Obama's VP will be one of the following: Richardson, Ritter, Strickland, Rendell, or Clinton

[Unsane]

with Clinton being the definite longshot of the bunch.

What do the first four have in common? They'll all bring a contested battleground state with them (New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania).

Webb's women problems and his pederast writings bring too much heat.

ON EDIT: Rendell's comments re: Farrakhan probably remove him from consideration. Thanks to FrenchieCat for the heads up there.

[rove karl rove]

1. that's right

reverse your second and third, and that's the probable order from most to least likely. ARendall would arguably do more geographically, Richardson would help with the Hispanics as well.

[Carrieyazel]

2. Strickland just got elected governor in Ohio a year and a half ago

It won't be him. Hillary will not be named VP either. Richardson has the best shot from this group.

[dailykoff]

4. I think so too.

Unless Obama has some complete wild card ready to play like John Conyers I'm hoping it will be Richardson.

[ShadowLiberal]

50. Martin Van Buren was Governor of NY for 4 months before quitting to join Jackson's cabinet

He was governor from January 1, 1829 – March 5, 1829, and become the Vice President in Jackson's second term, and later president.

I don't think Strickland's short time in office as governor is as big of an issue as you think

[FrenchieCat]

3. Please take Rendell off the list immediately!

For good reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

Thank you!

[Unsane]

5. Good find. That makes him a nonstarter--especially with Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Actually, it begs the question as to why Hillary didn't Denounce and Renounce

Ed Rendell....considering.

[rove karl rove]

24. an endorsement is an endorsement

On second thought, strike Rendell, he burnt his Obama bridges by endorsing Hillary, replace him with Clarke.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Richard Clarke or Wesley Clark?

yes, Rendell can stay off the list. He reminds me of a mafia guy anyways.

[rove karl rove]

39. Wes o r Richard, NOT Hagel

It's a bad time to pick a "moderate".

[babylonsister]

6. Who's Ritter? Someone new or a brainfart? No Webb or Clark? nt

[FrenchieCat]

8. Probably talking about Scott Ritter........

which won't ever happen. Not even close.

[Unsane]

10. lol

Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor of Colorado.

[FrenchieCat]

27. I'll have to research him.

[babylonsister]

30. Me, too! First I've heard of him as a 'viable' candidate. Actually, I've

never heard of him. Heh. And his face doesn't look familiar.

[donheld]

69. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter

I can hardly see him as Vice President. He's only been Governor less than 2 years.

[babylonsister]

74. Thanks! nt

[MrSlayer]

9. Rendell has a zipper problem.

Which will come out heavy if he were selected.

[cboy4]

11. Oh the VP slot would be an absolute dream come true

for Mr. Richardson.

It would be a handsome reward for his otherwise ugly backstabbing behavior toward the Clintons.

[Gore1FL]

13. Ah yes....

and anyone Carville ever gave a job to should be required to vote for whomever his wife works for...

[cboy4]

21. You're not comparing the dream job President Clinton

handed Richardson with any type of job Carville has given to anyone.

Are you?

Because that's just dumb.

[Gore1FL]

23. Well dumb on a scale of...

your argument being a 5 and mine being a 6?

OK

[cboy4]

33. It sounds like if the Clintons had done so much for your

career, you wouldn't have a problem back-stabbing them either.

What ever happened to loyalty I wonder?

[Gore1FL]

37. 14 years in congress before them

8 years as a governor after them.

Are you saying he won in 9 times because of the Clintons??? Especially the 7 times he ran before he was involved with them?

Your argument is now up to 7 on the scale....

[cboy4]

42. I'm not discounting those accomplishments -- I'm saying his

White House jobs are more impressive from a professional standpoint.

It's why he dumped Hillary...he wants another White House position and decided Obama has the best shot of winning -- so he had no more use for the Clintons.

Now can you address what I wrote?

You would stab someone who gave you a White House job --and-- what happened to loyalty?

[Gore1FL]

45. I think one should base their decisons on rationale thought

and not loyalty.

