Warszawa wrote:I like Jim Webb a lot. I think Obama would be smart to bick him as a running mate and I think Webb would accept.

the problem with picking webb would be the potential of losing his seat in the senate should obama win. even with a democrat president, they need as big majority in the senate as possible.

I found it interesting that the list of possible VPs given by the AP did not include Bill Richardson. I think Barack has a lot of good people to pick from. I'd be happy with Richardson, Webb, Biden, Dodd, even Edwards but I am very intrigued by Sebelius and Napolitano as well.

Richardson would presumably help with the latino vote, Edwards could help with the blue collar vote and a woman could "replace" the mourning over Clinton.

Jersey - any thoughts about the people on the Repub list?

traderdave wrote:Jersey - any thoughts about the people on the Repub list?

I continue to hope McCain picks Pawlenty. Of the three mentioned this weekend, only Jindal would be a good choice. I think Crist and Romney would both be pretty awful choices.

House subpoenas Karl Rove

The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.

Jim Webb's new GI Bill passed the Senate today with a veto-proof majority, 75-22. It now goes to the House.

Obama and McCain sharply differ on this one. McCain launched this blistering response to Obama's support for the bill.

It's a fairly powerful argument, even to an Obama supporter like me. But his self-righteousness is somewhat undercut, I think, by the fact that he didn't vote at all (he was one of three Senators who abstained) rather than cast a vote against it.

Also, this would seem to be another data point for picking Webb as Obama's running mate--though as Sullivan points out, Webb is somewhat problematic in that not only would he be unlikely to pacify Clinton-supporting older women, he could actually further enrage them. (See here. It's from thirty years ago, but these chicks have long memories )

Though I still think the prospect of losing the Supreme Court for a generation ultimately brings them home to the Democrats.

I totally disagree with Senator McCain's tone in this statement. He's lecturing Senator Obama as if he's a child. In the first paragraph he says that it's easy for Obama "to take cheap shots at an opponent." The language here is a cheap shot. If he just dropped the condescending words, it'd be fine.

Of course Obama's original statement isn't any better. He misrepresents John McCain's position. McCain doesn't believe the bill is too generous for veterans, but doesn't offer the right incentives. Like McCain he is doing exactly what he's accusing McCain of doing. He's using the McCain's opposition for political posturing and misstating McCain's reasons for the opposition.

Both of these guys say they're taking the high road. This isn't the high road.

Yeah, this is an election

jerseyhoya wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Dude on the TV saying that Jindal, Crist and Romney are on McCain's VP short list.

They're going to his place in Arizona this weekend. Apparently Pawlenty was invited as well, but couldn't go cause he's got a wedding. Better be an important wedding.

No chance of Crist or Jindal. Romney outside chance, but likely will be none of the three.

Oh, please, oh, please, oh please pick Romney.

what do you teach Paul, please tell me it isnt polysci

The Red Tornado wrote:what do you teach Paul, please tell me it isnt polysci

It is! (though I'm a theorist) I think Romney would be great for the Dems. He's the Republican's answer to Mike Dukakis.

I think the GOP is prepping Jindal for an Obama like second coming opening-the-ark and melting everyone's faces moment at the convention. You can't go with him and continue to rag on Obama's lack of experience and gift-wrapped no-chance-in-hell-I-could-have-beat-Keyes senatorship. I don't think the national notice Jindal would get for being on the ticket with McCain would be worth it.

Pawlenty seems like a good guy but no one named Pawlenty is winning any national office anyhow (see Dukakis).

Go McCain-Romney '08! The worst pairing since Kerry-Edwards 04 which was the worst pairing since Dole-Kemp 96.

VoxOrion wrote:Pawlenty seems like a good guy but no one named Pawlenty is winning any national office anyhow (see Dukakis).

The other guy's name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Edit: I thought Pawlenty was Scandinavian, apparently he's Polish and German, who knew? Have we had a Polish veep/president before?

Edit part 2: Chuck Hagel is also Polish. Could we have a face off in the number two slot of two Polish gents? Not that Obama will pick him, but he keeps getting mentioned as a possible wild card. From looking at the list of old VPs, doesn't look like anyone was Polish, but then I'd never have guessed that Pawlenty was either via last name.

