Letters to the Editor
-
Wha?
You forgot the most important question: male or female?
-
Bad choices
Why is John Edwards not in the running? He has high visibility, charisma and electability. He should be the running mate of Obama. He has good ideas and is the right age to run after Obama is done.
-
Interesting that my top two were the reader's top two.
But the "parted hair on right or left" question. Jeez. If Sen. Obama is really including that in his calculations, I've been sending money to the wrong candidate.
-
Ed Rendell?
Why/Why not?
Anyone?
Bueller?
-
Scarlett Johannsen
Come on! Obama/Johannsen 08!
-
These questons are terrible
These questions are terrible. They give us no chance to claim neutrality on territorial origin. They give us no chance to select someone who was initially for the war, then changed their mind. They give us no chance to declare neutrality on military service.
-
Edwards and Rendell
Edwards was a flop last time. He did not do particularly well in debates. He did not do well this time as a Presidential candidate. He will not even deliver his home state. No to Edwards as VP. As AG, great. As Poverty Czar, super. As, SCOTUS, okay, although I think HRC would make a much better justice. (And Cass Sunstein!)
Rendell is a nightmare. He is an amoral win-at-all-costs politician who will say or do anything, including the most unnuanced race baiting of this campaign so far to advance his partisan objective. No thank you. I'd much much rather have Hillary than Rendell.
My vote is for Webb by a mile.
-
Johansson's too young...
You've gotta be 35.
(And no, I didn't really think you were serious.)
-
Veeps
Gore has plenty of experience in the position.
-
Cheney
The deomocratic vp candidate should be Dick Cheney.
Otherwise, you guys won't have anything to b$*ch about.
-
Powell?
Really?
My top choice in in terms of the survey apparently. When I see him all I can think of selling his soul for Bush up there in fromt of the UN doing the hard sell for the war. Still makes me shudder. What a waste of a career and integrity!
If he would seriously repent then maybe he should get a spot in the cabinet- to assist in undoing what he helped get us into- but he clearly doesn't have the judgement for Veep role one heartbeat away.
-
Wait . . . Where is Fast Eddie?
What about Ed Rendell? He might be the best choice!
-
Darn it. He's ineligible
I'm thinking of a man who has been active in Democratic politics, has run for the nomination of governor of an important swing state, and has been mayor of a major Midwestern city. It's just too bad that Jerry Springer, having been born in England, is ineligible.
(And, yes, this is tongue in cheek)
-
seriously now
This was one joke of a survey, but amusing.
My choice somehow was Webb, whom I hadn't even considered in my thinking before.
He would be a good choice, as would be Joe Biden (although he may have some quotes
that will come back to haunt him, but doesn't everyone). General Wesley Clark got some of my cash a few years back, but I was not happy he backed Hillary.
The choices for VP for both McCain & the Democratic Party will be very critical.
-
Two Words - Bill Clinton
Southern white male. Just a little bit of experience. Strong campaigner. Liked by Hillary's supporters. Perhaps liked by Hillary, also. Hillary gets the next Supreme Court spot, if she wants it.
Seriously, why not? (Its not unconstitutional).
-
Webb or Clinton
Obama/Webb seems the least problematic to me -- forward and inclusive. I'm not sure it helps with white "ethnics," but it definitely helps with the military and rural vote. Obama needs to play up his white and masculine sides a little bit, and nobody else helps those as much as self-proclaimed "redneck" Webb.
Obama/McCaskill is fresh also. She's been Obama's greatest surrogate, will help carry Missouri, and will help with women (along with blacks, the other backbone of the Democratic party.) I'm not sure you can get away with a woman other than Clinton, however, unless Hillary doesn't want the job. Also, an Obama/McCaskill ticket may appear dangerously weak on national security. In addition, as with many others on the list, it wouldn't be apparent whether McCaskill is national-calibre until she's put on the big stage. (The last thing Obama needs is a Dan Quayle disaster.)
Obama/Rendell makes sense politically (secure Pennsylvania and help with Midwest working-class), but just doesn't gibe stylistically: new school/old school. Also: too urban, too swarthy, not military enough to carry the country.
Richardson, Clark, and Dodd are all national-calibre, but slightly stale and problematic at this point: Clark's Clinton loyalty and lack of political skill; Richardson's rumored personal issues; and Dodd's somewhat generic quality and lack of help in carrying a state.
I'm developing a soft spot for Obama/Clinton if she wants the job, as it's the obvious move to heal the party. There's no question she's capable, and polls seem to indicate she'd help Obama at least as much as she'd hurt...and it sure would help Obama to have Bill Clinton on his side. However, I think I speak for many Obama supporters when I say: I just hope she doesn't want the job. If she really wants to rehabilitate herself politically, she'll campaign passionately for Obama as a mere surrogate.
-
It should NOT be a Senator!
We need all the Democrats we can get in the Senate. Pulling one out to be VP could be a costly mistake.
Also for balance: South or West, and not a minority or woman.
-
call me crazy...
After two questions I thought WTF. So i go with the Scarlett answer.. This is the kinda crap polls that I see on local news all the time. I guess it is a distraction, but damn...
I am still amazed that the question of class is continually ignored at Salon. The major difference between the two candidates is how middle class is defined and tax policy. Obama has staked out a position of 75k and 96k and Hillary is in the 200K range.
That is the problem I DON'T UNDERSTAND. Salon refuses to address this basic difference. Joan has not elicited a single piece that addresses this and NOT a single piece from Eric Dyson or Henry Louis Gates. These are the most important academics and thinkers in America-regardless of race or class. Instead Joan engages and gives face time to morons on cable TV...I am sorry but if she is interested in serious discussion just ignore Rush, Chris, russert etc. Instead she uses it as a platform to further her career.
Salon readers are upper middle class for the most part, thus that is why we don't get class analysis but analysis of Chris Mathews, Oberman etc. That is shameful!