then who would be the bottem of his ticket?  I for one like Edwards as well as Obama, and if it is Obama I wonder if he could convince Edwards or another big name to stay on the bottem of his ticket.  Thoughts?

would be my top pick. 

Edwards would be fine too.

someone would ask Edwards to be at the bottom of the ticket, and even if they did he surely wouldn't accept.  He's already run as VP and lost.  Been there done that.  He wants to be President.

He's a perfect fit.  He's got the southern/military creds and the national security experience anyone would be happy to have on a national ticket.

Even if it's not Obama as the nominee, Clark would make sense as Edwards' running mate, or even Hillary's.

Obama may be peaking to early?

It's so freaking hard to gauge things this far off. 

and dare I even mention this...

what if Nader runs again!  AHHHHHH

just have a gift politically. It would appear that Obama has that, and I have known it for some time. Well, since he made that keynote address at the Convention in 2004.

I was very impressed. Actually wait, no I knew it a few months before because of his U.S. Senate race.

But, Obama is very special. Very. He's got a lot of room to grow, I am not saying he is going to win. But again, if I was a betting man. It would be smart to put your money on Obama.

do you ever check out the 08' Nomination Odds over at Huffington Post? 

Right now Hillary is the favorite at 54% and Obama is at 20%  Kinda fun to look at every so often.

who's got money?? lol.

His middle name is going to be used relentlessly against him.  Republicans aren't interested in debating issues, so you can be sure that he will face the Hussein moniker.  Rather unlucky guy - the one thing you can't control is what your momma and daddy name you and it just so happened that a dictator would one day have the name ;-)  Luck of the draw, I guess.

In any event, his middle name and race will prevent him from winning (unfortunately).  He may (slim chance) win the primary because most of us see past race and don't see the name as an issue.  That said, there are some really dumb people who will fall for that nonsense in this country.  I have also seen his posture - at times he appears aloof.  Republicans will paint him as weak on foreign policy - and it will be accompanied by a picture of Obama slouching and looking weak.

Democrats in the primary won't attack him for BS reasons like name and race, but they will go after his lack of experience.  It will either help him - because he isn't seen as the insider - or hurt him because he has no experience.  I think it will hurt him.

I like the guy, I just don't think he will win the primary and I don't think he can win in the general election.  He will probably be going up against a Rudy Guiliani - a moderate Republican.  I just don't see Obama taking down Rudy in the general.  It will come down to a popularity contest - yes like high school - and Mr. tough guy on 9/11 will beat "Mr. Hussein", as they will call him.

is a very gifted politician.  I will not be at all surprised to see him turn the inexperience and unusual name issues to his advantage.

For those with questions about his experience, I would recommend checking out his pre-Iraq invasion speech.  He makes some excellent points.

As far as Guiliani goes, it's going to be very interesting to see how he fares in the GOP primary.  For those conservatives who have reservations about McCain, Guiliani has those same issues multiplied by a factor of 12. 

I have to wonder if Guiliani v. Obama will end up being a Marshall Coleman versus Wilder redux (e.g. a guy with lukewarm support from his base, going up against someone who will energize large sections of the Democratic electorate).  I think an Obama ticket with a solid VP choice could be very formidable.

That is the million dollar question.  In previous elections, the minority candidates weren't very credible.  This time, I think we have a credible one.

My question is this - did a sizable number of Americans vote against former minority candidates because of their race, or was it because they weren't credible?

I think the answer is both.  I haven't seen a credible minority candidate until now.  By credible, I mean someone who appeals to a large group of people.

However, let's face it.  There are still pockets of racists in this country - and many "closet racists".  I don't care how smart the man is, they won't see past his race. 

If he is the nominee, barring him doing something very stupid between now and election day, I will support him.  That said, I don't think he has the experience.  He is a great orator - and smart on a variety of issues.  Smooth talking won't overcome experience.

How old is Obama?  I wonder if he would be younger than Kennedy was...or perhaps the youngest.  If he is older, he certainly doesn't look it.

As far as age goes, he's 45, which will make 47 in 2008.  That's older than Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Bill Clinton, and Grant when they assumed office.

