And you can say, "well, silly voter, you should have gotten out of bed earlier and crossed more of your Ts and dotted more of your Is," but at what point does all the T-crossing and I-dotting fail to have a purpose and become just another depressant to democracy?

And one would frickin' think that such a simple statement about the ills of pointless bureaucracy couldn't possibly be opposed by a libertarian, but here we are.

I think Richardson's out. I think he'd be a terrifc veep, but two brown guys on the ticket is way too scary for most.

I don't know about this. His actual ethnic background notwithstanding, is Richardson "perceived" as Latino by the rank and file voters (given his anglo-sounding name)?

EDIT: Besides, he might help shore up Obama's iffy support among Latino voters, which would be a big deal in swing states like CO, NM and NV.

I wonder if anti-voter ID people would be upset if their banks closed out their accounts and handed the money to the first person who comes in and says, "I'm MCoA. It's racist to make me show ID, so I won't. You just have to trust me that I am."

The payoff is much higher for emptying a bank account than stealing a vote.

The only problem is that this is what everyone is saying. I doubt there is any transparency left to the action. More important is the delicious consequences to Hilary. She could have walked away over a month ago. Her head could have still been held high, she would have saved lots of money that was spent needlessly, would not have had to spend her own money, and not gotten into that negative crap she was pushing all across America.

I disagree. Clinton proved a lot in the last few months - she has a massive constituency in the Democratic party, and any Democrat who wants to win nationally will need her. She's cemented herself as a power broker in the party, and she'll be able to have a very strong voice in the upcoming general election campaign. Staying in the race, as annoying as it might have been to Clinton's opponents, has and will continue to serve her well.

And I can't blame her - she didn't trick her voters into choosing her, they like her better. There aren't quite enough of them to win the nomination, but she absolutely had the right to stay in the race and win Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania and let her voters express their preference. She'll now be able to deliver quite a few votes to Obama, and she'll be able to get concessions from him on a number of fronts. Obama will be happy to give. It's the way politics work. If you have proved you have a constituency that is sufficiently large, you get stuff.

Andy and I exchanged emails about Clinton v Webb awhile back, and I can see it both ways. There would be great symbolic value in an Obama/Clinton ticket, and there would be practical value as well in terms of the base. But I don't think that ticket would have a lot of appeal to independents--it would be a purely Democratic show, and would provide the Repubs with endless material for mockery (Andy's point). On a gut level, I also think there is some Obama/Clinton fatigue--they have both been in our faces for 15 months now. A new face/voice on the stump might help. Further, I think Demos would be simply looking to independents to vote against McCain, rather than FOR the BO/HC ticket. Finally, I do not think she would accept the VP spot anyway.

Webb, as Andy points out, would appeal to some centrists, alleviate the patriotism/security issue, appeal to many blue-collar voters and would be harder for Repubs to piss on in some ways.

As far as women "coming home", as much as I respect many elements of John McCain's public persona and see him as a reasonably appealing candidate, it is hard for me to picture that many women with centrist/Democratic leanings pulling the lever for him against Barack Obama when the chips are down just because they are pissed off about Hillary Clinton's coming up short, just as I think most of the hard right will ultimately be with McCain in November as well.

So if I had to pick Webb or Clinton, in terms of winning, I lean slightly towards Webb. As Doug Wilder said, the most important person in this election cycle from the Demo standpoint in some respects will be the LOSER of the Clinton v. Obama battle. Assuming that is Clinton, she is going to be part of this anyway, and Obama will need her help to win, whether she is on the ticket or not.

My personal favorite, leaving winning aside, is Bill Richardson.

Matt,

I don't know about Huckabee as VP from McCain's standpoint strategically, but I agree with you otherwise, and have reposted his "cut some slack" statements about Wright here three times--they are my favorite words in this campaign from any candidate so far.

Robin-

I can see the case that Webb might be slightly better for electability than Clinton, though I find it questionable and impossible to prove. However, Clinton is well to the left of Webb on a number of issues, and I don't know of any on which she's to his right. From a leftist perspective, I'd rather not sacrifice basic ideological goals in pursuit of electability that hasn't been demonstrated.

I think the "Pro" move for Obama is to forgive Clinton - with an "all's fair in love and war" and offer her the VP nomination. People like a gracious winner, and this was the closest primary race in a long, long time. Clinton can joke about "toughening ya up for the general", they can hug and sing hosannas.

I think all the "but now they Hate each other" is just media projection. Politicians can't hate (or love) each other - or if they do - they have to put it aside.

I actually thought this was the solution to the Dems' issues back in Feb/March before it got ugly.

The question is - are there swing voters who hate (The) Clinton (s) more than random VP candidate X.

Actually, when was the last time anyone's VP candidate mattered? Evidence?

Personally, I don't think requiring identification is a draconian intrusion. The problem occurs with the strict type mandates that occur in IN.

I think this is a much more reasonable argument, and I can get behind it. And it would be a lot more convincing that Democrats weren't trying to benefit from voter fraud if they would -- as you propose -- work to make the laws easier to comply with, instead of opposing these laws altogether based on bogus arguments about how black people are incapable of complying with neutral rules.

