Vice-President: Edwards Would Accept, Vetting Begins

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 15:41


In what appears to be a final clarification, while being Vice-President is clearly not John Edwards's first choice, it now appears certain that he would accept the vice-presidential nomination if offered:

After the usual hemming and hawing and non-denial denials, "Well I've already run for president twice and for vice president" yada yada yada, the money quote (again paraphrased from memory): "If asked I would do anything that Senator Obama asked me to...including this!"

Then just to make sure, the interviewer basically restated the question (paraphrase): "So just to be sure, you would accept a position in the cabinet or the VP slot"

And again his answer was approximately:, "I would do anything Senator Obama asked me to".

Like Paul, I think that Edwards would be a great choice for VP. However, it should be noted that while Edwards is now saying that he would accept the slot if offered, the final vetting for Obama's choice has already begun:

Barack Obama's vice presidential selection team has begun to ask potential candidates for information and documents, a signal that the formal vetting phase of the search process has begun.

Last week, members of the team gave Sen. James Webb of VA a list of what they needed to begin their investigation of his background and career. Webb refused, telling them that he did not want to be considered for the position.

This is the final step in the process before the actual selection. Those candidates who have been asked to submit information and documents are the candidates on the short list. In other words, Edwards could simply be making this statement now that he knows he is not on the short list: If he has been asked to submit documents and papers, then he is on the short list. If he has not, then he isn't, and is out of contention. The truth is, we don't know if Edwards has made the short list or not.

I would love to know the list of candidates who have been asked to submit information and documents, as it would be the same thing as knowing the final short list. Right now, about all we know is that Webb is not on that list (because he removed himself), and that Clinton almost certainly is on the list (as there probably would have been a leak about her not being on the list). Hopefully, Edwards and Sebelius made the final cut, because they appear to be the best possibilities among the most likely options. This means that I don't consider Clark to be a likely option, even though I think he would be excellent.

Chris Bowers :: Vice-President: Edwards Would Accept, Vetting Begins

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hey Chris (0.00 / 0)
What are your thoughts on Patty Murray?

Why not Claire McCaskill? (0.00 / 0)
She can help in Missouri, has a good amount of experience and will help Obama reach out to women and the South.  

If not her, settle for Evan Bayh - he offends no one.


Bayh offends me (4.00 / 4)
If only because he's too much of a centrist, DLC-type Democrat. Yeah, he wouldn't turn me off, but he wouldn't fire me up.  Obama is having enough trouble with progressives right now to choose a cardboard VP like Bayh.

[ Parent ]
Hate to say it... (0.00 / 0)
...but Bayh being centrist like that will help with moderates and Indies.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, but Bayh being totally boring.. (4.00 / 1)
would hurt among moderates and indies, so it's kind of a wash.

[ Parent ]
Do You HATE Facts, Or Are You Just Allergic To Them? (4.00 / 1)
You don't say enough for me to be able to tell the difference.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
At least Missouri will probably have a Dem Governor in 2009 (0.00 / 0)
Bayh will get replaced with a nutball Republican if he vacates his seat to be VP.

[ Parent ]
not necessarily (0.00 / 0)
there's a gubernatorial election in Indiana this November, so should a possible Obama/Bayh ticket win he wouldn't be replaced until after the Governor is sworn in. As far as I understand the Indiana race is rated either lean Republican or tossup. So it's not certain Bayh would be replaced by the Republican gov. He could just as well be replaced by a Democratic gov. But it'd be a gamble nonetheless. Personally, I find it to be not worth it. Don't care much for Bayh either.

Personally, Kathleen Sebelius is my favorite.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog


[ Parent ]
Still risky (0.00 / 0)
Plus, Bayh is unacceptable.

[ Parent ]
Plus (4.00 / 1)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Why not: (0.00 / 0)
"If I were asked, I would ask some mental health professionals to visit Barack Obama. I just think Sen. Obama is way too smart to pick me. I'm not a good pick, and he's smarter than that. That's why he's going to make such a good president." - Claire McCaskill, May 2008

I really just don't think that's the kind of statement you go back on.


