OBAMA, CLINTON FREE THREAD! The VP should come from the West.

[Pab Sungenis]

With both candidates competing for the nomination being from big blue states back east or in the midwest, it would help if we used the second spot to make ourselves more competitive in the more traditionally red states out west, where we've been making gains as a party.

With all due respect to Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano, I don't think we can pick a woman for Vice President this year for obvious reasons (it would either unbalance the ticket, or be seen as an insult to a certain woman not chosen).

With that in mind, who would be the best choice for the VP slot, if we pick from the West?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. I Think It Would be More of A Negative To Not Have A Woman

I'd love to see a woman president, and I suspect most Obama supporters feel the same way. A woman on the ticket would be great precedent.

[all.of.me]

3. There are women in the west. ;)

[DrDan]

2. uh . . . why not from the south?

(and please, lets keep the south-bashing to a minimum)

And the fact that both candidates represent the east and the midwest, the final candidate will represent only one of those areas. So, why rule out the other?

[saltpoint]

4. Red Cloud would be my first choice, but I'm told he is unavailable.

I like Sebelius and Napolitano for a list of considerations, no matter their zipcode. I hear your point, but they are very talented souls, both Democrats from Red states.

Governor Richardson is a strong contender, IMO.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. Bill Richardson!!

[Catshrink]

6. That's my choice.

He brings executive and foreign affairs experience to the ticket. Excellent!

[SteppingRazor]

7. Seconded. I've been calling for an Obama/Richardson ticket for over a year now.

Of course, I'm sure you don't feel the same way, M.P. ;)

But a Clinton/Richardson ticket would be pretty good too.

[SteppingRazor]

11. Seconded. I've been calling for an Obama/Richardson ticket for over a year now.

Of course, I'm sure you don't feel the same way, M.P. ;)

But a Clinton/Richardson ticket would be pretty good too.

[Kittycat]

8. I think it should be the most qualified person, and a good compliment to the President Nominee.

[WYObama]

9. 3 words:

DAVE. FREUDENTHAL.
Of course that's the only Democrat within 200 miles of me, so I'm biased. But I agree, a western VP would be the best. In all seriousness, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter would be about perfect.

[WYObama]

10. Great...

My first post, and I typed a '3' instead of a '2.' Hey folks, even though I'm from Wyoming, I'm not a complete moron!

[bigwillq]

12. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[WYObama]

14. Thanks!

[saltpoint]

13. Hey, I've sucked at math since third grade. Don't sweat it, and welcome to DU.

[WYObama]

15. Another thank you!

And great avatar.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. Richardson or Biden !

[WYObama]

17. I think it has to be a white male.

To many non-white males on one ticket could scare some people, unfortunately. I love Sebelius, Salazar, and Richardson, but if our nominee is a woman or a black man, I think they have to go with a white dude. Colorado Gov Ritter is great. Maybe Gov Schweitzer too.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. You know -- don't you think it's kind of a no-win. If he picks

a white male - "they'll" say something about that, if a woman something about that, a hispanic, something about that.. Maybe he should pick a black male - that would shake the shit out of everyone !

BTW, you know what's weird to me - is why they keep calling O a black male. Not that it matters one iota - but isn't he biracial?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. BTW, I'd love to see him pick Schweitzer - he's the greatest - but

I bet he wouldn't do it. What about Jim Webb?

I am surprised you said Sebelius - I know little about her - but her response after SOTU was,
in my opinion, the weakest, most boring, weird speech ever. I understand what angle she
going for - but it didn't work. Jon Stewart, after she said, sleep good, said something
like "check. we're already there." because it was so boring.

[Unsane]

18. Bill Richardson

[Thrill]

19. There is only one choice for VP.........Jim Webb

[WYObama]

21. Or fellow Virginian

Tim Kaine. Or maybe even Wes Clark if they can forget his endorsement of Clinton.

[rox63]

20. I think Bill Richardson or Joe Biden would be fantastic VP choices

Both have a ton of foreign relations experience. And if Obama was the nominee, Richardson might help him with outreach to the Latino community.

