Team Obama looking at military leaders for VP
 

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is considering former top military leaders among his possible running mates, according to senators who met Tuesday with the Democratic presidential candidate's vice presidential vetting team
North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad told The Associated Press that the team asked him about potential candidates from three broad categories — current top elected officials, former top elected officials and former top military leaders.

Conrad would not disclose which names they discussed, and the Obama campaign has been keeping the process a closely guarded secret.

"We talked about many names," Conrad said, including "some that are out of the box, but I think would be very well-received by the American people, including former top military leaders."

A running mate from the military ranks could help address concerns that Obama lacks foreign policy experience, having served just three years in the Senate. It could also provide a counterpoint to the military bonafides of the Republican ticket, which will be led by Vietnam war hero John McCain.

Obama has a three-person team managing the vetting process that includes one-time first daughter Caroline Kennedy, former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and Jim Johnson, the former CEO of mortgage lender Fannie Mae.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/...ama_veepstakes

Eh...interesting....

One of the names I heard tossed around was Wesley Clark.

We were stationed with Wes Clark when he was the 1-star CG at the NTC. Many of his underlings were not impressed.

No, no, no, no, no, that is not the way he needs to go. I imagine the team is "looking" at military leaders to make the point that Obama takes the need to have the counsel of strong military leaders seriously (but he can appoint them elsewhere), but running the military and running the government are two entirely different things. If they pull in a top military leader, then (1) it takes that person away from where they are probably most effective, and (2) sets that person up for a shellacking (sp?) in the VP debates. If McCain chooses one of the governors he's said to be considering, that candidate will debate policy circles around the poor General or Admiral on Obama's side who doesn't know jack about social security or tax code or the myriad of other policy minutiae. Oh, and Kerry lost his shot at the executive branch in 2004. Obama needs a governor.

I hope he & his team are smart enough to go with Bill Richardson.

Backstabbing Bill? I think thats too much character for one ticket.

LOL, I hadn't heard that nickname. Is that because of his Obama rather than Hillary endorsement? I was surprised by that as well, but can't blame a guy for signing up on the leading team. Plus, I think Richardson recognizes that he would probably have more voice and responsibility on an Obama team than a Hillary one, he might have recognized it could be too hard to work with/"for" someone he's known for so long if he ended up with Clinton. Obama presents an overall better opportunity for him.

And he fills in a whole lotta holes on Barack's resume.

Don't tell George Washington that! :D

'k, yeah, I'll try to keep him out of the loop. LOL.

Or Eisenhower

That would be hilarious - the guy is a terrible Senator, doesn't care about his state at all (Kennedy carries the load and does all the work looking out for MA), and ends up as both a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate.

I don't see it happening at all, as it would be a tremendous mistake. Obama will carry MA anyway, and Kerry would add nothing to the ticket. Anyone would be better than Kerry.

Even I agree on that, plus no one wants the baggage of what sank Kerry back in 04.

Early on, Obama - Clinto ticket looked pretty good but as time passed by that too looks more like a walking disaster that would never help.

It would be really interesting to see what the short list would look like considering all the peices Obama would need to beat McCain in November.

It so should be him

I made it up myself. And yes, that is exactly why. Stabbing your friends in the back for political gain- which, by your own admission, is exactly what he did- speaks to your character very negatively IMO.

Or Jackson, Grant, Kennedy, or Teddy Roosevelt.
Grant sucked but the others were some of the greatest.

Long, successful political careers are made by good strategic decisions. In this case, he definitely made one.

He is a piece of shit. The Clintons have had people killed for less than that... I went there.
Seriously though, I can't respect someone like Richardson. You have to have enough respect for your personal friends and the people that made your political career to not stab them on the back for an opportunity to be the most important waste of space in America.

My misunderstanding, my perception was that you'd had a fairly positive view on Richardson initially.

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...1&postcount=15

:confused:

I did, that was before this fiasco. I think he has some great ideas but I had no idea that he was a man of such low morals.

You consider it a "fiasco"? Wow. And he is hardly the first politician (in either party) to jump to the winning team. I think branding him as lacking morals with such scathing broad strokes is a bit harsh. But it's not like your vote was his to lose anyway, right? ;)

Its not that he jumped that bothers me... its the lack of respect and loyalty that he showed towards the Clintons... some things should be more sacred than politics.

Like, perhaps, what's best for the nation?

I don't like Richardson, or the Clintons, but I'd much rather see someone make a decision based on what he thinks is right for the country than on friendships from long ago.

Lots of politics is friendships, and look where it's gotten us. Democrat budgets, Republican budgets, Democrat amendments, Republican amendments ... you get the picture.

For once, I want an AMERICAN president, not a Democrat or a Republican, and Richardson seems to have taken a first step toward that.