dudemanbro: Oprah? Really?

Hey, if she can survived getting couch-jumped by Tom Cruise, she can do anything.

No Jerry Springer? For shame!

He should pick me. I'll bring tens of votes from the crucial state of Maryland. I also have valuable experience as SGA president my junior year of high school

I wouldn't mind Obama/pre-2000 McCain

Hagel baby.

Galvanize and singe your message of "change" into the voting masses. Set aside your differences and prove yourself.

It takes balls to reach across party lines and form a unified ticket. It takes change. And it takes a unifier. Picking Hagel makes you the ultimately unity ticket.

Neurochemist: Hagel baby.

totally

#7 would be questionable

you'd have less than 6 combined years in the senate on your ticket...

thats barely a term...

hagel offers EVERYTHING webb offers and so much more

hagel ftw

is drafthagel.com up yet, cause it should be...

(oh, and someone get Mark Warner on the phone, or keep him in storage for 2012, whatever)

No love for Chuck Hagel?

/in the right way

And I'm sick of hearing how he has to pick a "Democrat" because his VP may become president. And I'm sick of hearing how Hagel has different beliefs.. I want to see someone reach out and work beyond these trivial petty issues. I want to see 8 years of Obama change, followed by a study dose of 8 years of more Hagel change. We have the opportunity to press the reset button, lets do it.

nmrsnr: Clark is the only person on that list that I think has any real chance of being Obama's pick.

what equation are you using to adjust for his loyalty to HRC?


i'd almost be willing to put money on oprah before i bet on gen clark

study steady --- working all night for the f a i l ...

Sebelius isn't such a bad choice, but forget the rest of the list.

Sounds like whoever wrote this article didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about and made it all up based on second-hand knowledge.

John Edwards is a terrible choice. Utterly embarrassing in 2004 when he debated Cheney - how the hell do you lose a policy debate to Cheney?!

puffy999: Horrible list, absolutely horrible, and I invite the Brits to get the fark out of making suggestions re: VP.

Yeah, we've had VP threads on Fark before, and they've come up with better lists. I'd bet a few bucks that it won't be Clinton, Gore, or Edwards. (Actually, cut out the top three and Oprah, and it's not a terrible rundown.)

/this is the sort of comment that will be laughed at later
//I'll take my chances

themadtupper: picking a Clintonista would go a long way toward healing the party rift the primary caused.

see thats the kind of stuff i was looking for; good show!

i can't see clark doing anything without the clintons' approval, "dead horse" or not...

martijannetti: John Edwards is a terrible choice.

Edwards is a slimeball who voted for military action in Iraq. His pro-disarm Saddam speeches look utterly embarrassing now. No different than Bush's.

Yes, I know he apologized. But he should have damn well known the circumstances.

Joe Biden wouldn't bring a single vote with him. OK, maybe his family. But I'd rather see him as VP than in an important job like SecState.

/rather see him retire...

I'm not certain who I would pick... Maybe Clark... maybe someone else.

You know what is very telling, though... Nobody is writing articles about who Hillary should pick for VP. :)

/Obama 2008

John Edwards is a terrible choice. Utterly embarrassing in 2004 when he debated Cheney - how the hell do you lose a policy debate to Cheney?!

This ^^.. I went into it thinking Edwards was going to use some of his lawyer skills, but I was sadly mistaken. I was rooting for Edwards. He got his ass dismantled by old man rivers.

The best choice would be Webb if it wasn't for that whole hating women thing. Second best (and most likely) is Hagel.

There are some good options in the black community but (as much as I hate to say it) Obama will not win with a black VP. It's going to be hard enough for him to win as it is, picking a minority will doom him to failure.

FatherDale: Joe Biden wouldn't bring a single vote with him. OK, maybe his family. But I'd rather see him as VP than in an important job like SecState.

Biden would be damn near perfect for SecState. Talk about foreign policy experience...

My vote goes to Hagel or Richardson, followed by Webb.

pic of article author:

Flying Lasagna Monster: pic of article author

If Corky wrote the article, Mr. Snuffleupagus would have been #2 at least... there's no way.

I say the following as Democrat, and Obama supporter:

I keep hearing all this about Hagel, but aren't there some very divisive issues on which they couldn't possibly agree?

Abortion is the first that comes to mind. It seems to me there are a lot of Democrats who would have a hard time swallowing a ticket that included a pro-lifer.

I'm all for reaching across party-lines and moving past silly us-versus-them mentalities, but there are some pretty serious ideological differences here that would seem to rule out Hagel's inclusion on a D-ticket.

