Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (13281)	8/14/2007 9:50:40 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224749

who will Hillary pick for VP, Obama is done. Richardson hurt himself with his gay remark. She'll want a southern, but that person can't be independent.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (13281)	8/15/2007 11:04:29 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224749

More speculation on VP>The RCP Blog Home Page '08 Notes: Strickland Business, Aug 15, 2007 REID WILSON In yesterday's post, I speculated on a number of potential Vice Presidential candidates, and many readers wrote in with suggestions. Some names readers thought I missed: Former Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R-MD), Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). One reader pointed out, correctly, that no sitting governor has been elected Vice President since Spiro Agnew in 1968. But vice presidential selections happen for a reason. In 2004, John Kerry picked John Edwards almost by popular demand. In 2000, seeking to rid himself of any stigma the Clinton impeachment hearings brought, Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman, one of the first Democrats to chastise Clinton on the Senate floor. Clinton, a governor himself, chose a Washington insider in Gore to give him foreign policy credentials. 2008 seems to argue for a governor. The voting public loathes Washington, and what better way to call for change in Washington than by selecting someone outside the Beltway? By far the most common criticism was that I had omitted the most obvious choice: Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. The newly-elected governor and former long-time congressman was subjected to the veep treatment by Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray in the Washington Post a few weeks ago, and would be a big help for any Democrat hoping to win Ohio. Here's why he won't be the choice for veep: -- At 66, Strickland is nearing the end of his public service life. If he were elected vice president next year, at 67, it would be his chance to run for President by 2016, when he's 75 years old. The eventual Democratic nominee in 2008 would be under tremendous pressure to select a veep who could run in eight years, as the sitting vice president would be better positioned than the winner of an open field primary. -- We've heard the argument that the eventual nominee would put Strickland on the ticket to carry Ohio and choose another nominee for the 2012 election. The last time a president dropped his vice president was Franklin Roosevelt, who did it twice, first swapping out John Nance Gardner for Henry Wallace and then dropping Wallace for Harry Truman. Spiro Agnew was the last veep to resign, though he did it under duress. To change candidates midstream, while excellent fodder for journalists, would prematurely end Strickland's public service career when he would want to end it on his own terms. -- After a landslide win against a Republican who had won statewide before, Strickland remains a popular governor for whom, if his administration doesn't succumb to scandals that have plagued Ohio Republicans, two or three terms will not be out of the question. As with above, why would Strickland put his political future in someone else's hands when he can serve as governor and leave, barring a scandal, on his own terms? -- Finally, Strickland is arguably the most popular Democrat in Ohio, save perhaps John Glenn. Ohio is perhaps the most important state, electorally, to a presidential contest. With an historically weak Democratic Party that is only now rebuilding itself, state Democrats need someone at the top. With Strickland's solid presence, the party can work to regain seats in the legislature and take out several Republican members of Congress it has targeted in recent years. In the long run, Strickland as Governor does more for the Democratic Party than Strickland as Vice President. At the end of the day, the vice presidential nominee, at least on the Democratic side, will likely be a surprise. Unlike 2004, it is difficult to envision the second-place finisher in the primary (whether that's Clinton, Obama or Edwards) being added to the winner's ticket. Any of those mentioned above, including Strickland, would make smart vice presidential choices for one reason or another. The fun of watching politics so much is that everyone gets to speculate as much as possible between now and next Spring.<