As I wrote when Obama became the Democratic nominee for president, his veep short list had only one serious name on it, Senator Biden.

Given Senator Obama's obvious shortcomings - which he understood very well, credit where credit is due! - and given the situation prevailing in the US and around the world, not to mention the growing global financial crisis, Biden was really the only truly serious candidate running for president in 2008, on either side of the aisle. Certainly, he was the only one offering up a viable strategy for US policy in Iraq, a strategy that garnered bipartisan support in the Senate by a margin of 73-25. Which was probably the last time a vote like that ever occurred on such a critical foreign policy issue.

Secondly, I believe Biden was seriously considering running for president this cycle had personal and tragic family matters not intervened. You also make the assumption - wrongly, in my view - that Obama favoured a Clinton succession at the outset of his presidency.

To answer your question ... there is nothing inherent in the office of the vice president that compelled the selection of Cheney or Biden. Nothing at all.

I think Obama chose Biden because (1) he understood that he's mortal and thought Biden would make a decent president if he died, (2) choosing Biden would leave the way clear for Hillary to run now, thereby making her and her supporters more inclined to support Obama enthusiastically then, and (3) Biden didn't have any electoral drawbacks to counter item 2. I'm sure there were more factors, such as what sort of signal the choice sent voters (via pundits) about his policies if elected.

Why do you think president-elect Obama chose Biden as his running mate?

What was it about the office that compelled ... what are you asking???

Ok, what am I missing? Cheney, Gore, and Biden have had the ear of their respective presidents, and have been given significant responsibilities by those presidents. But what is it about the office of the vice presidency that compelled Bush, Clinton, and Obama to do so, rather than turning to someone else? I don't see anything.

You underestimate Sanders.

Trump and Sanders in cahoots to smack down Hillary... :D

Going to make a prediction here..

If this debate goes ahead, it will win California for Bernie...

And Trump's masterful stroke?? Making the "buy in" a donation to women's health programs....

Say what you want about Trump, but he certainly knows ALL the buttons to push. The bad ones AND the good ones... :D

Michale

But it’s once again time for us to bow in homage to his political skill as well as his good luck. The possibility of a debate between Trump and Bernie Sanders that started with a challenge on the “Jimmy Kimmel Show” and which ought to be the top political story of the day – even on the day that he formally clinched the nomination by getting past the 1,237 delegate mark — isn’t just yet another example of the Donald winning a news cycle. It’s an example of how he is cleverly undermining his already floundering general election opponent Hillary Clinton.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/trump-beats-clinton-with-sanders-debate/

There is no way in hell that a Trump/Sanders debate is good for Hillary...

Hillary got rooked by Trump *AND* Sanders.... :D

Michale

Obama came into office with 1 war and 1 winding down war..

Obama leaves office with THREE WARS....

Yea.. Let's talk Obama Foreign Policy disasters... :D

Michale

I would love to!!!

Bush gave Obama and safe and stable Iraq..

Howz Iraq these days??

Howz Libya??

Howz Syria??

Obama brought back the Cold War and the threat of Nuclear WWIII... China is doing DETERRENT Patrols for the first time..

By all means.. Let's examine Obama and his Foreign Policy.. :D

Michale

That's just way too funny, Michale.

Shall we compare and contrast the Bush II and Obama foreign policy achievements/disasters? Shall we!? Then we can compare the Republican and Democrat tax and fiscal policy.

Can you imagine how much fun VP candidate Al Franken and his team of SNL writers are going to have turning Trump into a twitter laughing stock? Trump will probably cancel his twitter account after a week of being ridiculed.

More wishcasting...

I mean, come'on...

It's not as if the best minds on the Left AND the Right has tried to destroy Trump..

And NONE of it worked...

What part of YA'ALL CAN'T HANDLE TRUMP do ya'all not understand???

Michale

Michale

EXACTLY..

Bengahzi

Libya

Russia

Syria

Hillary has fraked it ALL up...

Trump is going to go in there, knock some heads and get the whole area to straighten up and fly right...

Michale

And I thought I was the cockeyed optimist around here. :)

I have always said I am a Cup Is Half Full kinda guy.. :D

Michale

Sherrod Brown has insisted, multiple times, he is not interested in being VP or ever running for President.

So has Elizabeth Warren. I love her but I think she's outstanding right where she is. She has been amazing in the Senate -- she showed up and instantly started making things happen. Future Majority Leader material.

Can you imagine how much fun VP candidate Al Franken and his team of SNL writers are going to have turning Trump into a twitter laughing stock? Trump will probably cancel his twitter account after a week of being ridiculed.

I mean, he tried to take on Jon Stewart than dived for cover after the "F#ckFace Von Clownstick" moniker went viral.

On a different note, has anyone noticed that the whole FLA open seat in the Senate is being questioned?

Now that Rubio is not running for Prez and he still has time before the filing deadline....

I mentioned this possibility a while back in CW's Comments section.

Apparently, there are now reports to this effect (affect?).

You make a good case for VP.

A most welcome comment, in the general sense. It's always nice to read about competent public servants as opposed to "all the pols are the same" nonsense. (not quoting anyone in particular ... ahem)

Precisely, Michale!

One is so much worse than the other when it comes to the real issues such as fiscal and tax policy and the all-important - ahem - foreign policy.

I disagree with CW's basic premise. I don't think Warren is auditioning for VP. She gets to be a second attack dog, completely outside Clinton's Prez circle. Because she is so well-known, she doesn't even provide opportunity for blowback to Clinton.

I think Warren is just relishing her "fight" with Trump. That simple.

I've also noticed that none of Trump's schoolyard taunts has actually stuck to Warren. He tried "Goofy," but that went nowhere. He's tried the Native thing, but that only appeals to the conspiracy-minded base. He's now doing "big mouth," but that most certainly will not help him.

As for VPs, OK, let's play that game.

Brown has the same GOP Gov problem as Warren. If we want a progressive to bring over Sanders supporters, then Al Franken or Tom Perez qualify. Franken has a Dem Gov, so that part isn't a problem, and Franken may be one of the few people able to go head-to-head with Trump.

Perez is the most progressive person in Obama's circle. His work at DOJ Civil Rights was exemplary (saved the subgroup). His work as Labor Sec is awesome.

While Trump means that Clinton probably doesn't "have to" nominate a Latino, Perez avoids all of the drawbacks of a Castro brother. He also provides a way of nominating a Latino without it being pandering (he's damned competent, in other words).

And I thought I was the cockeyed optimist around here. :)

Michale

We Now Know Hillary Lied Multiple Times About Her Email Server
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/05/26/We-Now-Know-Hillary-Lied-Multiple-Times-About-Her-Email-Server

Michale

From my vantage point, that is decidedly not the case.

Despite all the FACTS to the contrary.... :D

Michale

Trump is too much of an unknown quantity, so he could be as bad as Bush or slightly worse. Doubtful that he will be better than Bush, won't be as good as Obama.

Seems to be a contradiction there..

If Trump is an "unknown quantity" it's entirely possible he could be better than Bush and way WAY better than Obama..

Hell, my Rottie, Athena could be better than Obama...

And she's female to boot, so there ya go... :D

Michale

Heh

That says it all.... :D

Michale

The veepship isn't worth a warm bucket.

While that may have been true at one time, it is not a valid statement today. Not in the least.

Think Biden and Cheney. Just please think in polar opposite terms, for God's sake! :)

From my vantage point, that is decidedly not the case.

You don't think Hillary learned anything from the GWBush years?

"The veepship isn't worth a warm bucket."

Everyone says that about being VP, but in all honesty, the VP's role can be anything the administration allows it to be. Look at Cheney's years as VP. He was by far the most powerful VP to date, and quite honestly ran the Iraqi War for Bush. If Clinton is smart, she will take full advantage of Warren's ability to rally the people and give her the authority to oversee some of the Wall Street repairs that Clinton isn't as willing to do herself. As long as Clinton doesn't allow Warren's popularity to become a point of resentment between them, I think Clinton's presidency could achieve amazing things with a strong VP by her side.

Take a step back..

What has Senator Warren actually accomplished??

Predatory Lenders still have the upper hand...

Middle Class is getting smaller and screwd-er..

Poor are getting poorer..