I'm definitely interested in being told why I'm wrong, though.

I like Jim Webb myself, although two freshman Senators might not be the best idea.

/going to bed, so don't think I'm ignoring you if you respond
//will check back in the morning

Flying Lasagna Monster: pic of article author:

Corky!


/I'm old
//Kellie Martin was modestly hot

There are some good options in the black community but (as much as I hate to say it) Obama will not win with a black VP. It's going to be hard enough for him to win as it is, picking a minority will doom him to failure.

Colin Powell could give a heart felt apology and I'd consider them a hellaciously strong ticket. A few people might pitch a hissy fit about his actions under Bush, but once all the info comes out, it will be known that he was the loan voice of sanity....and what are they going to do, vote for McCain? Please... Powell > Clark.

My vote goes to Hagel or Richardson, followed by Webb.

Richardson is not the direction I'd take. Obama is in grave danger of losing Pennsylvania. He is even graver danger of losing Ohio. In fact, if the vote was held today and it was between just McCain and him, he would lose Pennsylvania. What better way to capture these baby-boomer, dixie-crat mid-west states than to pick a uppity talking Mexican? And you think they are clinging to their guns and religion now....Wait until a wetback comes to open the border.

Neurochemist: it will be known that he was the loan voice of sanity

Except for someone like me, he's a real turn off.

I will never forget watching him make the case for war (with lies) to the U.N.

I don't think I can forgive him for that.

The RIchest Man in Babylon: I say the following as Democrat, and Obama supporter:

I keep hearing all this about Hagel, but aren't there some very divisive issues on which they couldn't possibly agree?

Abortion is the first that comes to mind. It seems to me there are a lot of Democrats who would have a hard time swallowing a ticket that included a pro-lifer.

I'm all for reaching across party-lines and moving past silly us-versus-them mentalities, but there are some pretty serious ideological differences here that would seem to rule out Hagel's inclusion on a D-ticket.

I'm definitely interested in being told why I'm wrong, though.

I like Jim Webb myself, although two freshman Senators might not be the best idea.

/going to bed, so don't think I'm ignoring you if you respond
//will check back in the morning

The thing asbout Hagel is that even though he has differences of opinion with Obama, they are relatively minor. He'd bring some cross party support without much of the partisan bickering

Neurochemist: Please... Powell > Clark.

Colin Powell? The man who justified a huge post-war military budget by saying "I want to scare the hell out of the world. I don't say that in a bellicose way."

Sure you don't, Colin.

Abortion is the first that comes to mind. It seems to me there are a lot of Democrats who would have a hard time swallowing a ticket that included a pro-lifer.

I'm all for reaching across party-lines and moving past silly us-versus-them mentalities, but there are some pretty serious ideological differences here that would seem to rule out Hagel's inclusion on a D-ticket.

The abortion issue is exactly what I was referencing in my Boobies. Abortion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of what is plaguing America. If they spend 16 years focusing on the most important issues harming America, neither one of them are going to touch abortion. Obama can say that he respectfully disagrees with Hagels point of views and Hagel can say the same thing back. It would prove to Americans (apparently those like yourself) that we are capable of laying down arms and focusing on bigger issues.

What kind of a list is this that numbers 1, 2 and 3 have all already said they are not interested?

Mr. Mojo: The thing asbout Hagel is that even though he has differences of opinion with Obama, they are relatively minor. He'd bring some cross party support without much of the partisan bickering

See, you say they are minor, but I don't think most Democrats would agree with that assessment. Right or wrong, being pro-life, anti-gay-rights, pro-PATRIOT act, and voting with the Republicans 90% of the time (where the other 10% is Iraq- the only thing they seem to agree on), are major deal-breakers for a lot of most D's.

Just sayin...

I knew you whiny biatches would come out of the Colin Powell hating closet. :-)

You going to vote McCain if he picks Powell for VP? Anyone who is currently voting for Obama that says they will vote for McCain (if he picks Powell) is a f*cking liar and I'm calling them out.

Furthermore, you probably have not watched this. (new window)

Powell haters... Take a few hours and watch it... Any true American who 1) thought the war was inevitable and 2) understood American support was fully behind it (as it was at the time)...would logically try to rally the largest coalition possible to make things safer on your troops. He had zero ability to stop us from entering into the war, he tried damn hard for years. The UN speech was him coming to the realization that he had no control of the war and someone else was going to give the speech if he didn't... He was genuinely hoping to build a coalition, which would of been the best thing, given the war was inevitable.

Wow. This is the worst list ever. What a crock of shiat.

