses as such.

I love Edwards, but I'm not sure if I think he'd be good as a running mate. I think a chief complaint against him in 2004 was that he was too busy running for himself rather than for Kerry. But I would still be quite happy if he's picked.

John Edwards is also a Southerner, which would help Obama in the Southern "Bible-Belt" states.

John Edwards can deliver North Carolina this time, unlike in 2004.

Historically, I don't think the Democrats have been able to win without a Southerner on the ticket. I may be wrong though, but I still think it makes sense strategically.

I still think it's got to be a governor. Put Bill Richardson on the ticket even though I don't like him much he can speak spanish fluently.

Jim Webb, Jim Webb.

It'll be a lot easier to win Virginia than North Carolina.

Jim Webb's pull in Virginia is questionable. His Senate victory had little to do with his own performance and more with the spectacular implosion of Monsieur Macaca. His Scots-Irish charm could help among working-class voters in states like Ohio, however.

Obama is currently ahead in Virginia and Ohio, but it's not a bad idea to make sure he stays ahead!

True that. Virginia's a toss-up, and here are the red states we're behind by single digits in:
Alaska (-7.3)
Florida (-6.3)
Indiana (-2.8)
Missouri (-5)
Montana (-6.7)
North Carolina (-6.2)
North Dakota (-5.5)
Nebraska (-9.8 but apportioned by CD)
South Carolina (-9.2)
South Dakota (-8.7)

I think Montana and North Dakota are in play. They're very anti-war up there. Alaska is looking good. Missouri was always a swing state, as is Florida. We can take Nebraska district 2. The Carolinas will be tough; they just don't feel as right. Time is on our side as the population churns between April and November -- old people dying and new youths becoming eligible will swing the popular vote 1/3 of a percent toward Obama.

Edwards has publicly stated he has no interest and I don't like him as a VP, because he will not be an attack dog which is what you need in the slot, he hasn't really connected well with voters nationally in three campaigns. Webb would take away a Dem. seat in VA, that I don't think can be replaced easily with Mark Warner trying to take John Warner's seat in this cycle. Kaine has been a dissappointment to me, being way too corporate friendly and not showing any leadership or backbone in fighting for core Democratic principles, so I am not sure if he would be able to replace Webb eventually and I don't think he would be as good as Webb.

I personally think Ed Rendell is the best choice, if you don't go with Clinton. Any female like Sebelius (Gov. Kansas), or any of the the other possibilities will not go over well with Clinton supporters. It would be a slap in the face to them, from what I have heard. I wouldn't mind Claire Macaskill, but I don't know if we could get a Dem replacement for her either in Mo. Schweitzer would be a good choice, but I don't know if it would make sense electorally, but it might help in the Rocky Mt. states overall.

I think Rendell, Schweitzer, and Wesley Clark are the best choices in that not much is lost, if they leave their current postitions. I hate Bayh, and think Biden and Richardson are gaffe machines.

If Obama really had balls, he would pick William Jefferson Clinton, which is what Gore should have done in 2000, but he doesn't and won't. Everything I have read indicates that Clinton could be elected Vice-President and not be in violation of the 22nd Amendment.

HIllary would kill them both, but yeah that would sure open some eyes.

I'm all for Clark, I hope he picks him for something.

That would be stupid, and Obama isn't stupid.

Really? Everything I have read says the opposite. Do you have some links?

Good post. What do you think of Strickland?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9629C8B63

I should have stated most legal opinions, I have read.

This is a good summary of the difference of a opinion on the subject.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01572.html

Same problems as Webb and Macaskill. The Ohio Dem party may have shot their wad in the past election and they may not have much more on the bench. I would like it if he had been governor longer too. If you could meld Richardson's experience as governor or Sebelius with Strickland and have a solid chance at replacing him with Democrat, he would be the perfect choice. Sebelius and Richardson have good records as governors, but Sebelius is just not a good speaker or debator, the State of the Union Response was not an aberration. As I stated before Richardson althoug very attractive in many respects is just a gaffe machine and would require too much damage control. Ideally, you would want someone that could lock down Ohio, Florida, VA, NC, or Georgia and put some of the other state in play. Bob Graham voted against the war, the only one from the deep South (other than Byrd and WV is not really the deep South), served as Governor and US Senator. I think he would be perhaps the best choice, another Lloyd Bentsen which was about the only thing Dukakis got right in 1988. However, the media will make him look like a weirdo, because he kept really detailed daily schedules. I would still like to see him, because I think he would be a good balance with all his experience, I think he could deliver Florida (help in other Southern states), and his no vote on Iraqi force resolution would re-inforce the idea of a change in the Iraq policy.