Who will the Presidential nominees choose as VP's?

I highly doubt Colin Powell would want to be anyone's VP. However, I can definitely see him endorsing Obama and accepting a possible position in his administration. That wink and nod, alone, would be very beneficial to Obama. Powell still carries powerful influence with the American people.

The one man I think Obama should very seriously consider for a running mate is Va. Senator Jim Webb. He is a highly decorated combat veteran and former Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan.

Webb's experience trumps McCain's and would completely neutralize that experience argument. What then would McCain have to talk about?

Nothing!

Obama/Webb '08!

reply to post by EastCoastKid

I highly doubt Colin Powell would want to be anyone's VP. However, I can definitely see him endorsing Obama and accepting a possible position in his administration. That wink and nod, alone, would be very beneficial to Obama. Powell still carries powerful influence with the American people.

Right on all 4 observations. As a matter of fact, I thought Powell had already expressed publicly his favor with Obama, trying to remain a loyal Republican at the same time. Yes, I definitely think Colin would be invited to a high post but I think Condo Rice would be sent straight back to academia. She’s a sycophant and we already have more of those than any one country really needs. She goes along to get along.

The one man I think Obama should very seriously consider for a running mate is Va. Senator Jim Webb. He is a highly decorated combat veteran and former Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan. Webb's experience trumps McCain's and would completely neutralize that experience argument. What then would McCain have to talk about? Nothing!

Well, 5 or 6 years a POW being does not an expert on WAR make, to pardon my Yiddish. But many people love it. You are right, Webb or even Mr. Cohen who crossed the political aisle to serve Clinton as Sec of Def. I am satisfied that Mrs. Clinton will not want the No. 2 slot. She will have more influence in government as the junior senator from NY then she ever would as VP.

[edit on 3/8/2008 by donwhite]

Jim Webb? Not bad...that would go a long ways towards, if not trumping, certainly stalemating McCains only real advantage. His so called expertise on matters pertaining to waging foreign wars. I'm not sure how getting shot down and held prisoner for 5 years equates to expertise, but anyway.

Jim Webbs name hadn't even popped up on my radars radar. Not bad at all.

I'd like to see McCain pick a Liebermann, just to watch the fireworks from the right...must listen radio, on my morning drive . The right wing of the GOP is never going to embrace him anyway, why bother even pretending to care, choose the guy you can work with, maybe even like, and go for it. I certainly have more respect for that sort of thing, then I do kowtowing to the wants of a group of people who dispise you, no matter what you do.

[edit on 9-3-2008 by seagull]

reply to post by seagull

Jim Webb? Not bad that would go a long ways towards stalemating McCain’s only real advantage. His so called expertise on matters pertaining to waging foreign wars. I'd like to see McCain pick a Lieberman, just to watch the fireworks from the right. The right wing of the GOP is never going to embrace him anyway, why bother even pretending to care, choose the guy you can work with, maybe even like, and go for it. I certainly have more respect for that sort of thing, then I do kowtowing to the wants of a group of people who despise you, no matter what you do.

Well put, Mr Seagull. But at the top, you have to leave hubris behind and make choices that are driven by logic and not the gut. After all, McCain is not in this race by himself. He must have a cadre of a dozen or so who are close and maybe 200 who are “on call” for particular issues or problems. And then there are the several 10s of 1000s who will do the grunt work between now and November 4. Even if a lot of people are not directly consulted, McCain - like Obama and Clinton - knows more or less what most people are thinking and the why’s and wherefore’s.

If McCain chooses Webb (see Foot Note), that will indicate he is seriously trying to UNDO the vast and deep HARM done by Bush43 who ran as a UNITER but turned out to be the worst yet DIVIDER. Aside: Once before in American history this happened. The time 1816-1824 was called the Era of Good Feelings. In 1816, following the popular James Madison, James Monroe ran against a disintegrating Federalist Party, carrying all the states but Connecticut, Massachusetts (which then included Maine) and Delaware. Monroe received 76,592 votes and 183 in the Electoral College. Rufus King, the Federalist, received 34,740 and 34 electoral college votes. By the bye, the Federalists ran John Howard of MD for VP, and James Ross of PA for VP, and John Marshall of VA for VP, and Robert Harper also of MD for VP. Wow!

In 1820, Monroe ran against John Q. Adams of MA, and Dewitt Clinton of NY. Monroe received 80% of the popular vote and 228 out of 231 electoral votes, 1 for Adams, and 2 did not vote. Thus, Monroe was denied the right to claim a unanimous election as George Washington did in his first election in 1789.


Foot Note. James Henry "Jim" Webb, Jr. (born Feb 9, 1946) is the junior Senator from Virginia. He is a former Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan. He is HOWEVER, a member of the Democratic Party.

A 1968 Annapolis grad, Webb served as a Marine Corps infantry officer until 1972, and is a highly decorated Vietnam War combat veteran. Webb served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, then as Secretary of the Navy. Webb won the Democratic nomination for the 2006 Virginia Senate race, then won the general election by defeating the Republican incumbent, George Allen, and Independent Green candidate, Glenda "Gail" Parker. en.wikipedia.org...

If Obama chose Webb it would be a knock-out combo. Perfect compliment to the ticket.

And if Obama was really into the whole unity thing, he would do well to consider Chuck Hagel (the Republican Senator from Nebraska). He is vacating his seat when it's up and has said openly that he would consider an invitation to any ticket.

He is one of the few remaining Republican lawmakers that I actually admire. I've been a Republican all my life, but the Republican party has left me (as Reagan once said of the Democratic party). He's probly leaving the senate because he feels the same.

He has long opposed how the Iraq War has been managed and has bravely argued for its end. He sits on four Senate committees: Foreign Relations; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Intelligence and Rules.

Like Jim Webb, Hagel is a decorated Vietnam Veteran (Inf., U.S. Army). Read his bio here.

Again, in the case of an Obama-Webb match-up, Obama's good judgement and temperment combined with Hagel's extensive combat infantry and foreign policy experience trumps McCain's.

Also to be noted, regarding today's slide into recession - Hagel is a successful business man (in the private sector). He most assuredly would be more useful than McCain on that front. McCain's entire career has been tied to one thing: the Navy.

The problem with Hagel, as reasonabe as he is, it is doubtful the Democratic party faithful would welcome such a pick. To their detriment.

Regarding the utility of McCain's POW experience: All due respect to the Senator's courageous service, but a flyboy shot down and held captive for 5 years does not make a ground war or foreign policy expert. I would offer he didn't learn much during his time on the ground.

He voted in support of the Iraq War and has since been Bush's biggest cheerleader; pushing the surge with every ounce of his being. Contrary to popular belief the surge has not been the remedy all had expected. He has shown extraordinarily poor judgement in matters of war. He even boasted that he was fine with our troops being there 100, 1000 or more years into the future.

As a veteran I did not find that humorous, at all. To me, he sounds frighteningly out of touch; the last guy on earth I would want leading our men and women in uniform.

reply to post by donwhite


I wasn't so much suggesting McCain pick Webb, as I was Obama pick Webb. It doesn't matter who McCain picks, he's not getting my vote, period, full stop.

I think a Obama-Webb ticket is a strong one. Not one I'll likely vote for, but certainly an improvement over an Obama-Clinton ticket which just gives me nightmares...brrr. Hillary a heart beat away from the Presidency (you know it's really hard to type when one is cowering in the corner at that particular image...).

...and please, DW, call me seagull, no need to be so formal....

Sorry for any confusion, there, Mr. Seagull.

As far as a Hillary and Obama ticket goes, that would be the worse match-up ever. For several reasons. Kiss of death basically sums it up (for Obama).

I hate to see Obama fall prey to such nonsense. As of right now, he's completely disavowing the notion (on the campaign trail).

As of right now, I whole-heartedly support Barack Obama. Should he somehow wind up on the same ticket as Clinton, though, be sure: THEY will NOT get my vote.

I will not vote for anyone.

I can just see an Obama/Clinton ticket and God forbid, something happen to president Obama. Clinton steps in and becomes the first female president. And they're all martyrs.

Can't you just imagine the never-ending controversy and conspiracy that would surround that? I, for one, don't want to get anywhere near that possibility.

I really don't like it when people say they won't vote for anyone. Just because we don't like the two major party choices doesn't mean there aren't alternatives...how else are third parties supposed to get any exposure? Someone has to vote for them, support them, etc...

I've not done as much research on the third parties out there, I've still got time to do so...there has to be an alternative to the two big parties who so resemble each other in their lack of responce to the average voter.