As far as the race factor goes I think this is a legitimate question.  My sense is that an African-American candidate can win the Kerry blue states from 2004 without much difficulty.

The open question is whether he can flip enough Bush '04 states.  I think Virginia is a possibility with the right running mate--the same is true for Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, Missouri, Iowa, and possibly Colorado.  In my view it can be done.

The experience factor is going to be the question going forward. 

Obama's is likely going to try to frame the issue as experience versus judgment (e.g. he recently did this citing the examples of Rumsfeld and Cheney). 

I think this line of attack COULD work--depending on how things break in Iraq.  If McCain's troop surge idea plays out by '08, then I think he's going to be tough to beat.  If the troop surge does not work, then I think Obama would be able to make judgment, not experience, the central issue.

In reference to Guiliani, I don't think he ever went public with his views on the war (at least not pre-invasion).  Against Edwards or Hilary Clinton--who voted for the authorization of force in 2002--I think Guiliani's unstated position could be a net plus for him (assuming that things don't turn around in the Middle East).  It's better to have no history than a bad history on an issue.

On the flipside, I think Obama's opposition to the invasion would trump Guiliani's unstated position in battleground states (assuming that things don't turn around in the Middle East).  In this case, Obama would have a track record on a vital issue, whereas Guiliani's judgment would have to be taken on trust.

This will be an interesting election.  The other million dollar question - once you get past the age, middle name, and race (you know, the things that shouldn't matter) you are left with his positions and ability to argue in support of them.

No matter his positions, I think he will make convincing arguments.  That could be a good thing, or bad thing -  Depending on what his positions are.  Some people are great at putting a nice face on a bad policy.

I wonder when he will start laying out his positions on economic policy.  I think he is clear on foreign policy in terms of Iraq, but there are still many other issues I haven't heard him tackle. 

Time will tell.  In any event, Obama is at least on my list as a candidate I could support.  Not at the top, but also not at the bottom.  It's up to him which way he moves ;-)

but its extent and ability to affect the election will depend in large part upon the youth and minority turnout.  In other words, the kind of racism that prevents some from voting for a minority candidate seems more prevalent in older people.  I think young people are more accustomed to the thought of blacks in positions of authority and as credible leaders.  I would hope that a black presidential candidate will have a galvanizing effect on not only the black community but the immigrant and other minority communities, too.  Consider, too, that the most openly hostile whites tend to be more conservative and vote Republican. 

If Obama gets the nod he should pick Clark as his running mate.  Clark's bona fides in foreign policy and his military expertise would be invaluable, and he could make Obama palatable to those who harbor doubts about voting for a black candidate.

However, once he's put to the test by the questions of people in town halls, and once political pundits begin to see past the early hype and begin to put the hard questions to him, he won't be able to stand up to the grilling.  We've been through one presidency of a man who was all hope and glory but who couldn't answer substantive questions, and I think (and hope) that voters will not be so quick to fall for the beauty contest. 

A friend who lives in Obama's state attended an event very recently where he gave one of his "major" speeches.  He momentarily lost his place during the speech, and began to flounder.  He did not know what he was supposed to say next and only when he found his place on the page, could he resume. 

He may well have a future as a national leader down the road, but I don't think this is his time.

We don't really have many to choose from. The Democratic candidates are dropping out like flies. Hillary? Edwards? Clark? Vilsack?

Of the announced (Vilsak, Kuchinich and Edwards, Biden) and potential candidates (Clinton, Richardson, Obama, Kerry and Clark), Clark is the one with the honest-to-goodness creds, experience and vision to lead on the top of the ticket, and has the cross-over appeal to win in the states where many of the others wouldn't win. 

I promoted this diary for further discussion. I know Lowell reads RK still and he's in between supporting Clark again and supporting Obama.

I am 60% Clark, 30% Obama, 10% Vilsack

If Obama is the nominee, you can't put Edwards, Vilsack or Warner on the ticket with him as they all lack foreign policy credentials.  You need a V.P., with strong foreign policy credentials to offset Obama's perceived shortcomings.  Bayh, Biden or Clark would be a perfect compliment for Obama - but I would lean to Bayh or Clark, in hopes of picking off Indiana or Arkansas - with the nod to Bayh. 

