Event Calendar
February 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 * * *
<< (add event) >>

User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
I Told You He Was No Good!
by: Rob Kailey - Jun 22
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search

Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

The Last Best Place has the First-Best Contender . . .

by: The Caped Composer

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 17:58:41 PM MST


(It's VP speculation time! Let the buzz about Schweitzer begin! Interestingly enough, I've heard Tester's name also mentioned as a possible Obama running mate... - promoted by Jay Stevens)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but, when Chris Matthews of MSNBC interviewed Sen. Jon Tester, and asked him who he'd like to see as Obama's VP, Tester named Gov. Brian Schweitzer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Now, I've swung through here a number of times, and, a few months back, I floated out the idea of Brian Schweitzer as the ideal VP for Barack Obama. I'm glad to know that no less than Sen. Tester shares my opinion.  And, apparently, I'm not the only denizen of the blogosphere who thinks this way, either.  Over at FiveThirtyEight.com, they ran a long post yesterday all about Schweitzer and why he would make a perfect addition to the ticket:  http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

Stephen C. Rose also posted a lengthy item on Schweitzer's VP potential:
http://stephencrosehome.blogsp...

Your thoughts?
The Caped Composer :: The Last Best Place has the First-Best Contender . . .
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Last Best Place has the First-Best Contender . . . | 56 comments
Brian and the Big Mo (0.00 / 0)
And more on veeps here: http://www.theleftanchor.com/2...  
seconding the motion (0.00 / 0)
See my post at http://www.westerndemocrat.com... on this subject.
This CT voter definitely supports Gov. Brian Schweitzer for VP (4.00 / 1)
Schweitzer is a modern day Teddy Roosevelt or maybe a combination of James Arness's Marshall Dillon character combined with Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones character.  Schweitzer is a real rancher who rides horses, speaks Arabic fluently, and respects people of different cultures.  He also likes science and pans propaganda masquerading as science.

I'd love Schweitzer to show Republicans how real cowboys act -- with intelligence, strength, and fairness, not with braggadocio and malice.

Larkspur

Hillary. (0.00 / 0)
It would be tacky not to offer it to her, and at least allow her the opportunity to reject it if she wants to do something else.  

I think it's possible for Obama to win without Clinton but that he would without question win with Clinton.  

He would only offer it to her (3.33 / 3)
if Bill could pass the vetting. Which, I don't believe he could ever do, what with his business buddies and business whealin' and dealin', and all the millions and millions of contributions to his library. Not to mention being impeached for lying to Congress. And pardons, and Billisms ad nauseum. No, Bill tanks Hillary's chances of VP. And as I wrote a few months back, Hillary is a much more viable politician for president or VP without the specter of Bill looming around.  
[ Parent ]
Heh (2.50 / 2)
President McCain thanks you for that analysis, and hopes Obama's team is reading this blog.  
[ Parent ]
After seven long years ... (4.00 / 1)
of fear mongering, I think many of us are now immune to doomsday predictions that have little grounding.

Anna, the logic there is incorrect.  It assumes that Hillary brings only positives to the campaign, and ignores the negatives that she has already brought to her own.  McCain will win on his merits (or lose).  The election does not hinge on Clinton voters ... unless they want it too.  Perhaps what you are suggesting so obliquely is that Clinton supporters prefer McCain to Obama?  Is that the argument you are making?  

[ Parent ]
What Hillary brings to the ticket (4.00 / 1)
37% of her voters and a 5% bounce for the ticket vs. McCain.  If you want a Democratic president, you might like that idea.  
[ Parent ]
Citations, please. (4.00 / 1)
Also, that factors in that even without Clinton, ~60% of her voters will vote Obama anyway.  Expanding primary voters to general, even with the weakest of precedents, and you have a landslide victory for Barack Obama.  (That does assume that turnout remains constant.)  Given these factors, the only way that Obama loses is if Clinton voters reject him and CHOOSE McCain.

Promoting that idea appears to be coercive ... exploitive ... blackmail ... extortion.  Certainly, given the facts, that isn't what Clinton means to do ... is it?

Obama can win this (I would predict rather easily) without Hillary and Bill Clinton on the ticket.  The only remaining question is this: can he win it if they are campaigning against him?