The problem, which I would think good libs would share, is that IN, et. al., is making you get your ID from the Man. Not everybody listens to what the Man says AND YOU CAN'T DISENFRANCHISE THEM FOR THIS REASON.

Well, you can.

Good point. Republican party candidates have come from all across the demographic spectrum, men and young, black and white and hispanic and asian. No one group has predominated.

Thanks for helping to prove my point about your obsession with identity politics.

I can see the case that Webb might be slightly better for electability than Clinton, though I find it questionable and impossible to prove. However, Clinton is well to the left of Webb on a number of issues, and I don't know of any on which she's to his right. From a leftist perspective, I'd rather not sacrifice basic ideological goals in pursuit of electability that hasn't been demonstrated.

That's a legitimate perspective, but the sort of ways in which Hillary is to the "left" of Webb mostly involve the sort of tangential social issues like gun control or women in combat that aren't going to be central to any new administration to begin with. On economic issues they're both rhetorically populist and realistic centrist liberals, as is Obama.

And then there's the bigger question of Hillary's enormous negative numbers, and the fact that with her on the ticket you'd probably not only get the otherwise anti-McCain conservatives totally energized out of pure fright---hell, you might get Nixon, Ford and the Gipper himself slithering out of their graves for one last goaround. I do admit that this would be entertaining, but I'm not sure that it'd be good for the Democrats.

Thanks for helping to prove my point about your obsession with identity politics.

No, my point is that voting for and nominating almost only white men is a form of identity politics. You don't like to call it that, but it's insane to think that it's only when a woman or a black man benefits from the votes of their demographic comrades that we see identity politics in play.

The obvious VP choice for McCain is Huckabee.

I would like it if McCain picked Fred Thompson as his running mate. If he picked Huckabee, I might leave the country.

McCain is one of the few candidates in the modern era where the vice presidential choice might be significant, because he actually is very old.

The question is - are there swing voters who hate (The) Clinton (s) more than random VP candidate X.

Than Webb? Yeah, I'd say so.

Actually, when was the last time anyone's VP candidate mattered? Evidence?

1960, when LBJ was widely credited with swinging Texas to Kennedy. But I think it's fair to say that lately there's been a lot more scrutiny of all politicians, and this year's pair of VP candidates will be vetted far more thoroughly than they have been in the past. YouTube alone insures that.

This post ties Tris Speaker for 5th all time.

Next up: Stan Musial, 3630

when was the last time anyone's VP candidate mattered? Evidence?

I think that the choice of a running mate shows something about the Presidential candidate. Some are strong enough to pick a major figure, indeed to some degree an intraparty opponent (JFK, LBJ, Reagan). Some choose somebody they will look good standing next to (Nixon, 41). 43 choosing Cheney (or rather letting Cheney choose himself) was just weird; the analogue might be Obama choosing Bill Clinton.

But no, I think there is no evidence that the VP candidate matters in terms of the election itself. If Spiro Agnew could be elected against Ed Muskie, and Dan Quayle against Lloyd Bentsen, there is just no evidence that the voters care in the slightest. Things were a little different back when the convention and the party regulars had more influence on the choice: a VP candidate would "balance the ticket" (usually by providing a Southerner for a northern Democrat to run with) in ways that had strong political benefits for the party.

Edit: Andy's right about 1960; in addition to proving that JFK wasn't scared of a powerful VP, Johnson was a perfect ticket-balancer.

I would like it if McCain picked Fred Thompson as his running mate.

His abysmal performance in the primaries isn't disqualifying for you? If there's one thing that should be non-negotiable in a vice president, it's work ethic.

I would like it if McCain picked Fred Thompson as his running mate. If he picked Huckabee, I might leave the country.

Thereby joining Retardo in the honeymoon cabin of the Niagra / Viagra Express if Obama picked Webb.

McCain is one of the few candidates in the modern era where the vice presidential choice might be significant, because he actually is very old.

That's a good point, though it may not be openly discussed all that much.

I would like it if McCain picked Fred Thompson as his running mate.

YouTube would be overrun with "Grumpy Old Men" parody videos in the first few seconds after this was announced.

Edit: Andy's right about 1960; in addition to proving that JFK wasn't scared of a powerful VP, Johnson was a perfect ticket-balancer.

You're right about the ticket balancing, but that "powerful VP" proved to be about as marginalized in the Kennedy administration as the Blair House gardener. It's easy to forget that if all we remember is LBJ in the Senate or as President.

I think VP matters more this time than usual, electorally, due to McCain's age, Obama's overall profile, and the unique nature of the Democratic primary race.

I personally think that Obama would be well-served with Joe Biden. Obviously, I disagree with Biden politically, but he can probably bring in a lot of the white moderates in states like OH and PA that like Clinton and McCain, without Hillary's baggage.

Since Biden tends more towards being a realist and he's experienced, Obama can focus on his electoral strengths, the general belief that he has a vision for the future and wants to move above post-partisan politics, while Biden can be the pragmatist and when the campaign wants to play dirty in the trenches, Biden's experienced at running his mouth and Obama can stay above the fray. It downplays the experience card, which is one of McCain's perceived strengths and one of Obama's perceived weaknesses.