I have always liked John Edwards.  He's already been through one national election so he's been tested as a candidate.  He didn't falter, though the top of the ticket did.

I think his message of economic populism and the "two Americas" theme will still resonate in 2008.  But he doesn't promote class warfare or the politics of resentment.  His platform is that the two Americas can become one America with economic fairness and opportunity for all.  That inclusive optimism is very appealing.

As a lawyer, he frequently took on cases where his clients were victims of large corporations.  The Republicans tried to make the fact that Edwards was a lawyer a liability the last time, but Edwards fought back. He built his career by defending the powerless against the powerful. That too will appeal to people who feel they have not been getting a  fair shake in this economy, which has been so strong for corporations and their executives but not so hot for the rest of us.

Edwards has admitted that he made a mistake in voting to support Iraq and has stated that if he had the information then that he now has, he would have voted differently.

While I believe that Barak Obama is tremendously talented and would have no trouble at all supporting him, I would rather see Edwards at the top of a ticket.  He is right on all the positions, as far as I'm concerned.  And he's more seasoned than Obama.

That said, I'm not going be scared off by the Luddite wing of the Republican Party calling Obama "Hussein."  Most people will see through that and it will backfire if they try it.  It will be viewed as racist and bigoted. 

After the Maccacca fiasco, no major, national Republican would touch that tactic with a ten foot pole.

So, my dream ticket would be Edwards-Obama with Obama running for President in 8 years after having been an intregal part of a successful Democratic administration.  His position will be even stronger then.

I'm also in the Edwards camp, even if some people don't like him!  *cough cough* drmontoya ;)

But all around I think I could enthusiastically support either Edwards, Clark, Obama, or Gore at the top of the ticket. 

I think it will be interesting to see if a dark horse candidate emerges. 

Your right, I don't like John Edwards. I mean he's a real charmer and has a fantastic wife, Elizabeth. However, the reason I don't like him is more personal than that. It's because I am a veteran and not only did Edwards vote for the IWR but he co-sponsored the damn bill with Zell Miller, Evan Bayh, & Joe Lieberman as the Democratic sole co-sponsors.

Not only that, but Edwards was the only Democrat on the Intelligence committee to support/vote for the IWR.

And, The IWR that Edwards co-sponsored was NOT the Democratic bill (Levin Bill that Clark, Dean, Feingold supported) that had the President check back with congress. It was the GOP blank check bill that lead up where we are today.

John Edwards was a war cheerleader, and one op-ed piece he wrote in 2005 isn't going to change anything. John Edwards is a coward, and a traitor. He has shown no leadership in the Senate when America needed him the most.

I can forgive Kerry and Hillary for the votes they cast but they didn't sponsor the damn bill.

By the way, Lincoln Chafee voted against the war.

Who's the real patriot?

Jim Webb would NOT endorse John Edwards. Because of Iraq.

And you know how my hero Jim Webb feels about Iraq, since before the war began.

Who else felt the same way? Wes Clark.

If Clark doesn't run, I expect Webb to endorse Obama.

Not Edwards, the traitor.

Barack Obama...

did support Jim Webb during the general election (as did Obama).

If it comes down to just the war vote, then Obama would be the choice (or Clark). 

If it's on economic issues, then it's Edwards and his "two Americas" beliefs.

I think Webb will throw his full weight behind the nominee after the convention.  My guess is he stays neutral during the primary.  The nominee will be decided before the road tour hits Virginia anyways.

