Latest VP Buzz: O's pick will be connected to convention day's theme -see inside

[Lunar]

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/82562/Obama%5C%5Cs-Vice-President-Is....htm

I'm hooking you guys up with buzz.

There's been some breaking news that Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas's Governor—and a highly touted possible VP candidate for Barack Obama—may have inadvertently slipped information regarding Obama's vice presidential pick. Early Monday morning, Sebelius held a press conference to discuss schedules and events planned for the Democratic National Convention that is coming in two weeks.

The topic of discussion for the conference was specifically what Wednesday of convention week will look like. Sebelius told reporters, "Wednesday night is thematically about securing America's future, it is about honoring our veterans and the families of our veterans... and how to make us safer and move past the divisiveness and into the future."

She then went on to make an intriguing announcement: the Vice Presidential nominee is slated to address the convention on Wednesday night. Typically, this statement would be a standard disbursement of information. However, some reporters who had been paying close attention to Obama's campaign and it tendencies in the past year followed up with a very keen question. They asked if there was a connection between who the VP nominee is and the "theme" of Wednesday night, which again, focuses on national security and veterans/foreign affairs.

Perhaps catching her own slip-up, Sebelius did a small song and dance and then ended by stating, "I think anyone Sen. Obama picks as Vice President will be more than prepared to address those issues."

This is certainly an interesting development. Obama's presidential campaign has demonstrated incredible discipline, an excellent sense of timing and a deft grasp of symbolism. Slotting in the potential VP nominee on Wednesday night cannot be a mistake or unintentional. Nothing about the Obama campaign has been has been done as accidental, fortuitous or haphazard.

There must be a reason for the VP candidate speaking on Wednesday. The timing is more than compelling considering the theme of the night. Obama's camp carved out a prime time speaking time for the vanquished Hillary Clinton. Symbolically, this is a smart move as it portends togetherness and mutual support.

Additionally, it is also monumentally symbolic for Clinton to speak on Tuesday night as August 26th is the 88th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which finally gave women the right to vote.

Clinton's Tuesday night slot is emblematic. The VP's Wednesday night slot is foretelling.

At this point, it is still all speculation. However, if it is true that Obama's VP pick will in fact hold gravitas in the areas of military/national security issues, then I would recommend to Obama to go with Joe Biden.

Biden is undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable Senators when it comes to foreign affairs and national security issues. He is well-respected by both sides of the aisle, and he will not take any kind of uppity questioning or blatant character assassination Republicans are bound to throw Obama's way.

If Obama goes with Biden as VP, it would certainly open up the Secretary of State position. I think most voters are pretty sure Biden has that position locked up…unless Obama decides Biden would serve better as the running mate.

If Biden is tapped for VP, then I would like to see Bill Richardson as the Secretary of State. No one else would have as much useful and successful experience as Richardson.

Given these turn of events, I can envision, and definitely feel confident in an Obama cabinet that looks something like this: Biden as VP, Richardson as SOS, Colin Powell/Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and John Kerry as Secretary of Homeland Security, and John Edwards as Attorney General.

Yes, I said it. You read it correctly. I still want Edwards to be AG. He would kick ass and take names. He would certainly restore faith to our Justice Department, not to mention that little document known as the Constitution.

Oops, sorry for the tangent. Bottom line, if all of this speculation is indeed true about Obama's VP having a tie-in to national security and foreign affairs, Biden would be a very strong candidate for VP. He would be my choice if I were in Obama's shoes, and thinking like Obama must be thinking.

[Mr. Morden]

There's nothing unusual about the the VP nominee speaking on Wednesday.  That's when they *normally* speak, at least in recent years.  Both Edwards and Cheney spoke at their respective 2004 conventions on Wednesday.

[MarkWarner08]

LOLZ Obama is picking Wesley Clark. Dude, thanks for the "hook up."

[Lunar]

There's nothing unusual about the the VP nominee speaking on Wednesday.  That's when they *normally* speak, at least in recent years.  Both Edwards and Cheney spoke at their respective 2004 conventions on Wednesday.

Um?

The point isn't that "Wednesday" means anything in and of itself, but rather that the theme for Wednesday is "national security/veterans affairs" and having someone with no experience on either of those issues would create a horrible mismatch.  Sebelius indicated that the VP pick would have something to do with that theme.

