Robert Novak says most leading Democrats will urge Hillary Clinton NOT to pick Barack Obama as her running mate in his latest column:
They maintain that Obama provides no general-election help for Clinton. As an African-American from Illinois, Obama represents an ethnic group and a state solidly in the Democratic column. This school of thought advocates a Southerner as Clinton's running mate. The last time Democrats won a national election without a Southerner on the ticket was 1944. Prominent Democrats from the South are in short supply today. The leading prospect: Virginia ex-Gov. Mark Warner.
Read the rest at the link above, including Novak's latest on Fred, Mitt, and earmark fights in the California delegation.
Novak mentions 1944 - when the Democrats ran two border-state candidates. The better point is that no Democrat - going back to Jefferson, the first - has EVER been elected President without winning at least three states of the old Confederacy. Only Bill Clinton has done it with as few as three, in 1996.
Would Mark Warner on the ticket be enough to pull Virginia to Hillary? I doubt it. He will make it closer, without question, but she is an extremely disliked person by conservatives, who will probably crawl over broken glass to get to the polls to vote for her opponent, no matter who he is.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Hillary
Tags: Democrat, Hillary Clinton, presidential campaign, vice presidency
Comments (8)
I thought I had read that M... (Below threshold)1. Posted by John in CA | August 18, 2007 9:02 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I thought I had read that Mark Warner was going to run for the VA Senate seat in '08.
I know one thing. I don't think a Hillary/Barak ticket would work. If it came to be, we'd have another dysfunctional Executive like we had with Bill and Al, where they could barely stand one another. Of course, that might work for Hillary, as she's accustomed to dysfunction.
Oddly enough, Clinton/Gore carried Tenn. in '92 and '96, but Gore couldn't carry his home state in 2000. Guess you'd have to say Tenn voted for Clinton, not for Gore on that ticket.
1. Posted by John in CA | August 18, 2007 9:02 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on August 18, 2007 21:02
2. Posted by bryanD | August 18, 2007 11:43 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
News Bulletin:
Veeps are irrelevant to the race.
Journos just appreciate a subject so objectively unquantifiable.
COULD? JFK have won Texas w/o liberal LBJ vs anti-com Nixon, etc.
2. Posted by bryanD | August 18, 2007 11:43 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 18, 2007 23:43
3. Posted by kim | August 18, 2007 11:51 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
If Hillary is the Dem candidate, the Veep candidate will determine if she wins or loses, and I don't see one strong enough to elevate her past her negatives. So she loses.
I think the Repub Veep candidate will engage Hillary leaving the Prez above the fray. Think Romney/Thompson. So the Repubs win.
Do yourself a favor, Dems. Nominate a winner. Oops, you don't have one.
=====================================
3. Posted by kim | August 18, 2007 11:51 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on August 18, 2007 23:51
4. Posted by Jim Addison | August 18, 2007 11:59 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
bryanD is such fun! For instance, he thinks LBJ was a "liberal" in 1960.
4. Posted by Jim Addison | August 18, 2007 11:59 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on August 18, 2007 23:59
5. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 12:19 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
bD is fun. Extremely perceptive, too. Texas would have gone for Nixon in '60 without LBJ on Kennedy's ticket. Didn't 'liberal' mean something different half a century ago?
==================================
5. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 12:19 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 00:19
6. Posted by Scrapiron | August 19, 2007 12:55 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I doubt the working people will be able to stand a Clinton/Warner co-president administration. If you think the socialist/liberals in congress are 'tax and spend' just get these two in the white house and they'll take another 20% + of your income in hidden fees and charges for service and deny they raised taxes. Warner did it to us in Va and taught his replacement the same tricks. We are now paying through the nose because of those two idiots. I guess the only two people in the United States that don't mind paying a little more tax are the two (may be only one) that got a raise with the raise of the minimum wage. What a joke the democrats have became, a dangerous joke but a joke non the less.
6. Posted by Scrapiron | August 19, 2007 12:55 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 00:55
7. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 6:57 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oops, you don't have one. Why not? Only the foolish challenge the Clintonistas.
================
7. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 6:57 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 06:57
8. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 6:59 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Y'all are as tied up as Gulliver. Clinton prevents any other Democrat from developing a following, and Markos keeps Clinton from appealing broadly.
Can't you do something?
(Why do I still feel like I'm talking on WizBlue?)
==========================
8. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 6:59 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 06:59