The dubious reliability of running-mate polls
By Steve Benen Wednesday May 14, 2008 7:30amA couple of the new national polls out today point to a lot of Dems who seem to think Hillary Clinton would be a fine running mate. The latest numbers from Gallup point to a majority of rank-and-file Dems who like the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket.
A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed think Obama should offer the New York senator a spot on his ticket. That number is significantly influenced by Clinton’s supporters — close the 75 percent of her backers want the No. 2 spot to be offered, while only 43 percent of Obama supporters feel the same.
The poll comes as some of Clinton’s highest profile backers increasingly suggest Obama and Clinton should team up for the general election. Speaking in New York Friday, Sen. Chuck Schumer said he at first didn’t think such a team was possible but now believes “it could be.”
In the new WaPo/ABC poll, Dems were given an open-ended question about a possible Obama running mate, and about four in 10 named Clinton as their choice, followed by John Edwards, who drew 10%. (The Post added, “[M]ost Americans, including a slim majority of Democrats, said putting Clinton on the ticket would not have much effect on their vote in November.”)
I don’t doubt that Clinton enjoys an enormous base of support within the party. That should be pretty obvious — she’s won more 15 million Democratic votes at this point. For her most enthusiastic supporters, having Clinton on the ticket, even in the #2 slot, might very well be better than nothing.
But I thought I’d take a minute to note that polls about running mates don’t mean a whole lot.
I went back and started poking through polls from the 2000 race, shortly after Bush and Gore had effectively secured their respective party’s nomination. Asked who the candidates should pick for their tickets, a Zogby poll from March 2000 showed Bill Bradley as the top choice for Dems, followed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. Republicans in the poll were nearly tied between Elizabeth Dole and John McCain. A few weeks later, a Fox News poll showed similar results, with Bradley and McCain getting pluralities. In May 2000, an NBC/WSJ poll found the same thing.
Four years later, Dems were asked in the spring of 2004 who John Kerry should pick for the Democratic ticket. Most polls showed John Edwards as the clear favorite, with Hillary Clinton coming in second in several polls. (Wesley Clark and Howard Dean also fared pretty well in these polls.)
I think you see where I’m going with this. These VP polls tend to measure name recognition — and most VP candidates aren’t well known to a national audience. Before 2000, I suspect most Republicans were not at all familiar with Dick Cheney, but then they got to know him pretty quickly. The same was true of Joe Lieberman.
I did a radio show the other day, and mentioned some names of people I thought Obama might consider, including Sebelius, Webb, Strickland, Sherrod Brown, and Napolitano. I was talking to some pretty well-informed people, but of the group, only Webb’s name was familiar. If they were polled with an open-ended question, these names wouldn’t have come up at all.
The point isn’t whether Clinton would be a good choice for Obama or not; that’s a separate matter. The point is these VP polls don’t tell us a whole lot. Obama may very well pick a running mate who isn’t nationally known, but I suspect we’d all get to know him or her pretty quickly.
Login or Register to post comments.
He should be careful. With Hil in the #2 spot Obama would always be in danger of a toaster exploding in his shower while he's 'cleaning' his gun. He should find new friends to play with.
Oh Yeah! Far Freaking Frist!
Hillary would be an excellent running mate …
… if the goal was to win the Democratic Primaries, again.
the media will NOT STOP trying to manipulate the election. the exit polling has been focusing on whether Hil supporters will vote for Obama or if Obama supporters will vote for Hil. they want to inflict maximum damage on the dems during the process. the fact the hil and barack overcame the media and fought such a close race and brought out tens of millions of new voters is scaring the shit out of them.
nanderson @ 1:
ROTFLMBBAO!!
:<[)
Clinton finally has said that voting for McCain over Obama would be a mistake. Really, that is not what she, and Bill, said before, repeatedly.
Obama/Edwards
To ignore Clinton's supporters will be to reduce Obama's chances. Neither side has the kind of preponderance that bodes well for the Nov election. The Republicans are very good at holding their noses. Democrats are fastidious. I would want to keep lines of communication open to Clinton's supporters and encourage the more rabid Obamists to cool it.
You don't want the DLC to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, sorry. John Edwards would make great assassination insurance.
Clinton would be best on the Supreme Court, she would never need to pander again. You might find out she is actually a Liberal.
the vp is picked to bring in electoral votes, no ill baggage, and nothing else.
nanderson @ 1:
Yeah, I always enjoy cleaning my gun in the shower.
Hillary could actually be a good addition to the ticket. She won most of the reliably Democratic states, and Obama the red states and the swing states. Together they could put a lock on the election.
However, I suspect she'd have to go to a lot of foreign leader's funerals.
nanderson @ 1:
Great one right out of the gate!!
Newsflash: As of Edward's Obama endorsement last night, I wouldn't expect to see The Shriek on the ticket. She may get a cabinet post or better still a Supreme Court nomination, but she wont be the veep.
Clinton would be great on the Supreme Court. She has probably actually read the Constitution.
