Barack Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination
posted by Jon Cruz on June 4th, 2008
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Following the results of the final primaries in Montana and South Dakota and the declarations of a number of superdelegates, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has clinched the Democratic presidential nomination.
There have been spirited — sometimes heated! — exchanges on Victory Briefs Daily over the course of both the Democratic and Republican primary campaigns. Will you be volunteering for any candidates — for President or otherwise — during the general election? Who are you hoping to see win?
Popularity: 8%
no more tag found, sorry
85 Responses to “Barack Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Your National Champion: Todd Liipfert!
- COVERAGE: LD
- NFL Releases List of LD Resolutions
- Barack Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination
- J.W. Patterson Announces 2008-2009 TOC-Qualifying Tournaments
- LD FINALS: Exclusive, Expert Commentary from 2006 NFL Champion Douglas Jeffers
- COVERAGE: Policy
- COVERAGE: PF
- Vote for Next Year's Topics
- What Happens in Vegas...
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
June 4th, 2008 09:31
As I conceded on Facebook, I owe Eric Thurm $5.
Congratulations to Senator Obama and his supporters on a very well-run and successful campaign. As a Democrat and, as many know from reading my VBD posts, a passionate supporter of Senator Clinton, I look forward to the reconciling and unity that I am confident will be coming in the coming days and weeks and look forward to electing a Democrat to the White House.
Posted from: 70.111.156.245
June 4th, 2008 11:40
I eagerly await yet another normal vacuous election cycle.
Posted from: 98.196.191.127
June 4th, 2008 12:02
This primary campaign has been really amazing. Millions of people, especially formerly apathetic teens and minorities have gotten involved in politics. Recently, I heard that in the states that Mr. Obama lost (such as Ohio and Pennsylvania), he received more votes than Mr. McCain (who was virtually uncontested), that’s pretty amazing.
I volunteered for the Obama campaign during the primary process, and I plan to volunteer up to November. These past couple of months were very interesting because my best friend’s, and the captain of my squad, mom was the captain of the Hillary campaign in the southwest area of Houston.
Any who, I am very confident that democrats will win this election by a land slide.
Posted from: 75.134.132.251
June 4th, 2008 12:48
I was at the rally last night and it was absolutely insane. The lines stretched for blocks and thousands were not able to get in. I waited 5 hours for a 30 min speech and it was worth it.
Posted from: 70.255.106.34
June 4th, 2008 12:54
i am so ecstatic that obama won, and now we just have to see who his running mate will be. i’m gonna go out on a limb and say, if it’s not mrs. clinton, it will be bill richardson from NM. any thoughts on who else could be the running mate?
Posted from: 75.134.132.251
June 4th, 2008 13:07
Im thinking someone like Clark/Webb/Strickland/Rendell or perhaps Hagel or Bloomberg.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
June 4th, 2008 13:35
I would prefer if the Democratic nominee picked a Democrat. I would also definitely not prefer if he picked Jim “Nutcase” Webb.
There are positives and negatives in terms of picking or not picking Hillary Clinton as a running mate. I think Kathleen Sebelius and Ed Rendell would both be solid running mates.
I am fearful that John McCain will pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson as his running mate, a senator who long ago should have been elevated to higher prominence in the GOP. She would be a killer campaigner and bring a lot to his ticket. (Which is why I am fearful he’d pick her.)
Posted from: 74.227.231.217
June 4th, 2008 13:48
obama/edwards poll very well in a lot of swing states (most notably PA and OH). i would also support that move because it would set edwards up for another presidential run in the future (hopefully after a couple terms for barack). hillarys refusal to concede only gives me even more reason to believe she is unable to put this race behind her. interpreted charitably, her speech last night was insulting to obama. interpreted more realistically, it was insulting to the entire party. other considerations aside, im skeptical of putting her on the ticket for that reason alone. i also wouldnt blame obama for wanting to keep billary out of his white house (i like bill clinton, but he doesnt seem to know how to be low-key).
Posted from: 204.72.116.44
June 4th, 2008 13:52
Yeah the people I named would obviously not be the people that I would prefer to have as VP but they might be the most strategic. Virginia has a very good chance of going blue and it would if Webb was on the ticket. It could also help take away Mccain’s defense advantage.
I think Hilary would be a terrible choice at this point for too many reasons to list here but one of her supporters would be a good option. I personally think that Wes Clark might be the most strategic choice. He is a big Hilary supporter has much more foreign policy and military experience than Mccain and appeals to the groups Obama is having a hard time winning.
Much of that would also be true of Hagel. Now, I know that it is controversial but it would reinforce the post- partisan message that Obama has. He is more popular with some Republicans that Mccain and would be great asset in the places Obama is having trouble. I know it feels dirty but it could work.
Posted from: 204.72.116.44
June 4th, 2008 13:53
Michael, my first choice for president was Edwards I think he is the best choice. However, he has come out and said he absolutely wont do it.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
June 4th, 2008 13:57
It has less to do with it “feeling dirty” and more to do with it feeling not liberal. Al Gore lost any chance of winning over strident Bill Bradley supporters in 2000 when he picked Joe Lieberman. I’d like a ticket that represents liberal leadership in the Democratic party — and I am excited that, for the first time in a while, the final choices the Democrats had in the primaries were both serious liberals. Picking a Republican seems to signal to me that the nominee doesn’t think anyone was strong enough in his own party to get the nod, whether or not that’s the message he’s trying to send.
Wesley Clark is okay, although I still think he is a lightweight when it comes to actual campaigning, which is probably the most important job of the Vice President.
Jim Webb really is nuts. I think he has the potential of being a Dan Quayle figure for Obama. Of your list, though, I think Ed Rendell — a Clinton supporter — would be a pretty solid choice. And I think from my list that Kathleen Sebelius, an Obama supporter, would also be very solid.
I do think there are positives to picking Clinton, but I agree that there are also negatives, mostly in terms of perceived inconsistency with the “turn the page” line that Obama has been campaigning on.
Posted from: 74.227.231.217
June 4th, 2008 14:00
chris, i had heard edwards refuse to run for VP again when he first dropped out of the race but read a few weeks ago (around the time he endorsed obama) that those close to him say he would reconsider. have i missed something new on that front?
if edwards is offered the VP slot and says no, hes a fool (this is the most recent poll information ive found, and its indicative of the general trends ive seen: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/02/politics/animal/main4147689.shtml)
Posted from: 69.48.155.2
June 4th, 2008 14:11
I would love an Obama/Edwards ticket. I think it would help bring the “Hillary base” to Obama’s side, without Hillary baggage. However, I doubt Edwards would be willing to accept the no. 2 slot again, so it’s really just wishful thinking.
As for Hillary, I agree with Jon that there are positives and negatives to selecting her, but I think the negatives are bigger and the positives are, for lack of a better word, permable. If she is the nominee, she will detract from his efforts to send a message of change and “new politics.” Picking one of the most entrenched and polarizing figures in the Democratic party would probably be a bad idea (don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate Hillary, but most people have very strong opinions about her). However, I think that the benefits (reuniting the party, getting the women’s demographic, etc.) could be achieved by extending the olive branch by OFFERING the no. 2 slot to her. I do think, though, that she would do right by the party to respectfully decline, so as to prevent the problems I mentioned earlier.
I like Clark, Sebelius, not so sure about Bloomberg… I think Mark Warner would be interesting and possibly a very good choice… I don’t know enough about him to make a judgment though.
Overall, I think the two main issues for the general are:
1. Obama’s ability to unify the Democratic party and the groups he may have trouble winning (i.e. working-class Democrats and Jews).—> Likely
2. McCain’s ability to rally the Republican base.—> Unlikely
Obama ‘08
Posted from: 204.72.116.44
June 4th, 2008 14:23
I had not read that. If that is the case than I think that Edwards is the best choice. He has huge appeal with working class voters and very low negatives.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
June 4th, 2008 14:29
John Edwards said explicitly that he would not take the VP slot in an interview, I believe with Matt Lauer.
