new tactic??

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: rural - Francesca ]

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
one thread per thought???

new tactic??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

No! I just thought that things will get mixed up if the Democratic and Republican running mates are discussed in the same thread. And the other thread about Clinton and Obama is about which of those two will win, not who their running mates will be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rural - Francesca:

{ssshhhhhh I didn't read them right and missed the subtle difference and jumped before thinking - I'm so ashamed. I came back to delete my entry and pretend it never happened, but someone quoted me already}

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

{{{{{just between us, I deleted my post...}}}}}

---

[[[[[[thanks - I appreciate that - but the damage is done, and I must stand and face the consequences of being an idiot]]]]]]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[QB]Question: Is it lawful in the U.S. for a president who has served two terms to run for the position of vice-president?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I doubt Obama would choose Clinton, and if, by some miracle Clinton wins, I can't see her choosing Obama either.

---

Obama is an Illinois senator and Clinton is a New York senator. It is generally considered a big no-no for both the Presidential candidate and Vice Presidential candidate to be from the North - the South would be pissed (although for some reason it is perfectly Ok for both to be the South).

quote:

---

But I don't think Edwards alienated either of them, and he's "left" enough to play good cop for the party's left-wing who might be tempted to go third party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

No. I believe it is the 12th ammendment which states that if someone cannot lawfully be President then they cannot run for VP.

---

I actually thought this was still a point of controversy:

quote:

---

Some have questioned the interpretation of the Twenty-second Amendment as it relates to the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, which provides that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear if a two-term president could later be elected—or appointed—vice president. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States Presidential line of succession. Others contend that while a two-term president is ineligible to be elected or appointed to the office of Vice President, he or she could succeed from a lower position in the line of succession which he or she is not excluded from holding. Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election. Neither theory has ever been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency, and thus, the courts have never had an opportunity to decide the question.

---

So, until this is cleared up, I'm still pushing for George W. Bush as the Democratic running mate - if he agrees, of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Is it lawful in the U.S. for a president who has served two terms to run for the position of vice-president?

If so, I would suggest that Obama/Clinton pick George W. Bush as their running mate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
So, until this is cleared up, I'm still pushing for George W. Bush as the Democratic running mate - if he agrees, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Should I start a Facebook group?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Well, at least that would quell the assassination fears.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I am going to bet Edwards, because I doubt Obama would choose Clinton, and if, by some miracle Clinton wins, I can't see her choosing Obama either.

---

Even if she offered it to Obama, I can't imagine him accepting it. Why would he want to play second fiddle to the de facto Vice President (Bill Clinton)?

I think that if Obama selected Edwards, the Democratic base would be extraordinarily supportive of the ticket. I'm not sure how that would play out in the general election, though, with independents.

(2) Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio, elected in 2006
- Represents a marginal state, that went Republican in 2000 and 2004 by 4% and 2% -- he could help to swing it Democratic
- Supporting Clinton during current Ohio primary - nominating him could help heal the wounds with Clinton supporters, by nominating someone who supported her during primary season
- Danger would be any negative comment he made about Obama would be repeated endelssly -- Still, when George Bush I ran for the nomination against Reagan and said negative things, those things didn;t stop Reagan form making a wise political choice for his ticket at the time

(3) Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia
- Biggest problem would be that he is running to replace Republican John Warner in the Senate, and everyone currently believes that Mark Warner is the presumptive favourite to win the Senate seat, and that there may not be another Democrat who would be a presumptive favourite
- M Warner would help carry a state that has always voted Republican for decades, but is trending more Democratic -- lost by 8% in 2000 and 9% in 2004
- Would fulfill the Democratic tradition of needing a Southerner to be on the ticket for the ticket to succeed (rural Missouri can be seen as the South -- visit Branson for a show, if you like, but McCaskill's a former City Councillor in Columbia, and not seen as a quasi-Southerner by most)

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Robo ]

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Robo ]

Al Gore

Michael Bloomberg: Independent, Mayor of New York. He is opposed to the death penaty (something that can't be said Obama or HRC) Pro-choice, Pro gun control, Pro fighting climate change, pro public health care.

Phil Bredesen Governor of Tennessee.

Tim Kaine Governor of Virginia.

Chuck Hegel Republican Senator from Nebraska who was more often then not at odds with the Bush Administration.

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

John Derbyshire on Al Gore

"The Democratic party has two lame candidates, without a dime’s worth of executive experience between them. Competing on the campaign trail, by August each will have thoroughly alienated the other’s supporters, and turned off the voting public. Meanwhile, in the wings, there is this guy who was vice president for eight years, who ran a campaign for the presidency and actually won it! (well, according to party lore). He looks presidential, with a fine strapping physique and a big square jaw. You’re hankering after moral authority? How about a Nobel Peace Prize, for crying out loud!!