[ Parent ]
Obama could say (0.00 / 0)
"She was just being modest."


[ Parent ]
Bayh is offensively non-offensive (4.00 / 1)
And you can bet your life it's going to kill activist enthusiasm.

That's not going to be the determining factor, but it will take a while to recover from and I just don't see what Bayh brings except conservative positions on a lot of base Democratic issues and a couple of gallons of smarm.

Long term, it's also likely to lead to a less quiescent base whilst he's trying to push through his agenda, because a not inconsiderable portion of the blogosphere will view their major goal as keeping Bayh from getting the 2016 nomination.

I certainly wouldn't bet against Bayh, but there are plenty of better choices, thinking both about the map and about the long term health of the Democratic Party.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
it wouldn't be the glass of cold water that the Lieberman selection was, but it'd probably be about 40% as bad.

[ Parent ]
Not sure (0.00 / 0)
Lieberman's a professional arsehole, but in 2000 his inner warmonger was less visible and seemed less important, so it was more a matter of selecting a concern troll who was also one of the less progressive New England Senators. Of course, he was useless on the campaign trail and has only got worse since then, but it didn't seem like he was such an atrocity at the time.

Bayh in 2008 wouldn't be as bad as Lieberman in 2008, but it'd still be a kick in the teeth and quite possibly worse than  Lieberman in 2000 initially seemed it would have been.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
He needs either (0.00 / 0)
A governor (which is why Sibelius has the inside track among women) or a foreign/national security person, which is why I think Biden is looking more and more probable.  He can take McCain on in the area of experience and look credible, plus the mesdia types must like him because they alweays invite him on the Sunday shows.  He's a very articulate attack dog.  And Obama will set the policy on bankruptcy and credit card regualtion, not him.

Bayh is just so vanilla milquetoast.  I suppose he is the antithesis to Obama's "strangeness" but I think Obama is edgier than that.  McCaskill is very good as a surrogate, but she has even less experience than he has and doesn't bring any real ooomph to the ticket.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Edwards would be a great choice (4.00 / 2)
If only because he is polished, has good name recognition, liberals love him, etc. I was a bit disappointed in his performance in 2004, his convention speech and debate performance were so-so, so he'd have to come with a lot more fire in his belly this time around.

I like Sebelius, but I like Claire McCaskill more. Of course, we don't want to risk losing a Senate seat, but I've heard Kos say that Missouri will almost assuredly swear in a Democratic governor this year. I still think Sarah Palin is a dark horse McCain pick, especially if Obama picks another man, so considering our top female candidates is crucial.

Overall, I'm hoping Obama doesn't announce his VP pick until the week of the convention. Don't give McCain any time to get major airtime for his pick. We all know that McCain wants to pick after Obama, to trump Obama's good press and limit his bounce, so forcing McCain to do it either on the Friday before Labor Day or during the RNC convention itself (on the same day George W. Bush is speaking?) would be fantastic.

There is no reason to make a VP pick any time soon. Keep your powder dry until late in August.


Kerry picked his on July 6, 2004 (4.00 / 1)
Whether that was a mistake or not is up for debate.  I agree Obama can wait.  Besides I don't think his team is done with vetting either.

[ Parent ]
Webb would have been on short list (0.00 / 0)
The most interesting news here, in my opinion, is that Webb would have been on Obama's short list.  This gives us an idea of what Obama is looking for in a running mate.

Or not.  He may be keeping his options open, vetting completely different types of VPs.  Still, we know Obama is open to Webb or a Webb like VP.

I'm still holding out hope for Clark, unlikely as it now may be.


Webb's not perfect (4.00 / 1)
He's got a temper and he doesn't look like he actually gets a buzz out of campaigning - it's not something that comes naturally to him.  


[ Parent ]
You mean (0.00 / 0)
He's another McCain?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
No, But Give Him Another 30, 40, No, Make That 100 Years! (4.00 / 1)
He's not grouchy enough yet!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I could not be more happy. (4.00 / 3)
I was sure that John would serve, and I am still hoping for a strong working ticket that America will feel proud to vote for.
Hope and Change 2008
The winning ticket.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


no chance (4.00 / 3)
Here's why I would put money on Edwards not being chosen: since his nomination, O has taken every opportunity not only to ignore the program advanced by the rank and file, left, activist wing of the party, but to actively repudiate it.