[ Parent ]
Citation (0.00 / 0)
here.

I'm still digging for the 37% number but I believe it was a SUSA poll.

[ Parent ]
poll... (0.00 / 0)
...given the frenzy of the race, that poll seems normal. She's got great name recognition. That said, the poll you cited was among Democrats at the hight of a bitter primary. What about general voters? And I'd believe the results more if the poll was two weeks from now...
[ Parent ]
seriously... (2.50 / 2)
...I think Clinton would be a liability on the ticket. And I don't think Clinton would, or should, want the job. I think we can bank on the majority of Clinton supporters coming around to Obama after Clinton's concession, and after a few news cycles pass, and once the focus is on John McCain.

I realize many folks are still emotionally attached to the Clinton campaign and still stinging from the bitterness of the primary. But I just can't fathom why anyone would hold onto that bitterness for five months and allow that to possibly jeapordize all of the work we've done this year for these elections, and the years leading up to it...

[ Parent ]
It is hard to fathom (4.00 / 1)
But I will do my best to document it, Jay.
[ Parent ]
This has nothing to do with emotional attachment. (3.00 / 1)
Please stop being patronizing.  Seriously.  

I support adding Clinton to the ticket because that's what most Democrats want, and an Obama/Clinton ticket gives Democrats a huge boost over McCain.  I want a Democratic president, as do you.  I think Hillary on the ticket would get us there, without a doubt.  If you all decide Hillary ought to be snubbed through this process, you're only shooting yourselves in the foot.  

[ Parent ]
This is incorrect: (4.00 / 1)
"because that's what most Democrats want"

Some, yes. Many, questionable. But most, no. The polls all bear this out. Not that polls should have a whit of anything to do with Obama picking a VP.

I trust that he is going to think this through slowly and carefully and do the right thing. He's the captain of the ship now. Cut bait or fish.

[ Parent ]
Yes and No (4.00 / 1)
A lot of people want it. It'll be easier for a lot of people to vote for them if they are running together.

You really must not talk in terms of "captain" and decider and such. We've gotten into enough trouble letting our leaders think they have a permanent hold of the helm.

[ Parent ]
Polls that I've seen (0.00 / 0)
bear out that anywhere from 55-60% of Democrats, just over half of Hillary's supporters and just under half of Obama's, want her to be VP.  

[ Parent ]
Again, Citation please. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Ok. 55-60% I would call many. (4.00 / 1)
Not most. Most would be 75-80%+. And without a cite, is that primary voters, or general voters?

Personally, I really find this VP discussion premature. Not that it has anything to do with Clinton. I just happen to think that Obama has plenty of time to settle into the general, and think out what he wants to do. I mean, it's taken Clinton 4 days to offer up her public acknowledgement of Obama being nominated. He should be allowed much more time to decide how to determine his V, and not rush into itP. Even if he were to choose HRC.

I think the cable and radio media got so whipped up about the primary, that they have to keep the veep nomination all frothy so as to not tank their ratings. Get out of the bubble for a few days, and suddenly it doesn't seem so dire to get to a quick resolution.

[ Parent ]
Ok. I saw the poll. (4.00 / 2)
It was a CNN poll, "fifty-four percent of registered Democrats ... think Obama should name his rival as his running mate". But what I want to know is, what is a registered democrat? I have to register to have my opinion count? I kid, I kid...

Actually, the poll goes on to describe the sample as being of "registered voters who describe themselves as Democrats or independents who lean Democratic."

Sloppy writing and editing that gives two completely different implications of the results. If it were registered democrats, one would conclude that party loyalists and insiders thought it was a good thing. But the poll being all democrats and swing indies takes on a different notion. These are people that may not understand the significance of how a VP is chosen or the vetting process that will be undertaken.

I even heard that one of the bargaining points that Clinton could demand of Obama is that he waive the vetting process for Bill. Never going to happen. Non-party insiders or loyalists don't understand the importance of this task to a successful general campaign, hence an exaggerated positive poll.

Too many nominees have been derailed by potential VP problems (Eagleton and his hidden medical records, Ferraro and her husband's shady business dealings and failure to release financial statements), or sitting VP problems (Spiro Agnew's resignation in 1973 from Nixon's office for allegedly taking a bribe while Governor of Maryland).

[ Parent ]
What don't we know about the Clintons? (4.00 / 1)
Honest question.  
[ Parent ]
Honestly (4.00 / 1)
I think we know TOO much. But that's the whole point. I laugh when people say Bill won't survive the vetting. My sweey Christ in Heaven, what do people think they've been able to hide. It is out and it is open.
[ Parent ]
Actually, it's much of what we do know about (4.00 / 1)
Bill that is the problem. But what don't we know? Things like how he makes all that money with his business buddies. Exactly who donated, why,  and how much to his presidential library?

Take a look at this article and list of donors, and the way the Clinton Foundation has rounded up the money for the Clinton Library.

For those who don't want to take the jump, here is a partial list of those that have donated over a million to the Clinton's foundation:

"The highest tier,"Trustees," includes donations from 57 individuals, couples, or other entities. IRS reports reviewed by the Sun show that the foundations at this level have generally given or pledged $1 million or more. ...

The Saudi royal family and the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar donated at this "Trustee" level, as did the governments of Brunei and Taiwan. Also listed as trustees are three Saudi businessmen - Abdullah Al-Dabbagh, Nasser Al-Rashid, and Walid Juffali.

Other notables at the "Trustee" level include the deputy prime minister of Lebanon, Issam Fares; ... and an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune, Alice Walton."

And of course, this is most troubling:

"The most controversial known donation to Mr. Clinton's library is also recorded at this level: a gift from a Manhattan socialite and singer, Denise Rich. Ms. Rich gave the foundation $450,000 while her fugitive ex-husband, Marc Rich, was seeking a pardon on tax-evasion and racketeering charges. Mr. Clinton granted the pardon hours before he left office, triggering a federal criminal investigation, as well as congressional inquiries."

But I think that one of the kickers for me, in this 2004 NY The Sun article is this statement:

"Perhaps as a result, the Saudi donations to the Clinton library are raising some eyebrows. Mr. Unger [author of "House of Bush, House of Saud"] said he suspects that the Saudi support may have something to do with a possible presidential bid by Senator Clinton in 2008.

"They want to keep their options open no matter who's in power and whether that's four years from now or whatever," the author said. "Just a few million is nothing to them to keep their options open."

Now can we accept the need to vet Bill Clinton?

Barack Obama's campaign was too respectful to sling this mud into the primary waters. The republicans will have no such compunction.

[ Parent ]
Did that make you laugh, Mathello? (0.00 / 0)
^  [Pointing up to the statements about Clinton's library donations.]
|
[ Parent ]
Well there you have it ;-) (4.00 / 1)
Out and open... I think we've been over this kind of stuff before. I don't see any point in holding a double standard of condemning Hillary for Bill but Barry gets a free pass for all his undesirables. Please keep in mind I have never entertained the idea that Obama would be a bad President becuase of the people around him. Same reasoning with Hillary.
[ Parent ]
I don't really think (4.00 / 1)
that it matters that "we've been over this kind of stuff before." What matters is what the republicans will do with this situation. Democrats have forgiven Bill Clinton on the surface, which is why in a dem primary many subjects about him never rose to the surface.

But now that the Clintons have lost their bid for the nomination, and the possibility of a vp ticket for Hillary arises, these issues take on new importance.

And there is no double standard. The primary is over, and Obama will have to stand up to his own challenges, wherever the republicans raise them. They will hold no double standards. It is going to be a  no holds barred general on their side.

And while I don't necessarily believe that Hillary's having Bill as a first gentleman would have make her a "bad" president as you put it, it definitely puts a certain amount of risk on getting through the general--being it as a presidential or a vp candidate--and getting elected.

[ Parent ]
patronizing? (0.00 / 0)
What's patronizing about being emotionally attached to a campaign?

My point, BTW, was that having Clinton on the ticket wouldn't be necessary to bring back the Clinton supporters by November; not that you, personally, are clouded by emotions in your assessment.

I don't buy the claim that Clinton needs to be on the ticket. I don't see much evidence that Obama can't win this without her.

[ Parent ]
But why not? (4.00 / 1)
Is really going to hurt him? Can anyone unite more Democrats under him than her?
[ Parent ]
...interesting... (0.00 / 0)
...that's a good question...