Obama should pick Jim Webb for Veep. Strong on defense, incredibly smart, ex-member of Reagan Administration, but a strong Dem who can speak and speak well. And, best of all, Webb has a proven track record of winning pissing contests against Bush. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-29-webb-bush_x.htm
Hillary is a leader and perfect for the job of Senate majority leader.
i think i was one of the first on C and L to propose a ticket of Obama and Hillary joining forces with one at the top and the other as the running mate. i took a lot of flak from the contributors here over than one, and in retrospect, rightly so.
In truth, hillary has shown herself to be ruthless in attempting to attain the nomination. there is a caveat there though, we pretty much only know what we read in the media. AND WE ALL KNOW THE INTEGRITY OF REPORTING OF THAT BODY OF WORK. They would sell their proverbial mother for a story. That said, however, I don't personally believe that hillary has acquitted herself well in waging her campaign. For that matter, i don't believe Obama is much better, but hell, what you going to do? Those are the front runners. so the choice is between either one of them or a senile bush follower. And if anyone truly cares about what happens to this country, there must be a drastic change in direction. I've given up on incarceration of the thieves, so the most we can hope for is change. We can begin with a woman and Black man in the White House. Geez, i hope they govern my strong ethics.
sorry not govern my strong ethics but govern with strong ethics. speaking of getting old and senile.
Alice (once a Naderite always…) @ 9:
You've been listening to Randi Rhodes too much.
I'd like to see Obama come out at the convention with a dream slate of cabinet members and appointments.
Imagine having a whole group come forward and say they're ready to serve their country and turn this mess around: Gore heading up a Manhatten Project for Climate Change, Edwards on Poverty, Hillary on national health care until a space on the Supreme Court opens up, Waxman and Conyers on investigating and fixing what the Bush Junta has done, Madeline Albright or Bill Richardson for Sec of State, Webb for Veep, Wesley Clark for Sec Def.
And, once the convention is settled and Obama's the nominee, ask Bill Clinton to represent us to the UN and the world - hatred of the US would start dropping immediately, the world still loves Bill and it would give him a stage, and he does love a stage.
Considering what passes for scholarship among the majority of Americans (Creationism is the single largest bunch of kooks to snooker people into believing batshit stuff) I wouldn't be surprised they've got bad methodology here. And Edwards is a tool for jumping in to support Obama when the primaries are as near to over as they can get.
clinton would be a lousy choice, so too edwards...
webb or mckaskill.....those are the only qualified candidates; obama will pick one of them....
clinton is entitled to nothing, not even forcing some half-wit like bayh onto the ticket...
uh, that is a terrible idea. barack needs to pick someone that the right would be afraid of ever assuming office. i'm sorry, but we live in reality and the reality is the first black president is going to need alot of security. and part of that security is getting someone for vp that the republicans can't stand. i'm talking a dennis kucinich type. someone who would assure there's no attempt to remove barack from office.
Jim Webb. Please pick Jim Webb.
If she's anywhere on the ticket the re-PIG-lics will still run against her.
Second place in the primaries doesn't entitle her to a spot on the ticket.
I've had to re-evaluate her as a candidate the past few months and I don't like what she showed us.
*
Haulin' Oates @ 23:
kucinich would be the worst choice possible....in fact, i had never imagined a scenario where obama could lose the general....but picking kucinich for veep could do it, and likely would....
it would surely protect obama though....he'd never see the whitehouse, and wouldn't have to worry about the scenario you allude to.
Is Obama going to be "blackmailed" into giving Hillary the 2nd spot on the ticket? Is he going to be forced to take her along because if he doesn't she will tell her supporters to vote for McCain? Wouldn't put it past her. Hillary alone wouldn't be so bad but you can be guaranteed that Bill comes with her. He is much more dangerous than Hillary. Obama would be #3 in the White House; Bill #1 and Hillary #2. Bill Clinton will not give up his legacy without a fight.
Ah so if she can't be the new Bush she would want to be the new Cheney? I am telling you, she is not a Democrat. She is power hungry and would fight to keep things as they are and march toward a dictatorship. Fortunately if she does end up on the ticket, Obama is not an idiot like Bush and hopefully he would keep her in line if she didn't have him assassinated first. I honestly believe she would do ANYTHING to get her slimy hands on the presidency and having her as VP would put her one step away in the event anything "unfortunate" happened to Obama.
What those polls really reflect is that Dems want the candidates to UNIFY. They would be equally as happy if Clinton stopped that attacks, conceded, and then campaigned for Obama and his running mate. Clinton is going to poll high in the democratic party because her name is old and familiar. However she negatives poll extremely high outside the democratic party. If its Obama's goal to reach out the weary republicans and independents he needs a better nominee.
Also, can you imagine the attack ads if Clinton was his running mate? They would only need to use her words to attack him on everything from Wright, to experience, to race-baiting - even her endorsement of McCain over Obama's experience. It would be a nightmare - not to mention the Hillary and Bill scandals. Obama would spend all his time defending her, and Hillary would spend all her time refuting comments she's been makin for almost 6 months straight. It would be a huge disaster that would mobilize the GOP base (and also improve their chances at gaining senate/house seats).
Lets face it. The mainstream media is cozy with the current political (republican) leadership. They are going to push hard to box Obama in, because that is exactly what their republican-leaning corporate sponsors and board members want. Hillary on the ticket is the only way to salvage the republican party. They need a huge, constant diversion that can keep Obama off-message. Hillary as running mate would do exactly that.