That he would choose to advance the perception of his having anything but contempt for us through picking as VP the candidate who most of us supported seems to me very low probability.

As usual, I hope I'm wrong about this, but alas, I (or I should say we) have been right about just about everything when it comes to Obama.

Unfortunately, few were listening.


For similar reasons (4.00 / 1)
I suggested in a diary that we should unite and suggest a slate of acceptable progressive individuals.  Diary was here: http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Among other things, I reasoned that the single most important thing Obama could do to reassure progressives was to name a progressive running mate.  


[ Parent ]
There may not be a "short list" yet (4.00 / 1)
Just because Webb and perhaps a few others have been asked for documents for vetting purposes does not mean that a final short list has been compiled; all it would mean is that Webb (and whoever else was asked)received serious consideration.

Also (4.00 / 1)
They could just be comparing people to Edwards, figuring that since he ran in 2004, was Kerry's VP in 2004, and has been campaigning for President almost continuously since then, his vetting process will be much easier and more efficient.

Also, didn't he release his tax returns and whatnot when he was running for President?  I seem to remember that.


[ Parent ]
I'm with you, plus Schweitzer (4.00 / 2)
I worry about Sibelius as a campaigner, which is not a concern I have with Schweitzer or Edwards. Maybe I need to see some video of Sibelius other than that lukewarm SOTU response. Anyone have a link?

Also - it seems every blog I go to today is talking about Chris Bowers! You're the talk of the 'sphere.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


Please let him pick Edwards (4.00 / 2)
Lots of upside: can appeal to rural, white, working class people while STILL being popular with the base.  What more do you want?

maybe some national security creds (0.00 / 0)
just a small thing like that would probably be good going against mr. war hero

[ Parent ]
This is purely inquisitory and not an argument against him (0.00 / 0)
But has a losing VP ever come back to win on a later ticket?

FDR was the losing VP nominee in 1920 (4.00 / 3)
Off of the top of my head.

[ Parent ]
Nixon was the GOP candidate in 1960 (4.00 / 2)
and later came back to win the nomination and Presidency. Gore ran in 1988 and then was choosen in 1992. Bush Sr ran against Reagan (coining the term voodoo economics) and  I believe there are others. Its only recently (as in literally the last few years) I've seen these arguments about "well they ran before so they can't again." These sorts of arguments practically speaking have the sense of treating politics as entertainment (as in we are bored with the candidate having seen him once before) rather than substantive and b) haven't been tested.  I am not saying that's why you asked the question.  I am pointing out how they seemed to have crept into the conversation. The problem with them of course is that maybe a candidates time was later rather than when he or she first ran.  Afterall even Bill Clinton as I remember lost his bid for governor, and then won it.

[ Parent ]
Thanks Nixon duh! (4.00 / 1)
I agree it shouldn't matter.

[ Parent ]
No problem (4.00 / 1)
although the real and deeper question is although it hasn't mattered in the past, will it work now given the nature of our society thinks. ie, its more entertainment value focused.

[ Parent ]
Not to mention that once every four years (4.00 / 1)
is a horrible, horrible data set to generalize from.  We really are talking about sample sizes that are so minuscule that it's really problematic to try and draw any real generalizations from them.  We're better off comparing and contrasting current candidates and past candidates in the context of today's political environment than we are saying "no candidate with characteristic X has won in Y years."

[ Parent ]
This is all just window dressing (0.00 / 0)
and both Edwards and Webb know it.

It will be Hillary Clinton. It's been a done deal since the "unity" event. I'll bet anyone a case of whatever you like on that.


Doubt it... (4.00 / 1)
But we'll see, I guess. =)

[ Parent ]
No way. (4.00 / 3)
Just no f'in way.  If there is one thing that characterizes the Obama camp, it is no drama.  Obama hates it,  And if there  is one thing that surrounds the Clintons wherever they go, it is drama.  Obama has said that personal compatibility is number one before he even gets to qualifications.  Hillary isn't going to get the nod.  Plus, Bill won't agree to do the degree of vetting they will want, because Obama also doesn't sem to like surprises.

