Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

Obama said he will announce his VP pick as early as Wednesday morning, whereas McCain said he's waiting until next Friday (after the Democratic Convention). Obama pretty much has to announce this week, as the Convention is next week, and the VP is one of the keynote speakers. It's smart for McCain to wait until next week to announce - the Dems are going to get most of the headlines next week, and waiting until after the Dem Convention is over, will cause the media spotlight to shift back to him - conveniently just in time for the Republican Convention.

I hope that this thread will serve a dual purpose. 1.) discuss who we think the VP picks will be and 2.) Discuss what we think about them once the VP picks are announced.

As I have heard tell, Obama has three people on his short list, all of whom are currently-serving Senators: Joe Biden (Delaware), Tim Kaine (Virginia) and Evan Bayh (Indiana). For me, the most logical pick in that list is Kaine. He has military experience (an Obama weak point), he's from a swing state, and is in keeping with Obama's "Change" campaign. While Biden is not a bad choice - he does bring some star power, and has a ton of foreign policy experience - the two points against Biden are that he has a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease, and Delaware isn't a swing state that he'll help Obama carry (Obama is winning Delaware regardless of who his VP is). As for Bayh, I'm not too high on him. He was a huge Hillary supporter and supported the Iraq invasion, which would make him a very odd pick, as that goes against one of the main planks of Obama's platform.

On the other card, it appears that McCain's short list consists of three governors (well, technically two of them are former governors): Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusettes), Tom Ridge (former governor of Pennsylvania and former head of the Department of Homeland Security), and Tim Pawlenty (current governor of Minnesota). This one is a much trickier call, because none of them really help from a geographic perspective, as Obama is currently leading in all the polls of all three of those states, with the only close one being Pennsylvania (which I suppose would give a slight edge to Ridge).

I'd love to hear comments, and also how important do you think the VP actually is?

 

McCain should stay away from anyone on Bush's staff.

 

Obama/Chewbacca 08

Actually, I have no idea at this point who will pick whom. I just know who I think is a BAD idea to pick. For Obama, Hillary (obviously) but that's not going to happen anyway. I like a lot of things about Joe Biden but he's a bit of a gaffe machine and may end up being a liability. A lot of people seeming to be routing for Evan Bayh, but I don't see the logic in that one. My honest pick would be Bill Richardson, especially now that he has the beard rockin. Fear the beard!!

For McCain, there's a lot of talk of it being Romney, which I think is a terrible idea. I've also heard that he's thinking of asking Petreus, oddly enough - but I don't know how likely that is. I have no opinion one way or the other on that. There's also talk of Tom Ridge, which I think would be decent except I've never thought of him as being particularly political (hence - how will he work as an attack dog?) and he is pro-choice, so considering McCains hard break to the right recently, this seems like a deal breaker.

Meh, I give up - Obama/Chewbacca 08 it is. Vs McCain/Huggy Bear 08. I'd watch me them debates, whuddup.

 

Joe Biden is the logical choice. I think Obama can take VA without Kaine on the ticket, but he will need him to help "get out the vote" there. I think Hillary is still a dark horse, but Biden is the "safe bet." I hope it's not Richardson - not because he isn't a good man. But he ran an awful campaign.

 

I would be completely shocked if Hillary was the VP pick. I think I have a better shot at being named the VP than her and so does Chewbacca.

 

Says Obama, pointing to the White House: "Get in there, Chewy! Go on, ya big hairy oaf...I don't care whatcha smell!!" Apropos, no?

 

Aldeth - I would be a bit surprised as well. But she still has a lot of support within the Democratic Party. And a lot of women are disappointed that it wasn't "their turn." I explained to my wife, "don't hold your breath, this is America, and it's a still a man's country." Better luck next time, like in 2050 or something....

 

While their campaigns against each other weren't too vitriolic, I think enough criticism was levied both ways that they would not be able to work together as President and VP.

As for 2050, Chandos, I wouldn't go so far. I think the right woman could take the White House a lot sooner for either party. I just think that Hillary wasn't the right woman.

 

Which woman do you think has a real chance at either slot currently?

 

Barbara Boxer or Patty Murray. Both have long and impressive legislative resumes and both senators had the wisdom to vote against the Iraq war.

 

Obama picked Biden. Thoughts?

 

I'm ecstatic. Obama couldn't have made a better choice...except, perhaps, for Al Gore, Stephen Colbert, or maybe the second coming of Jesus.

 

Joe Biden is a seasoned warrior. Many of the things he said about foreign policy in the last year or so were refreshingly 'realist'. In today's GOP and in McCain's team there is no more place for people like that. Domestically, Biden might dispel some of the fears of a black president, and he would be capable of addressing the smears directed at Obama. Probably with a sledge hammer. Go for them, Joe!

As the saying goes: Auf einen groben Klotz gehört ein grober Keil ... (very roughly analogous to: fight fire with fire ...)

All the best to the Obama/ Biden. They need all the luck they can get.
Four years of McCain? Horrors!

 

Ragusa, just remember that how you feel about McCain is how many of us conservatives feel about Obama.

Hmm, Obama is against the war, and has even refused to say he would support the Surge knowing what he knows now. Biden, I think, was one of the first to join McCain in supporting the Surge and has frequently spoken in support of the war and its initiation (albeit arguing more from the perspective of Saddam as a long-term threat than an immediate one). I wonder how these two will get along.

 

Biden is also pro death penalty(which may hurt him with the more liberal voters) & authored the bill that helped to eliminate the chances of prisoners to get college educations while in prison, thus keeping the educational levels from improving during the term of their incarcerations.(which, given the percentage of blacks in prison, may hurt him with the black voters).
Could be a good choice or a bad choice, we will just have to wait & see.

 

Don't even start that crap about the surge. People who understood what was happening in Iraq tried to tell the "Idiot and Chief" for years that he needed more troops in Iraq. Instead, GWB listened to Rummy, who convinced him that the problem was not the troop levels. Only after Rummy departed did the hardest person in the world to convince for the need of a "surge" (Bush), did the Genius finally cave-in on the issue. And then, with the help of the consevative media, he turned it into "his surge." What a load!

 

Actually chandos he did say that. From an interview of Obama by ABC's Terry Moran [Brent Baker has the full report on the interview here].

TERRY MORAN: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

OBAMA: No, because, keep in mind that-

MORAN: You wouldn't?

OBAMA: Well, no, keep in mind, these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know, hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

So he did say it however it sounds worse when taken out of context. You would do better stating that "he didn't say it in that manner"

 

Google, copy, paste, no source, no thought...rinse, repeat.

 

NOG,
McCain's foreign policy will be like Bush's, just with a little more ill temper mixed in. He has positively purged his team of anyone remotely realist atm. What's left is true believers. Four more years of the current blundering style in foreign policy? Some more upping the ante? It hasn't exactly been a success story over the last eight years. Apparently the only thing for McCain to criticise about it is that Bush wasn't tough enough. If I was American I would be concerned about that. Not that there is all that much left to wreck, but pits can be dug deeper.

*​

As for the surge, geez, there are many misconceptions abound, and most have to do with the R's trying to cast it as an unmitigated success, if not victory. A victory it is not. It is a mitigated temporary success. There were two key factors: One American, and one Iraqi. The Iraqi dimension is usually ignored in the US discourse. It is the more important one.

As for the US dimension: Indeed, more troops made possible the revival of counter-insurgency methods under Petraeus' command. That is good. Yet without the change in the operational approach the increased number of troops would not have produced a similar result. What is not good is that the only ones who did learn were in the military, and not at the political front. It doesn't work - let's adapt. No sign of that in the Whitehouse. Changing course? And thereby admitting error??! Never ever! I guess by the logic of the permanent campaign consistency, right or wrong, is an end in itself.

As for the Iraqi factor, the mitigated success of the surge has everything to do with the Sunni Awakening. The Sunnis revolted against the Takfiri Jihadis. That was in the essence Al Qaeda Iraq defeating itself. Al Qaeda overstayed their welcome, and the locals were just fed up with their violent, kooky, backward extremism. The US, the surge, Petraeus or Bush himself didn't have anything to do with that. The US, at last, exploited that and lent the Awakening a hand, arms and money, much to the chagrin of the Shiite central government in Baghdad. That also led to Awakening members not attacking the US any more. The Awakening achieved more than any number of more infantry could have achieved. They hunted Al Qaeda in Iraq down, and effectively destroyed them. The additional US infantry was useful, but only that.

Why mitigated and temporary? Because none of this is a final outcome. That is so because the underlying social and political causes of the internal problem in Iraq have not been solved. Maliki just this week went after Awakening groups because he sees them as a challenge to the power of the Shiite dominated central government in Baghdad. With a Shiite government crackdown looming, the success the US achieved through co-opting the Sunni might be very short lived. The Sunni want their share of power, and if it is being denied there will be blood.

With the strain the surge and the deployments in Afghanistan put on US forces, the question is warranted whether, if the results of the surge cannot be sustained, the US is capable of repeating the surge. With Al Qaeda in Iraq defeated they would end up supporting the Shiite central government against the Sunni or vice versa. Neither is an attractive prospect. So don't get out the champagne just yet.

 

There has been a lot of evidence from those inside the planning and strategy of the Iraq War that Rummy was GWB's main advisor. The running debate was between Rummy and Powell. Rummy was desperate to prove that Colin Powell's ideas on military strategy (and of many other professional military people) were "obsolete." Rummy had almost no military experience, but like his master, GWB, he despised those "government professionals," and felt that those in the private sector (where he was bred) could always "manage" things far better than career government people. This is one of the larger themes of the current regime and it has led to so much failure in government that it's almost impossible to keep track of.

But this is typically how Bush/Rove operate: always look for the political advantage in any situation. Bush/Rove were reluctant to change their strategy because it would have proven that the professionals knew what they were talking about all along (the Unthinkable). But replacing Rummy AND bringing on Gates and General Patrasus gave them the perfect opportunity to gain a political advantage in changing their failed strategy. But what they needed was for the Democrats to disengage from accusing GWB of "mismanaging the war," which they were very effective at doing in 2006, to a new critque of GWB "losing" the War in Iraq - not a very effective critique, IMO. But it is now the only one the Democrats really have, since GWB was now managing the war the way in which many had thought he should have from the start.

That's the politics of the War; what will sell to the people in the short-term and help win elections. What Ragusa is commenting on is the reality and long-term prospects of the neverending war. I'm not trying to downplay what Ragusa is saying. Nevertheless, some feel the Surge is working as long as it is a "Surge," which means if we stand down a bit, things might return to what they were before. That does not provide much of an exit strategy. But then again, one side wants to leave and the other, does not.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1184048-1,00.html