And the 1% are getting 1%-er...

So, what EXACTLY are we cheering Warren for???

M ichale

Of course, that's back when we used stone knives and bearskins and did our homework with charcoal by lantern light..

:D

Michale

Michale

Also, this....

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/05/24/an-update-and-some-big-site-news/#comment-75838

... has relevance to your comments...

Michale

Having said that, you really can't compare the mood of the electorate at the end of Reagan's administration to the mood of the electorate at the end of Obama's administration...

Back then, Americans were gaa gaa over America and saw a bright future ahead..

Not so under Obama....

Michale

A Rasmussen Reports analysis found a direct correlation between a president's approval rating and the fate of the incumbent party's nominee in the general election. Of the six open-seat elections since World War II, all three candidates seeking to succeed presidents with approval ratings below 50 percent were defeated, the two seeking to succeed presidents with approval ratings below 40 percent were decisively defeated, and two of the three candidates seeking to succeed presidents with approval ratings above 50 percent won the popular vote, according to an analysis by Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University.

According to results from a Gallup poll conducted from telephone interviews between Feb. 29 and March 6, Obama's approval rating with 10 months to go in office is roughly the same as Ronald Reagan's in March 1988 (51 percent).

If those trends hold true, then that bodes well for voters giving Democrats a third term in office, just like the fist George Bush was essentially given a third Ronald Reagan term.

I am sure you will disagree.. :D

Let's compare notes at the 2018 MidTerms and see how good/bad President Trump has done...

Michale

Yes and maybe...

It also could be wondrous... :D

It surely can't be any worse than Obama's tenure...

Michale

You and me both.. I wonder what other Weigantians think... :D

Michale

No GOP Contested Convention for you.... :D

Michale

:D

Michale

We are in complete agreement..

Which is ANOTHER reason why I don't think it's good for Hillary.. :D

Michale

A Trump-Sanders debate before the conventions and before we have an official Democrat nominee is good for anyone who cares about the future of America.

She probably didn't have to ...

And, that has to do with Bernie's self-described identification with democratic socialism. Which can certainly be well-defended by Sanders but, nevertheless, it is great fodder for Trump.

1,000,000 quatloos says that Sanders's honeymoon in Russia would take prominence in such a debate. :)

Hillary, on the other hand, comes across to me as being far less than presidential whenever she tries to criticize or counter-attack Trump. It just doesn't look good on her, for some reason.

So, basically, this debate will show that Bernie can take down Trump and Hillary can't...

I just don't see Hillary orchestrating that kind of message.. :D

Hillary, on the other hand, comes across to me as being far less than presidential whenever she tries to criticize or counter-attack Trump. It just doesn't look good on her, for some reason.

How so???

Michale

Ya'all gotta admit... Bernie and Trump out-maneuvered Hillary beautifully...

Bernie and Trump will get ALL the media attention and Hillary is left out in the rain, trying to get a glimpse of a party she wasn't invited to...

1000 quatloos says Hillary tries to finagle an invitation.... :D

Michale

Doesn't bode well for the Democrat Party...

Bernie certainly doesn't own the Party any loyalty...

Michale

Let me rephrase [17] ...

Given the less than ideal choice between Clinton and Trump, who do you think would be a more effective president in terms of making some positive progress (I'll let you define what that is), domestically and internationally?

Michale

Preachin' to the choir...

Warren AND Brown won't get picked for VP because Democrats are salivating at taking control of the Senate..

Michale

You think Trump will want to mount another losing presidential campaign in 2020?

heh

"It's funny cuz it's true"
-Homer Simpson

:D

Michale

How can a person rob a bank?? How can a person embezzle??

You would have to ask Warren how she can do that..

But the simple fact is, she DID do that...

It sounds like you are standing on shaky ground while holding onto a weak limb when you make that accusation about Warren.

Not at all. I could (somewhat) easily prove my case.. But I know it will be pointless as such proof NEVER elicits the acknowledgement it deserves, so why bother???

But, that doesn't mean Warren won't still be an effective "attack dog" in highlighting the myriad of deficiencies that is the Trump campaign for the presidency.

Yea, she might be good at that.. On the other hand, she is only an after-thought to Trump... If he were to train big guns on her, I doubt she could withstand the pressure..

