If it's not Hillary, should Obama pick Evan Bayh or Wes Clark for VP?

Or some other person who has been a strong Hillary supporter?

I can understand the ambivalence or outright opposition to Hillary as his VP choice, but I am an Obama supporter. However, the flip side is I do believe the party must nominate a VP candidate who satisfies the Clinton constituency. Regardless of how folks feel about Hillary, ultimately Obama needs their support to win this thing.

Of course, the pundits are all over the place concerning the likelihood that Obama will offer the VP slot to her and subsequently, if she would even be interested. But when the dust settles, I imagine if it is not Hillary, Obama's VP choice at least needs the Clinton seal of approval.

We need to rebuild Democratic party unity and this has to be an important consideration.

I personally think it should be up to Barack.

Seems to me he needs to strike a balance with being the "change candidate" and at the same time, honoring the will of the electorate who voted for a strong second place finisher.

He needs to have a magnanimous approach to this whole thing - ya know, good vibes and all.

Bayh is an opportunist and a political boss.

Wes Clark was weaker than Kerry. He can't give a speech, and military cred can be found elsewhere.

Former Reagan admin; military; knows Appalachia; Virginia.....

I like Clark but we need an attack dog.

No Bayh.

n/t

But back to my OP question; would Webb satisify the Clinton camp?

Or does Obama need to even factor that into the mix?

He needs to pick the VP who will help him win the presidency and that can't hinge on demands from the Clinton camp. I don't think Hillary would add anything to the ticket; in fact, I think she'd be a detriment.

But I think it would appeal to a lot of the voters who have supported Clinton in the primary, i.e. the "working-class white" voters.

Plus Webb has an important Virginia seat for us.

Given his history of sexism. Yes, I know he has repudiated his words in that "Women Can't Fight" article, but he has not repudiated the position that women shouldn't be in combat positions.

Not all women would care about it, of course, and maybe not enough to swing the election, but why should Obama take that chance when there are so many other good alternatives out there who *wouldn't* raise the ire of some women?

Besides which, I think he's a bit of a loose cannon that could end up hurting Obama.

Tough call.

Anyone but Evan Bayh or Ed Rendell.

But my first choice is Jim Webb.

Webb is tough as nails and it shows when he's speaking publicly. JMHO :shrug:

Webb is a strong, authoritative and very credible speaker, with a strong, authoritative and credible background. He would be good.

Obama and Webb would be a good pairing.

Sen. Obama's first criteria should be to ask whether his VP can step in and lead the country in a time of crisis. Both Clark and Bayh are thoroughly qualified and could assume leadership should the unthinkable occur.

Both Clark and Bayh also have excellent foreign policy and national security credentials. They would both be a real asset to an Obama administration's foreign policy team.

Finally, both men are genuine patriots who care about this country. While they supported Hillary in the primary, they both understand the need to move this country in a different direction. I'd be more than satisfied to have them living at the Observatory.

There are other good picks as well. Joe Biden would be a superb vice president and foreign policy advisor, as would Bill Richardson or Jane Harman. Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, and Phil bredesen have track records as sensible and innovator executives.

DLC delende est.

How many Dean supporters do you believe sat out the 2004 elections or voted for bush? 1%? 2%

Democrats vote for Democrats, especially when it matters.

You are buying into the fear and scare tactics of the Clinton campaign to try to make her obviously failed run still relevant.

Yes we reach out and invite her voters in. Yes we ask them for their vote. Yes, we expect Democrats to support the Democratic nominee.

But no, we don't have to bribe them so they act in their own best interests. That's crazy.

Obama will choose whoever he thinks will help him win the GE. My guess is he knows a lot more about that than you do. So don't worry, be happy that change is coming. And change means not paying bribes for votes.

Edith Johnson, of Plains, NY has been a very strong Clinton supporter. Should Obama choose her so you have less fear?

By the way, unless Obama is just kidding about change and a new direction, he won't choose Clinton. It has nothing to do with dust, nothing to do with liking or disliking, nothing to do with past insults.

It has everything to do with integrity. Integrity of Obamas over-riding and consistent campaign message since day one. Change! Change we can believe in! We are the change we seek! Change for the better!

Unless you believe that Obama can afford to destroy his message and that doing so will help him win.

Have you knocked on many doors for Obama this primary? I have. I talk to Clinton voters all the time here in Montana. They say they are voting for Clinton, but if Obama wins the primary, they will support him in the GE.

Just like real Democrats. Relax and try not to base your decisions and your thought process on fear.

How many Clinton voters know who Evan Bayh is? 2% ? Maybe?

Us'n Clinton voters just isn't as Edicated and Sofistikated like the Obama voters!