Bush relies on Loyalty--look where that got him. He is a fucking idiot anyways, so maybe that isn't a good example.

Clinton hired some of th worst campaign staff out of loyalty,look where that got her. She is 1000 times better than her campaign.

It took Richardson a long time to come to a decision on this. It wasn't a question of loyalty. I don't think it was a question of future favors.

I am eternally grateful to people who have hired and promoted me in the past. But I have had better bosses who were not involved in that process.

I am just guessing here, but I give the Clinton's credit when I say they hired Richardson for his ability to think on his own when he worked for them--not for following their lead.

[cboy4]

51. Right, Bush is indeed a fucking idiot, so that's not a good

example.

Here's the bottom line .. if you had been hired for the White House jobs over dozens of equally qualified people, I feel you would owe your loyalty.

We're not talking about your job or my job -- we're talking about a dream job with the White House.

[Gore1FL]

53. But the second example you didn't have an answer for.

[cboy4]

57. I've answered the jist of all of your questions bud.

We obviously just have completely different definition of what friendship and loyalty is all about.

Being a superdelegate had nothing to do with his decision.

He desperately wants another job at the White House.

We both know each of us could live to be 500 years old, and Richardson will never ever get a White House job on his own.

He desperately depends on others, and in this case, he believes Obama is his meal ticket to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I would never crap on someone who gave me such an important job.

[dailykoff]

61. Not so.

He'd have a WH job anyway as long as a Dem won and he kept his mouth shut like the other also-rans, but the fact that he bellied up when it counted, and took a little heat from his psychotic former boss and his wife, counts in the guts department.

[cboy4]

63. He wouldn't have a White House job if he supported

Hillary and Obama won.

He's smart enough to know that, which is why he pulled out his butcher knife.

[dailykoff]

65. He never declared for Clinton though.

It was widely thought that he would, with the superbowl party and all, but he could have kept his mouth shut until the convention and guaranteed himself a job somewhere in Obama's admin without pissing off the Clintons. That's how the rest of them are playing it.

[Gore1FL]

73. He didn't crap on someone who gave him an important job

He didn;t endorse Barack Obama over Bill Clinton.

[Gore1FL]

32. btw

14 years in Congress sounds pretty dreamy to me. He did that long before he signed on the the Clinton Administration.

[cboy4]

36. Yea, but he never talked about that during the debates...all he

talked about was how diplomacy...how he's been here and there...how he'd negotiated with dictators.

[Gore1FL]

38. so?

does that mean they never happened?

[cboy4]

43. Did he go on and on about how he's been in congress, or did

he go on and on about the job he couldn't have a achieved on his own without the generosity of President Clinton?

That's so.

[Gore1FL]

46. Did he get his job out of generosity?

do you have a credible link for that?

[cboy4]

49. He wasn't hired completely because of generosity ...

But let's be honest....there were many other equally qualified people for that position.

That's why I'm shocked he's not more appreciative.

[Gore1FL]

52. Being appreciative is one thing

but it doesn't have to translate into a vote for the person he appreciates wife.

A Super Delegate has to take a lot of things into consideration. I imagine Loyalty to Bill played a major role in his decision, but in the end, it wasn't enough.

Neither you nor I know his thinking process.

[Pharaoh]

12. Edwards!!

[Gore1FL]

14. It'll be Sebelius

I'll bet a $25 donation to Obama I am right on this one. Any takers?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

75. her response after Dubya's State of the Union was one of the most frightening performances I've seen

from an experienced pol.

Horrendous.

[panader0]

15. I like Richardson

I always hoped he'd be SOS. I'm still up in the air on this, except for one certain NO.

[dailykoff]

26. Richardson has the right personality.

He's not going to hijack the spotlight and frankly that counts for a lot.

[Eurobabe]

16. Sebilius, Webb, Richardson, Biden, Hagel (?)

Hagel would piss alot of people off, but he is being mentioned.

Forget Fast Eddie, my gov. has foot in mouth disease!