Posted from: 74.227.231.217
June 4th, 2008 14:52
jon, i cant find anything about a lauer interview w/ edwards thats more recent than january. there sure are a lot of pundits who are pushing obama/edwards and i dont think theyd talk about it if that had no chance of coming to fruition. here is what i had read:
“As the campaign proceeds, aides to both men said, Mr. Edwards is sure to be included on a short-list of vice presidential prospects. Mr. Edwards has played down any aspirations for an administration role. In an interview in January, he said he would not accept a vice presidential spot or a Cabinet position. ”No, absolutely not,” he said, shaking his head emphatically. But privately, he told aides that he would consider the role of vice president, and favored the position of attorney general.”
“Edwards Finally Chooses a Favorite: It’s Obama”
May 15, 2008, NY Times. i can’t get the NYT site to give me a permalink (not sure why), but it should be easy enough to search for.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
June 4th, 2008 14:57
That’s the interview I’m talking about; I took his words at face value since he seemed pretty serious about it and most politicians playing coy don’t give definitive answers like that. If he were open to it, I’d support that ticket.
I’ll be honest; I was not an Edwards fan before this election, but I was impressed both with his candor and with his performance with labor unions. And I admit that when they appeared together at the endorsement, I thought they looked like a solid ticket. (Much more solid than Edwards looked with Kerry, I might add.)
There is also precedent for vice presidential nominees repeating with different presidential nominees. I’d support that ticket.
Posted from: 128.54.49.210
June 4th, 2008 16:09
Obama Edwards would be my ideal ticket. Although I want to see Bill Richardson somewhere in the cabinet. The man is a perfect candidate for Secretary of state and has a ridiculous amount of exp working with the UN and with being the governor of New Mexico. Having Richardson allows Obama to gain greater access to the latino vote that hillary managed to get so well.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
June 4th, 2008 16:10
I too was at the rally, and was able to get down onto the floor and watch his speech from about 30 feet away, and then got the opportunity to shake his hand after.
Colin Powell for VP? The theme would be “McCain, you think you can out do us on foreign policy? Ok, we’ll bring in the guy who was in the Bush White House when the Iraq War started and has defended his stance ever since. Not only is he against the war, but he was a friggen 4 star general!”
Imagine McCain’s reaction. He can’t claim to be more knowledgeable than a superior officer, could he? It also gives the Clinton backers who have been hoping for someone with a strong background what they’ve been working for. He’ll make up for the fact that it’s an all black ticket in some states when he tells them he’s a General, and he’ll make sure to get their children/spouses/friends out of Iraq.
Posted from: 69.119.154.118
June 4th, 2008 16:36
@ Phelan
No.
First of all, I doubt that the Obama campaign, which has already been hurt in some states *West Virginia* because of his race wants to double the color-barrier-breaking fun. I don’t think Powell helps in that respect. Obama needs to foster the white, working-class vote, not the black, four-star general vote.
Second, Colin Powell’s stance on Iraq has earned him a pretty bad rep. Yes, he did oppose it, but he participated in the lie, most notably in his speech to the UNSC when he said, “there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.” I doubt the American people would like that at all.
Third, although I would love Obama to pick a moderate Republican to enforce the bipartisan message, I think Jon has a point about him being seen as snubbing his party because of it.
After reading the article and seeing what people have been saying, I think an Obama/Edwards ticket is possible, and it is a ticket I would love to see. I met Edwards in ‘04 at a small event, and he impressed me a lot. Were it not for Obama, I think he would have been a serious contender.
I also agree with Kamil about Bill “Judas” Richardson getting the nod for Secretary of State. I think that as a supporter and ardent campaigner, he can help bring his extensive foreign policy expertise to the table. I don’t know if there’s a precedent for announcing potential Cabinet nominees, but I think assuring people someone with Richardson’s experience would be Secretary of State during the campaign season would give him more freedom in that department and give him more room for a VP choice.
Obama/Edwards ‘08: The REAL Dream Ticket
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
June 4th, 2008 16:54
Jon is right. Jim Webb is insane. And sexist. He carries a concealed handgun everywhere he goes, despite DCs ban on handguns…and thinks women are in the military for no other reason than to be sex objects. I have no idea why the blogosphere drools all over the idea of a Obama/Webb ticket. It would be a disaster. The only good thing I can say about him is that he is not George Allen. And that is a very good thing.
I would suggest Janet Napolitano from AZ. She’s popular in her home state, young, enthusiastic, could help in the SW (CO, NM, NV) maybe even put AZ in play, and if not, the fact that she is from McCain’s home state certainly signifies Obama’s willingness to take him on everywhere. I used to think that since so many people are (understandably) upset about having lost the chance to see a woman president, that picking a woman for VP would be a nice gesture. But now, I’ve seen several Clinton supporters say that they would be outraged if Obama picked a woman other than Clinton. Not being a Clinton supporter, I really don’t know how that would play out.
Posted from: 69.105.108.177
June 4th, 2008 18:56
Honestly, do you guys think Obama can beat McCain? I prefer Obama to McCain fsho — but nearly every informed person I’ve asked where I live (LA) thinks that McCain will destroy him. The people in this chat seem to have a different opinion. So why do you think Obama will win?
Reasons I’ve heard for which McCain will win include:
- Most Americans still won’t elect a black man and will show up just to vote against him.
- Bitter Hillary supporters will switch to McCain.
- Obama is too young… OK this one is just wrong
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
June 4th, 2008 19:51
Ummm… is #22 a serious question?
McCain is worse than Bush because he actually knows what he’s doing. W’s approval ratings continue to be the lowest in history. The Obama/X camp will make the connections between them apparent every single day.
As for your three reasons:
(1) There are a lot of disenfranchised black people who’ve never voted who are coming out for Barry. If Barry picks the right running mate (see below) I think that a lot of white voters will find reason to support someone who’s more in tuned with their interests.
(2) Bitter Hillary supporters will eventually see that Barry is way better than McCain. The policy differences between Barry and Hillary are totally minimal.
I know they’re wounded; but, I seriously doubt that a significant number of Hillary supporters will be so idiotic to vote for McCain. I just think that’s bizzaro speak. A hard fought race that ends in June doesn’t mean the same level of bitterness come decision time in November. Hillary will be integral to ensuring that her supporters don’t do the worst thing imaginable and vote for McCain.
(3) Obama’s youth is an asset. He’s energized politics in this country like none other in decades.
OH, and btw, I too would love the Obama/Edwards ticket. JE was my first choice, but then he got a raw deal with the media. To have someone who’d sincerely connect with voters on important issues like poverty, health care, etc. would be incredible. Bill Richardson would be coo as a Sec. of State. But, I really do think Obama/Edwards would be a mighty wind of progress in this country.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 68.106.108.190
June 4th, 2008 19:57
“- Bitter Hillary supporters will switch to McCain.”
Who are these people? I want to meet them. lol. Seriously, as a Hillary supporter, I can’t really imagine that happening. Even after volunteering many hours at the HQ in DC, no one expressed strong feelings of resentment towards Obama except in areas he specifically was lacking (experience, especially international). While I have seen polls that would say her supporters would not vote for Obama…but to go out and vote for McCain? I think that’s just harmful to the party and the democratic process.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
June 4th, 2008 20:06
Here’s my list:
1. Powell- Ironically enough, I actually think he helps to SOLVE the racism Obama would/will face. A lot of the blue collar counties with the racist voters have a disproportionately high amount of men and women in the military. If Powell were to go Ike on them and make a promise to the (Instead of “I will go to Korea”, “I’ll have the troops home by christmas?”), I think a lot of them would vote for them.
Thurm, I get he’s another black guy, but if they hear a black guy telling them he promises that the troops will be home soon, a lot of military families will be willing to reconsider. They might still hate blacks, but in this case, they’d be willing to set aside their hatred for their family. It’s very bizzare, but I think it might just work.
