So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine

The Politico is reporting that Senator Obama's people are "seriously" vetting Virginia Governor Tim Kaine for the VP slot.  If they pick him, I think Obama would be taking a cue from President Clinton, who you may recall picked another Southernor - Al Gore.  He "doubled-down" on his image and his narrative.  Such a choice would mean that Obama would be doing the same - two young agents of change, outsiders, new to the national political scene.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/070 8/12115.html

As Senator Barack Obama turns to the choice of his running mate, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has emerged as one of the campaign's potential finalists, sources familiar with conversations in Richmond and in Chicago said.

Kaine, an early Obama supporter whose biography nicely dovetails with the Illinois senator's, "ranks very, very high on the short list," said a source who has spoken recently to senior Obama aides about Kaine.

Kaine "is getting a critical examination," the source said.

The 50-year old Virginia governor is among a handful of logical, and much-discussed, choices to join Obama on the campaign trail. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, former Georgia Sen, Sam Nunn, and Delaware Senator Joe Biden are among others frequently mentioned.

Obama and his top advisors met Monday afternoon at the Washington, D.C. law office of Eric Holder, one of the leaders of his vice presidential vetting team.

Kaine's position as governor of a state the Obama campaign hopes to make a key battleground and his background as a Spanish-speaking former Catholic missionary and civil rights lawyer make him a strong potential pick.

While Tim Kaine isn't a slam dunk choice he certainly does bring a lot to the table.  I did a little reading up on him.

He's 50, a Harvard Law grad (like Obama), and according to the Wikipedia article, "practiced law in Richmond for 17 years, specializing in representing people who had been denied housing opportunities because of their race or disability."  He appears to be personally pro-life, though it seems that this personal opposition only translates to support for the "partial birth abortion ban."

"Jerry Kilgore believes that you can't be anti-abortion unless you want to make abortion a crime, and I fundamentally reject that," Kaine said. "I've always opposed making it a crime -- outlawing a woman or a doctor for participating in an abortion. And you don't have to criminalize women or their doctors to be anti-abortion."

On the whole, I think Kaine would be an interesting pick.  It might make sense for Obama to pull a (Bill) Clinton and double-down on his strengths.  I'm not endorsing Kaine for the job, but it's certainly plausible.  If he can deliver Virginia (which isn't a guarantee, but I expect he would help) then it makes even more sense.  Having Mark Warner running for (and almost certainly winning) that Senate seat may have reverse-coattails which cannot hurt either.

I dunno.  Thoughts?



Display:


Tips? (2.00 / 1)

For doubling-down?  For a red state governor who's helped to make it a purple state?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:48:45 PM EST

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (2.00 / 2)

If we're so worried about carrying Virginia, perhaps we should all remember the Rasmussen Reports polling that showed that Hillary helped more in VA than Kaine did...


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:54:33 PM EST

Re: So They're (seriously) (2.00 / 1)

This isn't meant as an attack or dig on Senator Clinton, her supporters, or anyone else.  I'm honestly and dispassionately responding:

If he's going to "double-down" like Bill Clinton did, then Hillary Clinton just won't work.  If he's looking to be an agent of change he cannot, he just cannot link himself that strongly to a consummate insider.  I'm not saying that this is the only valid strategy, nor am I saying anything negative about Senator Clinton.  If this is the strategy that Obama picks, reinforcing his strengths, then Senator Clinton won't fit that.

Picking Hillary Clinton would also be powerful, but it would necessarily change the whole game.  I'm not sure that Obama is up for that significant of a course-correction.  Maybe he is.  I dunno.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It would change the game... (none / 0)

But for the better, IMHO. Obama's greatest weakness right now is his "inexperience". While the trip abroad seems to be helping, I don't think it's enough... And that doesn't even address issues of domestic policy.

That's why I think he's better off picking someone with more experience dealing with the political scene. After all, remember that Al Gore had been in Congress (both House and Senate) 15 years when Bill Clinton picked him. That's why my VP faves are:

1. Hillary Clinton

  1. Wes Clark
  2. NC Gov. Mike Easley
  3. PA Gov. Ed Rendell

I think with the right VP choice, Obama can bolster his "change" argument while adding some good experience and know-how to the ticket.


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He can't bolster change argument (2.00 / 2)

with Hillary. Sorry, he can't. She's not change, she's 1990's. If he picks her, he has to throw out his change mantra, and run on "back to Pre-Bush."  Can't do it with Rendell either.

Clark and Easley, he can do it with.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He can't bolster change argument (none / 0)

Not all change is good.

For example change from the current situation would be Obama losing...

My point is that when you find yourself about to become president you need to ask yourself should I take the smart bet and win safely with Clinton?

Or should I bet it all on winning Virginia?

Hillary will help Obama more in Ohio and Pa and thats where the race is decided.

If Hillary is within striking range of flipping Florida game over.

Not picking Hillary could well be Obama's Howard Dean moment...

And what a change that would be.


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He can't bolster change argument (2.00 / 1)

"Hillary will help Obama more in Ohio and Pa and thats where the race is decided."

Two things:  

  1.  He doesn't need help in Pennsylvania.
  2.  The race can be decided in any number of scenarios.  I live in Ohio.  I intend to do my part to see that Obama wins Ohio.  That being said, we can easily win WITHOUT Ohio if we have to.

We just need 269 EV's.  The ones from Ohio aren't magic.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He can't bolster change argument (none / 0)

Show me a realistic scenario where Obama loses while carrying Ohio and PA?  And Hillary would put Florida in play and bring 3 serious campaigners to any other candidates 1.

If he fights a smart defensive war he wins.

There is plenty room within that for offense.

If he goes for broke and picks Kaine and loses Virginia or Ohio he could well lose.


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is not guarantee (none / 0)

he'll carry Ohio and there's no reason to think he won't without her.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He can't bolster change argument (2.00 / 1)

If he carries the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico, and New Hampshire, which at this point aren't even close, then all he needs is:

Indiana OR Florida OR Ohio OR Virginia OR Missouri OR Colorado OR Nevada.  Basically he needs just one more state, anywhere.  He doesn't have to play defense at all.

That being said I'd be happy with Clinton.  I'd be a little MORE happy with Tim Kaine.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He can't bolster change argument (none / 0)

If Obama locks up ohio and PA its McCain that needs the big long string of states to go his way not Obama.

If Obama loses Ohio or PA then he is the one hoping for Virginia, or Indiana or some other likely long shot.

Even Colorado isn't a given.


by dtaylor2 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He can't bolster change argument (none / 0)

I don't think you understood my post.  Read it again.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:52:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (2.00 / 2)

I would prefer Senator Clinton or Wes Clark, but I heard a reporter in the tube today saying, conventional wisdom says "white southern male, governor" as whom the pundits think he will pick.

Could be Kaine, I guess.


On Nov 4th, we elected "the smart guy" and the world celebrated!
by WashStateBlue on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:59:05 PM EST

Or Easley (2.00 / 1)

or Bredeson or Brad Henry. I don't think he's looking for a VP to carry a state, since that hasn't happened since like 1960.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

So pick Bill Clinton already...


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

The Consistitution doesn't allow that.  If you're joking, then forgive me for saying the obvious.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

Pick his wife then....=)


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

I'm sure Obama will surprise a lot of people.


by Politicalslave on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:00:10 PM EST

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

He is anti choice- enough said. Good luck getting that guy to be POTUS. AL Gore didnt piss off the base, but Kaine will.


by bsavage on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:04:59 PM EST

Well, you want him to lose (2.00 / 1)

so that would be cupcakes for you, no?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, you want him to lose (none / 0)

So what? In the year 2008, nominating someone who is antichoice should be unacceptable on a national ticket.


by bsavage on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:13:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, you want him to lose (2.00 / 3)

He opposes making abortion illegal.  How is he "anti-choice?"


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, you want him to lose (none / 0)

You have no idea who you're arguing with. I think this is savage's third incarnation, which is only regrettable cause it means the stuff that got him/her banned a few months back is no longer accessible.

Some truly crazy shit.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:19:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) (2.00 / 2)

I think "anti-choice" is absurdly reductionist.  Someone can think abortion is wrong without wanting to make it illegal.  Someone does.  His name is Tim Kaine.

Any chance you'll reply to this, bsavage, or am I wasting my time?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) (none / 0)

If you follow that logic, there will be more prolife judges nominated by Dems.  Tim Kaine is very conservative even more so than Joe Lieberman (YIKES!) Its not worth the risk, there are better VP picks out there. Even McCaskill is pro choice as are several others.


by bsavage on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) (none / 0)

So you won't actually respond to my point?  You're calling him "anti-choice" when that does not describe his position.  "Pro-life" is more accurate in his case because he's not trying to ban anything.  "Anti-choice" would describe someone trying to deny someone else a choice.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:20:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did (2.00 / 1)

anti-death penalty become a conservative principle? He has vetoed every death penalty advancement bill that came across his desk.

I'd say outside of social issues (and even there he opposed the same-sex marriage ban) Kaine is damn liberal. He's protected 400,000 acres of Virginia land from development.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:21:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (2.00 / 2)

A leading abortion rights group declined to endorse Kaine this summer, citing his support for restrictions it considers onerous. Kaine has backed parental notification laws and opposes a late-term procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion.
- Washington Post 9/23/2005

Yeah, what a great pick Tim Kaine would be. I mean, doesn't picking a pro-life Veep essentially unravel all the progress that the Democratic Party has done to keep abortion legal.


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:15:49 PM EST

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (2.00 / 1)

Um.  Parental notification and the partial-birth abortion ban are not only fine with me but they're fine with one hell of a large swath of Americans.

And by the way, most parental notification laws allow the teenager to avoid notification for cause.  They've just got to get a judge to sign off on it.  In my experience, that's not particularly hard to do, especially if there's an actual risk of harm from the parent(s).


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

It's interesting then that our nominee is opposed to both parental notification and to the partial birth abortion ban. Don't you think it might be a slight problem for a presidential candidate and his VP pick to disagree on such a momentous issue?


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) (none / 0)

No.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:30:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) (none / 0)

Why not?


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) (none / 0)

Unless it's Obama/Obama then there will be disagreements over policy.  If they see eye to eye 95% of the time or better, well, they can sort out the last few bits.

Nearly every ticket involves candidates from different parts of the party/country/ideological spectrum.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:33:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) (none / 0)

wow we hold the same position on something... scratches head


by dtaylor2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:02:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because that happens very often (none / 0)

where running mates and candidates disagree on issues...see Gore/Lieberman, see Reagan/Bush, see Carter/Mondale.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. (2.00 / 1)


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:19:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (none / 0)

Ah yes, anything for the greater good...


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You asked a stupid question (none / 0)

It was answered.  Quit whining.


by JJE on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You asked a stupid question (none / 0)

Phil Gramm, is that you?


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IT IS! (none / 0)

I'm secretly angling to be Obama's VP and singlehandedly overturn Roe v. Wade with mind bullets!  And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling trolls!


by JJE on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IT IS! (none / 0)

So now I'm a troll? Please.

I was merely pointing out that having a pro-life Democratic President would significantly hurt the pro-choice movement. Democratic lawmakers would be much more inclined to vote with the President on enacting restrictions, especially if that President was popular. It sets a horrible precedent.


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually what you said was (none / 0)

I mean, doesn't picking a pro-life Veep essentially unravel all the progress that the Democratic Party has done to keep abortion legal.

Nobody in Congress is going to change their position on parental notification or D&E simply because of the VP's positions on those issues.


by JJE on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (2.00 / 2)

Better than Evan Bayh, but I still like Wes Clark.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:21:03 PM EST

Re: So They're ( (2.00 / 1)

I would also prefer Clark, but Kaine's pretty good, I think.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're ( (2.00 / 1)

Kaine, Sebelius, Clark are all cool with me.

Just not Evan Bayh please, or anyone else who voted for the Iraq War.  Obama shouldn't have to dance on the head of a pin like Kerry did to explain why it was okay for his VP to vote for the war he believes shouldn't have been authorized.


by Will Graham on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kaine (2.00 / 1)

is a good pick, he is smart and a hard worker.  He works well with the other side and face it we have a lot of problems.  He better roll up his sleeves and get ready to work.


by hocuspocus on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:26:07 PM EST

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (2.00 / 2)

I've always thought one of the Virginians would be great.

Kaine also has midwestern roots, speaks Spanish, and is Catholic.  Before we went into politics, he did lots of housing advocacy as a lawyer. So, yes, he complements and doubles-down for Obama as someone with lots of community based experience.

Anyone know:
- What are his job approval numbers?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:40:21 PM EST

Rasmussen polled him (none / 0)

today and I believe he had higher unfavorables than favorables.  I think Kaine would be a curious pick considering that his popularity seems to be declining in Northern Virginia from the news.  He also didn't provide a net plus to Obama when PPP polled Virginia (he was even behind Hillary Clinton in that state in terms of a net plus).


by Blazers Edge on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rasmussen polled him (none / 0)

I don't see that poll. Can you post a link?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rasmussen polled him (none / 0)

I remember the discussion of those different match-ups and some were of the opinion that a lot of Virginians didn't want to lose him as governor.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

Kaine's latest Approval/Disapproval numbers are: 58%/35% according to SurveyUSA.


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) (none / 0)

In a traditionally Red state?  That ain't bad at all.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) (none / 0)

VA has had some great Dem numbers the past few years. Warner (Mark, not John), Kaine, Webb....I would not be surprised to see VA go Dem for the top ticket races (Senate AND President) in November.

Whether or not Kaine would help Obama's chances in VA....I think that he would be nationally well accepted as a VP.


by Kysen on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

Thanks - Those are great numbers.

And who would become Governor of VA should he become vp?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

GOP LG Bill Bolling, who apparently is running for re-election, not Governor.  Interesting how that would pan out as GOP AG McDonnell is the only Repub. running for Gov. in '09.


by alamedadem on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

Well, there in lies the rub...

If Kaine is picked as Obama's Veep, the Lt. Gov. of Virginia would take over. Who is the Lt Gov. of VA, you ask? Well, none other than Bill Bolling, a Republican.

I think that that has to be a strike against Kaine being picked. If Bolling becomes governor, he'll likely be in office through 2010 when the all important Census and redistricting happens. Virginia is turning increasingly blue (and may very well go blue this year for the first time since 1964), but the trend could be curtailed if the VA GOP manages to take the Governor's mansion.


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:01:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kaine strikes me as a pretty (none / 0)

poor choice, now that you have provided that information about his opposition to PBA.  I'd even take Bayh (who may also support the PBA ban but at least he has some experience) at this point over Kaine.  Obama can maintain the "change" mantra without choosing someone who hasn't even served out his first time in office as governor.

I am hoping that these "discussions" lead Obama away from Kaine.


by Blazers Edge on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:58:17 PM EST

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

In an ideal universe, I think the best choice would be Mark Warner.  Of course, he can't be the pick now as picking up that Senate seat is too important.  Lot sof others have viewed Webb as another solid choice (I wasn't as sure, but he pulled himself from consideration, anyway).

I can't quite shake the feeling that Kaine looks like the 3rd best choice fromt the state, and whether or nor he's truly the best fit, he'll be portrayed as a regional reach..  


by danielj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:06:23 PM EST

Mark Warner btw (none / 0)

also a moderate when it comes to abortion.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

Kaine also opposes the death penalty.  I think he is a great choice, someone with solid progressive beliefs.  He is not anti-choice, he personally does not believe in abortion--that is far different from wanting to legislate against it, and is probalby closer to the views of most Americans than being personally pro-abortion (I'm not even sure that exists as a stand).  


by mady on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:32:18 PM EST

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

I'd be okay with Kaine. Just okay, though. Actually, I'd mainly be relieved that he didn't pick Hagel or Nunn.

It's hard to say who he should pick. There is no perfect choice out there - everyone has their potential downsides as well as their upsides.


by Angry White Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:33:16 PM EST

That's true (none / 0)

and probably the problem...he's looking for the perfect choice, and it doesn't exist, so he's trying to see who he can afford to piss off.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, as they say (none / 0)

the most important consideration in picking a VP is making sure the choice doesn't hurt the ticket.


by Angry White Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They all (none / 0)

hurt the ticket in some way...unless he picks someone from left field...like Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire or something.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:48:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

If Obama goes with Kaine, the possibility of Ridge as McCaine's pick increases two-fold.


by Liberty on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (none / 0)

That scares me because Ridge could definitely give McCain Pennsylvania. And there aren't many scenarios in which we win without PA.


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ridge will NEVER be a running mate (none / 0)

he's pro-choice...end of story.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:40:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridge will NEVER be a running mate (none / 0)

That was my point...McCain could then go with Ridge due to his pro-choice stance if Obama goes with Kaine...


by Liberty on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:44:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and what (none / 0)

lose the evangelical vote in North Carolina and Georgia?

Good, then we definitely don't need Pennsylvania.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and what (none / 0)

I don't believe with Ridge on the ticket, McCain loses either of those states.


by Liberty on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:53:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh and btw (none / 0)

Ridge is no more pro-choice than Kaine.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:59:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and what (none / 0)

With Ridge on the ticket, Barr cracks 10% in those states.  The Christian Right is already really wary of McCain; a pro-choice running mate would only confirm their worst fears and give them an excuse to go third-party, in order to convince the Republican Party that they need them.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridge will NEVER be a running mate (none / 0)

There's no way in hell McCain would go with a pro-choice running mate.  He's already got reason to worry that the Christian Right will sit on their hands or vote for Barr or whatever Roy Moore lookalike is up from the Constitution Party this year.  And with him being really old and likely to serve only one term, and his VP being the likely successor, the Christian Right would quite simply not accept a veep who could potentially be in a position to appoint centrist SCOTUS judges.

Nope, if there's one requirement of McCain's running mate, it's that he/she be anti-choice.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ridge will NEVER be a running mate (none / 0)

Do you think the Democratic base will accept a pro-life Vice President? There hasn't been one since Roe was decided in 1973.


by rayj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But (none / 0)

We had a "pro-life" President from 1977-1981, didn't we?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mike Murphy said that (none / 0)

Republicans fear Tim Kaine the way the Democrats fear Tom Ridge.

Tim Kaine could help with North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio (mid-western roots) as well as the Southwest since he is fluent in Spanish and used to be a missionary in Honduras.

Interesting pick and would reinforce Obama's "change" message.

Since they would not bring much experience to Washington, what Obama should do is announce his potential cabinet posts the day after the Republican National Convention to take away their bounce.  That cabinet should have a lot of seasoned folks such as Biden for Secretary of State, Hagel for Secretary of the Defense, etc.


by puma on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:11:56 PM EST

Re: Mike Murphy said that (none / 0)

No more republican SecDefs.  Reinforces the notion that only Republicans can be trusted with the military.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:39:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Murphy said that (none / 0)

Clark would make an excellent SecDef if he doesn't get the Veep nod. I can see Biden or Richardson as Sec State. Hillary as Majority Leader.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:45:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark cannot be SecDef (none / 0)

He hasn't been out of the Military for the required period of time.


"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown
by auboy2006 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:07:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark cannot be SecDef (none / 0)

I'd forgotten that. He doesn't qualify until 2010. Maybe Obama will leave Gates in as a caretaker until then.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:58:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So They're (seriously) Vetting Gov. Tim Kaine (2.00 / 1)

I think Tim Kaine is a solid choice, despite his relative lack of experience.  The primary theme of Obama's campaign is change (in the mindset that got us into the Iraq War, in the way Washington does business, etc.) and Kaine certainly reinforces that message.  Might as well choose a VP who calls attention to your strengths rather than your (perceived) weaknesses.

Obama can't rely on his VP to do the foreign policy/national security heavy lifting for him.  He'll have to do that on his own.  Either he wins that argument with McCain or he doesn't.  The VP isn't a bodyguard.  


by Will Graham on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:35:27 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.