But … does he want it? Does Al Gore want to be the president of the United States?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Maybe if Obama offers Ralph Nader the V.P. Nader will withdraw from running in the general elections????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Ralph Nader is far too principled to support an imperialist prick like Obama.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Michael Bloomberg: Independent, Mayor of New York. He is opposed to the death penaty (something that can't be said Obama or HRC)

---

That's the first that I've heard that Obama does not oppose the death penalty. That's shocking, really. HRC's position doesn't surprise me (Billy was for the death penalty, too) but Obama?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Edwards only served one term in the Senate and spent a good chunk of that time running for president.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Ralph Nader is far too principled to support an imperialist prick like Obama.

---

excerpt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
But apparently not too principled to throw his support behind an imperialist prick like John Edwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Its a sorry world if the choices are snake oil or the bottle with Nader's 'principles' in it.

---

There is no meaningful choice, unfortunately, and the U.S. is doomed until people start to figure that out and organize independently.

That said, I think Bill Richardson is an ideal pick for Obama. Being from the southwest you have some degree of regional balancing. Secondly, Richardson's roots in the Hispanic community can keep the base strong for Obama, and keep the Democrats competitive in states like New Mexico (a swing state that he will certainly carry), Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Finally, Richardson has a very impressive resume including domestic and foreign policy experience. Is he charismatic? No - that's Obama's job.

Ted Strickland has backed Hillary Clinton, and is, like Obama, from the rust belt. In that sense there might be tension, and, although Ohio is a swing state, I am not sure it will add a lot to the ticket. Moreover, while Strickland is popular in Ohio, he was only elected two years ago. I could see some resentment developing over that.

I don't know anything about Strickland, but someone who would appeal in swing Rust Belt states would be the ideal vote appeal addition to the ticket.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
Let me firstly say that I am not under the illusion that presidential candidates often pick their defeated primary foes (Edwards in '04 and Bush in '80 are the only ones I can think of).

---

Working backwards and from memory:

On the assumption that Obama is the nominee, the conventional wisdom is that he needs his own Cheney to fend off attacks about inexperience in the defence/foreign policy realm. Bill Richardson and Joe Biden would have to be on the shortlist. On the other hand, Obama's campaign is all about defying conventional wisdom, and there's a risk that having someone like Richardson on the ticket with him would just underline his lack of experience. In that regard, Kathleen Sebelius is another name that is being increasingly bandied about - perhaps as a symbolic olive branch to Clinton's most hardcore supporters (ie white women), as well as red-state voters. Someone at DailyKos made an interesting case for either Bill Bradley or Wes Clark to get the nod: link. Of these two, I think Clark would probably be the smarter choice - I have a lot of time for Bradley, but I think Clark has broader appeal, especially in red states, plus he's close to the Clintons and could be seen as a unifying figure.

If Clinton is the nominee, one would think Clark would probably be on the shortlist, as would Richardson. Apparently Evan Bayh is widely seen as Clinton's choice but I think she would be well advised to look at people like Jim Webb and Ted Strickland as well.

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: ghoris ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Putting it bluntly, Hispanics vote Dem so strongly that it isn't high in the list of priorities for appeals they are looking for in a VP candidate.

I don't know anything about Strickland, but someone who would appeal in swing Rust Belt states would be the ideal vote appeal addition to the ticket.

You can win or lose a presidential election on Ohio, Michigan and Florida.

---

Putting it bluntly, you are just plain wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Hispanic voters in 2004 exit polls:
Bush: 44%
Kerry: 53%

2000 exit polls
Bush: 35%
Gore: 62%

Republicans have made considerable in-roads with Hispanic voters and are nominating McCain, who is liberal on immigration. On top of that, Hispanic voters have shown considerable resistance to Barack Obama's charms, strongly supporting Hillary Clinton.

If that weren't enough, the Hispanic population in the US is very strategically concentrated in states that are often close come election time.
Winning margin (2004) in...
Nevada: 2.3%
Arizona: 10.4%
New Mexico: .8%
Colorado: 4.7%
Florida: 5%
California: 10%
New York: 18%
New Jersey: 6.7%

In 2000:
Nevada: 2.5%
Arizona: 6%
New Mexico: .06%
Colorado: 8%
Florida: .01%
California: 12%
New York: 25%
New Jersey: 16%

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
That said, I think Bill Richardson is an ideal pick for Obama. Being from the southwest you have some degree of regional balancing.

---

Part of my problem is still living in the Hispanic states of America I grew up in- even though I know better.

Alonf those lines- while Hispanics are not concentrated in swing Rust Belt states like Ohio and Michigan, they are present in significant numbers to effect the typical very close races in those states.