I actually looked up 1960... JFK won by 84 electoral votes, Texas was worth 24. I am not sure if this means LBJ _did_ matter or not...

And then there's the bigger question of Hillary's enormous negative numbers, and the fact that with her on the ticket you'd probably not only get the otherwise anti-McCain conservatives totally energized out of pure fright

Yeah, maybe... actually VP might come down to encouraging right-leaners to actually not bother to vote instead of holding their noses and voting McCain.

The election would have to be extremely close for this to matter - like 1960 or 2004 close, in which case you are probably better picking the biggest swing state and targeting a VP candidate to pander to them. Ohio? Florida?

While McCain's age is an obvious concern he needs to address with his VP candidate, does going after someone for age ever really work, even if it is a legitimate concern? Elderly voters are high turnout in elections and there are currently 23 senators older than McCain.

What about Mitt Romney for McCain's VP? Brings economic credibility, states into the fold, and serves the 'younger guy' role to McCain's age issue.

What about Mitt Romney for McCain's VP?

The problem there, I think, is that no one likes Mitt Romney. (This is also why I think Joe Biden is a bad choice, though Romney's problems are broader.) Huckabee remains the obvious choice, the anger he provokes in extreme economic conservatives is just further evidence. Hardline supply-sidin' tax-cuttin' laissez-fairism is not going to win any elections in 2008.

While McCain's age is an obvious concern he needs to address with his VP candidate, does going after someone for age ever really work, even if it is a legitimate concern

.

To be very clear, I do NOT think anyone should use McCain's age against him in deciding who to vote for, nor should it be a campaign issue. And yeah, I think many older voters will LIKE the fact that he is 72. But some people will think about it. IIRC McCain alluded to it himself in terms of picking a VP.

I think the "Pro" move for Obama is to forgive Clinton - with an "all's fair in love and war" and offer her the VP nomination. People like a gracious winner, and this was the closest primary race in a long, long time. Clinton can joke about "toughening ya up for the general", they can hug and sing hosannas.

I think all the "but now they Hate each other" is just media projection. Politicians can't hate (or love) each other - or if they do - they have to put it aside.

I actually thought this was the solution to the Dems' issues back in Feb/March before it got ugly.

The question is - are there swing voters who hate (The) Clinton (s) more than random VP candidate X.

I would think the question would be, would Hillary accept the offer? Frankly, unless she plans to bump him off the way she did Vince Foster (I kid), what does the VP slot offer her? It's really not a promotion.

The problem there, I think, is that no one likes Mitt Romney.

Yeah. Romney is sort of the Republican version of Ed Muskie or John Kerry, "appeal"-wise,

Hardline supply-sidin' tax-cuttin' laissez-fairism is not going to win any elections in 2008.

Yeah, but what if those extreme economic conservatives go off and vote for Barr rather than McCain?

Dan, how long do you think it would take for that video of Biden lifting Neil Kinnock's speech to appear on YouTube? That helped to drive him out of the 1988 primaries, and though it's largely been forgotten now, I doubt if the Republicans would be able to resist such a "character" issue handed to them on a silver platter.

I actually looked up 1960... JFK won by 84 electoral votes, Texas was worth 24. I am not sure if this means LBJ _did_ matter or not...

That's pure hindsight, but it also ignores that Illinois (27 EVs)went for Kennedy by fewer than 9,000 votes. Reverse that, and JFK's 30 EVs ahead, and if Texas had voted for Nixon it would have given him the election.

I would like it if McCain picked Fred Thompson as his running mate.


YouTube would be overrun with "Grumpy Old Men" parody videos in the first few seconds after this was announced.

This actually made me laugh out loud. Awesome mental picture, even though I actually like Fred Thompson.

While McCain's age is an obvious concern he needs to address with his VP candidate, does going after someone for age ever really work, even if it is a legitimate concern?

I'm not suggesting Obama publicly attack McCain on his age; that doesn't mean it won't be an issue. The media can make it one, if they decide they want to.

Of course, McCain could just say, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience."

Elderly voters are high turnout in elections and there are currently 23 senators older than McCain.

The consequences of a senator dying are not anything like the consequences of a president dying. The stakes are far lower.

what does the VP slot offer her?

Good question. Possible answers:

A springboard in 2012 if they lose

A chance to show people she is willing to accept the #2 spot for "the good of the country and the party" which would perhaps counteract the perception that she is all about ambition and cares about no one other than herself and about nothing other than power.

the disgusting "La Raza" separatist group

Man, Joey gets more ridiculous with every post. I used to think he was just a pretty conservative Republican, but it's pretty clear now he's a Malkin-type nut.

Yeah, but what if those extreme economic conservatives go off and vote for Barr rather than McCain?

Maybe. There are so many fewer of them than there are evangelicals, though, that I think shoring up evangelicals is far more important than shoring up the Club for Growth and the libertarians. One of the better rules of politics, which can be obscured by the odd demographics of the internets, is that there isn't actually a constituency for libertarianism, and pretty much any trade-off which sells out libertarians will be worth it.