[stillcool]

24. Joe Biden would be excellent..

I have no problem with a woman as a vice-president. I just can't come up with a name of someone I like, who is well versed in foreign affairs. Kind of a Catch-22. So few women have been given the opportunity to garner that kind of experience. I think that all elected officials that rise to the level of having serious credentials in foreign policy are required to go along to get along (to some degree) in order to retain their position. Madeline Albright, Jane Harmon, Diane Feinstein...come to mind, as being unsuccessful in matching the talk to the walk.

[PATRICK]

25. This is going to be tough

just as this year's race is tough. You have so many counter dynamics that might carry over into this choice as to make "balance" or "reconciliation" all with pros and cons. I mentioned Sebelius a couple weeks ago, but I would not flatter myself in claiming to have started the "other woman" choice.

Once, if ever, free from the necessity of cutting a deal to secure the POTUS nomination, Obama(or Clinton), would have to visit the possibility of a reconciliation candidate, if only briefly. That would be Clark or some undeniable woman executive. If facing McCain, Clark would be a very good nail in the old guy's military and foreign affairs expecience.

But then it comes down to basics. Before regionalism or voting group comes the very first qualification. Do no harm. That includes negativity ratings, skeletons, speaking abilities, unfavorable clash or contrast. There is a screening to be passed by any choice. If there is little time in heated Convention victory, then it becomes all the more necessary to pick someone tried and true who is already vetted. That would favor Clark again, I should think. Obama doesn't necessarily need anyone with charisma or attack dog qualities. Experience would be a key for the factors of just not having official time to vet and Obama's singular weakness of being too new. Braving the change theme and picking someone just to show how new and wonderful things could be is a risk that simply won't be taken after such a long and divisive campaign. Nor can Obama be faulted.

The binds placed on candidates, both Hillary and Clinton, simply because things are close is an old lesson and one we should be prepared to crush in the fall, liberating Obama with a huge mandate. Afterward there is such a mess and still loads of "Vichy" Dems, entrenched criminals and truculent GOP representatives to carry over into crises worsened or created out of whole cloth by the GOP as to make all of our primary spats and issue concerns seem trivial in the extreme. Yet our bickering discussions now do not promise much character to begin the serious work next year, and certainly little unity to influence the new president who will be leaning on some of the establishment people most responsible for the wrong policies to date. And the media won't change as long as certain fat cat pundits maintain their jobs after the election- even if Obama or Hillary goes soft on corporate media ownership.

[PATRICK]

26. This is going to be tough

just as this year's race is tough. You have so many counter dynamics that might carry over into this choice as to make "balance" or "reconciliation" all with pros and cons. I mentioned Sebelius a couple weeks ago, but I would not flatter myself in claiming to have started the "other woman" choice.

Once, if ever, free from the necessity of cutting a deal to secure the POTUS nomination, Obama(or Clinton), would have to visit the possibility of a reconciliation candidate, if only briefly. That would be Clark or some undeniable woman executive. If facing McCain, Clark would be a very good nail in the old guy's military and foreign affairs expecience.

But then it comes down to basics. Before regionalism or voting group comes the very first qualification. Do no harm. That includes negativity ratings, skeletons, speaking abilities, unfavorable clash or contrast. There is a screening to be passed by any choice. If there is little time in heated Convention victory, then it becomes all the more necessary to pick someone tried and true who is already vetted. That would favor Clark again, I should think. Obama doesn't necessarily need anyone with charisma or attack dog qualities. Experience would be a key for the factors of just not having official time to vet and Obama's singular weakness of being too new. Braving the change theme and picking someone just to show how new and wonderful things could be is a risk that simply won't be taken after such a long and divisive campaign. Nor can Obama be faulted.

The binds placed on candidates, both Hillary and Clinton, simply because things are close is an old lesson and one we should be prepared to crush in the fall, liberating Obama with a huge mandate. Hillary would be lot tougher, maybe. Hopefully we are facing the more divisive, older, reincarnation of Bob Dole. Afterward, there is such a mess and still loads of "Vichy" Dems, entrenched criminals and truculent GOP representatives to carry over into crises worsened or created out of whole cloth by the GOP as to make all of our primary spats and issue concerns seem trivial in the extreme. Yet our bickering discussions now do not promise much character to begin the serious work next year, and certainly little unity to influence the new president who will be leaning on some of the establishment people most responsible for the wrong policies to date. And the media won't change as long as certain fat cat pundits maintain their jobs after the election- even if Obama or Hillary goes soft on corporate media ownership.