Thread: Is Hilary being edged out?

Webb or Edwards. I think one of them will wind up being the VP.

Obama runs very competative in both states. People don't vote for VP, it really only affects things at the margins. So, my guess is Obama will pick a big name from a swing state. Virginia (Webb) and North Carolina (Edwards) both fit that bill.

Edwards didn't help Kerry, but Kerry was in no way competitive in NC. Obama is, so Edwards might be a good choice.

I think Edwards ran a great campaign this year. There is something to be said for somebody who bases his entire campaign around ending poverty. It was a good message, it will also appeal to the people Obama needs this year. It was unfortuate Edwards got the shaft in the media this time around. I think what happened is the media really wanted the narrative of "first black guy vs. first woman candidate". That didn't leave much oxygen in the room for Edwards. Its too bad, I think he was the best candidate out of the three.

Edwards would be a good choice for VP, he's been vetted already, he is a good campaigner, and I'm fairly certain he would take the gig again if asked.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Webb or Edwards. I think one of them will wind up being the VP.

Richardson. Obama will try to make up for his lack of support from middle-class blue collar voters with hispanic voters. It also gives Obama some regional balance with a southwestern governor, and brings a smaller state, New Mexico, into the Democratic camp.

In 2004, New Mexico's 5 electoral college votes went to Bush. There were several voting fairness issues in 2004. New Mexico is considered a swing state. Recent polling data shows that Obama held a 3% advantage over McCain in early April, but now trails McCain by 5%. I don't think any other vice-presidential selection could lock up a state for Obama. Neither Webb nor Edwards can lock up their home states.

New Mexico had the nation's highest percentage of under-votes for the presidential race, a statewide rate of 2.45%. That figure was determined by taking the difference between the statewide totals of ballots cast and presidential votes. In addition, there were an estimated 2,087 so-called "phantom votes" (also called over-votes), found where there were more votes for a candidate than there were ballots cast. In addition to the under-vote and "phantom vote" problems with New Mexico's 2004 election tally, there were many unanswered questions about provisional ballots, missing votes and the integrity of voting machines that didn't produce a paper trail.

No logical explanation exists for this "phantom vote" phenomenon. However, each "phantom vote" is used to cancel out one under-vote, so there likely were 2,087 more undervotes that were not counted in the New Mexico vote totals. President Bush won the state by about 7,000 votes.

Democratic Officials Block the Recount

New Mexico's Democratic Governor Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron were against the recount effort from the start, possibly because much of the alleged fraud happened in Hispanic precincts. Although the alleged fraud seems to have helped Republicans, having a recount would cast a shadow on the state's two highest-ranking Hispanic Democrats. Governor Richardson has presidential aspirations, and Ms. Vigil-Giron currently serves as national president of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

Good points. Two reasons, however, why I don't think it will be Richardson:

1) He is Hispanic. If Obama is looking to win over lower class white voters, I don't think picking someone who is Hispanic is going to be the way to go. I think they will want to stray away from being the "ethnic ticket". It would help in the southwest, but Arizona being out of play doesn't bode well in that regard.

2) Bill Richardson was a really terrible campaigner. He was so throughly unimpressive during the debates, I just don't think he served his case well.


Even though it may sound kind of blunt, I just think in the end Obama is going to pick somebody who is white.

^ Agree with red.

I think a Wasp will be chosen with foreign policy experience (even though GWB had none) that will appeal to the white demographic.

As someone stated - voters don't vote for the VP, but at the margins it might help in Presidential elections that have been so, so, close the last 2 times.

Originally Posted by Benedict XVI

^ Agree with red.

I think a Wasp will be chosen with foreign policy experience (even though GWB had none) that will appeal to the white demographic.

As someone stated - voters don't vote for the VP, but at the margins it might help in Presidential elections that have been so, so, close the last 2 times.

Sounds like Sam Nunn. I had Nunn picked out for Secretary of State, but VP wouldn't be out of the question. He was an early endorser of Obama, and would provide both regional (a southerner) and policy (more moderate) diversity, in addition to his vast foreign policy experience.

Nunn first entered politics as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives in 1968. He was elected to the United States Senate in 1972, defeating U.S. Sen. David H. Gambrell in the Democratic Primary and U.S. Rep. Fletcher Thompson in the general election. Nunn chose to retire from the Senate in 1996, offering a lack of "zest and enthusiasm" as justification, though analysts have offered the Democratic party's shift to the left as a major factor.

During his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Senator Nunn served as chairman of the powerful U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Subcommitte on Investigations. He also served on the Intelligence and Small Business Committees. His legislative achievements include the landmark Department of Defense Reorganization Act, drafted with the late Senator Barry Goldwater, and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which provides assistance to Russia and the former Soviet republics for securing and destroying their excess nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. To date, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program has deactivated more than 5,900 nuclear warheads. He was supposedly a top choice to be Secretary of Defense or State in 1992 and 1996 and in a prospective Gore cabinet in 2000.

Overall, Nunn was a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who often broke with his party on a host of social and economic issues. He strongly opposed the budget bill of 1993, which included provisions to raise taxes in order to reduce the deficit. He was also vehement in his opposition to President Bill Clinton's proposal to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. He voted in favor of school prayer, capping punitive damage awards, amending the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget, and limiting death penalty appeals. On certain issues like abortion, the environment, gun control, and affirmative action, Nunn took a more moderate line. He consistently voted in favor of increased immigration. One of his most controversial votes was his vote against the Gulf War.

Originally Posted by MikeS

So Bush won't talk to terrorists, but he says he wants a Palestinian state. Given that the terrorists are Palestinians prepared to fight for a Palestinian state, how do you get a Palestinian state without talking to the people who are fighting for it? I must be missing something here...

He will talk to a Palestinian state led by Abbas (he has already met with Abbas) but not by Hamas. Hamas only represents Gaza and not the West Bank. I think Obama is correct on this one, that you can talk to nations (even if they are "states sponsors of terrorism") like Iran and Syria, but you don't talk to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad or ETA. Obama criticized Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

America pushed for early elections for the Palestinians and then Hamas was elected into the government. The elections were declared fair and free by observers. Then the Bush Admin said that they didn't like the results of the democracy being practiced by the Palestinians. The reason many Palestinians voted for Hamas candidates is that they see Fatah as corrupt and not able to get a Palestinian state after all these years.

I didn't realize Gaza was its own national state. From what I know, Palestine includes both Gaza and the West Bank. As a result of pressure from the west, Hamas conceded its control over the Palestinian legislature, and agreed to form a unity government. When Hamas essentially took over Gaza in a military coup, Abbas dismissed the unity government and formed a new government. Abbas is generally recognized, even in the Arab nations, as the head of state for the Palestinian nation to be, not Hamas.

Palestinian legislative elections took place on 25 January 2006. Hamas was victorious and Ismail Haniyeh was nominated as Prime Minister on 16 February 2006 and sworn in on 29 March 2006. However, when a Hamas-controlled government was formed, Israel, the United States, Canada, and the European Union froze all funds to the Palestinian Authority, after Hamas refused to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and agree to past agreements. These countries view Hamas as a terrorist organization.

In an attempt to resolve the financial and diplomatic impasse, the Hamas-led government together with Chairman Abbas agreed to form a unity government. Haniyeh resigned on 15 February 2007 as part of the agreement. The unity government was finally formed on 18 March 2007 under Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and consisted of members from Hamas, Fatah and other parties and independents.

After the takeover in Gaza by Hamas on 14 June 2007, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the government and on 15 June 2007 appointed Salam Fayad Prime Minister to form a new government. Though the new government's authority is claimed to extend to all Palestinian territories, in effect it is limited to the Palestinian Authority controlled areas of the West Bank. The Fayad government has won widespread international support. Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia said in late June 2007 that the West Bank-based Cabinet formed by Fayad was the sole legitimate Palestinian government, and Egypt moved its embassy from Gaza to the West Bank. Hamas, which has effective control of the Gaza Strip, faces international diplomatic and economic isolation.

What about Al Gore for VP? That would be a pretty bold choice.

I think in a weird sort of way it would be sort of cathartic. As in, "hey, want to forget the last eight years ever happened?"

Originally Posted by redhaze

What about Al Gore for VP? That would be a pretty bold choice.

I think in a weird sort of way it would be sort of cathartic. As in, "hey, want to forget the last eight years ever happened?"

I heard Gore's not interested in his old job. Clinton didn't treat him very well. After making a movie and receiving a Nobel prize, why would he want to play second fiddle again?

I think you're right, although being the Vice President is certainly nothing to sneeze at either (even though it was probably pretty lousy playing VP #2 to Hillary Clinton).

VP can be a powerful position (just look at Cheney). It might depend on what Obama offers him. If Obama offers him the slot and basically gives him the Vice President's office as a place to work out global warming policy, he might accept the position.

Overall, you're probably right. He has stated he has no interest in politics. Certainly can't blame him for that. But if Obama offers him real power, it might make it pretty hard for him to say no.