Certainly, if there's a candidate out there who provides what Huckabee does without shuffling ten thousand votes to Barr, he'd be a good pick. I know that's what some people see in Bobby Jindal. I don't know Jindal that well, and am willing to be convinced, but I think that Huckabee's quasi-populism would be a net winner, and while I've heard good things about Jindal's game, Huckabee's proven to be a hell of a politician on the national scene already.

McCain is one of the few candidates in the modern era where the vice presidential choice might be significant, because he actually is very old.

That's a good point, though it may not be openly discussed all that much.

Am I on ignore? See post 3437. I was surprised this didn't get more of a response.

What did bunyon say in 3537? I have him on ignore.

His abysmal performance in the primaries isn't disqualifying for you? If there's one thing that should be non-negotiable in a vice president, it's work ethic.

I'm a libertarian. The same reasons I like him policywise are reasons I like his performance (*) in the primaries. I don't want someone who desperately wants to be president to be president.

I followed his campaign pretty closely on CSPAN, and was very impressed by it. He refused to give pre-packaged, sound bite answers. I saw him at a radio event where the host asked questions and then took some calls from viewers; he actually sat back and thought about answers before giving them.

I think this post-mortem on his campaign helps explain why I liked him.


(*) That is, his performance, not the results of his performance, which were obviously quite disappointing.

Maybe. There are so many fewer of them than there are evangelicals, though, that I think shoring up evangelicals is far more important than shoring up the Club for Growth and the libertarians. One of the better rules of politics, which can be obscured by the odd demographics of the internets, is that there isn't actually a constituency for libertarianism, and pretty much any trade-off which sells out libertarians will be worth it.

Indeed. If Huckabee is the Republican VP nominee, I'll either vote for Obama of the L candidate (is that Barr - I have no idea.) MCoA is right: Americans are not libertarians. Americans want big government to either regulate what other people do in the bedroom or take other people's property. Or, increasingly, both.

EDIT: Phhhttthtthtphth. (aimed at robinred).

To be very clear, I do NOT think anyone should use McCain's age against him in deciding who to vote for, nor should it be a campaign issue.

I get that politically it may not make sense for Obama to use this as a campaign issue in any direct way (*), but why shouldn't people use McCain's age against him in deciding who to vote for? I think it's a legitimate factor in a presidential election.

(*) Obama doesn't really even need to anyway, since the media will write about this incessantly and there will be plenty of jokes about it on late night tv and on youtube and what not.

Indeed. If Huckabee is the Republican VP nominee, I'll either vote for Obama of the L candidate (is that Barr - I have no idea.)

Barr is one of the leading contenders. They haven't picked their nominee yet.

To be very clear, I do NOT think anyone should use McCain's age against him in deciding who to vote for, nor should it be a campaign issue.

I think it's going to become one, and I think there are legitimate reasons why it SHOULD be a concern. McCain's showing some signs of slippage - forgetfulness, stumbling over words, etc. - that bring back memories of Reagan 1984, and that's got to raise questions about his competence going forward.

-- MWE

Note that I meant 3437. Sorry.

Barr is one of the leading contenders. They haven't picked their nominee yet.

I think I'd pay a sizeable sum to see a Barr vs. Hillary VP debate. God, that would be priceless. I wonder how many seconds it would take for him to bring up Paula Jones and Monica?

I think it's going to become one, and I think there are legitimate reasons why it SHOULD be a concern. McCain's showing some signs of slippage - forgetfulness, stumbling over words, etc. - that bring back memories of Reagan 1984, and that's got to raise questions about his competence going forward.

I have not listened to the guy much, so if I see a lot of this, I might change my position. But I don't think the "The guy is 72; he might die in office" should be a factor, if the man seems in control of his faculties.

DMN,

Good piece on Thompson. What is interesting to me is that the personality described does not seem to match with being an ACTOR--seemingly a hustling, grasping "political" job in many ways--yet that is Thompson's other career.

what does the VP slot offer her?


Good question. Possible answers:

A springboard in 2012 if they lose

A chance to show people she is willing to accept the #2 spot for "the good of the country and the party" which would perhaps counteract the perception that she is all about ambition and cares about no one other than herself and about nothing other than power.


Nice answer, and I would gravitate toward this more than MCoA's analysis of why Hilary stays in the race.

She doesn't really have anything to get from Obama. She doesn't have a touchstone issue. She may have money and favors that she needs, but those should be available regardless of her appointments/campaigning unless she really flies the coop.

Most presidents and even presidential candidates had an identifiable issue, and some identifable home state that needed favors. The Clintons, more so than just about any other people, have only been about the Clintons. They change issues they way most people change underwear. They change addresses even more. Hilarity spent most of her speech last night talking about "...the gas tax holiday." something she grafted onto like she grafted onto the NY Yankees. She projects fake care while she blows through 1 Million dollars a day on a campaign that has as much public good as her getting a massage. There is nothing she wants from a policy standpoint or a public good standpoint. All she cares about is her own ego and her own position. She has jacked her spouse's identity to try and create her own set of accomplishments. At least know we won't have to worry about her answering the phone, b/c as Drudge is reporting...nobody is even going to call her.

