More on Salazar for VP

Salazar

I like Salazar.  I would love it if he was VP.

But I don't see it happening. Why choose him when Bill Richardson is better known? 

His experience would be attacked and he's not well enough known across the country. Of course those can be overcome, but I don't see it happening.

---

by: At least 29 @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 17:06:03 PM UTC

Because the worst kept secret...

...about Richardson is the skeletons in his closet during the Clinton Administration.

---

by: Democracy??? @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 17:47:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And now, with Domenici retiring after this term

Richardson can run for the Senate.  He'd be a shoe-in to take the seat back for Dems. 

Don't see how Salazar particularly improves Hillary's slim chances here in Colorado or other western states. The voters who split tickets in 2004 to vote for both Bush AND Salazar, are the kind who most likely dislike Hillary even more than they disliked Kerry.  They won't vote for her just because Salazar is VP. 

The very thought of a ticket with two of the 22 Dems who voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment (if you don't know what that is just knowing these two proposed it should tell you all you need to know) is making me sick to my stomach.  I'm still hoping for a miracle from Gore or a landslide for Edwards in Iowa.

---

by: BlueCat @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 19:25:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

he really should run for U.S. Senate

  He would be such an overwhelming favorite that the GOP will fold and opt not to run any serious candidate, freeing up money that the Dems can then spend in NE and CO.

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 19:43:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely

---

by: BlueCat @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 19:46:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Long shot, but nonetheless

If Barack Obama could get as far as he  as he has with little or no experience, maybe Salazar can get somewhere is well.

I would definitely like to see Salazar as Vice-President, I have my doubts that it will happen. 

---

by: angry_idealist @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 18:17:52 PM UTC

No Joes

Ken is the Joe Lieberman of the west-a sorry excuse of a dem.

---

by: bobaloo @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 18:36:07 PM UTC

Which is exactly why the Veep story is plausible. n/t

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 20:20:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well said

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

---

by: parsingreality @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 12:43:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hillary and Salazar?

Wes Clark will be Hillary's choice.  She'll announce before the primaries are over, it's her big ace in the hole. I take exception to tne "well-liked" comment and would add that for all intents and purposes, he is as dumb as a stump in the San Luis Valley, otherwise he would have kept the Dairy Queen and the Ford Ranger as his golden parachute. 

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. "

John Kenneth Galbraith

1906

---

by: Mike Collins @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 19:47:37 PM UTC

I heard the same thing

Clark would be an interesting choice.  But I wouldn't call him well liked by most people

---

by: Haners @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 23:19:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Made for each other.

Hillary and Ken are both warmed-over Republicans masquerading as Democrats.

---

by: OneEyedOwl @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:21:56 AM UTC

Senator Jim Webb

In my opinion, would be Clinton's VP, on the basis that she wins

Webb gives her a couple things -

1. Credibility in Southern states

2. Military experience

Those two things above are representative of Clinton's biggest weaknesses

Well - that's my prediction

For the record, I like Senator Salazar a lot (even though we are on different teams) --- it would be cool if a Coloradan were up as a VP

TABOR4LIFE

---

by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 12:20:02 PM UTC

Do you think

That Webb's lack of experience would be an issue, or his party switch?

---

by: Haners @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:12:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Said it before...

I'll say it again.  Ohio Governor Ted Strickland will be Hillary's VP.  He is hugely popular in Ohio and would help flip it--he'd also help in Iowa and Kentucky; has extensive experience on Capitol Hill; and is a Methodist Minister.

I, frankly, don't see anyone helping Hillary (or Obama) carry Colorado.  Were I advising her campaign, I'd tell her to focus on Ohio, Iowa, Arkansas, Florida, Virginia and Kentucky as better opportunities to flip from 2004.

"I've learned a lot of lessons being involved in politics. I also believe that when you are attacked, you have to deck your opponents." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

---

by: Coloradem1 @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 16:11:33 PM UTC

Haners

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Senator Webb, but any argument of inexperience will not go far, considering -

1. REAGAN --- he worked under Reagan, as a major NAVY official

2. SENATE --- at the end of the day, he still has worked there for a couple years.... in addition, Hilary Clinton brings all the necessary political experience to the table to make up for any shortcomings

As far as party switches.... he can promote his switching due to the Iraq War as a good reason

Anyways ---- I say the VP will be Webb

TABOR4LIFE

---

by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 13:58:39 PM UTC