Edwards will be on the ticket no matter how badly he does in the primaries...

[NorthernSpy]

I predict the ticket is going to have at least one white man. Party bigshots get most of the final say, and I don't believe that they'll sign off on a ticket with one black man and one woman.

Edwards probably predicts that, too -- which is why he's still hanging around. "Truce" aside, Obama and Hillary are going to continue waging an acrimonious war that will create lots of bad blood. And so Edwards may well end up getting the nomination in a negotiated compromise to pick a unity candidate who can bring peace to the party -- at least, that will be the official rationale.

Obama and Hillary? One of them will be VP, and the other will get a promise to be the new Secretary of State. That way, both of them will have a personal stake in the election.



That's my prediction. What's yours?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I WISH! nt

[cali]

9. You do? You wish for something that goes against democracy

in a blatant and ugly way just so your candidate can get the nomination? Ugh.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. I want the Dems to win. I don't think they're going to win if one of the 2 top Dem candidates is

the nominee. That's my opinion. I'm not from this country, but I've been here a while and I've travelled and seen how people in this country are racist to a fault, and are sexist in ways that to the naked eye do not seem sexist, but are actually tremendously sexist. And that's why I see it that way.

[cali]

14. No matter how you see it, you're willingness to throw the democratic

process overboard is disturbing. And I think you're flat wrong about who can and can't win. One thing is increasingly clear: John Edwards can't win anything.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. But you're willing to allow people who have thrown the Democratic process into the toilet win? GOP?

That's what would be happening if we select someone unelectable. The GOP has been destroying our democracy since they stepped into the White House.

[cali]

22. Look, I actually don't think John Edwards is as electable as

you do. In fact, I don't think he's electable, period. I never have. He couldn't motivate dems and independents in freakin' Iowa where he spent YEARS. I have no reason to think he can do it anywhere. Obama and Clinton both bring NEW voters in. I'm not willing to let party bosses throw democracy overboard. You are.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. That's not true. The corporations (media) have systematically kept him OUT of the news....

... on PURPOSE. The fact that Obama and Clinton were constantly on the news perhaps speaks of something we should be discussing, how much and how well are they sold out to corporations?

I don't dislike Obama. I think he's a nice guy, but how much is he really willing to do for the elderly, the helpless, the homeless, and the working poor?

Here's this quote that explains exactly what I stand for:

____________________________________________________________
"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life; the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life — the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

--- Hubert H. Humphrey, U.S. Vice President 1965-69, Speech, 1977.
____________________________________________________________

How well what a candidate is saying fits with that quote, is how much I like that candidate.

[cali]

29. Excuse me? How do you know it's not true?

I provided evidence to bolster my argument. And furthermore, one of the reasons I back Obama is that he's walked the walk that your Humphrey quote represents. Edwards hasn't done so to the same degree. Obama spent 7+ years advocating for the poor and disenfranchised as a community orgainizer and civil rights lawyer, and his speeches address those issues too.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Because Edwards has been systematically shut out of being on TV and in newspapers.

That's why. It's not a figment of my imagination. Only Clinton and Obama are always shown and presented, without fail.

[Rosemary2205]

2. I'll be surprised if Hillary would agree to second fiddle

Your prediction is possible. I am not willing to call it just yet, but I do think you may be right about a brokered convention.

[mondo joe]

3. I think Edwards would be a very good VP to either Obama or Clinton.

He's appealing, he takes a somewhat different stance, he Southern.

[BadgerLaw2010]

4. No.

[midnight]

5. Edwards may well end up getting the nomination

I'm counting on this. Thanks for sharing.

[Skinner]

6. I agree that the ticket will probably have at least one white man, but...

...Edwards is unlikely to be selected as VP. He refused to play ball in 2004, and by the end of the campaign he and Kerry reportedly weren't speaking to each other. Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama is likely to take the risk of choosing Edwards as VP again.

[NorthernSpy]

23. yup...

I also don't think Edwards will want to be VP.

That's why I suspect that he -- or some other unity/compromise candidate will end up on top.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. My prediction is...

...that regardless of whether Obama or Hillary get the nod, the VP will be a white man from the south (or west, perhaps) who is *not* John Edwards.

[cali]

8. There is 0 chance of that happening

He can hang around til doomsday and party leaders will not give him the nomination even if we arrive at Convention time with Hillary and Obama close in the delegate count. You seem to be suggesting that party leaders would do anything to circumvent the will of the people and endorse both racism and sexism. They'd be risking an out and out revolution if they did anything of the kind, and there's no reason that they would. In all likelihood, either Obama or Clinton- and probably Clinton- will have wrapped up the nomination by the end of Feb.

[NorthernSpy]

21. you're missing my point...

You seem to be suggesting that party leaders would do anything to circumvent the will of the people and endorse both racism and sexism. They'd be risking an out and out revolution if they did anything of the kind, and there's no reason that they would.

No. The rationale will be that so much bitterness has developed between the supporters of the top two candidates that the our chances in the election will be nil -- unless we can find a unity candidate, and create peace by giving roughly equal concessions to both the Obama and Clinton camps. That will be the official rationale, and it will be put forth as The Voice Of Reason.

And it will be hard to argue with, given the undeniable anger that this competition is generating. Increasingly, people don't only want Obama or Hillary to win: they want the other to lose -- in the primaries, and even on the Big Day.

[cali]

33. Let's take a look.

"No. The rationale will be that so much bitterness has developed between the supporters of the top two candidates that the our chances in the election will be nil -- unless we can find a unity candidate, and create peace by giving roughly equal concessions to both the Obama and Clinton camps. That will be the official rationale, and it will be put forth as The Voice Of Reason."