[Unsane]

17. No on Webb and Hagel.

[MadBadger]

20. No on Hagel, Yes to Webb

[Unsane]

22. Webb is bad with women, an inexperienced politician, and has written suggestively about child sex

[MadBadger]

25. Webb has experience that goes beyond politics like being Secretary of the Navy

Also, if you look at his numbers in the VA senate race, he did fine with women.

[Unsane]

28. He won't have Maccaca to deflect the damage.

Webb has WAY too many negatives. Imagine if McCain picks a woman VP, and Obama goes with Webb.....

disaster with women..

[MadBadger]

29. I dont think McCain will pick a woman.

[newmajority]

18. I only see one viable name on that list: Richardson

Scott Ritter has no political experience, and the last thing we would need is the Freepers dragging out those "pedophile" accusations that the Bush Crime Family used to shut him up before they invaded Iraq.

Yeah, the accusations were completely false, but so was everything else they told you about Iraq..

Rendell & Strickland are DLC tools, and don't seem to mind at all that Rush Limbaugh and Diebold determined the primaries in those states.

[Richard Steele]

31. I agree. Richardson would be a big PLUS to the ticket. Those others, not so much. nm

[babylonsister]

34. My unasked for opinion is, I trust Obama enough to pick the person

who agrees with him and will go to bat for him. Whomever that might be. I'll rail against his lousy choice when I hear it. :evilgrin:

[FrenchieCat]

40. That's me too......

Hell, his strategy for beating the Clinton machine earned my trust.

[Richard Steele]

41. Yeah- he's savvy enough that I doubt I'll have problems with his VP choice, whoever it is.

And if I do, I'll certainly bitch about it here!

[lurky]

19. I don't know much about Ritter. Any opinions?

His Wiki entry makes him sound interesting -- A little moderate for my taste, but not a raging Lieberman, thankfully. His missionary work in Zambia may give him some common ground with Obama. Colorado would be a nice get, and he appeals to rural and blue-collar voters.

Anything else?

[Warren DeMontague]

44. I've been saying for a while Richardson seems like the most obvious choice. nt

[demwing]

47. Obama should pull a Clinton

A BILL Clinton, and pick a running mate like Clinton picked Gore.

Not for geographic balance (like Kerry/Edwards), and not to pull waring party factions together (like Reagan/Bush), but for unity in message.

You want a unity ticket in 2008? Stay awy from Clinton. Go with someone who has been hitting the same points as Barama. Someone against old school politics. Someone who speaks of hope and change.

Thats unity. Unity of message.

[BenDavid]

48. Im sick and tired of Obama people pretending that a Hillary VP

would taint the pure Messiah. I find it odd how ungracious the Obama people are as he gets closer to victory. They got what they wanted and they're angrier than ever.

all this year Hillary has battled the Republicans and the whore media but the worst assaults and the most personal attacks have come from her fellow Democrats. Think of Patton trying to take Germany with US soldiers firing at him from behind. Patton could defeat the German army and the weather, but it's tough to win when your own people want you dead.

[gmudem]

55. Hillary lost get over it

I don't even know where you are going with that Patton comparison, although I will say that there have been some Clinton supporters threatening not to vote for Obama, because I guess a Supreme Court with even more right-wingers sounds good to them.

[cboy4]

58. Speaking of right-wingers, they love using your

mantra, "______lost, get over it."

Of course, they were talking about Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004.

Its disturbing to hear progressives speak like Republicans.

[gmudem]

62. So I'm a Republican because I accept reality?

And Obama is Bush in this scenario?

Let's face the facts. Clinton has no chance of winning. She hasn't had a chance of winning since the Wisconsin primary. All she has done since then is racially divide Democrats and made this campaign entirely about race. She has distracted Democrats attention from McCain and in the meantime he has gotten away with several gaffes. Obama could have been focusing on McBush for 3 months now instead of having to deal with another Democrat attacking him and forcing him to spend money on a nomination he's already won.

I respect Clinton supporters for their enthusiastic support of their candidate, but she has lost. It is time for the Democratic Party to unite and focus on McBush. Clinton is only hurting the party with her actions, and I regret that she has run such a disgusting racist campaign. She could have been a positive force for Democrats but instead made this race all about her, and is continuing to hurt the party in the process.