An Average Joe @ 19:
I never listen to Randi Rhodes, is that what she says?
My opinion is that for a VP pick, you want two things:
1) Money
2) Votes
Clinton has shown herself to be the second-best fundraiser in the party, and one of the two best vote-getters in the party (very likely 2nd, but technically the primaries aren't over). Obama's and Clinton's politics are very similar on many issues. I think it would be a good match.
ysbaddaden @ 12:
Funerals would be safe, no sniper fire!
Haulin' Oates @ 23:
The people who have currently won primaries for Hillary that account for 295 electoral votes and counting. Well beyond the 270 needed to capture the Presidency. Obama/Clinton would demolish McCain.
http://www.diversityj.com/ElectoralVoteStates.html
Hillary certainly got the Republicans out to vote for her. Rush's Operation Chaos has been good to her.
As to putting her on the Supreme Court, her old clients at Monsanto would probably like that.
The problem with Hillary as VP is twofold. A) She cannot be trusted. B) It would renege on the foundation of his campaign, that is change. She is the epitome of old school politics, cynical triangulation. Let her become a powerhouse compromiser in the senate.
Alice (once a Naderite always…) @ 31:
I was thinking they wouldn't want to be in the same room together.
You think Hillary would ever say of Obama, "My husband and I...?"
Maybe in 2012 or 2016, we can have Nancy Pelosi running for President with Harry Reid as her running mate? Or even better, Joe Lieberman as her running mate?
Maybe Hillary can choose old Joe now?
Weaseldog @ 36:
Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine which is an arm of the Kennedy national political machine.
Connect the dots.
ohio progressive @ 26:
i agree. i didn't mean it should be kucinich, just someone who the right wouldn't want to see as president. there are so many problems w/ hillary being vp it should be out of the question. what about bill? how do you control his crazy ass?
Hillary won't be anyone’s VP. Her ego won't allow her to be second in command.
Her self centered refusal to accept the fact that the race has been over since February, The lowdown tactics she has resorted to and the attempts to manipulate the voting process to favor her are all proof that she represents herself above all else. This is not the type of person we need in the white house!
IMHO Dennis Kucinich would make a better choice for President and Obama would be great as his VP. If I can't have that then i could settle for DK as VP. He actually gives a damn about the people he represents and has an intense respect for the constitution and the rule of law. With DK in office Bush and Cheney would be in real peril of being prosecuted for their war/constutional crimes.
lilorphant @ 24:
Yeah!! the man who has stood up to Bush repeatedly AND who beat racist Macaca Allen in Virginia - excellent choice for veep. Imagine Webb digging into what Cheney has been doing all these years.....
I won't vote for any ticket that includes a Republican on it.
Picking Edwards would be like a curse. He's already lost twice (2004, 2008) and he couldln't even deliver his home state in 2004!
He brings nothing to the ticket. Voters are independent people who will decide for themselves. They don't need edwards to tell them who to vote for.
F P @ 30:
And the first 11 million off the top goes to pay off her debt which would mean it would go into her bank account since she is adept at convincing herself to contribute to her campaign as long as she gets her money back.
Kucinich would be better on the Supreme Court than anywhere else. Can you imagine a Supreme Court with Hillary and Kucinich balancing out Alito and Roberts? Oh, the fun - and we might see the Constitution start being restored. Wouldn't that be nice?
rooth hussein @ 44:
I would prefer Russ Feingold.
Haulin' Oates @ 38:
Give him the job of hiring new interns?
A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed think Obama should offer the New York senator a spot on his ticket. That number is significantly influenced by Clinton’s supporters — close the 75 percent of her backers want the No. 2 spot to be offered, while only 43 percent of Obama supporters feel the same.
HA HA HA WHAT A LOSER TICKET THAT WOULD BE..... HAVING A VP WHO THINKS YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT ? ? ?
THERE ARE MANY MANY OTHER CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION.... INCLUDING OTHER WOMEN... HISPANICS... AND PROBABLY A DWARF OR TWO
WHAT AN ABSOLUTE MISTAKE IT WOULD BE... THE DEMS ARE KILLING THE GOP IN ALL ELECTIONS RIGHT NOW... DONT FALL FOR THE BAIT!!!!!!!!!
IN FACT.... LETS START THE NUMBERS WITH THIS ONE.....
---------------PUT HILLARY ON THE TICKET AND I WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN
AND I AM AN EDWARDS DEMOCRAT WHO SWITCHED TO OBAMA WHEN EDWARDS DROPPED OUT OF THE RACE....
I DO SUGGEST PUTTING HER ON THE WHITEHOUSE STAFF HOWEVER.... AS PHONE OPERATOR SHE COULD AWAKEN YOU WHEN THAT 3AM CALL COMES IN ! ! !!
As for any of the possibles for president ever bringing any member of the Bush cabal to justice:
My prediction is that Bush has kept himself separated enough from the nasty goings on in his administration that he's going to end up issuing massive pardons on the way out for *everyone* in the administration who has done anything wrong under his command, thereby cheating the American public out of any sort of justice for the last eight years' worth of incompetence, graft and corruption. And he'll skate on out of there back to his fake accent and Crawford ranch, probably to take some well-paying board positions like his father.