RE "Because of Iraq": The vote on the Iraq invasion was the touchstone of leadership. Anyone could see that the Iraq invasion was rigged by the neocons when the Administration shifted strategy from Afganistan to Iraq; the NYTs knew, State knew, Robert C. Byrd knew, Jim Webb knew, Wes Clark knew, Congress knew; all my neighbors who read the daily papers knew. As it exploited, abused and manipulated the sincere feelings of sadness and mourning that all Americans felt after 9/11, it was the greatest betrayal of American faith and patriotism in American history. All should be held accountable. In the Disney movie "The Lion King" which I've watched about a million times when my kids were little, the Lion King says to the pup that He's Not Brave All The Time - Just When He Needs To Be Brave. That is the essence of character as it applies naturally to leadership. Those who failed at the critical moment failed the test of leadership; they were not brave when they needed to be brave. That was the moment when leadership was needed. That was the critical test. Governors and people like Mike Bloomberg, mayor of NY, had no say in this and properly should have stayed out of it. But every Senator should be held to that one vote to make first cut. Jim Webb, Wes Clark and Barack Obama are all new to the political scene; that is part of their appeal. Leadership has to be rebuilt entirely in Congress and from the bottom up.

. . . and also, the comparison our heroic Gray Champion, Robert C. Byrd, who stood along on the Senate floor, made between the Iraq vote and the Senate vote to support LBJ after the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which advanced the war in Vietnam, actually has very little comparison value. Senators had no solid reason or evidence to believe the President & his men were lying about Tonkin Gulf, and their votes to support can be understood. This Senate had advise and testimony by the most honorable soldiers, diplomats and scholars that the neocons had engineered this invasion, including Washington Post essays written in careful and unambiguous prose by Jim Webb.

Very true. 

I figure a Senator has 100 other members to check his or her misjudgements.  The President has the congress. 

Instead of using the congress for its Constitutional purpose, the President shoved this vote in before the 2002 election--politicizing a vote that never should have been politicized and stifling debate. 

Those Senators and Representatives who stood up at that time and said "hey, wait a moment, let's think this over" deserve recognition. 

Those who spoke up before the invasion, in my view, receive a little consideration (I'm thinking of Chuck Hagel in particular, even though he voted for the IWR).

Those who voted for the IWR and started coming out of the woodwork in 2004 and 2005 must explain their rationale in voting for the IWR if they are seeking the presidential post.

I would not rule out voting for someone who voted for the IWR in 2002, but I would place a heavy weight on the decision.  As you say BQ, it's about as close as you can come to a touchstone of leadership.

The press as well should be called to account. The press is now encouraging Senators like Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Kerry who  voted for Iraq because the press left fairness and objectivity behind and was madly in favor of the invasion, and reporters saw theemselves riding to fame and building careers on a war they thought we would win overnight. They took their chance, now they should pay the consequences (we need hockey ethics in reporting and politics: when Pat Quinn, coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs failed to get the Leafs into the Stanleys last year he was fired within the afternoon although he was a long-time national hero who brought Olympic gold to Canada. This is the way of love, honor, respect and national purpose.) If the Senators are called to account, so should be the reporters, who are more responsible than anyone. The Neocons depend on the weakness and mediocrity of the everyday journalists; much as the Popular Front in Europe depended on Fellow Travellers in the 1930s; coat carriers like  Thomas Friedman who hoped to replace France with India on the Security Council (India would provide us/Israel with much needed "Ghurkas" - a million of so) & provide an American presence on the border of Israel which he clearly stated in the run up to the war; people like Robin Wright of the Wa. Post who were going to "liberate women" from their awful dress and religion; McNeil/Lehrer News Hour which gave a free and open forum to neocons and their pals at the Wa. Post; NBC and the other networks cheering on this initiative on the way into Baghdad on the back of a Humvee. And BBC tv news, which became after the invasion, a talking head for the Bush/Rove admin. Everything needs a fresh start. On "Mission Accomplished" day, the NYTs promoted those who supported the invasion to key posts, and so did many other outlets. That situation needs to be reversed if the press is ever to regain its honesty.

JE is not a traitor, wrong on Iraq.. still. But not a traitor. Sorry, I get very emotional about Iraq.

on this post Dave.

I will always respect your opinion of any politician, but you can make your point without resorting to such vile termonology.  Calling John Edwards a "traitor" and a "coward" is beyond reproach. 

Personally, I think someone who actually admits they fucked up (even if they did co-sponsor the bill), like Edwards, has a lot more balls than those who continue to beat the drums of war, like Hillary and Lieberman have continued to do.

Calling Edwards a "traitor" is over the line.  Look, I happen to think Clinton sold out most of the working class by voting for NAFTA and embracing "free trade", but i don't  cosider him a "traitor". 