Sibelius or Biden now look most likely to me for reasons explained above, but I really doubt he has made up his mind.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
I thouight yopu liked Edwards too? and Gore? (4.00 / 1)
or are you just peering into the crystal ball to see what you think is likely?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Mostly peering (4.00 / 5)
I do like Gore, still most of all.  But I'm trying to be objective and realistic, and it just doesn't look probable, unless their deal is still "And you'd only have to campaign after the convention, I promise!"

I don't dislike Edwards.  Actually, I was for Edwards first (early 2007) based on having seen him just before the CA primary in 2004 and dislike of or lack of enthusiasm about the rest of the field.  But I switched to Obama in the spring or summer of 2007, mostly because he seemed to embody a different sort of politician and campaign, and I was intrigued by that, plus he was inspiring.  I really do think that the country is on the cusp of near disaster and think that new, non-doctrinaire approaches are what is needed.  I'm definitely a die-hard, life-long Dem partisan, but I'm less enamored of combat politics than many.  But I would certainly not opppose Edwards for VP, not at all.  In many ways he is better than Sibelius or Biden, but not the overwhelming choice for me that he is to others.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Well thought answer thanks -- I think Edwards will be working to strengthen (0.00 / 0)
the weak and challenge the comfortable. I m okay with that. And he will be answering to Obama and Obama seems to be able to choose good paths and styles. "I am willing to do anything Obama asks me to do," Chris quoted Edwards as saying.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
CW (0.00 / 0)
Although, CW expects it.  "Dream Ticket"  "Unity"  Obama seems to have an ear for that lately.

A few weeks ago I would have said no way.  Today I'm not so sure.


[ Parent ]
Case of Fat Tire (4.00 / 1)
From another Colorado Dem... no way she gets it.

[ Parent ]
I'll take that bet (0.00 / 0)
Let's make it a case of the heebie-jeebies, 'cause that's what I'll get if I see Obama/Clinton at the top of the ticket.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
I'll take the bet. How do you feel about Toffoc?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
As stated above , I don't think it will be Edwards or any (4.00 / 2)
progressive candidate either. There is a glimmer of hope in that it seems they were willing to consider Webb who is an economic populist (but I can't be sure if that was because of his military acumen and having been a former Reagan Republican). But, my instincts are based on how he's choosen to run thus far it's very unlikely.  

Again I agree (4.00 / 1)
I'm bracing myself for dissapointment and hope to be pleasantly surprised.

[ Parent ]
Obama/Edwards all the way! (4.00 / 1)
If it's Obama/Edwards, McCain will be lucky if he can pull out 200 electoral votes!

Good news is (0.00 / 0)
If he was going to pull a goofy Bloomberg or Hagel unity ticket, he wouldn't have been veering right the way he has the past couple of weeks.

National Security Credentials are Required (0.00 / 0)
imho

Hasn't Dick Cheney put that notion to rest, yet? (0.00 / 0)
Not just him, the whole GWB first term administration - they had a whole bunch of "national security credentials" and that didn't stop the fiasco, did it?

Picking a VP on that basis will help McCain, I believe, because it will reinforce his pitch that his POW experience has somehow taught him how to be a good President.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Dick Cheney is certainly the riposte to that (4.00 / 1)
If he decides to pick a non-national secuirty VP, all the Democratic surrogates have to be briefed to namedrop Cheney about twice a sentence. Even if the conversation is about the balloons.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
if Obama is having to prove that he's good with national security (4.00 / 1)
through his VP, then he will lose the race.  

[ Parent ]
Sweitzer tops my list now (0.00 / 0)
Sweitzer has been a progressive that Montana moderates can accept. He was able to show how Republicans mantra of no new taxes only serves to benefit large corporations while the little guy gets trashed. He is a progressive populist from the Midwest. He has experience as a governor and can cut a much wider swath than Edwards.  

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox