<p>My son, who is planning on voting for BO, when he heard on the news that Hillary might be considered for VP, shook his head and said nope he wouldn’t vote for that ticket. Apparently it’s very complicated.</p>
<p>Sorry to respond to my own post, but I was thinking more about this whole VP choice thing, for both Obama and McCain. Electoral politics aside, what would you really like to see in a Vice President? Obviously, you want somebody that you’d feel comfortable stepping into the Presidency if the President is incapacitated (this is a reason that Quayle was not the ideal choice). Do you want somebody who is going to be really hands-on and have a major role in running the adminstration (like Cheney, although hopefully not evil)? Or do you want somebody who will stay to the side and only do the ceremonial stuff? For Obama, I guess I want somebody experienced who I believe that he will actually consult and listen to.</p>
<p>As a republican, one person I don’t want is Bloomberg. That’s the hot rumor here. I can say that I would really like McCain to chose someone who is actually a republican as his running mate.</p>
<p>“For Obama, I guess I want somebody experienced who I believe that he will actually consult and listen to.”</p>
<p>Politics aside – suppose Obama had already been elected and it was traditional to choose the vice president at that point – I’d be pretty enthusiastic about Bill Richardson. I liked him as a presidential candidate, and his experience would make him a terrific right-hand man.</p>
<p>ZM: If McCain chooses Bloomberg, he will get my vote. I assume he already has your vote (or at worst you will stay home but you won’t vote Dem). So it would not be a bad idea for McCain to choose Bloomberg.</p>
<p>For Obama: Richardson; for McCain, Romney. Believe it or not, Romney was a good MA governor even though he tried to run away from his record (too liberal?) and flip-flopped. But I don’t know how that ticket would look to “the base.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While we have rarely agreed on much of anything, I have to say that I am with you on this one. Bill Richarson, in spite of being an Friend of Bill (or at least was) was the candidate I liked the best from both side of the aisle. I believe that a ticket Obama/Richardson would be better than anything Obama/xxx and also CLEARLY superior to an Obama by himself. Richardson could deliver substantial voters from the South as well as bring the Hispanic voters back home (and a whole lot better than Clinton could have.)</p>
<p>However, Richardson bigger attraction would be to offer a balancing act to Obama’s policies that are a tad too far to the left and BO’s glaring ineptitude in foreign policy which about as remarkably horrendous as both Clintons’. </p>
<p>Obama could score massive points by entrusting Richardson with our entire foreign policy, not to mention our energy policies. Fwiw, it’s a mistake to believe that our foreign problems are only in Iraq and Israel. A voice of moderation and strength is much needed on the southern border where foreign policy and immigration clash on a daily basis. While one can hope for a quick resolution in Iraq, the problems between the US and Mexico will require a lot more attention they have received for the past two decades. </p>
<p>For full disclosure, I would have voted for Richardson in November. I might even consider voting for Obama/Richardson while I would NEVER vote for Obama with any other VP. On the McCain side, for me the choice of VP is irrelevant.</p>
<p>On Richardson, I think xig has brought up some good points- help with voters in the southwest being the best of them.</p>
<p>This however morsel seems to fly in the face of any known calendar.
Because of his age and actuarial tables, if he picks a more conservative VP he runs the risks of losing whatever moderate support he has.</p>
<p>
…and see whatever you want to see, to boot! Let’s see… he was against tax cuts, then for tax cuts, I’m against them, so he agrees with me! No, wait, I’m for them…so he agrees with me!</p>
<p>Somehow having that “record” to look at isn’t helping me all that much. All I see is political opportunism. The recession of 2006? Don’t remember that one…</p>
<p>
Duh. However this morsel…</p>
<p>Sorry. Jeebus. I can’t be trusted. Phone must have rang.</p>
<p>^^ I just thought you were channeling Yoda. :)</p>
<p>Has anyone forgot that Richardson is Hispanic? He cannot be Obama’s VP. That WILL NOT fly with white people.</p>
<p>I don’t get why people entertain this idea with America being how it is now and white people being the majority race in the U.S. Its naive thinking. With all the Hispanic votes he would bring in He would lose twice as many white votes. While it is a good idea in every sense policy wise etc, you can never forget race and how white people will react to it. Its basically political suicide, and if Obama does that he’s a fool.</p>
<p>Maybe when white people are a majority-minority somebody could try to pull the double minority ticket but that isn’t now and won’t be for awhile. Racism is too rampant for that too happen any time soon. You already see how hard it is for people to stomach the idea of a black president, how do you think they’ll react to that. A double-minority ticket for sure will get the Republicans running to the booth like no other thing in the world. Clinton on the ticket couldn’t even match the rush.</p>
<p>It HAS to be an “All-American WASP” or Obama has essentially handed the candidacy over on a silver platter.</p>
<p>I don’t buy that argument. If someone is going to vote against two minority candidates, they are not going to vote for one, either.</p>
<p>I believe Richardson will bring votes to the Dem ticket precisely because he *is *Hispanic, plus a Southwesterner. Whites may not be majority-minority yet, but there are enough that will vote for this ticket, which together with the great majority of African-Americans and Latinos who would most likely be drawn to it, that it could definitely be a winner.</p>
<p>I’m doubtful that Richardson will be given serious consideration. He has potential baggage that, whether real or just rumored, would likely preclude him.</p>
<p>I’d add that I don’t think the fact that he is Hispanic would have any negative impact.</p>
<p>I think there are some who would truly panic at the idea of a double minority ticket (one representing the two largest ethnic/racial minorities in the US), because it would illustrate in bold relief, the increasing probability that whites will someday be a racial minority in America (and how can that ever be allowed to happen to a country founded by the likes of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, and dominated ever since then by white Europeans?) It would seem to signal the beginning of the end of a long and proud legacy, one into which their very racial identity is steeped.</p>
<p>Some might be willing to wrap their heads around the concept of a black President (a flash in the pan outlier, who would certainly soon be dispatched in the next election—if not sooner), but both President and Vice—? Well, that might just the the straw…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>For those who have no hesitancy voting for Obama (despite his race), the addition of Richardson will probably not matter. But for the nervous, though silent majority, two may just be more than they can be expected to accept.</p>
<p>I just wanted to clarify that my earlier comment and belief that he would not be chosen as V-P has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he’s Latino. Not sure if that was the impression I gave but it’s not what I meant. The baggage I referenced was his reputation in D.C. in his personal life.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree. And the same is true for putting a woman in the VP slot - which is why I think Hillary in the second slot behind Obama would hurt more than help the ticket.</p>
<p>I completely agree with coureur & poetsheart, but I look at it additionally from the perspective of saturation. You do not double-up a ticket. Yes, Richardson would enhance slightly in the foreign affairs + experience divisions, but not enough to compensate for the “Whoa” factor of minority status, left-left immigration policy, and West/Southwest appeal. </p>
<p>If you don’t already know the voting trends among Hispanics, you should read the latest, which has Obama hugely ahead of McCain in that population. As to the Southwest, Arizona (for example) was once very conservative. There are still a lot of conservative retirees there, but there’s a huge Latino population now in Arizona, & obviously NM. Obama needs to add to the ticket a person that the Middle of the country, and/or the South, can relate to as a spokesperson. Voters are never fooled that they’re voting for the bottom of the ticket, but they do look at balance, at regional identity (important for some voting groups), at policy or voting record (in case of succession). </p>
<p>He needs a white male. (Sorry to be blunt.) I’d say Biden, but that’s 2 Northerners. I’d still love Edwards, but I’m not one of the 3 VP advisors. ;)</p>
<p>The Conventional Wisdom in the past has been that a combined ticket has to be comprehensively people-pleasing, & therefore as ‘polar’ as possible. I don’t necessarily buy that in this case: that is, I don’t think it’s necessarily good to balance <em>every</em> factor: youth with age, region against region, etc. Which is why, btw, I hope that Obama doesn’t go for someone in McCain’s age bracket. I think the Dems need the ticket to stand for something in solid contrast to McCain. Keep in mind that a surprising number of elderly voters have voted for Obama over Clinton in the primaries. But I do think the VP choice has to be someone to whom people of a more traditional background can relate. I think that’s more important than age. A doubly ‘ethnic’ ticket does not look traditional. Way too risky.</p>
<p>With every passing day or hour, I am warming up to the idea of Clinton as VP. She would bring a lot to the ticket, not just her loyal voters but she is clearly a smart, tough politician. </p>
<p>The key issue is- would she be truly loyal to Obama? I think the answer is- Yes.</p>
<p>I think the question of putting Clinton on the ticket should be carefully considered and assessed. The question is, are the pluses outweighed by the minuses? I"m not sure I have a handle on that. I doubt that the decision will be driven by the kind of “personal” issued bruited here. If she adds to the ticket’s chance of winning, the answer should be yes. If not, no.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen so far of Obama’s campaign savvy, my guess is he’ll make the right decision.</p>