There's nothing wrong with criticizing your fellow democrats, but you can do so without resorting to "Karl Roveish" style demonizing.

I am wrong for calling John Edwards a traitor. He's a good democrat, great father, & great husband.

In correction, I disagree with his IWR support and find it difficult to support him in any way in 2008 being that I am an Iraq War Veteran.

But, he is not a traitor.

Thanks for admitting the traitor remark were going too far. 

I understand your anger at his pre-war position.  I feel the entire party let us down, with the exception of a few token members.  Let's face it, they were in lock-step with the Bush administration.

I don't like Edwards position on the war - and he deserves to catch hell for it.  As do most Democrats who waffled.  I don't buy the "we believed the intelligence" argument - the entire government on both sides of the aisle should be simply ashamed for what they allowed to occur.

That said, I believe that Edwards is the strongest on economic issues.  I use the word crises too much, but I really believe we are in one.  Especially when it comes to healthcare, massive budget and trade deficits, onshoring cheap replacement labor, offshoring, union rights, manufacturing, the environment, and education.  Our home front is in deep trouble.  We need someone who will answer these immediate problems.

So let's give them all an F on our Defense policy (or lack of one).  But let's also consider who will be best for domestic policy.  I think Edwards is strong on the home front.  I don't believe the other candidates have demonstrated their knowledge on the subject like he has, or expressed well enough to us how they would solve them.

It's too early for me to pick a favorite - I have an idea who tops my list and who isn't on it.  Domestic policy will weigh heavily on who I vote for.

I definitely wouldn't call Edwards a traitor, but I would say his Iraq War vote is fair game.

The IWR was a major misjudgement.  The "I believed the WMD" claims aren't enough in my view.  There were people who didn't buy the WMD claims, and voted against the war accordingly.

George W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rove will bear ultimate responsibility, but it is a useful exercise to take account and make sure the record is straight on who stood up, and who fell right into line behind the CinC.

I don't think you can understate how important the vote was in demonstrating a legislator's judgement in a national security matter.

 

John Edwards can't bring anything to the table as far as electoral math. Tell me what he can bring?

Can John Edwards help us win? Where? What states?

He still can't win either Carolina.

If reality sets in to the Democratic mind the race will be between candidates who can win in red states; Wes Clark, John Edwards, Tom Vilsack. They are the only ones now who can win a general election. Warner could as well.

The reality candidates (Clark, Edwards, Vilsack - I'd like to add Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Warner) have an unforseen opportunity now with Senator Obama. He cannot win the red states either but he seems to be an honest, congenial and decent guy and one of the rare Democrats who spoke up against the removal of Habeas Corpus while the little peeps ducked out to Starbucks for coffee (and as Alan Dershowitz and others have pointed out, the Clintons do support torture situtations outlawed by the new bill & by the Geneva Convention). Obama can win against Senator Clinton in the primary, and neutralizes her candidancy, saving the Democratic party from catustrophic failure in the general election.

The Democrats cannot win without the red states. But the current fatal delusion among the (Northern) Democrats comes from Tom Schaller's book "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South." This is the equivalence of the book and the idea (James Glassman, I think) in the  mid 1990s that the stock market was going to go up to 35,000 although it was clear that the DOT.com stocks were fully undercapitalized and were going to bust. That didn't stop investors. Likewise, the Schaller book creates the illusion that fanciful Nantucket Democrats can win without the South and the Midwest. It defies reality and the numbers. Democrats have lost three times since post-war forty-something to one - to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. We head to the fourth and final catuistrophic failure with Hillary Clinton.

Northern Democrats are in denial of demographics and population shifts from the Northeast to the South, the Midwest, the Southwest and the West since 1950s. The North used to be the red states (red signifies the power principle), now they are the blue states. The Republicans have been winning because they acknowledge this. The Democrats in the Northern states are in denial of this historical transition and think they are going to "come back" to power but demographics consistently point to the red states.

Obama can’t win in red states but can carry the North in a Democratic red state strategy (which might otherwise go to John McCain). His presence in the race accelerates the Clark/Edwards/Vilsack position directly to the fore.