What an insulting, demeaning post this is. Grow up!

After a 16 month grueling primary slog, I'm simply posing a question which takes into consideration the feelings of the losing team. Some may not think it is relevant, I'm not so sure.

Now I'm not talking about appeasing those DINO's who threaten to vote for McCain if Clinton is not the VP - in my view they are either full of shit, or not real Dems anyway.

The gist of my question is does Obama owe Clinton supporters anything? Not a bribe, but a thoughtful consideration - and I assume Obama would not compromise his vision anyway. The challenge is finding a person good for both camps.

If Obama wins the Presidency, what will he owe McCain?

My guess would be nothing.

Anymore than he owes Kucinich, Biden, Gravel, Dodd, Richardson and Edwards anything. They all ran long grueling campaigns.

Is it your opinion that he owes them an appointment of either them or one of their allies because they decided to seek the office?

I don't know where this "also ran is entitled to a power position" concept came from.

I think if we want to apportion power based on the vote, we should just get a parliamentary system.

This cult-of-personality stuff isn't good for the country, IMHO. It's very bad for the country.

And it's all made up. There is nothing in the legal documents that guide our country to suggest that it should be done, needs to be done, or is a good idea that it's done.

I'm positive Obama will employ a bunch of Sen. Clintons former campaign talent in his GE campaign. I'm certain Obama will treat Sen. Clinton with respect and will seek her counsel.

But no, he doesn't owe her a thing just because she ran for the office. And he doesn't owe her voters a thing just because they preferred her for the office over him.

If that were the case, Sen. Clinton would owe me, since I preferred Obama for the office, Kucinich for the office, and Edwards for the office over her.

IMHO..

By God he has earned that priviledge and he should have the latitude to pick a VP that is inline with his philosophy and can carry his message credibly.

I like both Clark and Webb.

I am a Hillary supporter. I support her because I believe she could win the general election and she would be a very good, grounded, President.
Even though Clark is not as abrasive as Webb, he states his position clearly and suscinctly. So I believe that either of them would be a great addition to either of the primary candidates on the fall Democratic ticket.

Experience, gravitas, no political aspirations in his future.

Much like Cheney was/is for Bush.

I like him, but I don't think he would generate a lot enthusiasm as a VP choice.

Clark do not.

Tim Kaine meets the criteria, as does Clair McCaskill, Ted Strickland, Bob Graham, Ed Rendell, and Bill Richardson.

I'd like (1) a non-Washington DC VP who (2) does not cost the ticket any support and -- above all -- (3) brings electoral votes.

Hillary fails all three criteria.

Clark falls short of only the last criteria. Clark would have been an excellent VP in 2004 because the war was such a huge issue in that election, but I believe the economy will be a bigger issue in 2008 and that's just not Clark's -- of Jim Webb's -- strong suit. I mentioned Kaine instead of Webb above because I think Webb and Kaine both meet all of the criteria, but I like Webb in the Senate and term-limited Governor Kaine on the ticket to bolster Virginia.

Just not as much as his military credentials. He holds a master’s degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar. For three years he taught economics and political philosophy at West Point.

And I think he'd play well with Obama and his staff. He was anti-war from the start (testifying in Congress against the IWR that Hillary voted for), and here's a remark from an Iowa Obama supporter in an article about an event in 2007 on Hillary's behalf:



http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1588

we fill in the blank with Kaine, Virgina becomes an easier win; McCaskill and Missouri becomes an easier win; Graham and Florida becomes an easier win; Stricklans and Ohio becomes an easier win; etc.

I was just responding to your point about the 2008 election being more about economics than the war.

And, of course, that could change if the situation in Iraq changes, or, gods forbid, if bushit attacks Iran.

Nope to either.

Almost all of them will come home on their own. But Clark is a solid Dem, and offers the opportunity to beat up on McCain without pulling any punches because of his age or his war record.

And that's because he doesn't seem to be devoted to the DLC agenda. The DLC is NOT going to hijack this ticket. And Hillary's "seal of approval" isn't required for shit. She lost.


There's probably a reason why the General has been silent lately. He endorsed Hillary some time last fall when she still appeared "inevitable", but hasn't commented on the election since then, to my knowledge.

Clark seems to me like he is capable of putting his country and his party before the Almighty Clintons. He's been on my "short list" for VP for a while now.

Evan Bayh? No way in Hell. Complete DLC suckup.

Bayh is so freaking boring and his politics have nothing to do with Obama's. Clark would be a great choice although I now find myself leaning more towards Jim Webb.

DLC and Virtual-DLC.

;)

it will be based on extortion.

... ;-)