Submitted by Bobbie (not verified) on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 19:45.
I agree with the Dennis Kucinich suggestion--but I think we all know that just aint gonna happen.
If I were Obama, I would be looking for three key elements in the running mate search:
1. appeal to women (note: this doesn't actually have to be a woman, but certainly someone with an UNDISPUTED record for championing women's rights)
2. someone with name recognition, and a reputation for having a great deal of "experience"
3. with the recent moves to the right Obama has taken, he might want to pick someone that is noticeably more 'liberal' than he wants to be (for balance, and to keep liberals on board)
If Clinton is not an option, I'd probably pick Edwards. Arguably, Edwards is more powerful today because he LOST. Many, many people only found out about his message of anti-poverty and working class pride after there were only two candidates left in the primary, and they were compared to Edwards often. Sadly, Edwards' message was drowned out by the media hysterics focused on Obama and Clinton (Bill Richardson suffered in the same way--which is a shame, because I think Bill is a pretty good guy). Plus, John Edwards brings along Elizabeth Edwards, who is a strong, confident, and inspirational personality, who is not afraid to openly speak of her devotion to national health care, women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, etc.
Who knows what will happen. I agree, we need a REAL LIBERAL in the White House. I'm just not sure this will be the year for that...
yeah, Kucinich would be great...
I agree with the Dennis Kucinich suggestion--but I think we all know that just aint gonna happen.
If I were Obama, I would be looking for three key elements in the running mate search:
1. appeal to women (note: this doesn't actually have to be a woman, but certainly someone with an UNDISPUTED record for championing women's rights)
2. someone with name recognition, and a reputation for having a great deal of "experience"
3. with the recent moves to the right Obama has taken, he might want to pick someone that is noticeably more 'liberal' than he wants to be (for balance, and to keep liberals on board)
If Clinton is not an option, I'd probably pick Edwards. Arguably, Edwards is more powerful today because he LOST. Many, many people only found out about his message of anti-poverty and working class pride after there were only two candidates left in the primary, and they were compared to Edwards often. Sadly, Edwards' message was drowned out by the media hysterics focused on Obama and Clinton (Bill Richardson suffered in the same way--which is a shame, because I think Bill is a pretty good guy). Plus, John Edwards brings along Elizabeth Edwards, who is a strong, confident, and inspirational personality, who is not afraid to openly speak of her devotion to national health care, women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, etc.
Who knows what will happen. I agree, we need a REAL LIBERAL in the White House. I'm just not sure this will be the year for that...