Neurochemist: I knew you whiny biatches would come out of the Colin Powell hating closet. :-)

You going to vote McCain if he picks Powell for VP? Anyone who is currently voting for Obama that says they will vote for McCain (if he picks Powell) is a f*cking liar and I'm calling them out.

Furthermore, you probably have not watched this. (new window)

Powell haters... Take a few hours and watch it... Any true American who 1) thought the war was inevitable and 2) understood American support was fully behind it (as it was at the time)...would logically try to rally the largest coalition possible to make things safer on your troops. He had zero ability to stop us from entering into the war, he tried damn hard for years. The UN speech was him coming to the realization that he had no control of the war and someone else was going to give the speech if he didn't... He was genuinely hoping to build a coalition, which would of been the best thing, given the war was inevitable.

He had a choice. He could have broke with Bush and told the truth to everyone. He would have had to quit his job. His name might have been mud amongst neocons. But he would have done the right thing. He was NOT powerless to do anything. He was merely powerless so long as he wanted to stay in the Bush administration.

Neurochemist: The abortion issue is exactly what I was referencing in my Boobies. Abortion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of what is plaguing America. If they spend 16 years focusing on the most important issues harming America, neither one of them are going to touch abortion. Obama can say that he respectfully disagrees with Hagels point of views and Hagel can say the same thing back. It would prove to Americans (apparently those like yourself) that we are capable of laying down arms and focusing on bigger issues.

Easy, tiger.

I'm not saying I consider that to be a huge priority. I'm simply trying to point out that (right or wrong) it is for a lot of Democrats- and the idea here is picking someone most Democrats would vote for. And before you ask, no I don't think they'd go vote for McCain instead, I think they just wouldn't vote- at least not in the numbers needed to win.

Its called "Devils advocate," and I'm playing it.

Neurochemist: He had zero ability to stop us from entering into the war, he tried damn hard for years. The UN speech was him coming to the realization that he had no control of the war and someone else was going to give the speech if he didn't... He was genuinely hoping to build a coalition, which would of been the best thing, given the war was inevitable.

I'd call that chickens coming home to roost. He tried to run with the big war dogs and got left on the porch.

He still bought into the myth of the America as World Cop BS, I've got no use for him anymore than I would for someone who voted for the Patriot Act.

But I'll be fair and bookmark your link for later. Just not a big fan of the US military policy, Neuromancer. We should have cut the budge to ribbons after the Cold War and instead we went looking for whatever skirmish we could involve ourselves in to prove to the world the US wasn't a limp-dick nation. Central America, Grenada and the Gulf War immediately come to mind.

Strewth.

whidbey: Just not a big fan of the US military policy, Neuromancer Neurochemist.

Er...sorry, dude. I didn't mean to imply you were a Rush song...;)

I really like the Hagel pick too, but I do have serious reservations about him. How's Obama supposed to rail against McCain's support for Nafta when Hagel is very much for free trade? How's he supposed to talk about the "politics of fear" and connect McCain to the Bush administration's utter disregard for the Constitution when Hagel is every much for PATRIOT act type stuff? I could see them taking this as a golden opportunity to work towards a middle ground on the abortion issue, but many women will be nervous about a pro-lifer in the white house and Obama already has some work to do in that department to fix what Hillary has done. Plus, he would make gays uneasy in a way most democratic candidates wouldn't.

Hagel is awesome because he is willing to work with good people regardless of party affiliation, and will take the right stance even when it goes against the party line (Iraq). He is still at his heart a conservative though, and all of his stances will be thrown in Obama's face when Obama calls out McCain for the same positions. Plus he makes many democrats uneasy unnecessarily.

I think Hagel's appeal would be mostly to a Farker-esque demographic that would likely vote for Obama anyway. I'm not sure that he brings more votes than he does issues for Obama to wade through. Like someone else said in this thread though, I would like to be proven wrong.

Oh yeah, terrible list. Oprah? Edwards? Big Al (although that would be cool)? C'mon now.

dudemanbro: Oprah? Really?

How has this thread gone this long and no one has pointed out that the President and the VP cannot be from the same state, making Oprah-as-VP unconstitutional?

/The writer of the article should be slapped.

Even though I'm a moderately well-informed Brit I'm still a Brit & that means I have no strong feel for what many of the people in the list would be like as VP (Or as POTUS, given the huge likelihood of someone taking a potshot at B.O)

But given that whoever runs America runs the world, it matters to us too.

Quite a few people are saying this is a bad list. Fine. But let's see your good lists, with some kind of explanation of who these LBJs of tomorrow are.