I've been thinking about that senate seat. I imagine there are a few New York Dems (real ones, not carpetbaggers with the now obvious intent of using it as a launching pad) eyeing it--and not because HRC will be president.

Debating skills count but a VP really has to embody the same values and principles as the President he/she serves. A VP also has to be seen as a person who genuinely and unambiguously respects the President he/she serves.

This disqualifies Hillary instantly.

One of the foundations of Obama's candidacy is that he doesn't accept any money from Washington lobbyists and special interests.

How he can justify choosing as his VP someone who accepts more money from lobbyists and special interests than anyone else running, is beyond me.

I don't believe Hillary has earned her way onto the Democratic ticket.

Unless you consider "coercion" a way of earning anything.

And it's not through coercion.

People are too hooked on the primary. Nationally with all voters her current unfavourability rating is 53%
Stop a moment and envisage what the Republicans would do with their ads if both these candidates were on the ticket.
Hillary: John McCain has the experience.. I have the experience... Barack Obama just has a speech.
Bosniagate.
Think what they'll do with the idea of Hillary and Bill back in the White House: Bill STILL on the
`f*ckjet`.
Just the tip of the iceberg and you add all that to Wright & Ayers: it really doesn't bear thinking about.
Anyway the whole thing's academic. Barack does not yet have the nomination. We have no idea what the undeclared superdelegates are making of the general polls showing Hillary creaming McCain while McCain beats Obama and the sense *they* have of women voters' backlash.

Well then, Jim Webb?

I was skeptical of him until being convinced in one of MJ's threads and... seems like the ornery veteran with a populist streak that will apeal in Appachia where Obama is weak would be a good idea.

I think we need someone who can neutralize McCain's persona, which is why I like William Fallon (more experience with the problems at hand and a true maverick), or can help with a desired electorate, which is why I would be hysterical if Obama somehow scored Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe.

"Events" are what Obama has to worry about most - looking forward. Not debating skills, or capturing 1 particular state. He's already changing the old electoral math, by mobilizing new constituencies, etc. And the Rep.'s already have an (unpopular) 8 year track record which McCain will have to maneuver, hourly, to get away from. Gas prices, Iraq, New Orleans, health care, CO2, deficits, etc.

But events could still defeat Obama. Most particularly in the Gulf obviously. e.g. An Iranian event. Any sudden Middle East military action could leave him reacting to an environment where the initial media reports are dominated by the "official" story. And Mssrs Bush & Cheney and co. control the type, timing, face and initial public appearance of any such event.

That's the BIG wild card. And McCain would be hard to beat if his storyline matched up with the initial news reports. And yes, sadly, such "machinations" are quite possible. The "October Surprise" could easily have a sequel.

So, for VP..... A General, or strong military experience, would be the best insurance. PLUS, adding such an image, (for a nation which IS at war), would also give him a strong means of neutralizing some of the military-gun-lower income-white male-issues Hillary has raised, and the Republicans will hone.

Webb? Nunn? Wes Clark?

There are some real problems with choosing Hillary, and we all know it. Even Bill knows it. Now he's insisting Hillary should at least be "asked" to be on the ticket. If she isn't I guess ex-POTUS Sourgrapes is undermining Sen. Obama's chances and setting up Hillary for 2012.

I don't think he can pick another woman either, because it will look like a Serious snub of Hillary. And perception mean everything.

VA will be in play for Obama. Picking Webb is a smart choice. He's a hell of a debater (check out the youtube vids of him v. allen). And he's a Vietnam decorated USNA grad as well. And I think he fits the other criteria Rosenberg mentions, in that he ran a change washington campaign in '06 and is willing to work for common sense solutions. he may be far right on guns (A from NRA) and a bit quiet on abortion, and he will most certainly take it right at McCain.

Electoral votes determine who wins the presidency in America's compound republic. This time around, can we please not make Al Gore's and John Kerry's fatal mistake of failing to concentrate on what really matters? Neither Holy Joe "I'm a miracle!" Lieberman or goody-goody John Edwards brought anything of electoral value to the last two Democratic Party tickets.

This time around, the vice presidential nominee needs to deliver votes: meaninng, (1) broad swaths of demographic votes -- like Hispanics and/or working-class whites (men and women) -- across several states or (2) the electoral votes of a key geographical state that the opposition might win otherwise.

The electoral college votes from 50 individual state presidential elections determine who wins the presidency. Can we Democrats please keep this vital fact ever before our eyes instead of wandering off on meaningless and trivial digressions about "debates"? Senator You-Know-Her supposedly "won" nearly 20 or so debates this campaign season. It didn't do her much good, though. Thank goodness for that.

Grass roots organizing, broad-based fundraising, and massive voter-registration drives matter far more in garnering important state electoral votes than almost anything else the Democratic Party ticket can do. If the vice presidential selection can help organize and win state electoral votes, then great. Otherwise, who needs them?

If Lieberman "humanized" Cheney, Edwards made a fool out of him. He was excellent in those debates. Trouble is not many folks pay attention to those.

Why Hillary should not be VP:

From "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html

Friday, May 23, 2008

Head of State: The Reasons That Hillary Should Not Be Vice President

Regarding Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate:

Originally, this seemed to be a potentially plausible choice--and if presented in the following way, could turn her divisive campaign into a potential coup as a VP candidate. The thinking was the following:

Hillary has run a divisive campaign. Now, just as the nation should mend its divisions in favor a greater unity that would serve the greater needs of our country, so now they would explicitly put these divisions behind them, in the interests of the unity that this nation, after a bitter and divisive Administration, is so in need of. This would serve as a powerful and vibrant example of the very ability to unify that Obama both offers and represents.

However, this would require a candidate that was willing to take such a position of relative shared selflessness in the interests of a greater good--while the Vice Presidency certainly offers its honors (now far beyond the "warm pitcher" of John Vance Garner's famous phrase) and positioning for later Presidential aspirations, such a plan would require the ability to think in terms of a shared effort based on the betterment of the nation, rather than in more grasping, combative and singular terms.

The Clinton camp's behavior over this past week has made such a positive scenario clearly untenable, showcasing the same characteristics that have signified her campaign throughout its long, chaotic, march--its contradictions of previous statements when such changes have a slight possibility of adding a week or two of vitality, its sudden and implausible use of populists guises and specious historical parallels for transparently opportunistic purposes, its near-hallucinogenic transmogrifications of personality and central bases for further continuation,
and the central campaign tendency to place personal attainment over virtually all values that lay in its path.

These characteristics--self over nation, positioning over a consistent presentation of position, values and even self, the willingness to put personal viability over the need to transcend and transform the vast wreckage of state and international relations that remain at this critical time--are as present now, at a moment when wisdom rather than a remorseless, obdurate desperation could fill this gap, as they have been throughout much of the campaign. They would continue to make themselves present during a campaign for vice president, complicating, diminishing and often distracting, in trivial internecine battles, the message of unity and change.

Perhaps Clinton could adopt a more unifying and integrated and less grasping position on the VP subject. However, thus far, the actions of the Clinton camp have made it clear: It's time to clean the slate. Hillary Clinton should not be the Vice Presidential candidate.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html

I'm still pushin' for Barbara Mikulski of MD, only half tongue in cheek. Smart, white, female, tough, blue collar and funny. What's not to like?