Of course, I'd love to be wrong about all of that.
Alice (once a Naderite always…) @ 31:
How do we know Fred Phelps won't resort to that?
nanderson @ 1:
That was exactly my thought, although I imagined his plugged in radio falling in the shower while he's shaving with a straight razor.
I have been thinking Obama/Clinton would be the answer for a long time. It would unite the party, and as someone pointed out yesterday Bill Clinton is still widely respected throughout the world and could perhaps bring our international standing back to pre-Bush levels.
I have noticed that Obama supporters are rather nasty when it comes to Clinton and I think it's time to heal the party. Obama/Clinton would crush McCain. And for petes sake people let's try to keep in mind that THAT IS OUR GOAL!
moondancer @ 34:
there's also the problem of who she gets her money from and panders to. obama needs to keep his platform on message; with hillary that's not going to happen.
i don't know why so many people emphasize picking a veep for the ticket who they think will strategically pick up some part of the country or demographic hitherto unavailable to the frontrunner.
seems it's more important to pick someone who's a lot like the frontrunner. for one, it keeps the message coherent; for two, it's a damn good life insurance policy, especially when our political party has historically seen our greatest luminaries snuffed out by our opponents (see jfk, rfk, mlk, etc.).
lbj was a disastrous choice for jfk personally, and for america in general. a military industrial trojan horse who helped facillitate the needless deaths of 58,000 americans. i'm convinced neocon trojan horse joe lieberman would have been an equally bad vice president.
remember when bill clinton picked al gore? now, that's how you do it. find another you, regardless of where he's from, a guy who can be counted on to fulfill your agenda if you die on the job.
i like jim webb or john edwards for obama, but i'm leaning toward edwards because i don't think webb will be particularly effective sitting on his @$$ as veep, i like him better in the senate. and to be clear, i genuinely hope the vice president under obama winds up sitting on his @$$ for 8 yrs. -that's how the job used to be, and that's how i hope it is again.
john edwards would be a great guy for that job. what else is he doing? he's smart, likable, decent, arguably more progressive than obama, free of lobbyist influence, and he could be relied upon to carry out obama's vision, if needed.
obama / edwards 2008
and a few cabinet ideas:
treasury: michael bloomberg
state: bill richardson
defense: wesley clark
attorney general: patrick fitzgerald
Haulin' Oates @ 23:
great point. and it would put kucinich back in the running after the media ruled him out. I hope he surfaces again. But would barrack actually listen to him???
MarcyJ @ 51:
with all due respect, there isn't a republican in america who will vote for a ticket with the name "clinton" anywhere on it. hate to break it to you, but limpballs' "operation chaos" stooges aren't really going to vote for her in the general.
i wouldn't vote for a ticket w/ the name "clinton" on it myself, but for different reasons. i just think it's absolutely bat$#!+ crazy that here in america, the land of the free, we haven't been able to vote for or against a ticket w/out the names "bush" or "clinton".
1980: reagan/bush vs. carter/mondale
1984: reagan/bush vs. mondale/ferraro
1988: bush/quayle vs. dukakis/bentsen
1992: bush/quayle vs. clinton/gore
1996: dole/kemp vs. clinton/gore
2000: bush/cheney vs. gore/lieberman
2004: bush/cheney vs. kerry/edwards
2008: mccain/? vs. obama/?
no more damn dynasties!
Alan @ 7:
So let me get this straight; Clinton supporters demand respect or else, and yet you feel it is the Obama supporters the rabid ones?
So far if I have learn one thing this election cycle, it is about the infinite capacity for projection in Mrs. Clinton camp. Enough already...
L.A. Confidential @ 37:
... so Hillary was right there must a vast conspiracy after all...
LOL
In February I thought a Clinton in the Cheney spot would be a great idea. you know, secretive back-dealing, usurper of power, evil. These are all the things america has learned to expect in a veep. Now, with all the winds to the democrats back we can maybe back off on the 20 year tradition of hedging our bets. We don't need another lieberman dlc member to pretend we are the party of the center. We have some serious shit to shovel over the next 8 years and we need some serious, bold, loyal,attack dogs to save the military, the economy, the environment, my daughters future, etc. And I think we all could appreciate someone who doesn't have the feeling of a dark, shadowy overlord. I don't have any ideas now other than lets stay away from either bat shit crazy ideas like kucinich or chicken shit scared ideas like Clinton. We have good, tough noble members of the party that would both pull some votes and actually make the job of veep worth more than a bucket of warm spit. This is a great job, lets look for the best. Webb ain't a terrible idea.
Lots of silly comments by the mass of arm-chair pundits. It will be interesting to see what happens as we move forward, but people have to calm down. We survived (barely) eight years of Bush/Cheney; I think we can deal with four or eight years of Obama/?. What really gets me is the divide between the Obamaniacs and the Cult of Clinton. Geesh... they're not really that different! They could barely debate issues- it always just came down to "experience" and distractions.