2. Edwards- Just go all out, balls to the wall, and run in the south and in the west on the economy, and more specifically, poverty and the housing crisis.
3. Clark - I personally think he’s an a**hole, but he’s a respected liberal military officer who was an huge clinton backer.
4. Gore - Surprise nominee. What a better way to reach out to the Clintons by taking their VP? I get there’s some bitter blood between him and HRC, but I still think she’d respect the decision. Great on the Environment, and might help in the south.
5. Bloomberg - This is a risky pick (picking someone who is not a dem that is not a ardent hater of the current administration and those who want to carry on it’s foreign policies), but I think it’s worth it. Take a man who can increase spending and balance the budget. Strengthen the position on the economy, and reach out and run with a bipartisan ticket. Take that, McCain!
That’s my list, in no particular order (actually, the first three I’d rank in that order, just not necessarily in those spots).
Be aware, Obama would not pick a woman as VP without her approval, and without her first rejecting the position. Clinton would explode if Obama tried to put another woman into the role as the leading female liberal in Washington.
Posted from: 98.225.13.239
June 4th, 2008 20:39
While Obama’s election at this point seems highly likely, times can change. However, I think there is one candidate who could have a detrimental impact on McCain’s chances in the election: Bob Barr. I think we sometimes forget how Ron Paul was consistently polling between 5 and 10 percent in nearly every primary and shrug it off as an internet/youth-induced phenomenon. A candidate like Barr is likely to appeal to Ron Paul fans who vote Republican simply because Republicans are known for being in favor of a smaller government (although that’s questionable with the Bush Admin.)
To be honest, I don’t really like any of them, but I thought I would throw out another name for possible Obama VP’s: Ken Salazar. While he is a moderate in comparison to much of the Democratic Party, he is from a potentially competitive state (Colorado). Adding a Hispanic would also probably help Obama significantly in states like New Mexico, Arizona, California (not that he needs it there), and Florida. Plus it would make the majority of us who sit in the middle happy. Sure the Gang of 14 might send off warning signals to democrats (mostly because it solidified the 5-4 conservative slant of the supreme court), he seems like at least an intriguing option.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
June 4th, 2008 21:06
although Bob Barr is on the libertarian ticket, he doesn’t have the same popular appeal that Ron Paul did and he is of a starkly different brand of libertarianism. He is strongly in support of the war on drugs, he voted for the war in Iraq, he’s against same-sex marriage, etc…all positions which Ron Paul contrasted with.
Also, from what I’ve read, Obama has very good chances if he keeps things up. However, if the democrats cannot win this election (after 8 years of disastrous Republican policies), I will forever lose faith in the party.
p.s. I will be able to vote in November and I will most likely be voting for Obama…although I would like to see him debate McCain directly before making a final decision.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
June 4th, 2008 21:06
+ unintentionally comment 27
Posted from: 216.250.178.113
June 4th, 2008 21:09
I want Kent McManigal to win.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
June 4th, 2008 21:09
Ken if you’re even thinking about voting for McCain i’ll disown you and your brother.
homie luv.
Posted from: 75.173.173.197
June 4th, 2008 21:24
Out of the two frontrunners, I see Obama as the least likely to wreak anymore economic damage on this nation. I would much rather see somebody wasting our money (from the Treasury’s printing press) paying off a semi-universal healthcare system than a long-term conflict in the Middle East.
At least our diluted dollar and inflated economy would come out of spending that would help some Americans instead of an abrasive foreign policy that would hurt everybody.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any policies of economic restraint coming out of any of the candidates…except for Ron Paul, of course.
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
June 4th, 2008 21:26
Powell - A known liar to the UN. Supported the war in Iraq - sold the war. Tough to energize the “time for change” group given he is part of the old guard.
Edwards - Would love to see it, but i know there is a push for him to be AG. Edwards isn’t too old to run again. I don’t know if being a VP (and the risk of a 2-time losing VP) that he’d want it.
Clark - awful in front of a crowd. not ready for prime-time.
Gore - Why would he want it? He’s making more of a difference about what he cares about NOT being the VP. And doesn’t have to be in someone’s shadow. So either out of true desire to do good or some ego reason (probably a combination of both), I see no reason why Gore would want to be VP.
Bloomberg - tough to tell the story of knowing what it is to be poor in America when you put one of the richest men in the country on the ticket. Also, he would de-energize the base.
Posted from: 98.225.13.239
June 4th, 2008 21:43
Ken, While I do agree that Barr’s form of libertarianism is extremely different, I can’t get past the fact that McCain isn’t popular with the base of the Republican Party. As a result, Barr’s very conservative libertarian position could strike a chord with some of the Republican party. Obviously, it is unlikely he can carry Ron Paul’s numbers, but if can even get half of that, it may make Obama’s job easier in some of the hotly contested states. As a libertarian myself, I don’t really like Barr (I am of the Badnarik strain of Libertarianism), and while many textbook libertarians may also disagree with him, many conservatives will probably like him because of his days as a member of the Clinton impeachment “hunting party”.
Oh and fwiw, Barr is now against the war on drugs.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
June 4th, 2008 21:50
Bietz- You’re smarter than to say Powell supported the war in Iraq. Anyone who knows anything about him knows he was doing his job at the UN, and not, as you would suggest, supporting a war he was in favor of. Google “Powell Doctrine” for more info.
Also, who’s going to argue this? It’d just hurt McCain even more to point it out, and it’d probably be useful in swinging more conservative voters to obama.
Clark - Probably agreed.
Bloomberg - I don’t think he’d de-energize the base. Obama wants an administration where he has some old vets, and some new, bright individuals to consult. He wants people on both ends of the spectrum. He wants people who will disagree with him.
Bloomberg provides a great help in terms of economic policies. He’s great in managing the budget, which is something Obama could use.
Posted from: 72.193.59.38
June 4th, 2008 22:03
I interned for the Obama campaign in Nevada from September through January, and I’ve already been called to come back. And you can bet your ass that I’ll be there again. lol. This time though, I’m getting my entire family… Brother, Sister, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. ha.
I’d like it if he picked Kathleen Sebelius (spell?). Or someone who is of a military background, it seems like the notion that someone has been part of the military industrial complex energizes the silent majority. Sadly.
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
June 4th, 2008 22:19
i personally would like bill richardson, new mexico governor, as the vp ticket for obama.
Posted from: 69.105.108.177
June 4th, 2008 22:37
if McCain wins I’ll say i told you so. but go obama!
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
June 4th, 2008 23:05
If Powell testified in front of the UN even though he did not support the war, then that’s even a larger problem.
Posted from: 74.227.231.217
June 4th, 2008 23:15
“Anyone who knows anything about him knows he was doing his job at the UN, and not, as you would suggest, supporting a war he was in favor of.”
Befehl ist Befehl?
Posted from: 24.205.200.113
June 4th, 2008 23:52
I personally like Sibelius for the VP slot but the more the campaign has been hashed out, I think he needs to pick someone with national security experience.
- Clinton: I think the problem with picking her is that she is a divisive figure, which contrasts with his message of uniting people. She’s also old washington which contrasts with the message of change. Moreover, the republicans are sure to have plenty of opposition research on her, and she brings in Bill’s murky financial dealings with him. Moreover, she has the highest disapproval ratings of anyone running, and any anti-clinton voters he was getting he would lose to John McCain in the fall.
- Richardson: He was my original pick for president before I switched to Obama. The only problems I see with him is (a) he lacks serious name recognition, and obviously he doesn’t get much traction in elections as evidenced by his primary finish, and (b) I’m seriously afraid he would unite the anti-black racists and the anti-latino racists together, and (c) I don’t think he’s been seriously vetted yet, although he would bring NM into play for sure.
- Clark: He’s a bad campaigner, and he doesn’t represent change.
- Webb: He really is nuts, read some of the above posts.
- Nunn: I’m actually okay with him. I just think he’s another ‘old washington’ figure that would conflict with Obama’s message with change. That and he makes John McCain look sexy. If you put him next to the potential republican picks like Jindal/Pawlenty/Christ he looks like the old white dude.
- Edwards: I think he doesn’t have enough national security experience to cancel out McCain’s advantage, I don’t think he’s interested, and I think the republicans already have plenty off opposition research on him.
- Any other women: I think Clinton supporters would be pissed that he would snub her for another woman.
I think in the name of unity he should pick a clinton supporter that also has some nat’l security background. As for that, I like Evan Bayhe. I think he puts Indiana, Ohio, Penn., etc. back in play. He’s a moderate who appeals to white working class voters and he’s served on the right committees. He’s also not old washington, and he looks young. He can promote the message of change, even though he isn’t the most charismatic, Obama makes up for that.
Posted from: 68.117.51.205
June 5th, 2008 00:27
I also was at the rally and it was pretty amazing. Ive been an Obama supporter from the start. Although Richardson did make me think about it.
I personally would really like to see Richardson be a promminit member of the Obama administration assuming that it happens. I think his foreign policy is needed. I dont know if VP is the best place for him though. I think forigen policy is his main addition so I would be very much in favor of him becoming secratary of state.
As to Hillary supporters voting for McCain I really don’t think it will happen at all. Anybody who cared about Hillary that much to be that angered by it would have cared about policy to a large extent. Even if they have a fear of Obama being too idealistic I’m sure they will know that he has many advisors and that he knows it is his problem too. I think we will see a much more policy orientated Obama now that he has the nomination virtually wrapped up. And the thought that a fear of little policy is enough to make someone support polices that are quite different than Hillary’s is wrong.
As for her being a VP I do not think it is in the best interest of the party for a few reasons.
1. She is of the old political thought. Look to some of Fareed Zakaria’s articles in Newsweek for more of this but what he argues is that the reason Bill was able to be a successful liberal in the time of conservative power is because he was able to talk to conservatives in their terms. According to Zakaria the time has changed and to be a successful liberal one can talk in liberal terms because people aren’t afraid to be liberal. Hillary still has this mindset of an older time. I think to continue Obama’s message he shouldn’t run with her. Obviously his argument has much more warrant that my short paragraph.
2. She would overshadow him. No one can forget that she was once the first lady to Bill. No matter what, Bill will always be involved somehow. I think having her national recognition, as well as Bills, in the VP slot might be overshadowing to Obama and make him appear weak.
I am becoming much more open to a Obama/Edwards ticket. However, I feel this is due more to electability rather than what I feel is best for the country.
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
June 5th, 2008 00:45
i have no clue what the democratic ticket will look like (i would love someone wonkish like joe biden, but that will never happen) but it will need a damn good answer to bobby jindal. i also would not be so optimistic about the democrats’ chances in november, though i wish them all the best.
Posted from: 76.95.131.11
June 5th, 2008 01:45
The first rule of picking a VP is “do no harm.” Very few voters make decisions based on the VP candidate, but a bad VP can turn people away e.g. Quayle who cost H.W. 3-4%. This, in a vacuum, means no Hillary. If not choosing Hillary prevents her supporters from voting for Obama, then it may be a good choice, but that seems unlikely.
Instead, Obama will pick a VP that does not cause proactive harm but can either strengthen part of his message/issues or strengthen is campaigning in a particular state. This is the exception to the rule above - people will vote for Veeps if they are local faves among the populace.
Issues Candidates: Webb, Nunn, Biden, etc. all provide foreign policy experience to Obama. Nunn is actually unique here because he also would help to carry Georgia, but he upsets a lot of Des. Richardson also has FP experience and helps with Hispanic voters.
Message Candidates: I’m not sure if many good VP candidates help with Obama’s message since there are very few qualified non-establishment candidates. However, Edwards fits the bill perfectly here. Sebelius of Kansas is a good replacement for Hillary as far as female voters go, but her response to the SOTU was not-so-good.
Geographical candidates: In my opinion, Obama is best served picking somebody that can carry a critical state he may otherwise barely lose to McCain. Strickland from OH and Rendell of PA are obvious choices here. OH and PA are probably going to be election-deciders this coming November, and Obama is on very dangerous ground in both states. However, Rendell and Strickland have boyh said that they don’t want to be Veep.
My short list is composed of Edwards, Webb, and Richardson, though I wish Strickland or Rendell would accept.
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
June 5th, 2008 04:24
I’m honestly surprised that so many people think Bobby Jindal is a threat. He is ultra-right-wing. Besides his zero percent rating on gay rights from the Human Rights Campaign and his argument that the PATRIOT Act should be permanent and his backwards stances on the environment, Jindal opposes abortion with absolutely no exceptions. He supports the teaching of creationism.
He doesn’t seem consistent with McCain’s “moderate” appeal. He also has had precious little practical government service, which seems to be the predominant theme of McCain’s campaign. And given how much he’s torn into Barack Obama already for shorter resume, it seems odd to me that he’d pick someone with the same number of years in office as Obama.
Just my thoughts.
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
June 5th, 2008 04:26
Bietz’s summary of Wesley Clark is correct.
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
June 5th, 2008 07:46
i don’t foresee name recognition as reason why richardson should not be obama’s vp. he was the us secretary of energy and a UN ambassador, i think that is sufficient proof enough that he isn’t a hidden name, but i would agree that the reason for some of his problems in the early primaries was due to not many americans knowing about him as well as they did the other candidates. otherwise, as for uniting racists, that is possible and might be a problem, but if we are looking for the best vp in terms of what they can add to obama’s campaign and possible presidency, then i still believe richardson’s foreign policy, energy and other political experience makes him a prime candidate for the vp ticket.
Posted from: 67.101.42.235
June 5th, 2008 08:52
If McCain picks Jindal, it’s a gift. He makes Obama look like an elder statesman. Beyond the fact that his extreme anti-abortion stance will keep Hillary’s supporters w/ the Democrats, his experience is seriously limited. Anyone concerned about Obama’s short career in elective office (8 years in the Illinois State Senate, 3 1/2 years in the US Senate) has got to be petrified at the prospect of Jindal (3 years in the US House, 1/2 year as Louisiana’s governor).
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
June 5th, 2008 08:56
There are qualities I like about Richardson, but picking him as the running mate is a terrible way to reconcile with Clinton supporters, who made up almost half of the primary electorate. A lot of us saw Richardson’s endorsement of Obama — after a political career practically created by the Clintons — as tantamount to betrayal. I can see why this would make him seem like a man of backbone but I think that it would be a very poor choice. Plus, he’s more suited for a role like Secretary of State. Many of you have grown up with Dick Cheney as Vice President; the VP shouldn’t really be a place to make up for a candidate’s shortcomings, no matter what the talking heads on television say.
More importantly, folks beyond the most politically attuned rarely care much about what the VP nominee brings to the table. Lyndon B. Johnson and Geraldine Ferraro, and to a lesser extent Al Gore in his environmentalist role, might be the only real exceptions I can think of to this rule.
But most importantly, Richardson rambles and is dry on the stump. He isn’t good at getting out the vote and it’s hard to imagine him in the “attack dog” role the VP candidate normally takes.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
June 5th, 2008 09:02
Bietz - That was his job, though. As a cabinet member, your job is not to carry out your policy ideals, but rather, to try to persuade the president to do what you suggest, and if you fail, then to carry out the president’s policies.
He was in a lose/lose situation. The Bush administration didn’t need powell to go to war. If he stepped down, they’d invade Iraq regardless.
However, if he stayed, he had a chance to prevent this war from becoming another Vietnam. He tried to stay on as the voice of reason in the Neoconservative regime. He failed, and stepped down, realizing what he had done. If anything, he should be praised for being willing to change his mind on something, and not attacked.
