Man, this is going to be a fun summer.
I chose Kathleen Sibelius - not based on any merit (which she may have but I don’t know anything about her), but as a purely political move. All of the embittered folks who supported Clinton mainly because she is a woman would have a much easier time supporting Obama if it meant having the first female VP in history. Without something like this to repair that rift between Obama and Clinton supporters it could be quite the uphill battle against Mccain.
Hillary will be a bad choice in my opinion. Having Hillary on the ticket will secure the women and Hispanic vote, but will alienate those in the middle, especially conservative and Independent voters in red states. Choosing her contradicts Obama’s message of change. Not to mention the baggage that her husband brings. (Michelle Obama on Bill Clinton: “I want to rip his eyes out!”)
A woman with a high negative rating combined with a black man leading the ticket is a double negative to potential Republican swing voters.
Personally I think Ted Strickland, Tim Kaine, Ben Nelson, Jim Webb, or Evan Bagh of Indiana would help Obama build a bridge with white, working class voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama cannot lose both Ohio and Pennsylvania. He must win either one or both. Otherwise he will lose the election.
The downside of choosing one of those five is the lack of appeal with Hispanic voters, especially in swing states like New Mexico and Nevada that find Hillary appealing.
Personally, I think the Democrats should be allowed to choose a foreign-born vice president. Who? Former President of Indonesia Megawati Sukarnoputri. Despite never finishing university, she was able to coast to the presidency on pretty much her name alone. The press ignored her shortcomings (which would have sunk any other candidate). Sort of the like Obama and the race issue? 
I’m hoping the Repubs will select a well-qualified minority for the VP slot(a Lieberman or a Rice).
Rice?
Are you insane?
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]Rice?
Are you insane?[/quote]Must be. Rice chaired committee meetings that signed off on torture.
McCain might happily bend over backwards for the religious right, but I’m pretty sure that’s one point he’s not going to let slide.
Someone his own age.
I don’t get this analogy at all. Obama excelled at Columbia and Harvard, unlike the Gentleman’s C’s of our current president. Furthermore, Obama emerged as a complete unknown and defeated HRC, who got to where she was on pretty much her name alone.
Nope, I can’t recall ever reading a single article in the media about Obama and race issues. Chewycorns, I bet you were unaware that Obama was once the member of Trinity Church, who has a reverend who sometimes engages in anti-American rhetoric. Indeed, Obama quit this church before a single newspaper could report his connections to the Rev. Wright.
That’s some pretty weak sauce. If you’re going to rip Obama, at least try ripping on something that’s relevant, like you think he’s too eager to negotiate with Cuba or Iran or his health-care plan is going to inflate the national deficit or his plan to withdraw from Iraq is going to foster an environment friendly for terrorists.
Michelle Obama…his wife.
She’s going to tell him what to do anyway.
Interesting to see how the convention delegates take that news…
[quote=“Dragonbones”]McCain.
And McCain should then choose Obama.[/quote]
A “coalition” government of sorts? That would be really interesting. There’s no precedent for this right?
How about Oprah? I hate the woman’s show and really hate her fans, but her philanthropic nature would be the jam on Barack’s peanut butter.
Seriously, what about Oprah?
There are only a couple of politicos worth a damn in America. “The Body” Jesse Ventura would be the best VP for Obama.
That this thread has gotten to 4 pages without his name nominated is a sad indictment on the regular political pundits of Forumosa.!
Back when he made those famous remarks about religion being fake, one wit retorted: “Then what is pro wrestling, Jesse?”
Who to compare him with–Screaming Lord Sutch?
Back to the topic, I wonder why the names of Nancy Pelosi or Dianne Feinstein don’t come up more. Is it because they’re Californian, and Obama expects to win there anyway? Or are there some scandals / personality clashes I’m not aware of?
Arnold Schwarzenegger for VP…
[quote=“alidarbac”]
I don’t get this analogy at all. Obama excelled at Columbia and Harvard, unlike the Gentleman’s C’s of our current president. Furthermore, Obama emerged as a complete unknown and defeated HRC, who got to where she was on pretty much her name alone. [/quote]
Megawati became president just because she was the daughter of Sukarno. The press in that country fawned over her on that fact alone. Obama got the nomination just because of the color of his skin. Surely, if a white candidate was associated with a preacher of hate, if their first entry into politics was funded by a shady Syrian businessman (Retzko), and if their wife badmouthed the good ole’ US of A on a number of occasions, they would be delegated to a second-tier status pretty quickly. The media have propped up Obama the same way the Indonesian/Southeast Asian media fawned over Sukarnoputri. Of course, I was taking the piss out of the question (given the current laws regarding foreigners becoming president in the US).
I was under the impression Obama got the nomination because more people voted for him.
In an age in which most people obtain their information primarily from the Internet and mainstream news media are being hollowed out I’d say “media creations” are largely a thing of the past.
[quote=“spook”]I was under the impression Obama got the nomination because more people voted for him.[/quote]They pick the party nominee at the convention. Thats where a whole lot of people from different parts of America get together, wear funnt hats, make speeches about their state when their name is called and then vote for a candidate to represent the party.
Watch this thread for the results.
[quote=“spook”]In an age in which most people obtain their information primarily from the Internet and mainstream news media are being hollowed out I’d say “media creations” are largely a thing of the past.[/quote]And I’d say that on the internet everyone can have their say.
If that were true, then why didn’t Chisholm, Jackson, Keyes, Sharpton and so on get it? Obviously there’s something different about Obama, and just because you’re unable to see that doesn’t make it not so. I wouldn’t have voted for some of them, and it isn’t because of the color of their skin. I will be voting for Obama, and that isn’t because of the color of his skin either.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]I was under the impression Obama got the nomination because more people voted for him.[/quote]They pick the party nominee at the convention. Thats where a whole lot of people from different parts of America get together, wear funnt hats, make speeches about their state when their name is called and then vote for a candidate to represent the party.
Watch this thread for the results.
So in Tainan Cowboyland the Democratic Convention is going to be a real cliffhanger. Maybe we should make a bet. I’ll put a gazillion dollars and my false teeth on Obama. You feeling lucky . . . ?
If that were true, then why didn’t Chisholm, Jackson, Keyes, Sharpton and so on get it? Obviously there’s something different about Obama, and just because you’re unable to see that doesn’t make it not so. I wouldn’t have voted for some of them, and it isn’t because of the color of their skin. I will be voting for Obama, and that isn’t because of the color of his skin either.[/quote]
From my understanding of the nomination process for the Democratic Party, it went through major changes after '68. While these changes were implemented in time for '72, they were still new. Chisholm was a woman. I would argue the Democratic Party apparatus in '72 was still very patriarchal. A McGovern was ok, but a Chisholm was not. Jackson? 
His Hymietown comment? Sharpton has made similar comments against Jews. Keyes is a very principled person, but his positions are far from the mainstream (even within the Repub Party).
Obama is different? Perhaps, he is more acceptable than the above-mentioned people. However, I again ask you this question. If a white candidate had a long-standing association with a preacher of hate and if a white candidate’s wife spoke so negatively about the US, would they have got the nomination? Shouldn’t there be one set of standards for all? Isn’t that truly being color blind as Frederick Douglas would have envisioned?