Edwards is an oppertunist , he will make an excellent vp for obama, he fleeced his supporters of thier contributions to his campaghne , he assured his contributers he was in the race to the end , people gave thier hard earned money to him and then knowing allready he made one last plea for cash ,people responded sent in donations he knew full well he was going to drop out but he still milked it for all it was worth, hes a lieing scumbag yeah obama you can have old 400 bucks a hair cut!
MarcyJ @ 51:
We the people need to decide. Not the "powers that be" in Hillary's own party such as Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, James Clyburn, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, and a host of others who've turned on her and have forgotten not only "the goal" but who they really work for and who put them there to begin with.
There's nothing wrong with Obama/Clinton. It would be an omnipotent ticket. We can't start cleaning up this mess until the cons are OUT.
bullfrog @ 54:
With all due respect to you, first of all, the repubs do not like McCain, so I suspect a lot of them won't vote at all. Also, I live in a really Red state and I know these people. I know this is going to sound offensive but the rednecks (that's right, I said it) are not in ten million years going to vote for a liberal black man. My point before was that if we unite and all vote for Obama/Clinton the repubs don't stand a chance. If you think our party is fractured right now you should listen to the right wing talk show guys and the fact is the repubs are WAY more fractured than us. I hear "Conservatives" call into these shows all the time and say they will never, ever vote for John McCain.
So all of us just get over our rabid anger at which ever candidate you did not support and let's get together.
I'm a new Democrat, or an old independent, however you want to look at it, but Clinton would not sit well with independent voters. That's why so many of us independents switched in the primaries: to vote for Obama and vote against Clinton. The Democrats cannot win in the fall without the independents, and besides, you have so many other possibilities which would draw in other demographics better than a Clinton on the ticket.
L.A. Confidential @ 60:
Actually, it should be Obama's, and only Obama's, choice.
With Hillary as VP would Bill be content to stay in the background? I doubt it. The other thing I think would be a detriment is that Obama is running on a platform of change, Hillary is old politics. Kind of like oil and water, they would not mix well.
I really don't know who Obama should pick but I just think Clinton would be a bad choice. Hell, she would probably make his four years miserable in hopes of unseating him in 2012. Remember she said "I am not a quitter".
Look, VP has very little influence on the election - arguably the only influence they have is with their home state (but of course it doesn't make it a lock.) What's going to be important are the people who are in the cabinet and the supreme court nominees. Edwards would be the best attorney general since RFK. Put Gore as Secretary of Energy. SecDef we need to get someone who is much more prudent in the use of force - which means NOT picking a liberal interventionist like Wes Clark who initially supported the Iraq War. I'm tired of hearing people moan "Right war, wrong administration." We're not going to be credible in the international sphere if we pull out from Iraq but remain interested in intervening all over the globe. This is not a call for isolationism - we just need to make sure that if we're sending troops that a) it's absolutely necessary, b) diplomacy can't solve the problem, and c) that we have a strong chance to achieve our goals. That means no Iraqs, no Somolias, no Kosovos.
I nominate Jim Webb for VP. As a person who converted from the Republican party and is against the Iraq War but who is fully in supportive of the troops, he'll garner alot more votes from the right than McBush ever will.
aquarius2 @ 64:
I think she would be a good choice. Look at the two faced losers flocking to Obama. Kerry, Edwards, Pelosi, etc, etc.
Obama's going to need some balance to keep these leeches from taking over his agenda. He could actually get something done with Clinton as VP. Clinton would be the perfect firewall between congress and the oval office so his time isn't wasted on "politics as usual".
Oh, and Cass Sunstein or Martha Nussbaum for Supreme Court.
If Obama were to need a "minder" like the Shrub clearly does, then picking Clinton as Obama's Cheney would make sense. However, Obama doesn't need a minder or a "brain" (more like a tumor) and as such does not need Clinton to help run his administration. As far as helping him get elected, Obama would be better off finding a person with greater electoral appeal; Clinton brings in way too much baggage: she might appeal to some of the Democratic base, but non-Dems will only remember the bad parts of the Clinton administration (and frankly the 90s boom would have happened no matter who was president; and the first Bush recession would probably have happened as well though responsibility for the latest one probably likes in large degree at Bush's doorstep).
What would Zeus do? @ 69:
There are none.
This, is reality.
http://www.diversityj.com/ElectoralVoteStates.html
John @ 66:
Jim Webb is on record that he doesn't want it.
L.A. Confidential @ 67:
Maybe you are right, I just think she would be more diversion than helpful. Remember, this woman wanted the top spot, not the second spot. Oh and for the record Senator Kerry has been an Obama supporter for a long time, I wouldn't call him two faced. The other two you mentioned, not sure but it does seem strange Edwards waited so long to say ANYTHING.
Alan @ 7:
After all the insults from the clinton campaign, including calling supporters of Obama "rabid", I think it best that she be left off the ticket. msm will have a field day asking the clintons why they would run with a man they so openly despised and ridiculed. I don't think that the blatant racism and divisive racial pandering proffered by the clintons would make for a great political platform. And I wonder how long Obama will last with the Clintons one-bullet-away from the presidency.
Colin Powell. He was used by the Bush administation to lie us into a war, severely damaging his credibility in the process. If he switched sides he could redeem himself. Conservatives like him too, which is a plus.
L.A. Confidential @ 67:
you have a shrine to hillary in your secret room?
or is there a substantive reason that Obama should select her after what she's done.
pelosi and reid are politically immobile beggars and the DLC is running out of friends and candidates. Dean's 50-state strategy is blowing them off the map and out of relevance.
kerry and edwards are not beggars. Kerry has neen consistent in his support and Edwards had a sick wife to attend to. Edwards also needed to make sure that Obama was the kind of man he would endorse. And if you think Edwards ever would have supported Hillary, remember the tepid support the clintons gave to democratic candidates Gore and Kerry.
I remember.
Do you?
John A @ 74:
a liar and an opportunist. Colon will never again have credibility.
I'm sure if we look hard enough we would find a poll for VP preerence topped by Elvis, after all everbody knows his name.
I heard this story on NPR last night. It's absurd. Clinton's negatives are enormous, she's on record (unfortunately) viciously attacking Obama in all sorts of ways that do nothing but give grist to the McCain mill, and aside from all of that, he polls by himself ahead of McCain and this is before he's even been declared the nominee officially.
I listened to Mario Cuomo trying to contort himself around the position that Hillary was a unifiying force for the Party and I almost had to stop myself from shouting at my car stereo. It was absurd. The guy is disconnected from reality. The problem with Hillary is that she's DLC, and the DLC has done nothing positive for the Democratic Party in its entire existence. Bill and Hillary used it to get Bill into the Oval Office, and at the same time caused ruinous hemorrhaging of support from the base through their awful, spineless, pathetic triangulation. It's the same triangulation they're doing today that's allowed Joe Lieberman to have any speck of power over the party (though he's a Republican in all but name), that's confirmed one Fascist prick after another to the Supreme Court, that's allowed this imbecilic telco amnesty/FISA issue to come up AGAIN and AGAIN even though the public clearly does not buy the amnesty argument, that's allowed Pelosi to remove all punitive options for the Bushco criminals from the table. Far from being a "fighter" Hillary's actual political acumen is weakness, spinelessness, caving to every far-right hysterical talking point that gets thrown out there. I want her nowhere near the Oval Office. And I'm sure Obama's campaign has long, long, long since picked a shortlist of running mates and I guarantee she's not on it. As vociferously as Obama complained about being added to the DLC's membership list back when he entered Congress, I don't think he is going to go for one of them as his running-mate.
I don't care, just give me Edwards as Attorney General.
Shillary? Not a fucking chance in Hell. Let's just see how she handles the next few payrolls and paying her campaign staffers. We all know she's only in the race to recoup some of her own millions.
It's more than a little funny that the Dems have had MANY good candidates to choose from and after all this it's slowly narrowed down to two, and then there's still the Veep position to deal with. Whereas the reslugs are basically picking the least offensive to them from a crop of losers that nobody wants and that eventually they'll have to pretend to get behind.
Ian Thorpe @ 77:
Elvis Costello? Ain't he a Brit?
I have to admit that I'm deeply ambivalent about Clinton as a running mate for Obama. There would be, I concede, some advantages in an Obama/Clinton ticket -- perhaps the greatest one being a drastic reduction in the risk of creating a split within the party. If nothing else, Clinton might prove to be good assassination insurance. The unpleasant reality is that racism isn't dead in this country, and I unfortunately think there's a good chance of a right-wing extremist element making at least one attempt against Obama before the end of his first term -- but some of these same people absolutely despise the Clintons (Hillary in particular) and I think that the threat of seeing her become President might make them think twice about trying to whack him.
That being said, I also see Clinton as being a liability in several ways and I'm not satisfied that the advantages outweigh or even balance them. Like it or not, the fact is that she comes with a substantial amount of baggage -- potentially enough for the GOP to make the "swift boating" campaign against Kerry in 2004 look like child's play. While some members of the right wing have been inclined to praise Clinton of late, I very much doubt that this praise has been in any way sincere -- I suspect it's sprung from their desire to see her get the Democratic Party nomination because they think she'd be easier for McCain to beat. If she's chosen as Obama's running mate, the people who were formerly praising her will turn on her in a fraction of a second and start throwing whatever they possibly can at her. While we're at it, let's not forget about the so-called "liberal media" (riiiiiight). In the end, it won't matter much whether there's any truth to most of the allegations made against her or not -- did it matter in Kerry's case? Not enough, certainly. If enough of it sticks in the minds of enough people and makes them reluctant to pull the lever/press the button for "Obama/Clinton", it will have done its job. In all honesty, I don't think that Clinton's conduct over the last couple of months has served to refute some of the accusations leveled at her (such as that she's ruthless and untrustworthy) -- in fact, if anything, her behavior has to at least some extent amplified them. I think that Obama has at least a sporting chance of winning against McCain -- or at least, if we were able to eliminate the "wild card" of electronic voting machines (which we can't) -- especially if he chooses his running mate wisely. However, I'm not confident that Clinton is a wise choice.
William @ 79:
guess that would make her another Edwards eh?