We need that third alternative, and in order for the average workaday Joe/Josephine to notice it, it has to have support, even if they lose this time around. Maybe the next time around, they don't.

Heaven forbid, anything should happen to Obama. I'm not going to vote for him, I don't like the fact that he's saying nothing but platitudes. But he's a long sight better than Clinton. She'd turn him, as you say, into a martyr to HER cause. Anything to win...

[edit on 11-3-2008 by seagull]

reply to post by seagull

I've not done as much research on the third parties out there, I've still got time to do so ... there has to be an alternative to the two big parties who so resemble each other in their lack of response to the average voter. We need that third alternative, and in order for the average workaday Joe Josephine to notice it, it has to have support, even if they lose this time around. Maybe the next time around, they don't.

The very first political party was the Federalist Party of George Washington and John Adams. They favored a strong central government. By the second election - 1792 - Thomas Jefferson had organized an alternative political party that favored a weak central government. It was sometimes called “Republican” and at other times “Democratic-Republican.” The 1800 election was particularly vicious. Thomas Jefferson finally won but both sides sponsored newspapers that slandered the other candidate with falsehoods and scandal. And so it has been ever since.

The Federalist morphed into the Whigs, which died by 1820. The D-R won every election until 1860. But the D-R had split by 1852 into a Northern anti-slavery Democratic Party and a Southern pro slavery Democratic Party. The 1860 election was a 4 way race. A. Lincoln of the new Republican Party beat Stephen Douglas of the Northern Democrats 180 electoral votes to 12. John Bell of the Continental Union Party - mostly die hard Whigs- gained 39 electoral votes and John Breckenridge of the Southern Democrats polled 72. Lincoln polled 1.866 million votes (39%) Douglas polled 1.38 million votes (29%) Breckenridge polled 0.848 million (18%) Bell polled 0.581 million votes (13%).

But note in 1864, Lincoln polled 2.2 million votes (55%) and 212 electoral votes against Democrat McClellan’s 1.8 million (45%) and 21 electoral votes.

The Prohibition Party has fielded a candidate for decades as has the Socialist Party. The Socialist-Workers Party, the Communist Party have also been alternatives. The Libertarian Party and the Green Party have fielded candidates recently. It is my opinion that only in 1912 and 2000 has a 3rd party effected the outcome of the General Election.

Theodore Roosevelt hand picked William Howard Taft to be his successor in 1908. Deeply disappointed in Taft’s failure to continue his progressive reforms, TR ran again in 1912 on the Progressive Party ticket. TR was nicknamed Bull Moose when he was shot during a campaign speech, and finished the speech before accepting medical aid. The party became known as the Bull Moose Party. TR divided the Republican vote allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to be elected with 6.2 million votes, 42% of the total vote, and 435 electoral votes out of 531.

I do not believe Ross Perot changed the outcome of the 1992 election although he did poll 18.9% of the vote. Clinton had 43.9% and Bush41 had 39.1%. I subscribe to the notion that Perot appealed in equal numbers to otherwise Democratic and Republican voters.

In 2000, the Green Party of Ralph Nader polled 2,883,105, 2.7% of the total vote. The Green Party received 67,000 votes in Florida, throwing the election to Bush43. It is assumed most of the Green voters would have voted for the Dems but for Nader. Bush43 was awarded Florida by the US Supreme Court on 537 votes, and but for Nader’s Green votes, Gore would have been elected.

America is a two party country. Almost always has been. And it looks to me as if it always will be. To have a voice, a person is well advised to work inside the framework of one of the two large parties. Unless you are a TR, or a Perot or even a Nader, you are unlikely to have any influence on the outcome of presidential politics outside of the two major parties.

[edit on 3/11/2008 by donwhite]

A large part of the reason for that is people like you, and me, along with most of the browned off electorate won't attempt to promote a third party. I supose when I think of a third party, I'm thinking of the Libertarians, but they aren't neccessarily who I'd like to see win.

At this point in the process, I'd almost support the Workers World Party, or the Greens. It doesn't neccessarily matter who, it matters that the big two parties get a wake up call, and answer to the bidding of the citizens of this country, rather than a power elite.

