Those who know my track record with regard to predictions will laugh, but my random, clueless pick of who Barack Obama will choose as his running mate is Hillary Clinton. What's your guess?
Random, Clueless VP Guess
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 07:54 AM by IlliniPundit
The biggest problem Obama has (other than his own dishonesty and lack of character) is picking a VEEP. All the best candidates have ten times the experience and put his resume to shame.
Of the conventional choices, I'd say Biden gets the nod. But honestly, I don't think it will be any of the three being suggested, and will be someone more interesting. Perhaps that's just the 'hope' in me, though :)
I'd like to see Bill Richardson, but it'll probably be someone else. It seems more likely that Obama's campaign will go with someone that Hillary would find acceptable (e.g., Evan Bayh) than Hillary herself, though I could be wrong. Obama's campaign has already hired Patti Solis-Doyle as the VP candidate's chief of staff, and Hillary had fired Solis-Doyle from her campaign.
Tim Kaine - a gov is always good on the ticket
Evan Bayh.
Across the aisle, all arrows point to Tim Pawlenty, but it could be a head fake.
I think curious is right, it will be a surprise. For various reasons, it won't be any of the "big three," and it probably won't be a senator at all. I would be mildly surprised if it was anyone who supported the war. Bottom line, it will be an eminently practical selection in terms of the election, but also someone who exemplifies change, not the conventional wisdom of the past, and it will be exciting.
(PS: I'm still hoping for Clark.)
There are too many reasons not to pick Hillary and too few to pick her. I think he's going to avoid that trap.
I think the deeper question is this -- does the VP choice really make any difference at all? I mean, if he picked a total slug (i.e. Droopy Lieberman), then he'd dent his chances. But that whizbang rocket scientist Dan Quayle didn't damage George the First any in 1988, and George the First was too damaged by 1992 for Quayle to make any difference. And not even Lloyd Bentsen could save Dukakis. The bloom was off the Cheney rose in 2004, but it didn't matter to George the Second. The best a VP choice can do is cause a little wiggle in the polls for a few days for George the Third.
And not even Lloyd Bentsen could save Dukakis.
That's funny :-)
I think the choice is more important for McCain than Obama. Mav is old, and that VP could quite possibly get the #1 job.
I am still wondering what the impact of being picked by IP has on Hillary's chance's to be picked for Obama's V.P. does that mean she will be or won't be, I am sure it's not possible now? Maybe it means she will be picked for McCain’s V.P. which can't happen because she isn't Pro-Life which would be a problem for McCain because of lack of strong conservative credentials.
Maybe both of them should choose RON PAUL for VP!
For McCain, he needs the maturity factor. Strom Thurmond is out, how about Robert Byrd? Then McCain's youthful vigor will show.
For Barry Obama, he needs someone we all know and trust, and can highlight his potential. How about Al Franken?
Hillary is unlikely, in my similarly clueless opinion. My guess goes to Joe Biden.
"I would be mildly surprised if it was anyone who supported the war... I'm still hoping for Clark."
Wouldn't that include Clark? IIRC he testified before congress in support of it before and even complimented Bush and Blair for their resolve after the fall of Baghdad.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Both CNN and MSNBC are going with Biden. Either way, Obama has announced he will appear Saturday with his pick.
Emil Jones will be available. And he'd finally get that pay raise he wants.
... and Biden has denied this.
"Wouldn't that include Clark? IIRC he testified before congress in support of it before and even complimented Bush and Blair for their resolve after the fall of Baghdad."
Your memory is not entirely correct. Actually, he testified more than once before Congress in opposition to the war. And complimenting resolve (as well as the successful execution of the initial operation), while both right and proper and well deserved, is not the same thing as supporting the war. He is on public record several times before the invasion warning against it.
Hrm... then there's a good chance I'm basing that on the many out of context quotes floating around the 2004 election on war stances. As far as I know he testified that Iraq had WMDs and were after nukes for a dern long time (which would contradict Obama's current excuse for why he opposed the war), and he argued passionately that the containment tools (sanctions, inspections, etc) were falling apart and he testified that we had some wiggle room on time, but not a great deal... so he recommend a congressional resolution that would authorize/threaten force against Iraq pending the almost guaranteed failure of the UN to be able to get full cooperation... which is pretty much what happened. His arguments seemed to revolve around a need to take military action since the non-military measures were failing so miserably and getting worse by the day.
Now in the same testimony I read he also argued that we should do so in a way that doesn't distract from the Afghan operation and to do so effectively enough to prevent a protracted war, which he argued could be an unexpected possibility regardless of the planning. So perhaps this was early testimony and he felt the admin wasn't dealing well with his concerns or shortchanging the UN attempt prior to the unilateral approach... and he spoke more forcifully later, but prior to the actual invasion against it? It seems like forever and a day ago since I was neck deep in the 2004 dem primary battles... I honestly can't remember. I found at least the intro to the hearing I was thinking of... but have yet to find the Q&A transcripts: link here to that hearing intro.
I saw on wiki he was listed as a strong war opponent as well, so perhaps I'm just giving this hearing more prominence (since that's what I remember) than his later statements, speeches, etc that may have been more strongly against the admin's decisions (which I can't remember so well). Sorry if I just got confused. I may have been the victim of gop talking points on him during the mass Iraq flip-flop accusations and partial/out of context/misrepresented/etc quotes floating around.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed