...he's incorrect on this one.  Oh well, Marc can't ALWAYS be right! :)

and is really old news.   Strickland is 67, with no foreign policy experience.  Methinks Biden would rather be SecState than VP, and he is also in his 60s.  

While I think Obama could surprise us, I would think Kaine and Webb stay in the mix (Warner less so - he guarantees the Senate seat and in that slot gives as much support for votes in VA), along with Sebelius, and after that I really don't know.

But lets not forget that fiesty Senator from Missouri as an attempt at appeasing the Clinton faithful, the women anyway. I like her better than Sebelius.

There's nothing that will upset the Clinton faithful more than if Obama puts a woman other than Hillary or one of her diehard supporters like Diane Feinstein on the ticket.  So if you really want to take a chance on those voters not voting for Obama, go ahead and cheer for a Sebelius or a McCasill.

Its called "change"--you can actually have change and also appeal to those women voters. If they are saying that they will not support another women because somehow they feel Clinton has done all the work---well shame on them. All the work she has done and her husband for that matter does not represent the "change" that is the premise of the campaign. So is Clinton the only qualified "women" in America to be VP---please enlighten me as to how that it is true.

Your attitude is exactly the reason why a large percentage of women will withold their vote (not all, but a significant percentage).  It doesn't do any good to say things like 'shame on them'.  That's not going to get you what you want.  

You have to seriously ask youselves what it is that you want.  If it's the Clinton supporters, then you have to do what it takes to get them.  However, if in your heart-of-hearts you really don't care about getting those voters, then fine -- don't do what it takes to get them.  

I'm not going to argue with you or anyone.  I merely wanted to point out that by putting another woman on the ticket would only anger rather than heal many of these voters.  If you choose not to believe me, then fine.      

frankly, that a portion of the Democrat electorate feels they need to be "healed" and putting themselves up before the good of the country---not so JFK-like in my view but thats fine I respect that viewpoint if that is the one they chose to adhere to but remember, it is a choice.

but I don't see how all those women who voted for Clinton to break the glass ceiling are going to be turned off by giving another woman a shot at the top tier.  For an awful lot of them, it didn't seem to be so much about Hillary herself as about a woman, any woman, having a realistic shot at the brass ring.

I'm not keen on McCaskill because picking her means risking a swing Senate seat in a year where we're trying to build a Democratic majority that doesn't depend on allying with Lieberman, Party of One. (That's a big part of why I refuse to sing in the Jim Webb choir, too.) However, I can't see Sebelius or Napolitano as a rebuke, real or perceived, to Hillary supporters.

In fact, I won't be at all surprised if McCain picks a female running mate as part of his campaign to draw away all those disaffected Clinton people. Condi Rice might be the favorite there, but if I were him I'd be looking at a woman from a swing state with some elective experience. Former Rep. Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania would seem like the right choice for McCain, in that she would be a sop to his hard right base and, being younger than Obama, she'd help offset McCain's age problem. Retiring Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio is another good fit, although she'd help him more in the middle than on the extreme right.

then what you're saying is that there is really nothing that Barack can do to try and extend an olive branch to Hillary's supporters.

Hillary, by her historic candidacy and the 46-48% of the Democratic delegates that she obtained, has earned a seat at the table -- but the Vice Presidency is almost assuredly off the table because of the complications of Bill's post-Presidential career, connections, and activities. At the end of the day, I think she knows this full well, and I am pretty sure that both she and Barack realize that it is not a union that can work politically for this and other reasons (and I would say the same thing for the reverse scenario, as well) after this primary season.

So, because of her candidacy, Hillary will get a deserved seat at the table -- maybe it's a Supreme Court nomination should she so desire, maybe it's backing by Barack for the Governorship of New York in the near future, maybe it's a Cabinet position, etc.

But yet, Kate, you say that, even with Hillary's blessing, if Barack nominates another woman to be VP, that that will be the last straw and send a sizable amount of Hillary's supporters to either not vote or vote for McCain? If Barack feels like Kathleen Sebelius (whom I advocate for the VP, because I think she is the best candidate to reinforce Barack's central theme, male or female, period) is his best bet, and if Hillary endorses the idea, this will still be beyond the pale? I find that disheartening.

At the end of the day, this VP game is very much a parlor game for us political junkies. But the conversation is important, because I find it distressing that some or many Clinton supporters feel so aggrieved by the results that they might help get John McCain elected. And therefore it is important that I try and understand why.