In the old paradigm Democrats and Republicans would pick a Kennedy, a Roosevelt or a Rockerfeller in New York and throw in some folkloric Western or Southern person like LBJ to "balance" the ticket; throwing a bone to the regions. Today the demographics have flipped. To win today we need a solid, primary candidate from red states (Wes Clark) and a balancing figure to satisfy the Northeast corridor and its West Coast annex like Senator Obama. Better yet, a South/Midwest ticket; Clark/Sebelius or Warner/Sebelius.

...based upon current realities, Clark/Obama '08 can win.

And in 2016, Obama will be 55.

Get my drift?

Thanks!

Steve

Yup. I get the drift. Sounds like a great, responsible, winning ticket.

We'll bring the rest of 'em around eventually.

Steve

I could also buy into the Obama/Clark ticket. 

As stated in an earlier post in the thread a lot in 2008 is going to hinge on how things go in Iraq. 

If the troop surge works, I think McCain is going to be pretty close to a lock.

If it doesn't work, I think the field is completely open for every single Dem (with the exception of Hilary).

Obama can flip Ohio, or Florida--that's all that it would take for him to win if he holds onto the '04 Kerry states. 

Some combination of Virginia, Missouri, New Mexico, Iowa (with long-shots for him being Colorado, Indiana, and Nevada) would also work.

I agree with you Bernie that Northeastern Dems are dead on arrival in a national election.  Post G.W. Bush I see the same rule applying to Republicans from the Southeast and Texas.  The rest of the country is wide open.

I do think race could be a negative factor for Obama in parts of the country. 

On the flipside I see this as being a potential motivating factor for states with large minority populations (Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and even Virginia). 

Warner, Obama or Clark as the ticket would be tough to beat.

I have heard an African American say that if Obama is on the ticket they will not vote. Why? Because, in their eyes, Obama is not a true African American: his father is Kenyan, his mother Caucasian. If we must have an African American, goes the theory, there are several million genuine African-Americans (whatever that means) out there, why go for a Kenyan? Now, I am not saying I agree with this sentiment, but I wonder how many in the Democratic base would think likewise? Don't mock it, it's another of those closet issues not expressed openly, but which may turn out to be powerful subterranean issues.

I can understand that some African-Americans could claim that Obama is not representative of them as he does not share in the 400 year cultural metamorphosis  and American destiny of slavery, liberation, segregation, awakening, poverty, suffering, religious and cultural progress, etc., etc. or, as van Woodward put is, "the burdern of Southern history." Indeed, culturally he is first/second gen American and in that has more in common with most of us Irish, Jews, Poles, Russians, Italians, Chinese etc. from the northern industrial cities (like myself, grannie from England, grandaddy from Ireland) - but if it is close enough for Oprah, then it is close enough.

and I think that some African Americans may quibble over Obama's ancestry but when push comes to shove, his past will bring more of them to the polls then will stay home, when up against a 55+, white guy from the Republican party. And I really don't see Condi making it on the R ticket this time around.

I've seen between African Americans whose families have been here forever and the recent African arrivals.  There are those who will say Obama is not authentic, whatever that means; however, when push comes to shove are African Americans really going to quibble over his father's country of origin or are they going to see a guy who looks like them, who in fact is darker-complected than some African Americans whose ancestry tracks back hundreds of years?  Like them he is judged by his skin color and he has stories to tell.  He can relate because he has to, and I think he will address the issue over the course of the campaign.  Should be interesting.

That would be one of the reasons for the lukewarm support of Obama in the black community. There are others.

There is a difference between blacks who were raised in the US and those who were not. Obama wasn't raised here. Neither was Colin Powell, the first black person seriously considered as a presidential contender.

I do think that all of this talk of Obama will go away, though, for the same reason that Colin Powell didn't run: unfortunately, America isn't ready for a black president.

Or a female, either.

I think we may be. After voting for W, the epitome of good ole boy politics, most Americans may be less likely to vote based on image and look toward substance. I certainly beleive that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are serious thinkers and they'd both make a great President. But Obama a better one :)