I'm a libertarian. The same reasons I like him policywise are reasons I like his performance (*) in the primaries. I don't want someone who desperately wants to be president to be president.

Sure. I'm a leftist. I love Cornel West, for instance. He'd be an awesome VP, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not advocating for West as a vice presidential candidate because I recognize that my preferences run counter to the preferences of most Americans.

Likewise, a guy who just can't bring himself to put in the effort to campaign might appeal to people who don't want government to put in the effort to provide services, but that's not exactly going to win net votes.

Most presidents and even presidential candidates had an identifiable issue, and some identifable home state that needed favors. The Clintons, more so than just about any other people, have only been about the Clintons. They change issues they way most people change underwear.

Clinton's signature issue throughout the primary campaign has been health care. Clinton's signature issue as first lady back in 1993 was health care.

I think that you're showing, yes, elitism(!) in dismissing the Clintons as being about nothing more than themselves, instead of asking why it is that they have been so successful in national politics. I would submit it's because they really do care about policy specifics, about articulating and defending and enacting meliorist center-left domestic policy that can make life better at the margins for a variety of folks. In this election, that has been signified most by Clinton's wonk-approved health care proposal, and I think that's where her support has come from throughout the campaign.

But I don't think the "The guy is 72; he might die in office" should be a factor, if the man seems in control of his faculties.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm harping on this, RR, but I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning as to why precisely what you say above shouldn't be a factor.

Good question. Possible answers:

A springboard in 2012 if they lose

The losing VP candidates of the last ten elections, in reverse order: Edwards, Lieberman, Kemp, Quayle, Bentsen, Ferraro, Mondale, Dole, Shriver, Muskie. Of those ten, only one -- Mondale -- even got his party's nomination the next time around; not one of them came close to being president. (Dole eventually got a nomination 20 years later; I don't think it was because he was using his losing VP role as a springboard.) So I think this is one of those answers that sounds a lot better in theory than practice.

A chance to show people she is willing to accept the #2 spot for "the good of the country and the party" which would perhaps counteract the perception that she is all about ambition and cares about no one other than herself and about nothing other than power.

Yes, but (1) she is all about ambition, and (2) giving up a senate seat seems like an awfully big sacrifice just to make people who aren't her constituents anyway think nicer things about her.

Clinton's signature issue throughout the primary campaign has been health care. Clinton's signature issue as first lady back in 1993 was health care.

That is precisely the problem. That is like saying Hilary's campaigning has beena about her baseball fandom. Hilarycare in 1993 is about as different as the Mittcare she has latched onto as the Cubs are from the Yankees.

I think that's where her support has come from throughout the campaign.


Where her support has come from has been quite clear:

(1) White women;
(2) Rural areas; and
(3) Crossover voters

It has a lot to do with lying and telling people what they want to hear, and in stealing Bush's "anti-intellectual" persona.

Hilary's issue du jour and her biography changed depending on which state she was standing in. Her daddy teaching her how to shoot a gun--please. She would have been better off inventing the internets.

think that you're showing, yes, elitism(!) in dismissing the Clintons as being about nothing more than themselves, instead of asking why it is that they have been so successful in national politics.

There is nothing elitist about not liking the Waffle House politics of the Clintons. There success is simple. They run a poll, tell people what they want to hear, and obscure what they do. They have taken politics to the next level of entertainment extreme, making policy about ratings rather than long term needs.

Hilary wants nothing but more exposure for Hilary.

there isn't actually a constituency for libertarianism

That's not strictly true. I think a non-trivial proportion of males age 13-21 are essentially libertarian in outlook. They are self-interested, resistant to authority, and reject the idea that they owe anything to anyone else. Women almost never have this outlook on the world, and men generally outgrow it (but as this thread demonstrates, it takes some longer than others). 20-something libertarians aren't uncommon, but those in their 30s are rarely seen in the wild, and after age 40 you will find them only inside the Cato Institute offices....

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm harping on this, RR, but I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning as to why precisely what you say above shouldn't be a factor.

I suppose from your perspective because I am a hypersensitive PC liberal. Simply, I don't like the idea that age in and of itself would be held against the guy, as long as:

his physical health is OK
his mind is working OK

One could suggest that a President, like any person with a lot of responsibility, sometimes has to work 15 hours straight and make decisions, which might be tough for an old man, but it seems to me that you could say that is balanced by his experience.

The losing VP candidates of the last ten elections, in reverse order: Edwards, Lieberman, Kemp, Quayle, Bentsen, Ferraro, Mondale, Dole, Shriver, Muskie. Of those ten, only one -- Mondale -- even got his party's nomination the next time around; not one of them came close to being president.

Sure, but she is different than all of those guys in any number of ways--name recognition, level of support and of course gender in 9/10 of the cases.

Yes, but (1) she is all about ambition

Well, there you go. And those people who "aren't her constituents anyway" are exactly the people she needs to "think nicer things about her" if she wants to be the POTUS.

Ray, Mike:

Upon reflection, I am not saying it right: I don't think age should be a huge factor/deal breaker, but I can see its being a factor for some.