Warren is great when in front of crowds who adore her...

If she were to face a hostile crowd?? She would fold like a cheap suit...

Hillary would be wise to refrain from trading insults with Trump

Word.... But Hillary has proven time and time again that she is incapable of SEEING the wise thing, let alone actually DOING the wise thing...

Michale

There you go again, Michale, taking a phrase (having it both ways) out of context.

I was specifically asking how a person could claim native ancestry on one occasion and not claim it on another.

It sounds like you are standing on shaky ground while holding onto a weak limb when you make that accusation about Warren.

But I honestly don't think Clinton will choose Warren ...

I think you're right about that.

But, that doesn't mean Warren won't still be an effective "attack dog" in highlighting the myriad of deficiencies that is the Trump campaign for the presidency.

Indeed, with both Sanders and Warren doing a fairly effective job of outlining why a President Trump would be a disaster for America and the world, and with Hillary coming across as ... oh, how shall I say ... less than presidential when she tries to do the same, Hillary would be wise to refrain from trading insults with Trump and just stick very closely to the issues and taunting Trump over his vacuous policy proposals.

Have you no soul!!!???? :D

heh

Michale

As I have said.. TWICE now..

There is little to no controversy regarding Warren's ancestral claim..

The controversy comes from how she uses her ancestral claim..

Seriously, dood.. Give the strawman a breather.. He looks in bad shape...

:D

Liz,

When did she not claim it? I mean, you either make the claim or you don't.

Near as I can remember, Warren used her "minority" status to obtain favored hiring status and more $$$$ at Harvard...

How can anyone try to have it both ways?

Elizabeth Miller, meet the Democrat Party.. Democrat Party, meet Elizabeth Miller... :D

To be fair, the GOP is also famous for trying to have it both ways.. I am sure ya'all can come up with examples.. :D

Michale

Your willingness to make such a foolish wager indicates that you do believe there's something controversial about her ancestral claim. You would lose that wager.

I recall hearing something about this but, only very vaguely.

So, Michale, I'm not sure what you mean about claiming Native American ancestry only when it suited her ambitions. When did she not claim it? I mean, you either make the claim or you don't. How can anyone try to have it both ways?

The controversy comes from her claiming it when it suits her agenda and NOT claiming it when it doesn't..

But, by all means, set up that Strawman!! :D Makes ya feel so empowered to beat up on that Strawman, eh? :D

Michale

We're talking about her great-great-great grandmother. I don't believe there's any good reason to question her on this, but as usual, the Republicans are lying. This "controversy" is as phony as Benghazi!™ If her great-great-great grandmother had been black, there's no doubt she'd be considered black. You've heard of the "one drop rule", no?

Near as I can recall, she has a mini-scule (1/16th?? 1/32nd??) bit of Native American blood.. No more so than any other person in this country, I would wager..

If I remember correctly, the problem with this is that Warren listed herself as a Native American when it suited her ambitions and did not list herself as a Native American when it DIDN'T suit her ambitions..

That shows she is cut from the Hillary Clinton cloth..

But I honestly don't think Clinton will choose Warren and here is why..

Hillary is a prima-donna and a selfish and greedy rhymes-with-witch...

I just can't see Hillary sharing the FIRST WOMAN xxxxx limelight with Warren or with anyone, let alone the woman that has slammed Hillary bad on many occasions.....

There are choices which make better sense geographically (Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio springs to mind).

Brown as VP would produce the same SENATE headaches.. Harry Reid is on record as stating he will fight tooth and nail to prevent Hillary from picking a Senator for VP if it will result in turning a Dem seat into a GOP seat...

Michale

Of course, Secretary Geithner took the punches like a man and tried to set her straight. Maybe she even learned a lesson or two - about how to avert a second Great Depression and about how to be civil in public discourse. Heh.

Seriously, if the US suffered another unprecedented financial crisis of a similar magnitude as that experienced eight years ago, I'm not at all convinced that she would know what to do. So, no, treasury secretary does not have a nice ring to it - not at all, anyway you slice it!

C'mon, Michale ... don't make me google it! :)

Ah, no, I don't think so.