[cboy4]

64. I'm not saying you're a Republican....I'm saying you sound

just like a Republican with your hate speak.

Not one single word you just typed will help the Democrats win in November.

[gmudem]

67. How the hell is that hate speak?

Do you even realize what you just typed? I make a reasonable, respectful post and you call it hate speak?

I'm sorry if you can't accept that Clinton lost, but just because everybody else in the reality-based community realizes that she has does not mean it is "hate speak" to say so.

[gmudem]

54. I think Richardson is the only one on that list with a chance

I would bet Richardson's on the short list, but as I see you already took Rendell off the list. Besides the Farrakhan comments, the guy is very much involved in Philadelphia machine politics and wouldn't make any sense on an Obama ticket.

Wes Clark is without a doubt my first choice. Webb would be a great choice but I think we should keep him in the Senate for now. Tim Kaine would be a good option too. He's a popular governor from a potential swing state in Virginia and is also a white male Catholic.

The advantage that Kaine has over Clark is that he has been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama, and if I had to guess I could definitely see Clark, Kaine, and Richardson on the short list.

And Clinton is nowhere near that list. That is simply a delusion that will not happen.

[my3boyz]

56. Don't get me wrong. I REALLY like Bill Richardson but what

would he bring to the ticket? How would he help in Ohio, West Virginia or Pennsylvania. I know he could possibly help in New Mexico and Arizona. However, he did not get many votes in the primary season so I'm not sure how much he would help Obama. Boy would it piss Bill, Hill and Carville off if he got the spot. LOL

[RamboLiberal]

70. Richardson brings in the Hispanic vote

And while I wasn't a big fan of his on the campaign trail, I really liked what he's been saying since he came out for Obama and since he got away from his stump speech and canned speaking points.

He also brings a ton of foreign and domestic policy experience to the campaign. Plus the Hispanic vote. I think we could get PA or OH, not need WV, and with some new wins in the West/Southwest and perhaps a state like Virginia and also Missouri get the presidency.

Might be nice if a state like PA, OH or WV got a smack in the face that said you aren't the be all and end all of Dems getting the WH.

I'm not saying we don't go after them, but I want to see a real 50 state strategy.

That IMHO is where Dean and Obama outplayed the old line politics of Hillary and McAuliffe. That was one thing that made me nuts when McAuliffe was DNC chair - that narrow focus on a few blue states and the ignoring of red states that had a chance to go purple or blue with some work.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

71. But mightn't he alienate a touchy minority of the majority?

I don't think it's pandering to the racists to be cautious here. In 2004 the non-billionaire Republicans had nothing to bring them back to Bush except that they perceived that their "team" was under attack, and you always fight back. (There's defensiveness in the Dem primary that blinds us to our common cause, too.) Many white Americans who don't have any non-white friends would still vote for a person of color without batting an eye. However, a mixed race president and a Latino VP might get these folks feeling defensive. "They" are taking over the gov'ment. "We" should watch "our" interests, the "real" Americans. This seems to be the dog whistle politics of Hillary's campaign when they call her the candidate for "All Americans." It isn't working for HRC now, but against an "ethnic ticket," of Obama / Richardson, the defensiveness might kick in and race would finally be a negative factor.

[anonymous171]

59. Schweitzer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer

Please?

[mystieus]

60. Strickland should stay in Ohio to operate that machine he has.

We finally have a Dem gov there to run a machine for the general election, let's not waste it.

[RamboLiberal]

66. Rendell - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Mr. Street Money. Fast Eddie. He is the epitomy of the worst of machine sleazy politics! Uggggggh! And after the crap he's been spewing during PA primary and is still spewing!!!!!!!

BTW, I'm from PA. :puke:

[charlie]

68. I'm willing to be surprised

I hope he does. I'm not enthused by that warmed-over bunch.

[Kahuna]

72. Rendell is out. That video of him praising Farrakhan is a non-starter. nt