Hilarycare in 1993 is about as different as the Mittcare she has latched onto as the Cubs are from the Yankees.

I think this is niggling over specifics and missing the point. Both plans deliver affordable health care to all Americans and offer solutions both for the millions of uninsured Americans but also for the under-insured, those who live at risk of financial ruin in the case of illness or injury in their families. HillaryCare did so through one mechanism, and the new Edwards plan does so through a quite different mechanism, but the ultimate goal remains the same. I think that center-left policy types learned from HillaryCare that it was necessary, to sell health care reform, to ensure that everyone could keep their existing coverage, and so the Edwards plan that Clinton endorsed and improved on the edges offers solutions to the same problems through a mechanism that allows people to keep health care coverage that they like.

EDIT: another way of putting it. Pretty much everyone who supported HillaryCare in '93 supports something that looks like Clinton's plan for health care reform in 2008. This is not because everyone in center-left policy circles is a soulless power-monger, but because expert opinion on health care reform has changed - while the same basic problems are identified and the same basic ethical outlook informs the effort, the specific plan that most endorse has changed because of the experiences of the last fifteen years.

Hilary's issue du jour and her biography changed depending on which state she was standing in.

Not to mention her accent. This is priceless. All she needed was a coonskin hat and a Davy Crockett badge.

I don't see how age trumps beliefs/values. I mean, all things being equal, I'd choose Obama over McCain based on health and life expectancy. But all things aren't equal; they don't hold the same views on most issues so I'd rather go with the one that agrees with me and might die than the one that doesn't, but is likely to live through his term. Assuming, of course, that the one that agrees with me doesn't select a running mate who does disagree with me.

It isn't that age isn't an issue, it's that it isn't as big an issue as war, economy, liberty, etc.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, RR. Yes, I agree that there are competing factors to the issue. For example, older is a negative in certain respects, but perhaps a positive in other respects (experience, etc). I'm only saying it should be a factor, not in itself determinative.

Joey - you are right that the Republicans tend to avoid identity politics, and that's a good thing. But ultimately you have to fight fire with fire. Obama's campaign is going to bring out a lot of first time voters and groups with traditionally mediocre turnouts (the young, blacks). At the same time the Republican brand is badly damaged, and McCain is likely unable to match Bush's totals in 2004, let alone surpass them.

Nieporent is right that the Republicans are going to put Obama under a different kind of scrutiny than Clinton did - they are going to attack him on the policies, as a left-liberal ideologue. I just don't think it's going to work - it will be like trying to nail down a blancmange. Obama is all things to all men and nothing to anyone. Besides which the country may well fancy a bit of left-liberal ideology, having tried the neocon flavour and found it lacking. I worry that if McCain goes for a traditional VP nominee hoping to pick up a swing state or solidify his base, he could well get obliterated. The turnout numbers for the Democratic primaries are terrifying.

McCain's best shot is to try and steal Democrats from Obama - they count for twice as much as new voters brought in (because they're switching). I think the best way to do this is to choose a woman, and...

Well, I'm going to get slated for this next bit, but here goes. The fact is that politics is not about getting votes from the people who agree with you, it's about getting votes from the people who don't agree with you. So McCain's VP candidate should absolutely be white (although I can see the argument for a Hispanic). He's not going to pick up any black votes whoever he chooses, so it makes sense maybe... It makes me uncomfortable thinking along these lines, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

The problem is I don't know what candidate would fit the bill. The most senior female Republican politicians is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who I have never heard of.

Sure. I'm a leftist. I love Cornel West, for instance. He'd be an awesome VP, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not advocating for West as a vice presidential candidate because I recognize that my preferences run counter to the preferences of most Americans.

Likewise, a guy who just can't bring himself to put in the effort to campaign might appeal to people who don't want government to put in the effort to provide services, but that's not exactly going to win net votes.

Thompson is well-liked across the conservative spectrum, and running for vice president is not at all the same as running for president. When you're running for president, you're making a case why you should get people's votes; when you're running for vice president, you're making a case why your running mate should.

Not to mention her accent.

My favorite was the southern accent she put on during -- and then after -- reciting James Cleveland. The "I don't feel noways tired" speech.

When you're running for president, you're making a case why you should get people's votes; when you're running for vice president, you're making a case why your running mate should.

Right, and the way you make that case is by working tirelessly. You travel night after night to different events, you speechify and converse and you win voters. You gladhand your way through endless fundraisers and backslapping sessions with party power brokers. You don't sleep, you lose your voice, you miss out on time with your family. That is how the game is played. Fred Thompson finds that game beneath him. Which may be an admirable trait in him as a person, but it makes him a terrible VP choice.

Obama is all things to all men and nothing to anyone.

If you feel this way, why, then, did you say, as you did, IIRC, that last night was a "great night for American politics?"

I also find the statement itself to be pretty condescending to me and anyone else who likes Obama, but that is a somewhat separate question.

The most senior female Republican politician

Our Senator has been mentioned at times. She is not a bad Senator as lockstep stone conservatives go. She's not up for reelection, and her seat is safe anyway.