It really isn't too late for us, you, me and all the others to wake up and discover we are powerful, and we can make a differance. All the problems won't be solved overnight, big problems never are, don't let the size of the task keep us from attempting the task. Staying home and not voting is exactly what the power elite want us to do. Don't play into their hands.

reply to post by seagull

I suppose when I think of a third party, I'm thinking of the Libertarians, but they aren't necessarily who I'd like to see win. At this point in the process, I'd almost support the Workers World Party, or the Greens.

Ah, the old Wobblies! True heroes of the early labor movement in the US. I don’t know how many of them were killed by management or government but there ought to be a monument to them somewhere. Libertarians I sometimes mock as Anarchists in drag. It’s not that they are not good people, but I rate them 2 centuries behind the times. I guess you read my post about Texas 14, Ron Paul’s district. He got 37,000 votes for his 8th term as Representative, but only 9,000 votes for President. Surely that tells us something from the people who should know him best.

It doesn't necessarily matter who, it matters that the big two parties get a wake up call, and answer to the bidding of the citizens of this country, rather than a power elite.

For sure 2000 was a Maximum Wake Up Call for the Dems. Yet, Ralph Nader recited his usual litany of “things he says need to be done” and again chided the Dems for not talking up the REAL issues. So he threw his hat into the ring but I don’t believe any Dem will vote Green this time.

It really isn't too late for us, you, me and all the others to wake up and discover we are powerful, and we can make a difference. All the problems won't be solved overnight, big problems never are, don't let the size of the task keep us from attempting the task. Staying home and not voting is exactly what the power elite want us to do. Don't play into their hands.

You’re right about NOT staying home. And your offer to vote Libertarian to send a message rings true. Now I’m still a lifetime Dem, and in ‘04 the Dems started a $6 a month club which I joined. This goes to the DNC. I know it will not get me a ticket to Denver - more like $5,000 for that - but it is important to have as many “small donors” as possible. IMO. The Big Guys know what we little fellows want and need. The Dems will give me more of that than any GOP. Which may not be much I admit. But you are never disappointed if you don’t expect too much.

Carry On, Seagull!

[edit on 3/11/2008 by donwhite]

I look for McCain to choose Romney, which will only solidify his chances. The Democratic candidate will most likely choose Edwards.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

I look for McCain to choose Romney, which will only solidify his chances. The Democratic candidate will most likely choose Edwards.

GOP. I see McCain choosing the Huck. Huckabee. He appeals to the plentiful Evangelicals and to southern rednecks. Romney could only bring along the Mormon vote which is OK for Utah and Idaho but what about the other 48 states? Romney does not like McCain and especially not the Huck who ran him out of the race on religious grounds. Romney is crossing his fingers - if Mormons cross their fingers - that the GOP loses this year. He will come back in '12.

Dems. I'm still betting the Super Delegates will nominate Hillary. In that case she will tap Obama for the No. 2 slot. OTOH, if the S/Ds decide to Go With The Movement, to ride the wave, they will pick Obama. Hillary does not want the No. 2 slot. Edwards is too far left and would be useful only in Ohio and PA. He's out. I believe Obama would pick Bill Richardson of NM to be his running mate. Some posters above have suggested VA Sen. Jim Webb. I cannot gainsay Webb as a good VP choice. It's just that there are a lot more Hispanics out there than wealthy Virginians.

reply to post by donwhite


Huckabee won't go over well in the west at all. Much too good ole-boy, with apologies to all the good ole-boys I just insulted.

If you want to win the states of California and Washington as a GOP candidate, some one a bit more moderate is called for. I know that kowtowing to the right wing of the Republican party is called for these days, but I for one am a little tired of it.

Almost anyone is preferable. I like Romney quite frankly, he's a successful business man, but oooh noooo, he's a Mormon...and that matters why?

If McCain wants to portray himself as a Maverick (Annapolis grads don't get much more Establishment), then select someone outside of the mainstream. But then his portrayal of himself as a Washington maverick is just that, a portrayal...

reply to post by seagull

Huckabee won't go over well in the west at all. If you want to win the states of California and Washington as a GOP candidate, some one a bit more moderate is called for. Almost anyone is preferable. I like Romney quite frankly, he's a successful business man, but oooh noooo, he's a Mormon ... and that matters why?

