Our nominee's first national security decision will be the selection of their VP.

[calteacherguy]

If the nominee chooses wisely, she (or less likely he) can neutralize the national security card they will try once again to play against us, which is the only card the Republicans have. True, the card may be wearing thin, but still...we need to play hardball.

It would be quite beneficial for our nominee to respond to such accusations by being able to refer to their choice of VP, and the fact that they have the support of a VP with unparalled national security credentials. A VP who would be ready to over if the worst happened.

The choice of VP will be very important in this election. I hope our nominee chooses wisely.

[madfloridian]

1. Please....there is so much more than the national security theme.

It just goes on and on.

[calteacherguy]

2. It does. And we need to neutralize it. That's my point. nt

[Rhythm and Blue]

3. Who do you believe would be a prudent VP choice?

Personally, I think Richardson would do very, very well in the job. The office is pretty much what the VP makes of it, and Richardson is both experienced and diplomatic. He could be equally well-used as an all-purpose ambassador, a primary Congress-Executive liaison, or a technocrat filtering data and working closely with regulatory agencies. He doesn't fit your criteria, but I think the notion of VP as "shadowy anti-terror mastermind" is something of an aberration, and HRC has already positioned herself very well to give the Republicans a run for their national-security money.

The one thing Richardson couldn't really be used for is in the campaign. That man is brutal on stage.

[calteacherguy]

4. Richardson would not be able to neutralize the national security propaganda.

It will take more than a diplomat. Diplomacy is important, but diplomats and ambassadors can to easily be portrayed as weak...especially if they are Democrats. That's the way it is. Certainly it is an invalid accusation, but that is the propaganda we will need to neutralize.

No, a diplomat or even a former ambassador will not help neutralize the attacks.

[Rhythm and Blue]

7. I don't really believe that "VP is the national security guy"

is really going to be an effective line of attack. I mean, if Obama or Edwards wins it, then I can see wanting to balance the ticket, but HRC already has solid credentials on that front.

[calteacherguy]

8. Not solid enough. nt

[calteacherguy]

9. Not solid enough. nt

[emilyg]

6. Clark, Richardson.

[karynnj]

11. I think Richardson has been way too error prone in the primaries

Nearly every time he has had a major interview, the story has been some landmine he set off. In 2004, the concern with Clark was that as he was a novice he made more mistakes in the few months he was running, than in all the years since added together. Even then, back when first running, he was way less prone to mistakes than Richardson has been - and Richardson has been a politician for years.

I also have a different problem with Richardson - the way he handled the election in New Mexico. If he had been a Republican, I 'm not sure we wouldn't treat him like a less deadly version of Harris and Blackwell.

[Lasher]

5. I don't want another co-president.

I want the VP to be President of the Senate and that's pretty much it, except for standing by to take over in case anything happens to the POTUS. This Dick Cheney co-president crap sucks. As a matter of fact, I want the next VP to be the exact opposite of Lord Vader in every single way.

[jmp]

10. Nobody votes for the VP

If the Presidential nominee can't carry his or her own water ... we are screwed.

[skipos]

12. VPs usually get a %5 boost in their homestate

So "nobody votes for the vp" isn't true.

[Apollo11]

13. The VP should be ready to run for Prez in 2016

The President should have their own national security credentials.

For me a good ticket would be Gore-Obama or Biden-Obama.

But I think Hillary would need a running mate with more experience.

I don't know who she would pick. Maybe Clinton-Dodd? :eyes:

[CK_John]

14. IMO, K Sebelius would be the best choice for all our candidates. n/t

[Clark2008]

15. Wesley Kanne Clark

If he'll do it.

Then, I could vote for the ticket instead of against the Republicans.