If Huckabee is McCain's running mate, age and health become decisive factors for me - I don't want the health of a 72-to-75-year-old melanoma survivor being all that's standing in the way of President Huck.

I think this is niggling over specifics and missing the point

RACIST!

McCain is one of the few candidates in the modern era where the vice presidential choice might be significant, because he actually is very old.

There's no denying that McCain is old by the usual standards of this process.

But I'd argue that the choice is equally significant for Obama since he's so young, and such an inexperienced and unqualified tyro for this job.

The problem is I don't know what candidate would fit the bill. The most senior female Republican politicians is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who I have never heard of.

Very prominent Cuban-American Florida congresswoman. Unfortunately (for her), emphasis on Cuban, which means she's ineligible.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, but I don't think she'd excite anybody. Sarah Palin would make the libertarian wing of the GOP swoon. Condi Rice would make the wing of the GOP that was in a coma for the past seven years swoon. (She's also not interested.) That's about it for female options.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080507/ts_csm/amccain

No ####...

Condi Rice would make the wing of the GOP that was in a coma for the past seven years swoon.

Heh.

Sarah Palin would make the libertarian wing of the GOP swoon.

She's got quite the interesting bio. And she eats mooseburgers, for god's sake!

McCain/Lieberman would be amusing. Never happen, though.

McCain/Lieberman would be amusing. Never happen, though.

Amusing, but insane. Take the least popular aspect of McCain's platform and find someone who agrees with McCain on nothing but that. It would appeal to all 4 people -- three of whom are named "David Broder" -- who swoon at the word bipartisan, regardless of what it applies to.

She's got quite the interesting bio. And she eats mooseburgers, for god's sake!

If Alaska weren't an utterly safe GOP state, and if anybody outside of libertarian circles and Alaskans had ever heard of her, she'd be a great choice. It would definitely be interesting to see what effect it would have on the identity politics aspects of the campaign.

McCain/Jeb Bush or McCain/Quayle would be fun.

Has anyone ever been a vice president for two different presidents?

It would appeal to all 4 people -- three of whom are named "David Broder" -- who swoon at the word bipartisan, regardless of what it applies to.

But it's bipartisan! He's a uniter, not a divider! It's a new kind of politics! Can't you see?

I really don't think Cheney would be a good pick.

Edit: in reference to 3576, of course.

Has anyone ever been a vice president for two different presidents

Atomic Dog George Clinton
John C. Calhoun

I really don't think Cheney would be a good pick.

Edit: ignore me now, dogs!

My computer is really misbehaving.

Well, I don't know that Alaska's being a safe GOP state *should* disqualify Palin; on the Dem side, there's non-ridiculous talk of certain deep-blue state Dems (Clinton, Biden) being paired with Obama, who of course is also from a deep blue state. I agree that the tendency is to try to put swing states in play by selecting running mates from those states (not sure how well that actually works, but that's the tendency), which certainly disfavors Palin in practice.

Then again, if Huckabee's regarded as a serious contender, no reason Palin shouldn't be; Arkansas is about as red as Alaska (at least, when a Clinton's not running). Of course, they'd be on the ticket for totally different reasons; I suspect the powers that be still think the evangelical vote is more important to the GOP than the libertarian vote, and perhaps they're right.

Hmm, well neither George Clinton nor John Calhoun would be great VP picks this time around.

I think this is niggling over specifics and missing the point. Both plans deliver affordable health care to all Americans and offer solutions both for the millions of uninsured Americans but also for the under-insured, those who live at risk of financial ruin in the case of illness or injury in their families. HillaryCare did so through one mechanism, and the new Edwards plan does so through a quite different mechanism, but the ultimate goal remains the same. I think that center-left policy types learned from HillaryCare that it was necessary, to sell health care reform, to ensure that everyone could keep their existing coverage, and so the Edwards plan that Clinton endorsed and improved on the edges offers solutions to the same problems through a mechanism that allows people to keep health care coverage that they like.

In 1993, she did about the worse job someone could do in uniting people behind a cause. She treated it like busy work, and when she got put on the bench, she didn't mention it again until it was a hot topic.

I believed Slick back when he told me he felt my pain. Of course, I was young back then. You can only go to the well so often, and those waffle house techniques went out with grunge music.

Atomic Dog George Clinton

Promentalshitrunningmatebackwashexecutivebranchdookiechaser?

Where her support has come from has been quite clear:

(1) White women;
(2) Rural areas; and
(3) Crossover voters

Except, of course, that Obama has won far more crossover voters. He's also won nearly all of the rural states.

the tendency is to try to put swing states in play by selecting running mates from those states (not sure how well that actually works, but that's the tendency)

Bill Clinton winning Tennessee in 1992 is the only time since 1960 it's arguably had any effect. In fact it's interesting how often both parties ignore the VP nominee's home state. Bob Dole was never going to win New York; Al Gore was in no danger of losing Connecticut, and so forth. Dick Cheney didn't really have a home state. Aside from his fondness for undisclosed locations, you recall that he was living in Texas when he picked himself to be W's VP nominee, and in order to get around the Twelfth Amendment, had to quickly register to vote in Wyoming (no idea whether he was asked for picture ID).

