Letters to the Editor
-
So Who Wants It?
A big issue may be who is willing to run for VP. Some of these people may not, if they think (as some probably do) that Obama doesn't have a particularly good chance of winning. Also, Sen. Webb, while good on paper, has a major personality problem and should be rejected out of hand. Sebelius, being female, might not give an adequate appearance of the necessary "toughness," although she seems good otherwise. Richardson is too mealy-mouthed and also has a "toughness" problem. Clark would probably be a good choice despite some personality deficits, but I think there's some question whether he'd be willing to do it.
-
@Allie
The constitution only prohibits Bill from being "elected" President again. If the President died during the first term, he would take over, but not be able to run for the second term. So its really not likely to happen. He could run as Hillary's running mate, too.
-
OBAMA/McCASKILL
Claire McCaskill might help in Missouri and with women
Richardson, Dodd, Biden or Edwards would do
But, it should be a progressive (bye bye Bayh)
And that person should have OPPOSED the Iraq War or aploligzed for his/her past support
NO HILLARY, NO BAYH, NO RENDELL, NO CLINTON SUPPORTERS
-
bill richardson
The right can make the claim that Obama lacks foreign policy experience, but if Richardson is the Veep, there wouldn't be much else for the right to do or say. The man is constructed of foreign policy experience.
-
@slider
Somebody probably mentioned this already--I didn't have time to read all letter but in case not, Bill Clinton could not serve as vice-president because one of the qualification is that you have to be able to serve as president which he is constitutionally unable to do.
If by any chance HC gets the nomination she would be required to ask Obama to be her veep.
I would be happy with her as Obama's veep but I can see with Bill and other baggage for her reasons not to put her on the ticket. That said, I think she'd be a great VP.
-
@bobr900
Great letter. I doubt if Edwards would be willing to try another run at VP and his wife's health is not good. Assuming the nominee is Obama, it's unlikely that Hillary would want the job, let alone have us worry about what Bill would be doing with himself - a potential source of embarrassment for the White House. Hillary will have to be offered some high level position before the election, perhaps Secretary of State or something. Maybe Health and Human Services. So much depends on the president. Many VP's are given nothing to do and just stand in for the president at ceremonial dinners. That's a question I don't believe was asked at any of the debates, which would have been enlightening, just how did each candidate intend to use his/her VP.
-
A different take
Obama has a unique problem. He is talking change, but all of the proposed candidates are associated with the politics of the present or past. They all have political positons that are either largely undeveloped - e.g. Wesley Clark - or too developed along specific Democratic historical/political lines, i.e. tied into old contentions and old politics.
One specific campaign point that will be bought out, and that does resonate with voters, is Obama's relative inexperience.
As a solution I would recommend Michael Bloomberg. His highly successful Mayoralty in New York is winding to its conclusion. [He has recently re-registered Independent]
A Vice President Bloomberg would address the experience question in exactly the ways it needs to be addressed, and he is about as non-ideological a figure as could be picked. The upshot would be that those who see Obama as a figure for change would see someone as his running mate who is a centrist, and credibly open to pursuing change from a non ideological, and thereby less contentious, point of view. One of Obama's consistent strengths has been a call to just such an effort.
-
Dianne Feinstein
1. She's a woman
2. She's a Hillary supporter
3. She's Jewish
4. She'd be harmless as a VP
My one hesitation is that I think Arnold would get to appoint her immediate replacement; not sure if that would be for the rest of her term or until the next election.
Webb is needed in the Senate, as is (potentially) Mark Warner and McCaskill. Clark might be OK, but he's too obvious. Indeed, most of the suggested candidates are too obvious.
Hillary on the Supreme Court has a certain appeal, I must admit.
-
EXACTLY right!
I do NOT know how you guys do it, but you are EXACTLY right about my choice of veep candidate. Muy choice is, of course, Ohio's Governor!
How uncanny!!
-
Bloomberg?
Ick.
-
Richardson for me
I am hoping Obama does not pick Sen. Jim Webb, the choice of your poll. We need him here in Virginia. I would rather he choose a governor so as not to deplete the Democrats in the Senate. My choice is Richardson of New Mexico. He would help with the Hispanic vote and has strong foreign policy credentials.
-
Not Edwards
I actually supported Edwards before he dropped out, but he shouldn't be on the ticket. He did very poorly in his debate with Cheney and I was actually disappointed in his performance this year. He can't deliver any states for Obama and would probably lose the debate with McBush's VP. No senator should be on the ticket, every one of them is badly needed in the senate, and 2 senators on the ticket would reduce the chance of victory. Ed Randell, Sam Nunn, Wesley Clark and Bill Richardson are probably the best bets.
-
NO HE WON'T
He should pick a grown-up. another know-nothing, resume-lite, light-weight, George W. Bush, needed a grown-up. And so will Barack Obama.
Then again, Obama won't be President, so it really doesn't matter,does it?
-
Ed Rendell should be on Obama's list
I think Ed Rendell should be on this list. He is from the heart of the area where Obama did not fair well, in the Rust Belt...and he is Jewish which would allay some fears about support of Israel and bring Florida back into play.