Posted from: 76.94.44.115
June 5th, 2008 09:53
“i was just following orders” does not a good leader make.
also - too much latent racism in the country to have a ticket of two black men.
when was powell ever seen as a viable candidate for VP - on a Democratic ticket?
Pwneill, did you just make this up?
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
June 5th, 2008 11:12
1) any vice president on the republican ticket will be pro-life; mccain has publicly stated this will be a litmus test. his conservative zealotry will do more to fire up a depressed republican base (who mccain is struggling to get to the polls) than it will do to alienate the small number of hillary supporters who seriously consider voting for mccain.
2) the conservative base is not dead. the republican apparatus for mobilizing voters is still in place, but the party has been in the wilderness because nobody supports the iraq war anymore. jindal is the perfect person to rally the base–he’s young and energetic (sort of a republican obama), really charismatic, has a very coherent ideology, and is a prodigy (he was president of LSU…at 26…in addition to being a representative, governor, etc.)
3) he’s catholic and culturally conservative and will campaign well in poor rust belt areas (indiana, ohio, pennsylvania)
i don’t like his politics at all, but his resume is super impressive, and there’s a good reason a lot of very big names on the right are pulling for him on the ticket.
[also, from a strategic perspective, i think obama would be well-served by picking hillary. she has a coherent economic message and her class-baiting will put the republicans on the defensive. she plays well in ohio, PA, michigan, florida…and these are all the places obama really needs to hold on to.]
Posted from: 76.94.44.115
June 5th, 2008 11:21
The GOP has also got to be thinking McCain is 1-term president. They need a VP that can run for president in 2012… make it a 12 year affair.
Posted from: 70.183.125.2
June 5th, 2008 13:17
-Post 44
I’d have to disagree with you Jon. I think Jindal does provide a large threat. The fact that he is ultra-right makes him such a large threat. I think someone else conceded that a vp is rarely a voter’s whole decision. So I think he provides a threat because McCain’s moderate appeal will always gain some voters on the fence and the one’s that he is already missing. But people who are strong to the party may actually vote based on vp-choice, which brings in Jindal. He will always attract the conservative core that McCain will drastically need in the election.
Furthermore, I agree with post 52, that McCain is only going to be there for one term, and it is clearly obvious that Jindal has aspirations to ascend to the presidency. Lastly, his youth may contrast with what McCain has said about Obama, but he can simply brush that off with saying that VP is different from President; he could also say that Obama consistently talks about changing the politics of old, but then brings in an experienced person of government for VP so that he also is contradicting himself. But I do believe Jindal appeals to the conservatives. And as someone who lives in Louisiana, I know that the media flocks to him. And McCain sure is going to want air-time. Now I would sure like Louisiana to finally vote Democrat, but a pick like that simply removes any potential Obama has here and possibly other southern states nearby.
And let me tell you, McCain’s campaign needs some youth. Bringing his mother around to make himself look younger is not helping… And I went to that speech he gave on Tuesday (I am by no means a McCain supporter). I thought there would be an opportunity to ask questions (sadly I didn’t get the opportunity to confuse him), but it was painful to watch that speech. Watching Obama’s stump speech at Tulane was a thousand times better…
Posted from: 193.52.24.125
June 5th, 2008 13:26
Official Invitation.
If Barack Obama wins the presidency, the neighborhoods of Kenwood and Hyde Park (where he/I live) will be hosting the largest block party of all time. This party will run from Election Day to Inauguration Day, and will subsume all other festivities during this time period. The epicenter of the party will be my apartment. Everyone in the United States is invited, particularly hard working Americans. BYOB.
Posted from: 24.205.200.113
June 5th, 2008 14:21
To Jon in post 48:
There is no constitutional reason why the veep can’t have another cabinet position. I think it would be interesting to see Richardson (if he is the veep) be both VP and Secretary of State.
Posted from: 74.227.231.217
June 5th, 2008 16:03
anyone who still thinks mccain is a moderate hasnt been tracking him very closely in the past 8 years during his consistent move to the right.
Posted from: 128.135.188.127
June 5th, 2008 17:14
after hearing mccain speak this weekend i am positive i will be volunteering for senator obama. michael is right- whether it’s genuine or not, the republican base has forced mccain to become more and more conservative. his comments about iran (no talking, more bombing!) and iraq (the surge is working! send more troops!) make it pretty clear that he has to appeal to a group of people that i don’t support.
it will be interesting to see who his VP choice will be- if it’s someone that’s more middle ground vs. a bobby jindal that might make a more moderate voter like myself more comfortable.
Posted from: 70.183.125.2
June 5th, 2008 18:30
The media didn’t cover it as much as I thought they would, but did anyone else hear the comments that McCain made implying that the Iraq War was for oil?
Posted from: 71.42.141.128
June 5th, 2008 19:30
Bobby Jindal scares the hell out of me. He makes Jeremiah Wright look mainstream. Apparently he took part in an exorcism while a student at Brown. I highly recommend reading an article he wrote in December 1994 entitled The Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare.
Posted from: 76.173.173.211
June 5th, 2008 22:04
I highly doubt Bobby Jindal will become the VP. Obama could easily point out his inexperience and lack of credentials nullifying McCain’s talking point. From reading comments on redstate.com, conservatives seem to be honing him up for 2012.
In regards to Obama’s VP, I think people are placing too much emphasis on how much a VP affects a race. Kerry/Edwards didn’t win Edwards’ home state, Clinton/Gore didn’t win Gore’s home state, Dukakis/Bensten didn’t win Texas. None of the recent Democratic vice presidential candidates have come from swing states; their effect is negligible in that sense.
What Obama needs is someone with executive experience and foreign policy credentials. Foreign policy is of lesser importance than the former since he can pull his Iraq War card, but executive experience is a must. The problem with most governors is they lack national name recognition, but kathleen sebelius and brian schweitzer would probably fit the bill best.
P.S. For those looking for those Clinton supporters who “refuse” to support Obama are here: http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/
P.P.S. These comments seem to be dominated by liberals, any conservatives POV?
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
June 5th, 2008 22:24
@ jon in #48-
at this point i don’t think choosing a vp with the idea to reconcile the clinton fans in mind takes priority. i don’t mean to be hating on clinton, but i think she alone is the one that fter a political career practically created by needs to unite the democratic party and rally her supporters under obama to strengthen the democratic campaign going into november. what she said on tuesday i believe was out of line with what the objective of the democrats should be and her refusal to concede further greatens the divide between her supporters and obama. really tangential i know but an important point nonetheless about reconciliation of clinton fans.
additioanlly, i’ll agree that the clintons had a monumental influence in richardson’s political career, but his descision to endorse obama wasn’t one out of pure betrayal. the reason it took him so long to endorse a candidate was because he was unsure of the front runner until the point in time in which he did endorse obama. he saw obama’s lead and wanted to stop the party from splitting so much and tried to help end the race quickly. unforunately it did not have a significant impact but i feel that if clinton had a substantial lead at that point richardson would have endorsed her.
secretary of state would be good but i think th e vp would suit him equally, if not better. i do agree that the vp isn’t made to make up for the presidential candidate’s shortcomings, but richardson still impresses me as a good head for the president of the senate and cabinet member for obama.
the vp candidate as the “attack dog” isn’t necessarily a positive thing, many times it has led to rash politics and severe criticism by the public and media. moreover, if you have seen some of the early debates, richardson’s speeches were dead on very important energy, immigration and other issues without being as bombastic as many of the other candidates.
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
June 5th, 2008 22:42
Phil — She hasn’t refused to concede. She’s officially suspending her campaign on Saturday. That’s pretty normal in a primary campaign; it’s rare to concede right after the final primary or right after it’s clear that you’ve lost. (It’s also interesting that when Ted Kennedy truly refused to concede after losing a not-close campaign against Jimmy Carter in 1980 — he brought his campaign to the convention, where he lost again — they treated him as a hero.) It makes perfect sense for her to wind down the way she has; she met with Obama today, is negotiating positions on the party platform, etc. That’s what one does when one has a large number of delegates. That’s how Jesse Jackson was (fortunately) able to work an anti-apartheid plank into the Democratic platform after his own failed presidential campaign.
I didn’t mean to say that Richardson’s act “was” one of betrayal, but rather, that it was perceived by many as such, and when reconciliation is important — a fact Obama admits! — it would be counterintuitive to bring someone like Richardson onto the ticket. Reconciliation is not something Hillary Clinton can or should take on her own; it’s something all factions need to work on together.
More importantly: Richardson is a bore and a rambler in most campaign venues. His performance in the political debates (and in the national polls) proves this. I think he’s brilliant. I’d want him in my Cabinet. I wouldn’t trust him for a moment on the campaign trail.
The bottom line, and this is not directed at Phil: Barack Obama is impressing me through his systematic reconciliation with Hillary Clinton and her supporters. People who read VBD know that I’ve been extraordinarily partisan and passionate in my support for my state’s Senator. I am sure I will actively support Barack Obama in the coming months. (I confess that I need to save up a bit before I can donate because I basically broke the bank on donations to Hillary Clinton.) In any case, Obama is doing a great job of reaching out respectfully and reconciling. I’d encourage his supporters to borrow a page from their leader’s book.
Alex — what about Bobby Jindal’s “resume” specifically is impressive? Or do you just mean his political positions in the eyes of conservatives? I don’t see anything particularly impressive about his resume. He has barely any experience in office. He failed to win the governorship of Louisiana in 2003, was a two-term Congressman, and became Governor of Louisiana in January. He has had no significant legislative accomplishments. He would completely nullify any argument that Barack Obama has no experience, and he would be, in my mind, a Dan Quayle repeat: little experience with lots of talk but no record of accomplishment.
As an aside, I agree with Michael’s assessment that McCain is not a conservative but I’d argue that this is not a new development post-2000. McCain was the media darling in that election and the notion that he was a “maverick” was promoted actively by that media. He has been a true-blood Republican for years — from his Keating Five days to the present. He may take the occasional stance that differs from the party line — such as with the environment, an issue on which the Republicans have been altering their views increasingly the last few years anyway — but he is as partisan as the best of them.
And as for Wesley Clark — mentioned elsewhere — he is the Fred Thompson of the Democratic party.
Posted from: 76.173.173.211
June 5th, 2008 22:46
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=B0i9o-ThOPM&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i.ytimg.com/vi/B0i9o-ThOPM/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskLKAr83hgA2ua3FoX1gc8ZW&hl=en
Check out this Schweitzer vid, he’s very well-spoken and intelligent. He’s fluent in Arabic and knows energy.
The only problem I see is that it would deprive Montana of a Democratic governor. The Republicans might then have the ability to shift the state back to the right. He is a very popular governor and removing him might harm Montana’s Democratic Party.
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
June 5th, 2008 22:55
And I agree with Ryan Cooper. (I agree with Ryan Cooper on an issue relating to the election? A sure sign reconciliation is happening!)
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
June 6th, 2008 07:27
TRIPLE POST!
To continue an earlier discussion with Michael:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/06/edwards-again-rules-out-vp-job/
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
June 6th, 2008 08:26
QUADRUPLE POST!
It seems George Lucas has expressed admiration for Barack Obama. So that about seals the deal for me, I guess. :o)
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
June 6th, 2008 08:28
maybe if obama followed through on the jet ski, edwards might have a change in mind…
but really, the problem i have with clinton’s refusal to give up the election is how she is doing it. in the 1980 election, from what i know at least, reagan completely dominated carter after a democratic convention that was not pretty. kennedy refused to give up and did take it to the convention but what i have learned the convention was not a site for any sort of reconciliation and most likely hurt the party, leading to the sweeping victory by reagan. and this is the almost exact same problem i have with clinton’s exit strategy. in her speech on tuesday i was expecting her to give her thanks for her campaign, congradulate people and then turn on her supporters to obama and so her campaign could stop focusing on attacking obama and start the democratic party to look towards facing mccain. i believe it was her duty as a prominent member in the democratic party to not only turn her supporters onto obama, but to try to make up for all of her attacks on him in the past that might have and probably have dealt him severe blows. moreover, a whole lot of the speech was dedicated on basking in her triumphs, which i don’t think was very appropriate at this time, considering it was certain she had lost.
as for reconciliation, richardson i believe makes up for a large sum of the latino vote that clinton raked in in places like california. but that is still besides the point i believe. i don’t think clinton should take on reconciliation on her own, but i think she has an incredibly significant obligation in turning her fans to support obama. its a thing the whole party needs to do and yes obama has said its important, but i have not seen one step clinton has taken towards uniting her supporters under the general democratic campaign, which will be lead by obama.
i don’t see why you wouldn’t “trust” richardson, this makes no sense to me. sure he might not have the ability to inspire people and speak in a grandiloquent way, but his stance on his issues and plans to solve major problems are still impressive. he might seem like a bore to many, but its not about appearance that matters, its about what he can do, and in that regard i think richardson is very capable.
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
June 6th, 2008 09:59
Kennedy and Clinton are not comparable in terms of “not giving up.” She has given up. She is giving a formal speech on Saturday. It is not unusual for a protracted primary campaign to not end the day of defeat. Concessions are expected immediately after a general election defeat; that simply hasn’t been the pattern in primary campaigns. I think it’s rather shameful that some in the media have been trying to spin this as something it’s not. She’s going to do the things you listed. As much as people like to vilify her, she is a human being, like everyone else. I’d argue that a sudden turnaround on Tuesday night would have been criticized as “not genuine” and “rushed” and “forced.” She’s in a no-win situation with this because so much of the media spin on her has been negative.
The only reason I mentioned Kennedy was to note that when he DIDN’T give up, he was treated as a valiant fighter and hero by the media, who love him. The media doesn’t love Clinton, so a speech a couple of days after defeat — the NORM in most primary campaigns — is somehow treated as being a “sore loser.” Oh well. This kind of treatment has been the norm in this campaign. I’m not over it in the sense that I think it’s a reflection of the incredible bias and power of the media, but I’m over it in the sense that I’m ready for Clinton supporters to embrace Obama supporters (and vice versa), to come together, and to win.
Clinton’s a tireless campaigner; this is something that even her detractors admit. She’ll campaign for Obama and he’ll benefit from her support.
As for Richardson and trust, I think you may have misunderstood me. I trust him as a person and as a leader. For the sake of full disclosure, he was my top preference after Clinton, so I think highly of him. However, I don’t trust him as a candidate, because he shown he is unable to get a lot of votes on the national stage. He’s extremely smart and capable but he’s a terrible campaigner. But I was extremely unimpressed with his performance in this campaign. And I’m sorry, while I’d agree in a heartbeat that appearance shouldn’t matter, the reality is that in an election, for a lot of folks, appearance and persuasion *does* matter — it would not make sense to nominate someone who is a complete bore and who was unable to get out of the single digits in the primaries to the ticket. He’d be great in the Cabinet, where he doesn’t have to campaign.
The VP’s most important role in an election is to be an “attack dog” and be a serious campaigner. Al Gore (Bill Clinton), Geraldine Ferraro (Walter Mondale), Lyndon B. Johnson (John F. Kennedy), Lloyd Bentsen (Michael Dukakis), George Bush the Elder (Ronald Reagan), Bob Dole (Gerald Ford), Dick Cheney (George W. Bush), and Spiro Agnew (Richard Nixon) are all examples of this role. Richardson is not cut out to be an attack dog and is not cut out to be a serious campaigner. He IS cut out to be an incredible Secretary of State, and I hope that is what Barack Obama has in mind for him. Given his frequent references to Abraham Lincoln’s Cabinet — which consisted largely of defeated rivals — I suspect this might be the case.