This isn't any worse at this point than what went on in 2004. And I don't see it getting all that much worse. The winner and loser will kiss and makeup. Al the residual bitterness may not go away but most of it will. JE is not a unity candidate. He has such a small percentage of the vote and so little support from super delegates, that there is virtually no way that he'd be the person picked even in the exceedingly unlikely case of real melt down. And no matter how they put it forth, there would be a revolt, if they did do it. I'd be in on it along with millions of others. You can't just abbrogate peoples' votes like that. Voice of despotism is what it would be.

"And it will be hard to argue with, given the undeniable anger that this competition is generating. Increasingly, people don't only want Obama or Hillary to win: they want the other to lose -- in the primaries, and even on the Big Day."

You are misreading things completely. I'm a strong Obama supporter, I don't like Clinton, but I'll vote for her without hesitation if she's the candidate. I believe that's true of the vast majority of supporters.

Look, you're clinging to a fantasy. It's almost sad.

[rhett o rick]

34. No, we disagree with your point. Edwards isn't the unifying candidate.

I support Edwards but unless he shows a major surge, it will be one of the other two.

[AZ Criminal JD]

10. There will be one white man on the ticket

But it won't be Edwards. He does not bring any value to the ticket. He won't be able to help carry his own state or others in the south. Hillary or Obama will either pick a governor of a swing state like Ohio (Strickland) or someone with foreign policy/national security props (Clark).

[Labors of Hercules]

12. Not that this wouldn't be fantastic, but if they really want to unify the party....

[rhett o rick]

13. Please be more specific about this: "Party bigshots get most of the final say".

My prediction is that Sen Clinton will win on the first ballot. If not, then Obama on the second as Edwards delegates would rather vote for Obama. None of the three will be VP candidate. VP candidates possible Lieberman, Richardson, Bloomberg.

[bigbrother05]

15. Nope, think it's Richardson.

Organizer/manager (Governor), foreign policy/diplomacy, DC cred (Dept. Sec'y), Western & Latino

The kind of running mate that would fill in holes for any candidate without competing for the spotlight.

[senseandsensibility]

16. Both my brain and my gut

tell me that either Obama or Hillary would pick a white male running mate. But Edwards? I don't think so. I see both of them picking someone with very strong foreign policy credentials, such as Wes Clark.

[rhett o rick]

18. Clark is possible also Richardson, Lieberman and Bloomberg. nm

[senseandsensibility]

20. OMG

Not Lieberman. NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! :argh: :spank:

[NorthernSpy]

26. the problem with picking someone who hasn't campaigned in this race...

... is that such a proceeding WOULD look undemocratic. It's easier to arrive a credible brokered solution if the unity candidate is already a "stakeholder" in the current campaign.


(Just my 2c.)

[shireen]

35. i'd love to see Clark as a VP for whoever gets the nomination. He's a treasure! nt

[InvisibleTouch]

19. I could see a Hillary/Obama ticket at this point.

I see Obama as more likely to accept the VP spot than Hillary, simply because he's younger and has more time. He could be VP for 8 years, then President for the following 8. John Edwards? I'll miss him, but sadly I don't think he'll be on the ticket in any capacity. :/

[debbierlus]

28. I don't think either Hillary or Obama will pick the other for their second

Hillary would be too much of a liability for Obama....and vice versa.

The nominee will find someone who will fill in areas to compliment their weaknesses (whether real or perceived).

[asjr]

24. I am a senior voter. I have followed

all the good candidates in the Democratic party. We are extremely lucky in all of them. I love Obama, but being older I want someone with more experience. And what I mean by experience is someone who will take the tiger by the tail and twist it good. Hillary Clinton can do that. Edwards doesn't get enough good coverage for my taste because he has the passion to go after the Bush administration like no one else. I admit it, I am out for revenge. The last 7 years of absolute criminal activity of the Bush administration has been allowed to happen. Everyone in the world knows we have a chimp in the White House posing as president. I'll take any of them for P or VP. There is not one whit of respect for our country anywhere in the world. And other countries used to think we were smart people.

[debbierlus]

25. I think he will - and here is why

The candidates KNOW there that a VERY active portion of the people who campaign & donate & do the work for the nominees are Edwards supporters. People who would otherwise bow out may stick around if they see Edwards name of the ticket. He brings so many strengths & very little liability. He has already run once, so there will be no surprises with him. He is well liked & he will be an asset to those who may want to vote democratic but worry about a woman or a black man as President (yes, this is horrible, but it is also true & a real factor however much we hate it

I think Edwards is the obvious VP. And, even though he has thrown in with Obama, he would be equally well suited to Hillary's objectives.

[cali]

30. There are far more people donating to Obama

and working for him than for Edwards, and more doing the same for Clinton. Furthermore, JE brings what to the ticket? He loses in the South. There probably will be a white man on the ticket. It won't be Edwards.

[HooptieWagon]

31. No, I don't see it.

The corporate string pullers won't like Edwards on the ticket. If he is able to pull off a kingmaker role, he might get a minor program or two on the platform and a cushy Ambassadorship, that's it.

Hill/Obama - too much bad blood between the camps, neither will be VP. Plus, both can return to senate, where they can continue taking in funds from corps and lobbyists - more so than as VP.

Richardson - a distinct possibility, and what he really appeared to be campaigning for.

Lieberman - uh,in a word, no. Possibly on a McCain or third-party ticket.

No question the VP candidate will be a white male, will be a popular pol from a southern state. Richardson or Wes Clark (for Hillary), possibly Webb (for Obama), someone along those lines.