Except, of course, that Obama has won far more crossover voters. He's also won nearly all of the rural states.

Right--the rural voters Clinton's won have been in mixed rural/urban states (that are more racially mixed than the states Obama's won). In the states that are more uniformly rural, Obama's done very well.

Bill Clinton winning Tennessee in 1992 is the only time since 1960 it's arguably had any effect.

I was thinking of that. Of course, irony of ironies, Gore went on to lose his own home state at the top of the ticket 8 years later.

In 1993, she did about the worse job someone could do in uniting people behind a cause

That's another reason that tipped me to Obama this year. HRC has been touting her health plan as so much better and more leftish than his, and yet when she had the chance in '93, she seemed to worry more about how the big insurers would like to design universal health care, which turned out to be not at all, which is what we got. It's actually her one serious claim to executive experience, and by far her greatest failure.

If you feel this way, why, then, did you say, as you did, IIRC, that last night was a "great night for American politics?"

Firstly, because Hilary Clinton effectively got knocked out of the Presidential race. And secondly, because I think that Obama becoming President would transform the way America is perceived abroad. Which is worth something.

I also find the statement itself to be pretty condescending to me and anyone else who likes Obama, but that is a somewhat separate question.

3553 is so infinitely condescending (and I'm not even a libertarian) that no-one else in this thread can be accused of that crime.

Firstly, because Hilary Clinton effectively got knocked out of the Presidential race. And secondly, because I think that Obama becoming President would transform the way America is perceived abroad.

Dealing daily as I do with foreigners, I would tend to agree.

Firstly, because Hilary Clinton effectively got knocked out of the Presidential race. And secondly, because I think that Obama becoming President would transform the way America is perceived abroad.


Dealing daily as I do with foreigners, I would tend to agree.

I disagree with the conclusion, but I've heard enough people say it that it should at least be taken seriously. My question is how do people square this belief with the almost as frequently stated belief that Obama's appeal has little or nothing to do with his race?

Well, this is certainly embarrassing.

My question is how do people square this belief with the almost as frequently stated belief that Obama's appeal has little or nothing to do with his race?

This was covered here, in part, a long time ago, in the first thread, when Joey trashed Demos and Obama based on the idea that Obama is nowhere in this if he were a white guy.

As to the other point and how they might relate, my evidence is only anecdotal, and is based largely on contact with students, (although many are older than 30) who are of course somewhat like American students. It is based on daily contact, but based on the other points, I carefully qualified the agreement. That said, many of the foreigners I deal with, particularly Euros and Latinos, as well as some Asians, see America as being politically backwards and immature (many are puzzled as to why we care about where Obama goes to church or what kind of guy his pastor is, why we ##### about taxes so much, and were deeply puzzled as to why we cared about Clinton's getting blow jobs), are very aware of our history of racism and not as aware of the ways we have improved in that area. In addition, many don't get why we elected Bush twice. As such, they tend to see the possibility of our electing BO (or HC) as an indicator of progress.

That said, many of the foreigners I deal with, particularly Euros and Latinos, as well as some Asians, see America as being politically backwards and immature (many are puzzled as to why we care about where Obama goes to church or what kind of guy his pastor is, why we ##### about taxes so much, and were deeply puzzled as to why we cared about Clinton's getting blow jobs), are very aware of out history of racism and not as aware of the ways we have improved in that area. In addition, many don't get why we elected Bush twice. As such, they tend to see the possibility of our electing BO (or HC) as an indicator of progress.

Too bad for McCain he doesn't have you working for him; that paragraph alone is enough to get him elected.

Obama's father was Kenyan, and he still has family in Kenya; he lived in Indonesia, of course, when he was young. He seems to understand that other countries exist. It's a start. "If Obama were a white guy" doesn't make much sense as a hypothetical. But if a white person were the son/daughter of a white non-American and had spent a lot of time in other countries when young, s/he would have similar advantages abroad (Bill Richardson, a former UN Ambassador, is a good example). Of course, being the son of a UN Ambassador, Envoy to China, and CIA Director who forged strong alliances overseas as President ought to have counted for something too, but apparently not.

Too bad for McCain he doesn't have you working for him; that paragraph alone is enough to get him elected.

Not saying I agree with them, and again, a very limited although consistent sample. Since Alou is a conservative and I think British or Canadian, and made the assertion, take it up with him if it irritates or amuses you.

And most of your posts would help either Demo candidate quite a bit as well.

"If Obama were a white guy" doesn't make much sense as a hypothetical.

Well, that is one for you to talk about with Joey.

Robinred: I wasn't saying that you were wrong in reporting how they feel; I was just saying that if you thought "bitter" led to charges of elitism, wait until people hear, "Europeans think Americans are backwards and immature, unless we vote for Obama."

wait until people hear, "Europeans think Americans are backwards and immature, unless we vote for Obama."

Fair enough, but even Alou, who has no use at all for Obama, said so, which I think is a more interesting take than my "report."

And of course, most of them are very opposed to the war--it has far more to do with that than with Obama's being non-white IMO. The stuff I noted is a "bonus."