In the original Constitution, the POTUS & VPOTUS were the number 1 and 2 vote getters based on the presidential voting system of the day.
This turned out not to work well because, (1 reason among others) they often hated each other. So the method was changed.
However in 2008, it would appear that the #1 & 2 presidential primary election vote getters, are Democrats and presumably do not hate each other. This unique situation deserves weighty consideration going forward.
"The point is these VP polls don’t tell us a whole lot."
I disagree. The fact is, Lieberman did nothing for the Kerry ticket, and Edwards might have. Maybe the candidates should listen to the polls.
Name recognition plays a big roll in elections, and it would be good not to have to start from scratch developing a VP candidate's "story".
These kind of polls, WashPost/ABC are primarily based on name recognition or candidate loyality, but do not take into consideration how the #2 spot benefits the ticket or the electoral map. Basically, they are not based on real analysis and should not be taken seriously.
olo @ 84:
really!
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Bullshit @ 88:
really!
Duh?
Claire McKaskill would be a terrible choice for VP because it's not a foregone conclusion that her Senate seat would remain in Democratic hands. Missouri is counted as a swing state, but it's a perilously red-leaning swing state. The same caveat should apply to Jim Webb, as well. The GOP may be down now, but there's no guarantee that they won't be able to regroup and reclaim those seats when they go back into the mix two years later. It's a bad risk if one wants to build a long-term legislative majority.
If Obama feels the need to pick a female running mate, he should probably pick someone like Kathleen Sibelius.
I don't particularly want to see HRC as VP, but at the very least, her senate seat would be relatively safe were she to vacate it.
BAD - Obama/Webb '08
*Webb voted against a torture bill. Lost points in my book.
*He barely won his VA senate seat. Him as VP means Macaca is back.
GOOD - Obama/Sebelius '08
*Sure her rebuttal of the SOTU this year was dry, but she's a solid democrat
from RED Kansas. If she can win there, then she'll bring lots of indies and moderate R's
*Many voted for Hillary simply b/c she's female...Sebelius is also female.
Obama/Sebelius '08
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Bullshit @ 88:
It's in Article II of the US Constitution.
The only time it happened though was in 1800 when after tied votes the House of Representatives chose Thomas Jefferson as the president, and the second highest voted getter, Aaron Burr, became vice president.
The elephants in the room for Obama are FL and OH. If Clinton can help him win one of those, she'd be worth it. WTF? Why aren't people talking about this? How can you expect Obama to win and lose both FL and OH?
I believe you miss the point entirely, as I see it anyhow. People can't endorse someone they don't know. However, what it does say, just as the Quinnipiac poll does, is that all the who-ha about damage to party unity or to Barack in the GE is nonsense.
The main criticism of Obama pre-flag pin, pre-Wright, pre-bowling ... was his lack of experience (personally, I think he's fine there, and agree that his international background is relevant to his ability to function well as president), so I think he should pick someone who balances that -- Joe Biden, Bill Richardson (if he can borrow GWB's mic-pack for the debate), a high-quality governor (not Mike Easley) etc. Not Hillary (she's damaged herself and him with this campaign, and she's not so experienced either) and not Edwards (good platform this time, but no experience, let NC down in pursuit of his own ambitions - yes, I'm still bitter).
"polls about running mates don’t mean a whole lot."
...unless you agree with the results.
Obama/Sebelius ‘08
*Sure her rebuttal of the SOTU this year was dry, but she’s a solid democrat
from RED Kansas. If she can win there, then she’ll bring lots of indies and moderate R’s
*Many voted for Hillary simply b/c she’s female…Sebelius is also female.
THERE ARE MILLIONS OF DEMOCRATS.... MANY QUALIFIED (9 IN PRIMARIES)....
FEMALE, HISPANIC, TALL, SHORT, AND OCCASIONALLY ALIEN....
OBAMA SHOULD PICK SOMEONE WHO HAILS FROM THE STATE OF.... CHANGE...
NOT HILLARY, WHO HAS BEEN SPENDING MUCH TOO MUCH TIME IN THE STATE OF DENIAL
Two-term Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas is the perfect pick. How is this not obvious to anyone?
-After Richardson, she is far and away the most experienced and qualified candidate out there. A Gov, a Rep, an Insurance Commisioner who actually fought, won, and said no to the insurance companies.
-She brings in wide reaching support from both parties in a redder than red state, yet still carries the same progressive values, ethics, policies, and ideals that Obama and other true-blue Dems do.
-You want to bridge the divide that Hillary left? Sebelius is everything Hillary is, minus the negatives, and everything she is not- clean, likable, and truely experienced.
-Again, she is a Governor, with actual Executive experience. Where did the idea suddenly come from that we should have two Senators on the ticket? Bad idea, besides we need them where they are.
The biggest criticism around Democratic camps was she was too nice or didn't bite enough when she gave the State of the Union Rebutal. What would that solve though? It might make us already on the left feel a little more sure of ourselves, but it will just push back against those in the middle and on the right.
She absolutely went after Bush's policies, but did so in a way that some of our better posters here do; by that I mean that she didn't give the opposition something to be angry at, or attack her personally for, but made it so that only the actual policy issues could be debated. That is a debate the Dems will every time this year.