[MarkWarner08]

There's nothing unusual about the the VP nominee speaking on Wednesday.  That's when they *normally* speak, at least in recent years.  Both Edwards and Cheney spoke at their respective 2004 conventions on Wednesday.

Um?

The point isn't that "Wednesday" means anything in and of itself, but rather that the theme for Wednesday is "national security/veterans affairs" and having someone with no experience on either of those issues would create a horrible mismatch.  Sebelius indicated that the VP pick would have something to do with that theme.

Bayh has "national security/veterans affairs" experience if you count sitting in on long committee meetings. He and Biden are probably the two finalists, anyway.

Super dark horse: Max Cleland. He's an injured vet with an unassailable patriotic record. His homeland security/union pander vote is long forgotten. He's also a strong speaker.

[phk]

Zinni, Clark, Bayh, Biden.

[Mr. Morden]

There's nothing unusual about the the VP nominee speaking on Wednesday.  That's when they *normally* speak, at least in recent years.  Both Edwards and Cheney spoke at their respective 2004 conventions on Wednesday.

Um?

The point isn't that "Wednesday" means anything in and of itself, but rather that the theme for Wednesday is "national security/veterans affairs" and having someone with no experience on either of those issues would create a horrible mismatch.  Sebelius indicated that the VP pick would have something to do with that theme.

The article makes statements like "There must be a reason for the VP candidate speaking on Wednesday" as if that's a big mystery.  There is no mystery.  Wednesday is the normal day for the VP nominee to speak.  We already could have guessed that the VP nominee will speak that day.  We also already knew what Wednesday's theme was.  That was the source of the Clark buzz.

[HappyWarrior]

There's nothing unusual about the the VP nominee speaking on Wednesday.  That's when they *normally* speak, at least in recent years.  Both Edwards and Cheney spoke at their respective 2004 conventions on Wednesday.

Um?

The point isn't that "Wednesday" means anything in and of itself, but rather that the theme for Wednesday is "national security/veterans affairs" and having someone with no experience on either of those issues would create a horrible mismatch.  Sebelius indicated that the VP pick would have something to do with that theme.

This could also indicate Chet Edwards, well known for his veterns affairs work as a dark horse.

[MarkWarner08]

There's nothing unusual about the the VP nominee speaking on Wednesday.  That's when they *normally* speak, at least in recent years.  Both Edwards and Cheney spoke at their respective 2004 conventions on Wednesday.

Um?

The point isn't that "Wednesday" means anything in and of itself, but rather that the theme for Wednesday is "national security/veterans affairs" and having someone with no experience on either of those issues would create a horrible mismatch.  Sebelius indicated that the VP pick would have something to do with that theme.

This could also indicate Chet Edwards, well known for his veterns affairs work as a dark horse.

:fingers crossed: Edwards is the perfect VP choice. He's youngish, charismatic, experienced, smart and funny, and he's from a deep red state. He could sell Obama to middle America. As Amy Walter, would say, "some things are more important in life than a House seat." The difference between 251 and 252 is a lot smaller than the difference between 57 and 58, which the Bayh pick could mean.

[Beet]

I have been thinking about this, and lo and behold my thoughts are again turning on Hillary as Vice President. I'm starting to think Obama would be an idiot not to pick her. Biden, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius... what are these to the average voter? Sure some of them have sat on Veterans Affairs or Armed Services or Foreign Affairs committes; some have high military experience. But these are footnotes. These people are not household names. They have good resumes but they are "strangers" in the average household.

Suppose you have a job opening and some skinny guy with a funny name applies. You like him, and think he has the right temperament for the job and a great message, and you're so sick of the current guy in the position and you like how his approach is totally different. The only thing, you're not sure if he's got the right experience or maybe you're uncomfortable about his background- is this guy for real?

You open up the application, and the first recommendation is from a John S. Lewis. John S. Lewis graduated from Harvard, served in the armed forces, and ever since has had a stunningly successful career as corporate executive. He has also won a ton of honors for community leadership and volunteer work. Mr. Lewis recommends this guy to you.

You open up the second recommendation-- and holy sh**t, it is your uncle Charlie! You may not like uncle Charlie, but you've known him for 20 years. Charlie is always complaining about people with no experience. You know he's a massive stickler for experience because when he applies for jobs, that is the one selling point he uses the most. Recently, Charlie has been telling you a story of a guy who's always applying for the same jobs he is. Charlie's upset because this guy has less experience than him and Charlie's cynical mind is doubtful whether this guy can really do what he says. But now Charlie says this is the guy he's been telling you about! And he says that getting to know him better, he thinks this guy is the real deal!

So whose recommendation is better? On paper, the guy from Harvard, etc. etc. etc. But it's uncle Charlie's recommendation that sets you at ease.

There is only one uncle Charlie Obama could pick to make the case side by side with him. That's Hillary.

[Mr. Morden]

Another reason why I wouldn't take too much from this: The VP nominee's speech is always somewhat wide-ranging, and not limited to any one particular topic.  So OK, maybe because it happens to land on this day when there's this security theme, his or her speech will include slightly more emphasis on security issues than it otherwise would.  That doesn't automatically mean it's going to be someone like Joe Biden.  Any candidate for VPOTUS is going to have to talk about all national issues, including foreign policy, even if that person is a foreign policy neophyte, like Kaine.

[Lunar]

Well, you can bet that the following candidates will not headline a day dedicated to security and veteran's affairs and BIPARTISANSHIP:
Kaine
Schweitzer
Sebelius
etc.

Strong contenders would include:
Chuck Hagel
Evan Bayh
Wesley Clark
Joe Biden
James Jones
Anthony Zinni
Chet Edwards


Would-be strong candidates that ruled themselves out:
Reed, Webb

So things are really narrowed down!

[MarkWarner08]

I have been thinking about this, and lo and behold my thoughts are again turning on Hillary as Vice President. I'm starting to think Obama would be an idiot not to pick her. Biden, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius... what are these to the average voter? Sure some of them have sat on Veterans Affairs or Armed Services or Foreign Affairs committes; some have high military experience. But these are footnotes. These people are not household names. They have good resumes but they are "strangers" in the average household.

Suppose you have a job opening and some skinny guy with a funny name applies. You like him, and think he has the right temperament for the job and a great message, and you're so sick of the current guy in the position and you like how his approach is totally different. The only thing, you're not sure if he's got the right experience or maybe you're uncomfortable about his background- is this guy for real?

You open up the application, and the first recommendation is from a John S. Lewis. John S. Lewis graduated from Harvard, served in the armed forces, and ever since has had a stunningly successful career as corporate executive. He has also won a ton of honors for community leadership and volunteer work. Mr. Lewis recommends this guy to you.

You open up the second recommendation-- and holy sh**t, it is your uncle Charlie! You may not like uncle Charlie, but you've known him for 20 years. Charlie is always complaining about people with no experience. You know he's a massive stickler for experience because when he applies for jobs, that is the one selling point he uses the most. Recently, Charlie has been telling you a story of a guy who's always applying for the same jobs he is. Charlie's upset because this guy has less experience than him and Charlie's cynical mind is doubtful whether this guy can really do what he says. But now Charlie says this is the guy he's been telling you about! And he says that getting to know him better, he thinks this guy is the real deal!

So whose recommendation is better? On paper, the guy from Harvard, etc. etc. etc. But it's uncle Charlie's recommendation that sets you at ease.

There is only one uncle Charlie Obama could pick to make the case side by side with him. That's Hillary.

Hillary is a guy? Interesting story but I don't see how it relates to this choice. Hillary isn't Obama trusted uncle -- she called him inexperienced and dragged on the nomination fight for months. I agree with you in one respect: Hillary is like the bothersome uncle who Obama never calls.

[Lunar]

I have been thinking about this, and lo and behold my thoughts are again turning on Hillary as Vice President. I'm starting to think Obama would be an idiot not to pick her. Biden, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius... what are these to the average voter? Sure some of them have sat on Veterans Affairs or Armed Services or Foreign Affairs committes; some have high military experience. But these are footnotes. These people are not household names. They have good resumes but they are "strangers" in the average household.

Well, 90% of VP picks historically have not been about name recognition, so clearly there are much, much more important qualifiers than this.  Sometimes it's good for a VP to lack name recognition too, meaning that they are a blank slate ready to morph into the presidential candidate's identical twin policy-wise.

And didn't Sebelius pretty much confirm that the VP would be speaking on Wednesday?

[Beet]

I have been thinking about this, and lo and behold my thoughts are again turning on Hillary as Vice President. I'm starting to think Obama would be an idiot not to pick her. Biden, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius... what are these to the average voter? Sure some of them have sat on Veterans Affairs or Armed Services or Foreign Affairs committes; some have high military experience. But these are footnotes. These people are not household names. They have good resumes but they are "strangers" in the average household.

Suppose you have a job opening and some skinny guy with a funny name applies. You like him, and think he has the right temperament for the job and a great message, and you're so sick of the current guy in the position and you like how his approach is totally different. The only thing, you're not sure if he's got the right experience or maybe you're uncomfortable about his background- is this guy for real?

You open up the application, and the first recommendation is from a John S. Lewis. John S. Lewis graduated from Harvard, served in the armed forces, and ever since has had a stunningly successful career as corporate executive. He has also won a ton of honors for community leadership and volunteer work. Mr. Lewis recommends this guy to you.

You open up the second recommendation-- and holy sh**t, it is your uncle Charlie! You may not like uncle Charlie, but you've known him for 20 years. Charlie is always complaining about people with no experience. You know he's a massive stickler for experience because when he applies for jobs, that is the one selling point he uses the most. Recently, Charlie has been telling you a story of a guy who's always applying for the same jobs he is. Charlie's upset because this guy has less experience than him and Charlie's cynical mind is doubtful whether this guy can really do what he says. But now Charlie says this is the guy he's been telling you about! And he says that getting to know him better, he thinks this guy is the real deal!

So whose recommendation is better? On paper, the guy from Harvard, etc. etc. etc. But it's uncle Charlie's recommendation that sets you at ease.

There is only one uncle Charlie Obama could pick to make the case side by side with him. That's Hillary.

Hillary is a guy?

Analogies must be gender-specific now even though the analogy has nothing to do with gender?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the analogy, Hillary is your trusted uncle. This is so not because you think she has no ethical blemishes or you like her, but simply because she's a known quantity. You know, for example, that she takes experience seriously and that she knows Obama pretty well.

I have been thinking about this, and lo and behold my thoughts are again turning on Hillary as Vice President. I'm starting to think Obama would be an idiot not to pick her. Biden, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius... what are these to the average voter? Sure some of them have sat on Veterans Affairs or Armed Services or Foreign Affairs committes; some have high military experience. But these are footnotes. These people are not household names. They have good resumes but they are "strangers" in the average household.

Well, 90% of VP picks historically have not been about name recognition, so clearly there are much, much more important qualifiers than this.  Sometimes it's good for a VP to lack name recognition too, meaning that they are a blank slate ready to morph into the presidential candidate's identical twin policy-wise.

Obama is different. One of the "concerns" voters have about him, ironically, is they don't know him well enough/not sure if he can lead (in this sense, his heavy exposure in the media is not a complete loss). On the other hand, Hillary has spent months selling herself as someone who has crossed the 'Command in Chief threshold' such that a lot of people now do see her as someone competent to lead-- and by implication, judge whether Obama is. Yes, it doesn't make perfect sense-- on paper, Wes Clark or Joe Biden would be better able to provide an authoritative endorsement of Obama's ability to handle the job of CiC. But since Hillary is so well known and campaigned on that theme for months, her endorsement might have more emotional resonance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the schedule remains as it is, yes, it is hard to see how it could happen. Ah, well. This is up to the Obamas. If they didn't pick her, I'm sure people would understand why (the baggage, scandals, etc.). But I do think she has some massive positives as a potential pick.

[MarkWarner08]

I have been thinking about this, and lo and behold my thoughts are again turning on Hillary as Vice President. I'm starting to think Obama would be an idiot not to pick her. Biden, Bayh, Clark, Sebelius... what are these to the average voter? Sure some of them have sat on Veterans Affairs or Armed Services or Foreign Affairs committes; some have high military experience. But these are footnotes. These people are not household names. They have good resumes but they are "strangers" in the average household.

Suppose you have a job opening and some skinny guy with a funny name applies. You like him, and think he has the right temperament for the job and a great message, and you're so sick of the current guy in the position and you like how his approach is totally different. The only thing, you're not sure if he's got the right experience or maybe you're uncomfortable about his background- is this guy for real?

You open up the application, and the first recommendation is from a John S. Lewis. John S. Lewis graduated from Harvard, served in the armed forces, and ever since has had a stunningly successful career as corporate executive. He has also won a ton of honors for community leadership and volunteer work. Mr. Lewis recommends this guy to you.

You open up the second recommendation-- and holy sh**t, it is your uncle Charlie! You may not like uncle Charlie, but you've known him for 20 years. Charlie is always complaining about people with no experience. You know he's a massive stickler for experience because when he applies for jobs, that is the one selling point he uses the most. Recently, Charlie has been telling you a story of a guy who's always applying for the same jobs he is. Charlie's upset because this guy has less experience than him and Charlie's cynical mind is doubtful whether this guy can really do what he says. But now Charlie says this is the guy he's been telling you about! And he says that getting to know him better, he thinks this guy is the real deal!

So whose recommendation is better? On paper, the guy from Harvard, etc. etc. etc. But it's uncle Charlie's recommendation that sets you at ease.

There is only one uncle Charlie Obama could pick to make the case side by side with him. That's Hillary.

Hillary is a guy?

Analogies must be gender-specific now even though the analogy has nothing to do with gender?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the analogy, Hillary is your trusted uncle. This is so not because you think she has no ethical blemishes or you like her, but simply because she's a known quantity. You know, for example, that she takes experience seriously and that she knows Obama pretty well.

Okay. Now I understand your point. But your view leads me to think he'll pick somebody like Kaine or Bayh, both of whom he knwos well. Obama doesn't know Hillary at a personal level. She's more like a second cousin.

[Eraserhead]

It's gonna be Hagel obviously.

[ChrisFromNJ]

It's gonna be Hagel obviously.

If that is the case, it pretty much guarentees I'll vote for Nader.

[Beet]

Well if Obama is smart, he'll pick based on the person who will (a) make a good VP/potential President (b) help him win, and only take into consideration personal familiarity if it affects one of the two above factors. One can only hope the camp is smart enough and will not go down the old semi-cronyism route.

[MarkWarner08]

Well if Obama is smart, he'll pick based on the person who will (a) make a good VP/potential President (b) help him win, and only take into consideration personal familiarity if it affects one of the two above factors. One can only hope the camp is smart enough and will not go down the old semi-cronyism route.

I wouldn't worry about the cronyism route. Now if he picks Emil Jones...

Chet Edwards covers both bases.  Biden is second and then Bayh is third.

[Erc]

Jack Reed certainly covers the "veterans" base....


Obama's going to pull out something of a surprise next week...the only one of the 'obvious' picks (Kaine/Bayh/Biden/Sebelius/Clinton) I'm still willing to give credence to is Biden.

[Bacon King]

Hm. Max Cleland? While reading this article his name was the first to cross my mind. In fact, that was the first time I've ever seriously considered him as a VP pick.

I'm not saying that's who I think it will be, but it does explain why the Obama campaign would be competing in Georgia in the first place...

[riceowl]

yeah.  I was actually wondering yesterday why Cleland hasn't been mentioned more often as a possibility.  he could be great.

ETA: oh, lobbying.  nm.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

yeah.  I was actually wondering yesterday why Cleland hasn't been mentioned more often as a possibility.  he could be great.

ETA: oh, lobbying.  nm.

Not to mention the fact that since being in the Senate, he's said that the main reason why he voted for the war was because he knew he'd lose re-election if he didn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't mix too well with the Obama message.

[Ogre Mage]

In making family analogies for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's relationship, a good one would be that Hillary is Barack's political mother-in-law.

The In-Law relationship is one stereotypically fraught with difficulty.  What has occurred here is a big family fight between Barack and his political mother-in-law.  It went on for a long time and various family members took sides.  Now it's over and both sides are trying to come together for the good of the family (the Democratic Party).  But there are still difficult feelings and everyone still has their own agenda.

Hillary mentioned in her concession speech that the Democratic Party is a family.  She later noted that it is sometimes a dysfunctional family.

I agree with Beet that Clinton would be a strong VP choice.  You want a VP who could handle being President if necessary and 17.5+ million voters say she is qualified to do it.  Obama would gain a VP who learned a great deal of inside information while she was in the White House as well as the Senate.  Hillary will know the buttons to push, the strings to pull and where the skeletons are buried when it comes time to push the White House agenda through Congress.  Furthermore, a recent Pew Poll shows worrying signs for Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.