VoxOrion wrote:I think the GOP is prepping Jindal for an Obama like second coming opening-the-ark and melting everyone's faces moment at the convention. You can't go with him and continue to rag on Obama's lack of experience and gift-wrapped no-chance-in-hell-I-could-have-beat-Keyes senatorship. I don't think the national notice Jindal would get for being on the ticket with McCain would be worth it.

Pawlenty seems like a good guy but no one named Pawlenty is winning any national office anyhow (see Dukakis).

Go McCain-Romney '08! The worst pairing since Kerry-Edwards 04 which was the worst pairing since Dole-Kemp 96.

Bobby Jindal has been in public service for 13 years, a lot longer than Mitt Romney. He has a ton of experience. He just started a lot younger than most other politicians.

Laexile wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I think the GOP is prepping Jindal for an Obama like second coming opening-the-ark and melting everyone's faces moment at the convention. You can't go with him and continue to rag on Obama's lack of experience and gift-wrapped no-chance-in-hell-I-could-have-beat-Keyes senatorship. I don't think the national notice Jindal would get for being on the ticket with McCain would be worth it.

Pawlenty seems like a good guy but no one named Pawlenty is winning any national office anyhow (see Dukakis).

Go McCain-Romney '08! The worst pairing since Kerry-Edwards 04 which was the worst pairing since Dole-Kemp 96.

Bobby Jindal has been in public service for 13 years, a lot longer than Mitt Romney. He has a ton of experience. He just started a lot younger than most other politicians.

I have to admit that when I heard about Jindal I began to feel very unsuccessful. I mean, dude is about four years YOUNGER than me and could be the next VP of the United States. Meanwhile, I'll be pulling ivy in my back yard this weekend. Yeah!

Yeah, Jindal I think was two years ahead of me at Brown. I might well have been in big classes with him. This consistently makes me feel like reheated crap.

Meanwhile, I read on PoliticalWire this morning that people are under the impression that McCain might pick Bloomberg, while the Clintons are pushing hard for Nixon-in-a-Pantsuit as Obama's running-mate. That wouldn't quite be enough for me to renounce Obama... but I'd probably feel a lot less invested in his winning. Had Bloomberg himself run against Obama, I'm not entirely sure which I would have supported.

(FWIW, I'd be comfortable making a very large bet that Bloomberg won't be on the Republican ticket, and I think it's highly unlikely Clinton is picked either. But it's interesting.)

dajafi wrote:Yeah, Jindal I think was two years ahead of me at Brown. I might well have been in big classes with him. This consistently makes me feel like reheated crap.

Meanwhile, I read on PoliticalWire this morning that people are under the impression that McCain might pick Bloomberg, while the Clintons are pushing hard for Nixon-in-a-Pantsuit as Obama's running-mate. That wouldn't quite be enough for me to renounce Obama... but I'd probably feel a lot less invested in his winning. Had Bloomberg himself run against Obama, I'm not entirely sure which I would have supported.

(FWIW, I'd be comfortable making a very large bet that Bloomberg won't be on the Republican ticket, and I think it's highly unlikely Clinton is picked either. But it's interesting.)

I think Jindal's early success had more to do with losing his first bid than his race or religion.

And, yeah, if McCain does pick Bloomberg, I'd love to see the reaction over at Redstate. Pass the popcorn!

McCain's VP has to be visually and actually younger than him, and has to be more conservative than he is. I think these are pretty much non-negotiable minimal conditions.

These would eliminate Crist, Graham, Bloomberg and Lieberman out of the frequently named pool. Probably others that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

jerseyhoya wrote:McCain's VP has to be visually and actually younger than him, and has to be more conservative than he is. I think these are pretty much non-negotiable minimal conditions.

These would eliminate Crist, Graham, Bloomberg and Lieberman out of the frequently named pool. Probably others that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

Does it eliminate Huckabee, or do you not really consider Huckabee a legit prospect?

I guess I'm mostly thinking socially conservative when I say conservative, so no, it wouldn't eliminate Huckabee. Someone who can go to the small towns in the south and whatnot and fire up the base and speak publicly about faith in a way McCain can't. McCain is going to be the ticket's chance to appeal to independents. Something on the ticket has to appeal to the base.

I think Huckabee is a legit prospect. I hope he's not picked, because it would really set him up in a leading role for the party in 4 or 8 years win or lose. But he's really done a good job since dropping out, saying and doing the right things. Well, except that Obama assassination joke. Hopefully a gaffe like that can help keep him off the ticket.