If, at the end of the day, Hillary decides that her support for Barack is contingent upon his picking one of her supporters as VP, then that is what will happen, and that's life. I'd be thrilled with a Wes Clark candidacy, much less sanguine of an Evan Bayh or a Ted Strickland pick. But I confess I cannot at all understand how picking another qualified woman in Hillary's stead would somehow be beyond the pale.

Respectfully submitted.

let me correct your last paragraph where you said "if Hillary decides that her support for Barack is contingent upon his picking one of her supporters...etc".  It's not 'her' support of Obama that's contingent on anything - she's already supporting him.  It's her supporters' support of Obama that you mean to say.

Second, you suggest that there's nothing that Obama can do to win these voters.  There's a good article today by Bonnie Erbe in US News, at

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/er... One of the things in it says that Candy Crowley asked him what he's going to do to win these voters, and she says that he completely missed the mark in his answer.  So he doesn't know what he has to do, but he's going to have to find a way.  Obama, the DNC, and the Obama supporters are taking these voters for granted by thinking they'll come around.  The latest poll had between 20-25 % of Hillary's supporters, or 4.5 million voters, who are not planning to vote for Obama.  They feel disaffected, disillustioned, and just plain 'dis-ed', and they want some respect for their candidate, who was trashed by the MSM and Obama supporters (oddly enough, she wasn't trashed by the conservatives, who should be the natural enemy; she was trashed by her own Democratic family).  I find this despicable.

Now, to your main question about why would putting a woman on the ticket be a problem for Hillary supporters.  I should think that would be obvious to you.  Until Hillary made this historic run, no one entertained the notion of putting a woman on a ticket, much less having a woman run in her own right for the presidency.  It just wasn't on anyone's radar screen.  But she changed all that.  Hillary broke down these barriers and made it 'unremarkable' as she said in her speech Saturday.  But in the process she was roundly trashed, ridiculed, berated and cut down mecilessly by the MSM and Obama supporters.  No other candidate received any treatment like this.  She had to endure these hardships so that those coming after her can have it easier.  

And now you wonder why Hillary supporters would have a problem with two of the women who criticised her the most: Sebilius and especially McCaskill.  It was bad enough that these women went against the first woman running as a viable presidential candidate, but to behave the way they did toward her is inexcusable.  So for either of them to have the VP handed to them on a silver platter, when neither of them worked for that barrier to be torn down, is not acceptable.  

   

because it almost sounds like reverse sexism. You state that "Sebilius and especially McCaskill...went against the first women running as a viable presidential candidate, but to behave the way they did toward her was unexcusable". Well they treated Clinton like any other politician...is not that the reason for bringing down the glass cieling or K8 is it merely plexi-glass? Your implication is they sold Clinton out and should not have "because" she is a woman like they are. That in itself is sexism. Sebilius and Mccaskell differe geatly with Clinton on issues and policy so why should they not enthusiastically support the person they believe in regardless of race, gender or orientation....is not this what we say we want out of our electorate?

Funny but I think being a Democrat Governor from Kansas and a female Senator from Missouri means these two women to endure some hardship to get where they are today and did participate inj the process of advancing women in politics. Do you think Hillary Clinton would have really been considered had she not become a NY Senator first...who did the work before her to allow her to be a viable candidate for a Senate seat?

The logic is just fuzzy to me. I understand the disappointment that Hillary came up short in the delegate count but her popular vote should absolutely be respected in some manner, even if it is not her as the VP.

Well if he is correct then Virginia now falls back "in-play" at even. I was predicting Obama would have a 2 to 3% margin over Mccain if election was today based on 2006 and 2008 voter turnout and polling, but will see what impact if any it may have should ne not go with a Virginian.

...with Fisher's negatives on the three Virginians under consideration.  I would hate to see Warner ditch the senate run and I think Kaine would add little to the ticket.  Webb would be the one who would seem to add the most to the cause and his seat could be filled the easiest at this point with a Democratic governor in Richmond.  

I think Obama has a difficult choice to make with his Veep selection.  As a Hillary supporter I wouldn't object to her inclusion, though I understand the downside to that.  As a result I don't expect that to happen.  Strickland is very popular in Ohio, obviously a very important battleground.  However, as pointed out he lacks foreign policy experience.  I don't think either of the other females mentioned really would add much either.  

It's going to be interesting but I wouldn't be surprised to see Webb get the nod.

After seeing the pictures of Webb and Obama in yesterday's paper I just have a feeling it will be Webb -if he will accept. He would offer military experience and also his background is from the hard working whites (Appallacia) that Obama needs. He also looked VERY happy that Obama won the primary. He has a lot of visibilty so people across the country know who he is. If they hit it off personally I think it would be a great choice.

Maybe I'm just selfish.  I don't want Tim Kaine to resign prematurely as Governor.  I want Jim Webb and Mark Warner representing Virginia in the Senate for a long time.

I don't think any of the Virginians offer much to the Obama campaign.  None of them have much political experience or support outside Virginia.  Only Warner is popular enough in Virginia to help deliver the state, and he will already do that as the Senate candidate.

I just don't see Obama picking either Hillary Clinton (too desperate) or John Edwards (been there, done that - but he would be a good choice for attorney general).  Ted Strickland would be the sort of safe, traditional approach of trying to sway a swing state.  If he wants to help carry a whole region, he would do better with Bill Richardson.   If he wants to shore up his foreign policy credentials and reassure moderates, he would do better with Sam Nunn.

He might do well to announce his cabinet (or at least his foreign policy team) early in the campaign to counter McCain's "expertise" in that area.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Marc Fisher truly has his head where the sun doesn't shine. Sam Nunn has been the perennial subject of VP gossip since, what? 1992? And he would have been a great pick in '92, '96, 2000 or maybe even 2004. But now he's 70 years old and has spent much of the last year talking trash about his own party.

Nunn is too old for this job, he's been out of public life for many years and he hasn't done a damned thing for his party during the entire 8 years of the Bush administration when the rest of us were fighting tooth and nail. He's too old and he has no constituency.

As for Chuck Hagel, the very idea that picking a Republican for a Democratic Party Presidential ticket is somehow more likely that choosing either Webb, Kaine or Warner is patently absurd.  Hagel is with us on the war and opposed to us on pretty much everything else.  The guy has a ZERO percent rating from NARAL and a ZERO percent rating from the HRC. He's totally opposed to gay rights. Ain't no way in hell that a candidate trying to unify the party would pick someone with this kind of record.

Anyone who thinks that Nunn or Hagel are 'likely picks' isn't worth listening to.  There are exactly 3 prime-time Democrats with serious experience in foreign policy or defense issues who aren't too old for the job. Joe Biden, Wesley Clark and Jim Webb. Maybe you could put Richardson on that list, too.

As for Webb being a 'loose cannon,' I can't see why Obama would have that opinion of him after working closely with the man for the last few years in the Senate, where Webb has gained a reputation for being a very measured, patient, hardworking colleague who consistently builds consensus across party lines.  The press loves to depict Jim Webb as a loose cannon or a maverick (which is a good thing), but what matters here is how Obama sees him.

The lesson of Kerry-Edwards is that the chemistry and trust at the top of the ticket are more important that the casual observer may consider.

My 10 bucks are on ObamaKaine because
1) this Senate balance, on the war particularly with Lieberman's hawk vote, is too close for Webb (or presumably Mark Warner) to be stepping out of Senate roles too early. (Webb would be SedDef or SecState)

2) the loss of a Democratic governor in VA would be a damn shame for Virginia, but worth the sacrifice for the country. What Virginia Dem would not give Kaine their blessing?

3) if you have heard Obama and Kaine at the lectern together, you know that there is a ton of trust there, teamwork, and even a little magic.

My other 10 bucks are on Webb, because, as a former Reagan appointee, there are large segments that he could welcome back to the Democratic party...and we know he won't back down.
 

I don't say that as a slam on Kaine.  Moreover, I don't like the prospect of a Gov. Bolling.

Well, Kaine gives you Virginia, Catholics, possibly Hispanics (Kaine helped people in Central America). But the most significant element is not obvious. Its their dynamic. Like two rowers on a crew team, the winners of the race are the ones who can row the hardest and in perfect unison. That's Kaine.  

his only demurral was that he didn't want to be considered--he doesn't have a problem with being selected -aj

The reason that Tim Kaine won't be in the VP slot is our current Lt. Gov.  If the long term objective is to turn Virginia Blue and KEEP Virginia blue, we need to do everything we can to win big in '09, and that means a Democrat in the Governor's Mansion.  

If Kaine were to run with Obama and become VP, Virginia would have a Republican Governor for the critical 09 election just before redistricting.  Odds are that Bolling would suddenly reconsider his decision not to run for his own term as Gov., and we would have the first race in a long time with a governor running as an incumbant.

I think the long term damage to Virginia that might result is too great to risk, and I would be surprised if Tim and Barack did not agree.