Because government is not at all like business - wisely giving away money versus ethically making money - being a successful businessman is NO qualifying attribute for me. Being a very successful businessman is not necessarily disqualifying, but it is light weight when it comes to measuring a person's fitness or suitability for PUBLIC service. Conversant with the myriad problems and opportunities facing the country which the government has an appropriate role to play is more important to me when looking for those eligible for public service. We as a people have mostly forgotten that.

Experience counts. Mitt has 4 years as governor of MA. I don’t know how well he did but the state did not file bankruptcy. He did not seek a second term but I don’t know if that indicates anything. Maybe he wanted to go back to Salt Lake City?
en.wikipedia.org...

Romney was indeed the CEO of the 2000 Winter Olympics held in Salt Lake City. Being a rich Mormon helped get that job, I’d aver. Whether that is more an honorary position or not, I do not know. Romney had already been founder of a successful investment firm. Aside: I’m greatly concerned that so many people have put their economic future in the hands of so-called “advisers” who make a handsome living buying and selling other peoples shares. This industry is almost NOT regulated in any meaningful way. Where there is opportunity, there is all to often taking advantage.
en.wikipedia.org...

I’ve already explained why I think McCain will pick the Huck - short for huckster - so I won’t belabor that.

If McCain wants to portray himself as a Maverick (Annapolis grads don't get much more Establishment), then select someone outside of the mainstream. But then his portrayal of himself as a Washington maverick is just that, a portrayal ...

He’s TOO old, he’s TOO certain and he’s in TOO much of a hurry!

McCain will choose Mike Huckabee, if he really means to win.

Huckabee, a total longshot, somehow outlasted mighty Mitt Romney and blocked for McCain.

McCain won't forget that.

The primary campaign proved that money can't buy love.

And the pandering McCain can't win Southern conservatives and evangelicals; but Huckabee can.

Huckabee actually even won over a lot of young voters by participating on shows like "The Colbert Report" and "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." I saw it all. The man's funny. Oh yah, and he plays bass. He's like Gomer Pyle done wandered up into a Grateful Dead Concert.

Also, Huckabee is young, in his early 50's. His biggest problem is his lack of foreign policy knowledge. If he studied up on it, he could make his own run for the presidency after a term of McCain's VP.

Romney cannot help McCain win.

reply to post by EastCoastKid

McCain will choose Mike Huckabee, if he really means to win. Huckabee, a total longshot, somehow outlasted mighty Mitt Romney and blocked for McCain. McCain won't forget that.

Religion. Americans say they love the Constitution and even a few say they love the First Amendment, but when it comes push to shove, they don’t in large numbers. Of all the people I’d like to see devoted to the First Amendment and its separation of church and state, an ordained Baptist minister is one. But alas, he was not.

Mormons have a good reputation where I come from - Kentucky. They do have their weakness, too. I’m thinking how they violate the First Amendment in Utah and Idaho where they hold majorities or vocal minorities. They are no different from any other religion when it gets an opportunity to “save” all the nearby souls. Which is why we have the First Amendment.

Huckabee actually even won over a lot of young voters by participating on shows like "The Colbert Report" and "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." I saw it all. The man's funny. Oh yah, and he plays bass. He's like Gomer Pyle done wandered up into a Grateful Dead Concert.

That’s why I call him THE HUCK! From “huckster.” A shill. A skimmer. A dealer off the bottom of the deck. But regardless, you cannot deny his appeal. His easy mannerisms. Disarming is the one word I’d apply to him because he’ll do things TO you that you’d never expect. I’d bet. Like all too many religionists, at bottom they KNOW they are right. And worse, they believe they are doing GOD’s work!

Also, Huckabee is young, in his early 50's. His biggest problem is his lack of foreign policy knowledge. If he studied up on it, he could make his own run for the presidency after a term of McCain's VP. McCain can't win Southern conservatives and evangelicals; but Huckabee can. The primary campaign proved that money can't buy love. Romney cannot help McCain win.

Whereas McCain on his own will appeal to the Western voters, AZ, CA, UT, NV, ID, WA, OR, in addition to his popularity in TX which should rub off into NM, OK and maybe even LA. The Huck can put the Old Confederacy into play. VA, NC, SC, FL, GA, AL, MS, AR, TN, and maybe the border states too, MD, KY, DE and MO. I have not added those electoral votes but they are getting very close to the necessary 270.

Yes E/K/C, it looks obvious to me too that Huckabee will be McCain’s choice for No. 2.