If not Clinton, and ruling out Edwards, I think Sebelius would be my top choice.
Posted from: 24.6.170.242
June 6th, 2008 10:50
As someone who supported Obama ever since Edwards dropped out, I’m obviously happy that this thing is finally over.
Given my support for Edwards, I’d be ecstatic to see an OE ticket, especially because of the polling data Mangus posted earlier.
As for all the people ranting about Florida, and Ohio - yeah Obama has multiple scenarios for winning without flipping either of those Most of them involve Virginia and Colorado, but there are a few different possible permutations (unfortunately I do not recall the article were I read these). I’ll try and find it again.
I’m feeling very confident about this election. Rasmussen has been indicating a very favorable environment for the dems:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
More later.
Posted from: 69.131.96.251
June 6th, 2008 11:48
I’m not a Hillary supporter and never have been, but Jon’s point about the media hating Hillary made me consider something my mom has been talking about for days.
She’s angry at Barack Obama, and I guess the media generally, for treating the “Priest making fun of Hillary” issue as one of race rather than one of sexism. Her argument is that the priest–by making fun of Hillary crying, etc.–was being malicious not because Hillary is white, but rather because she’s a woman. She’s mad at Obama, then, because when he apologized, he continued to portray the issue as one of race, and this is how the media spun it, too. This means that, once again, the media is putting issues of race before issues of sex.
I’ll be the first to admit that I was very busy during that incident and only gave the articles about it a cursory glance. However, I’d be interested to hear what others think about how sexism played out in the campaign. For the sake of full disclosure, my mom is a pretty ardent feminist and has worked with Hillary on several projects (though she supported Edwards and then Obama politically), so she may well be very biased. But I think it’s a discussion worth having, and I’d like to hear thoughts on it, because I’m not yet sure where I stand.
Posted from: 76.173.173.211
June 6th, 2008 17:45
Admittedly, my knowledge of feminism isn’t vast but I’m pretty sure Hillary didn’t exploit her “1st factor” well enough. She increasingly masculinized herself rather as shown through her ever shorter haircut and different color/same design pantsuits. She’s a woman, for godsakes!
This may have been necessary in a “man’s world” but doing the opposite would have increased her younger women vote who would see her truly as a pioneer. Instead, they flocked to Obama as the true historic candidate.
Sexism probably had a role but much more subtle than the blatant racism Obama faced in West Virginia and other parts of the country. The sexism against her was probably the media portrayal of her as a “nagging mother/wife” that shouldn’t have rein over the country rather than an explicit “The Bible says women can’t rule, etc” attitude.
Posted from: 71.169.24.180
June 7th, 2008 23:48
i passionately supported clinton and i will be voting for obama in november. to be honest, my support for obama is less than enthusiastic and i’m not sure if i’ll be campaigning for him. hopefully my feelings will change as the sting of defeat fades a bit, but i’m not quite ready to start going door to door.
i’m actually surprised to see so many supporters of the obama/edwards ticket. edwards was a TERRIBLE running mate in ‘04. i agree with jon in saying that VPs are most useful in playing the role of attack dog. edwards, wanting to stay positive, essentially ignored the requests of the kerry campaign to turn up the heat on bush. he doesn’t seem willing to adapt to the nominee’s msg. i know he’s been a lot more aggressive in this election cycle, but i’d be hesitant to pick a VP who so easily dismissed the wishes of the nominee.
regarding the last few posts- yes, i think the msm has been quite sexist in its coverage of clinton. she’s portrayed as either too emotional (nh tears) or too “cold.” i’ve never heard a male candidate referred to as “shrill.” i don’t know how chris matthews and tucker carlson still have jobs. there are too many examples to cite, but the women’s media center produced a montage showing some of the more outrageous incidents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U .
it does seem as though sexism, whether subtle or, uh, mark rudov, is too often accepted by media & viewers.
saad- i don’t understand. what do you want her to do? remember the- gasp!- cleavage scandal? short hair is too masculine? but aren’t headbands a no, too? what’s a girl to do? this is exactly the sort of double bind described above. too feminine or not feminine enough.
another note on sexism in the media- i recently attended a lecture by erica falk, author of Women for President. she outlined trends seen in coverage of female candidates from victoria woodhull to carol mosely braun (unfortunately, she was finishing up right before 08 began). historically, coverage of female candidates is more likely to drop titles and focus on emotions and physical appearances. i was really alarmed to see the data from different races–the trends are virtually identical from 1872 to 2004. scary.
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
June 8th, 2008 00:39
that video sounds like whining from the same people who claim they’re going to vote for mccain–a true champion of women’s rights, bar none–because the democratic party failed them in their historic opportunity to elect a woman. forgive me for sounding sexist, but being female does not entitle hillary clinton to be the president. she ran an extraordinarily negative and racist campaign and i find her and her supporters’ claims of victimization by the msm to be staggeringly disingenous. maybe they wouldn’t be so negative if hillary and her supporters weren’t so genuinely shrill and hysterical (though i give her credit for a face-saving end to her campaign).
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
June 8th, 2008 00:41
(and just so i don’t sound like a hypocrite, i support hillary for vp only because i think she increases obama’s electability. if there was good poll data indicating that webb, dodd, hagel, et al. would be better, then ship her out)
Posted from: 76.173.173.211
June 8th, 2008 18:01
annie-I agree that she’s in a double bind. I can’t think of any solution. If she is too feminine, then she won’t be seen as a strong leader. If she is too masculine, she fails her historic role. I believe that’s the inherent sexism this primary season.
Yeah, and Edwards would be a terrible vice president choice. Especially since he voted to authorize the war in Iraq (also one of the many reasons I don’t want Clinton on the ticket).
Posted from: 69.119.154.118
June 8th, 2008 18:37
I agree that Hillary did not receive favorable media coverage, but why punish Obama for it? It wasn’t like he called up Wolf Blitzer and said “Hey guys!!! I need you to portray Hillary badly!!!!” The media warmed to Obama, but don’t blame that on him. Or do rather, but in a positive way.
Obama ran a great campaign, Hillary ran a not-so-good campaign, and Obama won. Don’t blame that on him just because he won.
Regardless, I think the Hillary/Obama debate is about done for. She gave a great speech on Saturday, one which I hope Hillary supporters will take to heart before they consider voting McCain.
As for problems with Edwards, I was under the impression that it was Kerry who didn’t want to go negative on Bush, something that contributed to his ’sofite’ image culminating in him practically confirming Swiftboat without doing anything about it. I think in this election cycle Edwards would be far more effective, especially since Obama is not John Kerry.
However, it looks like it’s unlikely to happen: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2008/06/06/edwards-says-no-thanks-to-vp-slot-reports/
Too bad.
I think the real problem for Obama going forward is that he needs experience, (why, I don’t know) but also someone who isn’t part of the “old guard” who will play “politics as usual.” Kinda narrows the field, don’t it?
Posted from: 64.61.74.106
June 9th, 2008 17:57
Pointing out sexism in the media was not meant to blame Obama for such sexism (ET); nor did I mean to blame the media for her loss (AS). I’m sorry my post would be interpreted in such a way. I think it’s fairly clear that Obama ran a campaign that was simply much smarter than Clinton’s in many ways.
I’m really alarmed by #72 and the idea that sexist treatment is someone seen as deserved. “I involuntarily cross my legs.” Come on. That’s just not OK.
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
June 10th, 2008 06:42
neither was digging up dirt on obama’s association with a “slumlord”, or sending bill to race-bait in south carolina, or telling west virginia that she was the champion of “hardworking white americans.” oh yeah, how about how she fanned the flames of the reverend wright (who obviously does not stand for hardworking, white americans) fiasco to cover up the fact that she lied about her involvement in the balkans?
of course, if i mention any of this, i am a sexist, because hillary is a woman and any attack on hillary is an attack on all women, the most systematically disempowered group in american history. maybe i can atone for my sins by voting for john mccain, like all of the other disenfranchised women in this country. at least he’s not black.
