Posted on 08/18/2007 4:06:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Anticipating that Sen. Hillary Clinton will clinch the Democratic presidential nomination, some supporters are beginning to argue against her principal rival -- Sen. Barack Obama -- for vice president.
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 already 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: former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.
FRED THOMPSON'S DEBUT
Key advisers in Fred Thompson's campaign for the Republican presidential candidacy believe he must begin with a superior performance in his first debate in order to generate funds.
Although the actor-politician ranks high in the polls, his platform performance as a non-candidate has been so-so. Consequently, advisers say it is essential that he come over as dynamic in his debate debut. That conceivably could be at the University of New Hampshire debate Sept. 5 but more likely will come at Morgan State University in Baltimore Sept. 27.
That performance may decide the course of major Republican contributors, including donors to Sen. John McCain's fading campaign. Many givers are inclined to Thompson but want to see how he performs under pressure in a debate.
CALIFORNIA SPLIT
The 19 Republicans on California's House delegation are split on the question of earmarks and accusations of ethical transgressions.
The bitter division has produced harsh words between 15-term Rep. Jerry Lewis, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee and a leading earmarks defender, and second-term Rep. John Campbell, an anti-earmarks reformer. Campbell no longer attends caucuses of the California House Republicans because they become pep rallies for Lewis, whose personal transactions are under Justice Department scrutiny.
In addition to Lewis, California Republicans whose ethics have been challenged include Reps. Gary Miller and Ken Calvert. Lewis and his colleagues have spread the word back in California that Campbell stands alone without support from colleagues. In fact, other reformers in the delegation include Reps. Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunes and Darrell Issa, with others uneasy about ethical issues among their colleagues.
MITT'S APPEAL
"Why haven't you joined Team Mitt yet?" asked a July 31 mailing sent to contributors of Mitt Romney's successful 2002 campaign for governor of Massachusetts who have not yet given money to his presidential candidacy.
"Mr. Smith," said the personalized letter, "in the past you were one of my most loyal and generous supporters and I will be forever grateful for the unwavering support you gave me when I was Governor of Massachusetts. I would be honored if you would join my presidential campaign with a contribution of $500, $750, $1,000 or some other amount today."
A '02 Romney-for-governor backer who has not signed on to '08 is no Romney enthusiast. Any contributor falling in that category probably was a Washington insider urged to help Romney's state campaign by then White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, a longtime Massachusetts Republican politician.
J.D.'S RETURN
Republican J.D. Hayworth, who lost a presumably safe congressional seat in Arizona last year after taking a hard line on immigration, has resurfaced with a fundraising appeal for a new organization called Citizens United for a Secure America (CUSA).
Republican contributors received a mailing containing "protect America" petitions demanding that the government "stop the 'politically correct' drive to give mass amnesty to lawbreaking aliens." Hayworth requests contributions of $35, $50 or $75 for CUSA. The organization is listed as "a project" of Citizens United, a longtime Washington-based conservative action organization.
For most of six terms representing the Tempe-Scottsdale district, Hayworth had a moderate position on immigration. He took a sharp turn to the right in the 2006 campaign and became one of the year's unexpected Republican casualties.
Correct, but inaccurate.
Mitchell took an equally hardline on enforcement but emphasized his support for giving legal status to the illegals and creating a guest worker program.
He effectively painted Hayworth and the GOP as being derelict because they refused to address the problem.
Hey! What about Schoolbus Nagin! (Just trying to be helpful)
Yeah, there are lots more guilty whites than there are Hillary voters.
In Massachusetts, which had elected RINO governors since 1990, a completely unqualified black man was elected in a landslide in 2006.
A very telling story appeared in the Boston Globe about two weeks before the election.
The wife of an unemployed union drywall guy was asked why she was voting for Patrick, since her husband was out of work because of illegal aliens and Patrick was strongly pro-illegal.
"Yes, I know", she said, "but he's so well-spoken".
There are lots of whites who would never vote for Hillary who are dreaming of a "magic Negro" to vote for - Obama may be just the guy to drag Hillary over the finish line.
No, Mitchell did what a lot of Dem candidates did to defuse the issue, i.e., they said they supported the WH/McCain position.
He effectively painted Hayworth and the GOP as being derelict because they refused to address the problem.
The GOP controlled House passed H R 4437, which JD said wasn't strong enough. The Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform in 2006, i.e., S 2611, but the Senate Reps voted 32-23 AGAINST it.
The problem that the Reps faced was the WH, which provided the Dems cover. Immigration was not a defining issue in the Hayworth-Mitchell race, mainly because Mitchell was able to hide behind the WH and McCain. Scandal and redistricting were the main reasons Hayworth lost. I have a home in Scottsdale, which is why I am familiar with what happened.
*** As an African-American from Illinois ***
As the son of a Muslim man from Kenya
Fixed
Good fix. But I’m afraid it won’t hold.
I believe there is but someone can probably confirm or deny it with more authority than I. It places him in direct succession to the presidency and that is not allowed. Surely you’re not worried about it are you?
Even if Clinton wanted Obama on the ticket I can’t imagine why Obama would want to join. He wants to be president, and traditionally the vice-president slot has not been the road to the White House.
Yes. The real question to ask is whether he can function as VP... without having the title.
I disagree. Clinton does not own the anti-war left with her position on Iraq.
Obama gives her the anti-war crowd and negates any attempt by a third-party candidate.
Wrong for two reasons:
1) Obama brings the anti-war left that Clinton does not have. Go over to DU for proof of this.
2) Richardson is not needed as long as the Republican candidate takes a strong stand against illegal immigration. If McCain was the nominee, then Richardson would be needed to offset the appeal to illegals.
This has been hashed over numerous times here on FR. Bill Clinton is not eligible to be President, hence he cannot be VP.
As an unofficial advisor, Bill Clinton will have more freedom to work behind the scenes.
Neither has the office of US Senator.
Maybe not, but this is a distinction without a difference and its effect would be negligible. And I want to see this anti-war third party candidate before I get all excited about that.
-there is also the provision that both president and vp cannot be from the same state........oh, wait, you are speaking of the clintoons who don’t live together......
Of course he is.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
There are other ways to become President (other than by election), one of which is by succession.
The anti-war left is not going to abstain from voting for Mrs. Bill Clinton. They certainly did not abstain from voting for "moderate" Democrats in 2006 either. While they may whine loudly at the Democrat party for not cutting off funding for the war, they won't abandon Democrat party candidates at the polls.
Richardson is not needed as long as the Republican candidate takes a strong stand against illegal immigration.
I'm not quite sure how you make this connection. I think a lot of Hispanics who have never voted would be drawn strongly to a Clinton/Richardson ticket simply because Richardson is Hispanic.
Not as much, no. But 8 years as senator would be more fun than 8 years as second banana to Hillary Clinton. And if the ticket lost the 2012 election then he's toast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.