I don't know how many of those on the left that criticise her for being "too nice" saw Faux Noise after her rebuttal, but if they had, they would have seen Brit Hume looking absolutely stunned. He couldn't counter her arguments on the facts of the issues, but more importantly, had no openings to get his little digs in either.
Sebelius left a Faux talking head speechless, that is no small task. Seeing his face, after she spoke- that's when I decided I wanted her to be Obama(well, Kucinich at the time)'s VP.
Clinton legitimizes every attack the right can be expected to make on Obama. She's used them.
There will be PLENTY of positions to fill in the Obama White House.
Hillary's cold hearted mean spirited pit bull tenacity could be put to a good purpose, I suppose. But certainly not as VP.
Same (in general terms) is true for all the potential "VPs" - there will be lots of positions.
And VP might be the least important. Depends on who it is & what role Obama defines for the VP.
Until then, let's focus on getting him elected!
It would take an ego bigger than McCain's prostate for Obama to think he could win without Clinton's demographics. Still, I think she should not accept the VP slot. If they were both on the ticket and won, people will forever say he could not have done it without her. And if he loses, it won't matter who his running mate was. His career, and the Democrats' 2008 hopes, will be dead.
Instead, she should agree to campaign for him in all the states she won if he agrees to pay her campaign debts. And if he wins, he should agree to appoint her to Justice Stevens' seat on the Supreme Court.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Bullshit @ 76:
I would not call the knife the Clintons stabbed into Kerry's back in 2004 "tepid support."
I never forgot, that is why I never cared two shits about Mrs. Clinton and her political triangulation.
She is in this for herself, if anyone here thinks she will accept anything else than the top slot in the Dem ticket... then they are highly delusional. If she had any capacity for compromise, or the general interest of the Dem party in mind she would have yielded long ago.
Why people are so fanatical in the support to this lady is beyond me, she gives two shits about them.... which is the tragedy of it all.
ysbaddaden @ 92:
I guess you forgot about the Anti-Madison VP Clinton, who came in third behind Madison and no-doubt enjoyed great gobs of Madison love.
The primaries are like a summer-schoolyard fight. Just kiss & make up guys. The fight really escalates when the big new fall semester starts.
Obama won! That's it, but that's not all.
The 15 million plus people who voted for the Not-Obama-Candidates shouldn't be hacked to death by anyone who wants to win the prize.
That's right! Hillary wouldn't be the first Clinton to become VP.
While some of what's been said about Sebelius is certainly appealing, I'm not entirely confident that choosing a female running mate would be the wisest thing for Obama to do -- which is actually another reason why I'm ambivalent about an Obama/Clinton ticket. Let's face it...change is not only good and not only necessary, but inevitable (and I'm speaking about change in general here, not simply with regard to the upcoming election even though it's important there as well). Nevertheless, anyone who's studied human nature knows that most people are often inclined to be resistant to change (sometimes extremely so) unless or until they perceive and accept the necessity and/or inevitability of it -- even in spite of perceiving and understanding that the change will be beneficial to them. That resistance tends to increase when people feel that change is happening too quickly or that too much is changing at one time.
I'm very proud of the fact that the Democratic Party has successfully produced not one but two serious landmark contenders -- one an African-American, the other a woman -- for the 2008 presidential election. I won't bother to deny that at the very beginning of the race, I was skeptical that America was really enlightened enough for a minority candidate to become a serious contender. To my great satisfaction, I seem to have been proven wrong for the most part. That being said, I also know that people who believe they'll make one choice when presented with a certain situation in the abstract sometimes make different choices when presented with the same situation in the concrete -- and I also know that neither racism nor sexism is dead in this country. Perhaps I'm misjudging the situation and being overly skeptical again -- I hope I am, actually -- but it occurs to me that an African-American candidate with a female running mate potentially might be perceived by more than a few people as trying to introduce too much change too quickly and produce resistance or at least hesitance. Perhaps if Obama clearly had a substantial lead over McCain already, I might be thinking differently -- but that doesn't appear to be the case (and there's still a "wild card" in the equation to be considered in the form of electronic voting machines).
olo @ 103:
good luck on that! the carnage thats going to come about will look like the road to roam after the defeat of spartacus,
sorry rome
I don't think it would be a good match. Obama's message is one of change. Putting another Clinton in the White House isn't going to bring change.
I think a good VP pick for Obama would be Ed Rendell of PA. He's a fighter and he helps counter the lack of experience argument.
I see Edwards being tapped as attorney general.
i like hiliary as v.p. but it won't happen. she questioned baracks experience to a fault. webb isn't interested. i like bloomberg but that elite strategy might start up again. how about a republican... not a neocon.....chuck hagel?
Chuch Hagel is Rush-right on everything but the war- healthcare, the economy/bush taxes, abortion. He would make a horrible VP, though he would be good as SecDefense where his social policies do not come into play.
bluestoking wrote: "Clinton might prove to be good assassination insurance... I think that the threat of seeing her become President might make them think twice about trying to whack him."
Isn't it a shocking indictment of America that people have to think about it this way?!
Let's hope the next president can reduce the violence and threats INSIDE America!
Login or Register to post comments.