Posted from: 69.119.154.118
June 10th, 2008 11:05
This argument between Hillary and Obama supporters is absolutely pointless, and pisses me off.
Yes, there were some sketchy things done by the Clinton campaign (I reeaaallly don’t think anyone can deny that), and yes, she probably wasn’t treated fairly by the media.
BUT IT’S OVER.
Chill out, cool off, and start campaigning for Obama. Seriously. Any feuds between Hillary and Obama supporters can wait, because we need everyone to rally around Obama, regardless of what you thought of the other candidate (whether it was Hillary or Obama) and make sure McCain doesn’t win.
Because that would be TERRIBLE.
Posted from: 75.134.132.251
June 12th, 2008 09:33
I’ve been doing some research and other than Edwards (who doesnt seem to want it) there is one guy I think would be amazing. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. The man is perfect. He is a Democrat in a red state with an approval rating over 70%. He has enormous appeal to the kind of voters Obama needs and he fits his message perfectly. He is also perfect for the “attack dog role” he has the unique talent of making his opponents seem ridiculous with glib amusing quotes and the like. Obama needs to take a look at this guy, who cares if he is from a small state like Montana, geography is a bad way to pick a VP anyway.
Take a look at this for more.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/on-brian-schweitzer-as-vp.html
Posted from: 69.119.154.118
June 12th, 2008 19:40
@ Chris:
How do you deal with the objections raised in the same article you’re citing?
He has already said he doesn’t want it (so if he would say yes, then there’s no reason Edwards wouldn’t, because I think Schweitzer has a better reason not to take it, and if he wouldn’t, it doesn’t matter).
I also think he contributes well to the inexperience argument that will be made. He’s had about as much as Obama (not that I think it matters) and the only issues that I have seen when I did a bit of research were his pro-gun rights stanced (the man is endorsed by the NRA!) and his pro-coal position on climate change.
I do see the positives, and I think he would be a pretty good surrogate for Obama, but he just seems too similar to Obama to be a viable candidate for VP to me. He would certainly be an interesting choice, but I don’t know if he beats some of the other people on the short list.
Also, why does he need to be VP specifically? If his strengths are his witty responses to questions and his rhetoric, shouldn’t he be utilized as a surrogate while putting someone with policy reinforcements on the ticket?
I’m open to being convinced, since I’m also doubtful of Edwards swooping in from populist-land to save the day.
Posted from: 75.134.132.251
June 13th, 2008 21:23
I admit he is not perfect but there is no perfect choice.
Your first argument is that he said he doesnt want the job but, that is not exactly the case. The article i poster said this:
“First, I’ve talked directly to family members who seem to honestly be saying Schweitzer doesn’t have these national ambitions. I take those things seriously, but I also know that being asked to be VP would almost certainly be accepted”
Every VP candidate says they dont have those ambitions it is part of the territory. With that said I think it is unlikely he will get picked and I dont know if he would be picked.
I think “inexperience” is an asset overall in this campaign, it underscores the message. If he were to appoint a person who is part of the old culture he criticizes, he would would be destroyed for it. Either way it would become an issue. I say they are better off doubling down on the message, after all it worked for Clinton when he picked Gore and Bush when he chose Cheney. Moreover he does give him some cred on foreign policy given that he spent six years abroad living in Africa, Asia, Europe, South America and the Middle East. He even speaks fluent Arabic.
He is against gun control but I do not think that will be a large issue in the campaign and honestly that is probably a political necessity in Montana. It could also be an asset in places like Pennsylvania.
On the coal issue. He has proposed using clean coal (Montana has a lot of coal) as a way of offsetting dependence on foreign oil. First even Obama has talked about clean coal technologies. Second, that ignores the very strong record on climate change that he has. He has a proposal to have 25% of all U.S. energy to come from alternative energy resources by 2025, Montana has already passed a bill requiring utilities to receive 15% of their energy from renewable resources by 2015, one of the best pieces of legislation on this issue at a local level.
Your last argument about him just campaigning could be true about any candidate but, I think the role of the vice president is primarily rhetoric and not substantive. Even if that was not true he is one of the few possibilities that are consistent with obama on all major issues. Moreover, he was always against the war and adopted the same change themes before Obama exploded. I just really like the guy.
Thank you for distracting me from the ACT, I needed that.
Posted from: 69.119.154.118
June 14th, 2008 17:26
On his not wanting the position: I think that’s fair, but my argument is that the same probably applies to Edwards, who I think we both agree is a better candidate. Yes, he was already the VP candidate and might want AG, but I think he meshes far better with Obama than Kerry and the experience/likelihood of winning would be far different. Even as Kerry’s VP nominee, I think Edwards could still be energized by the Obama-train.
On inexperience: I agree with you both that experience is unnecessary for him to truly be a good candidate for the job, and that he shouldn’t pick a member of the “old guard.” However, I have a couple of qualms:
1. Voters think “experience” on the ticket is important. Even if it isn’t, to win those votes it’s gotta be there.
2. To get this “experience” he doesn’t need to pick a member of the “old guard.” Edwards, while having experience in Washington, does not fall into this category. Another potential VP who doesn’t is Richardson, although I doubt the ex-Hillary camp would approve- just using him as an example. I just don’t think that there is a dichotomy there- it’s a difficult middle ground, but one that I think can be reached.
The issues: My point wasn’t to say that his positions are harmful, simply that he doesn’t really have any. The research I did came up with just his pro-gun rights and clean coal stances. His positions on other issues are nebulous, at least to the non-politically literate voter. Or at the least, I couldn’t figure out what they are.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Brian_Schweitzer.htm
Schweitzer has recorder stances on less than half the issues in the above link, and most of them are little snippets. That might just be bad fact-checking, though…
His gun stance might help with places like Pennsylvania, but it clashes with Obama’s pro-gun control (at least in part) position.
I disagree with you on the potential role of the Vice President, especially in this election. We’ve got the rhetoric covered. I think the Vice President needs to be someone who does enforce the message, but is also a credible President and helps bolster weaknesses on the ticket (a lot of people are afraid for Obama’s safety, so the Vice Presidential choice really does have to be a potential President, the same way it does for Grandfather Time on the other side of the aisle).
I get all of his potential positives, but I’m not sure he’s such a great choice.
Posted from: 76.111.228.213
June 25th, 2008 21:46
I traditionally have shyed from expressing political thoughts on the VBD forums but over the past couple of days I feel an increasingly great need to do so.
The only Republican that I see Obama gaining an advantage by choosing for his Vice-president is (dare I say it) Rudy Guiliani. He’s a Republican with many liberal/moderate views on issues such as abortion, gay rights, while being a former mayor with some popularity in states like New York and Florida. even though he lost the florida primary I see him bringing an advantage among older voters and displaced New Yorkers who live in this important swing state. That being said McCain has privately but not publicly showed signed of spending money on New York since many Clinton backers in the state might be sympathetic to him. Picking Guiliani would secure New York and give Obama an advantage in Florida. However if he was picked I believe McCain would pick him for those advantages although I doubt he will be picked.
I would like to see Clinton or Strickland as the VP but the likelihood of it happening is somewhat questionable. There are 3 constituencies Obama needs to win from a Vice-president as of now : Women, Latinos, Homosexuals
Obama has been making some inroads with the first two but even in the media he seems to be ingoring the second-most Democratically loyal constituency after african american. If you look on the Democratic National Commitee website it shows you that many states have a large number of LGBT delegate they have to assign because of this party loyalty. Most of these voters had voted for Clinton in the primaries and any VP pick should also bring in these voters as well. Scorning this constituency could dramatically hurt him in states like: Florida, California, New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. two of which are important swing states.
Posted from: 67.227.134.4
July 30th, 2008 09:18
web site design and hosting ohio…
comment1…