A couple of thoughts.

The same resentment that might be felt by folks who support Clinton if he didn't ask her to be VP, might be felt by Obama supporters if he does.

Clinton is a polarizing figure for many. In MT, eg, her negatives are off the charts. His strength is that he's competitive almost everywhere; her presence on the ticket will make it harder in places like CO or MT.

That said, she'd help win FL and OH.

Hm. I'll have to think it over. I think I'm just arguing instinctively here, just playing devil's advocate. I really wouldn't have too much problem with her being VP.

But is that office and position on the ticket big enough for her? I would worry that she'd try to have a hand in Obama's show...I'd settle for some compromises on some issues, like adopting Clinton's health plan, say. But I think he's proven he's the better campaigner.  

[ Parent ]
Point taken (4.00 / 1)
I think if she can bring FL and OH safely into the fold then we can let CO and MT go. 47 electoral votes is much better than 14, no? Democrats will serve ALL 50 states and not just the ones they win.
[ Parent ]
yup (0.00 / 0)
It's intriguing.

I think Obama's got it right when he says we all need to cool down a little before we make any decisions. Plus it keeps him in control of the news for a couple of cycles...

[ Parent ]
Yes (2.00 / 1)
What's patronizing about being emotionally attached to a campaign?

I think you know the answer to that question.  

I don't see much evidence that Obama can't win this without her.

I think he could win the election without her.  I think he will definitely win the election with her.  Assuming she would even be interested in being VP.  

[ Parent ]
er... (0.00 / 0)
...I don't know what's patronizing about what I said. I guess I need a road map.

I find politics to be very emotional. Personally I get very attached to the campaigns I work on, I grow attachments to the folks I work with, and I usually care about the candidates I work for.

When my candidate loses, it sucks. It usually takes a few days, if not weeks to get over it. Some losses burn for years.

Now, explain to me how that's patronizing.

[ Parent ]
and another thing! (0.00 / 0)
I'll illustrate.

Last night's county convention.

Where were all the Clinton supporters? I'm going to Helena Sunday as a Clinton delegate so as to make sure Missoula gets its full representation, and so we can be sure to send folks like Carol Williams and Diane Sands to Denver.

Did logic compel them to stay away?

And why was the Obama supporter in tears in the hall, because of all the work done knocking doors and making calls rewarded the volunteer only to be an alternate to Helena, not an actual delegate?

I know what you're getting at. That "emotional" is a derogatory term too often used for women as a sign of weakness. But I neither meant it so, nor directed it at women.

Again, pls. be generous in your assumptions.

[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
Where were all the Clinton supporters...[d]id logic compel them to stay away?

I can't speak for anyone else, but finances compelled me to stay away.  I would have loved to have gone to Helena to support the friends I've made in the course of this campaign, but I can't afford to travel to Helena for a day.  I can only go to Helena to do thesis work later this month because I received a stipend for it.  Many of the Clinton volunteers I met are in the same situation - nurses, EMTs, small business owners, retirees, laid off Stimson workers and their families, students, moms, etc.  

I know what you're getting at. That "emotional" is a derogatory term too often used for women as a sign of weakness. But I neither meant it so, nor directed it at women.

I've been told through the course of this campaign, from the moment I said timidly to a couple of other grad students that I didn't think Hillary Clinton was really all that bad, that there is no logical reason to support Clinton, and the only reason any woman would support her is because she's a woman.  People on this blog have told me this, my friends (and even my students, for pity's sake) have said this to me, and I heard it from voters when I was canvassing.  You're using pretty loaded language - unintentionally, to be sure - but it's loaded all the same, and I'm not interested in trying to pretend that this kind of language has been used across the board to describe supporters of other candidates equally.

Again, pls. be generous in your assumptions.

I'll try.  I only wish people here afforded me the same treatment.  

[ Parent ]
fair enough... (0.00 / 0)
...I understand what you're saying, and why you're saying it, and am sorry if what I said irked you.

And I'm much amused about you playing the "blue collar card"! That was good.

(A) Helena's a two-hour drive, and we're all carpooling for the day.
(B) There are plenty of Obama supporters who fit your description that are going to Helena.

That is, I'm not buying the excuse!

Whereas, I can easily imagine the idea of sitting in a half-empty room listening to a throng of Obama-ites cheering lustily down the hall as they make speeches and cast ballots would not appeal to a lot of folks who busted their *ss for Clinton.

BTW, you can still come with us to Helena and stand as a candidate to go to Denver if you want. Your name came up several times as someone who might like to earn that honor.

Heck, I'll get you a ride and pack you a lunch!

[ Parent ]
I think it's too late (0.00 / 0)
to stand as a candidate, if I read the rules correctly.  I wouldn't mind going to Helena though.  I had no idea people were carpooling and sincerely wouldn't be able to afford to get there otherwise.  Maybe you know how much TAs make at the university.  
[ Parent ]
too late? (0.00 / 0)
I had two kids and mortgage while I had mine. : )

I don't believe it's too late. You don't have to be a county delegate to be elected as a national delegate. To wit: Carol Williams was not at our meeting last night, but she's standing to be a delegate to Denver.

In any case, I don't see why you can't come along and join in the fun. I can talk to Jim or Dave or Bryce and check the rules...

Do you have my #?

[ Parent ]
I do not (4.00 / 1)
I hate telephones.  Drop me a line about it, or at least with your #, tonight or tomorrow sometime.  I will call if I must.

I read the rules incorrectly, maybe I'll put my name in.  The worst thing that will happen is that I waste a Sunday in Helena.    

[ Parent ]
When I think about it (0.00 / 0)
I think Obama supporters are sometimes described as emotional, but it's a different kind of emotion...it's being so excited about being part of a new movement that they can't help but get a little worked up sometimes.

When Clinton supporters, particularly women, are described as emotional, it means they're bitter shrews, or "professional victims," in the words of a commenter here, quite possibly racists, who can't separate their genitals from their voting habits.  

[ Parent ]
the term (0.00 / 0)
"I think Obama supporters are sometimes described as emotional, but it's a different kind of emotion...it's being so excited about being part of a new movement that they can't help but get a little worked up sometimes."

I believe the term you're searching for here is "cultish." ; )

[ Parent ]
Oh, and incidentally (3.00 / 5)
I am not one of those Clinton people who is vowing to vote McCain or write HRC in - but if Webb is the VP candidate, I would be hugely tempted to decline to vote in the presidential race.  And that would have been the case had Clinton been the nominee and had the bad sense to pick him as well.  
You know (3.67 / 3)
it annoys the hell out of me that I'm not able to express my disdain for ridiculous sexism among the left-wing blogosphere's favorite sons without being downrated.  
[ Parent ]
It happens (3.00 / 1)
To me well before you.  Deal.
[ Parent ]
No thanks. (4.00 / 1)
This needs to be called out when it happens, and I don't need to be polite about it.  You of all people should understand that!  :)  
[ Parent ]
I never said you had to be polite, Anna (4.00 / 1)
Only that it is part of this game.  And, like it or not, you do need to deal ...  (Troll rate back.  Ask why the poor rating, email the offensive personage ...)
[ Parent ]
You shouldn't be downrated (4.00 / 1)
I think where you're going wrong with people is that you're using guilt by association as a wedge.  Sure there are some sexists in the left-wing blogosphere--just as there are surely some feminists, and also those that just don't care.  However, when you lead with the collective and trail with the negative association, people feel attacked.  

I'm no misogynist, but I also don't support HRC.  On the other hand, I just realized today that the three largest campaign donations I've made this cycle have been to female candidates.  On the other hand, being told by people like my female boss (with whom I just had this very conversation) that my lack of HRC support is probably subconsciously linked to latent sexism probably does contribute to a little apathy when confronted with true examples of it.  

Here's a good quote from HuffPo's Linda Hansen that relates to the topic:

"We have loathsome, mindless misogyny on one side of the bell curve and gender ambivalence on the far side. We have woman-bashing "Get thee to the kitchen, wench!" on the one hand and "I'm as tough as you are, buster, get out of my way!" coupled with "I'm vulerable, too--and that ain't no way to treat a lady!" on the other. Both are destructive and dishonest. Both are bad for the process and bad for the country. Intellect, strength, character and capability know no gender. There's no logical or practical reason a woman can't run this nation as well as any man. Better than most.

That said, a strong, smart woman who's well-qualified to serve as president doesn't need to play the game on both sides of Gender Street. If she does, she gets the disrespect she's got coming, adds momentum to the misogynist movement. The Clinton campaign cannot control the knuckle-dragging misogynist. What they can control is an unfortunate pattern of ambivalent behavior that feeds the beast-- and take their campaign setbacks on the chin, like the other guy has always had to do."

[ Parent ]
Why (4.00 / 1)
would anyone feel attacked by me saying what I think - that I would have a very hard time voting for a ticket with Jim Webb on it because of his actions in the past that indicate he's no friend to women?  
[ Parent ]
I oppose Webb . . . (4.00 / 1)
. . . for the exact reason that you do.  He made some outrageous statements about women being unfit to serve in combat, and as a result, he does not deserve a place on the national ticket.  Ever.  I was glad when he won in Virginia, mainly because the man he ousted, George Felix Allen, was ten times more rapacious.  But a national ticket?  No way.

Now, I personally have been an Obama supporter from the get-go, mainly because of Hillary's vote on AUMF.  I believe that that vote exposed a lack of conviction, a willingness to follow the political winds whichever way they gust at any given moment.  That vote was a major dealbreaker for me, as it was for many Democratic voters, which is ultimately why Hillary, and John Edwards before her, did not win.  For those of us who made up our minds based upon that issue-- and there are a lot of us-- gender had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I should also mention, I am a woman.  I'm in my late twenties, and I am confident that my generation will live to see a female POTUS.  I admire Hillary for getting as far as she did, and our first female president, whomever she may be, will benefit from the trail that Hillary blazed.  But Hillary was, in my opinion, the wrong person for the job.

Getting back to the topic at hand . . . from what I've seen, and I've done as much research on this as I could as a non-Montanan, Brian Schweitzer's rhetoric has always been very egalitarian.  In his interview on the Charlie Rose show, when he refers to the tradition of parents handing guns over to their children as a rite of passage to adulthood, he says that it's the moment when a parent says, "Son or daughter, you're on your own."  He didn't fumble or blink before including the word "daughter;" it is clear that gender equality doesn't faze him, unlike Jim Webb.  So, while it's obviously not the same as having a female candidate on the ticket, Schweitzer is definitely not a "good-ol'-boy" who will demean us.

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't anyone else feel cheated (3.50 / 2)
if our Governor up and left in the middle of his own re-election campaign? It's fine and good to have ambition but governing ought to be the primary duty of a Governor.
Well Hell (4.00 / 1)
We should have nominated Edwards and they should have nominated Huckabee because they don't have jobs.  
[ Parent ]
That's exactly what I was saying (4.00 / 1)
Right, so the Governor doesn't owe the people of the state who just put him on the ballot in November the courtesy of doing the job he asked for?  
[ Parent ]
It's not that you don't have a point (4.00 / 2)
but don't you think he can serve Montana just as well by being V-POTUS with the promise of possibly being POTUS.

Open question... Should such an event take place, how do nominate someone else? It's the party that does this right?

[ Parent ]
Correct (4.00 / 2)
If a nominee cannot compete in the election (death, resigns, etc...) then the party has a special convention and chooses a replacement.  This occurred in 1996 when Chet Blaylock passed away and the party selected Judy Jacobson (his Lt. Gov candidate) to replace him.  What I'm not sure about is whether he could run for V.P. and Gov. at the same time (ala Lloyd Benson in 1988 - Sen./V.P. or Lieberman in 2000 - Sen./V.P.)
[ Parent ]
Obama's VP (4.00 / 1)
I heard thru the grapevine that Obama was willing to put a woman on the ticket.  However, it should not be Hillary.  Putting Hillary on the ticket would be seen as a sign of weakness.

Maybe Obama will pull a "Schweitzer" by putting a "Republican-light" (RINO) on the ticket.  What about Christine Todd Whitman?

Regardless, his running mate will probably be someone with strong defense/military credentials.  Sam Nunn?

I don't think it will be Brian.  How is he going to campaign to be governor?  He has potential for 2012.

The Last Best Place has the First-Best Contender . . . | 56 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!
    		•
     
    Powered by: SoapBlox