tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10096241.post113297071489319841..comments2023-09-18T09:14:44.514-04:00Comments on Neal 2028: Warner-Rockefeller 2008Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04517093201920954322noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10096241.post-1133236344843547872005-11-28T22:52:00.000-05:002005-11-28T22:52:00.000-05:00Let me call off my top 5 VP choices (for Warner) j...Let me call off my top 5 VP choices (for Warner) just to clear up the confusion.<BR/>1-Jay Rockefeller (WV) (We've run through his qualifications.)<BR/>2-Barack Obama (IL) (Dynamic speaker, would bring a lot to the ticket in terms of life experience.)<BR/>3-Barbara Mikulski (MD) (She is a fiery speaker, and would energize the female vote, plus would be entertaining.)<BR/>4-Joe Biden (DE) (Two words: Foreign policy.)<BR/>5-Bill Richardson (NM) (The Hispanic vote is growing, and he could solidify them in the D column, plus experience in foreign policy.)Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517093201920954322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10096241.post-1133234731240481962005-11-28T22:25:00.000-05:002005-11-28T22:25:00.000-05:00Like I said above, I believe Rockefeller would bal...Like I said above, I believe Rockefeller would balance the ticket in age and experience.<BR/><BR/>I'm open to minorites/women, but in this case, I believe the most qualified to run with Warner would happen to be a white guy.<BR/><BR/>If the nominee were Edwards, Clark, Clinton, Kerry, or anybody else, I would reason out a different pick.<BR/><BR/>And, as for rich white men, I'm a lower-middle class white guy and I would point out two of our party's most successful presidents were rich white guys (i.e. Roosevelt and Kennedy)Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517093201920954322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10096241.post-1133220955490137442005-11-28T18:35:00.000-05:002005-11-28T18:35:00.000-05:00So much for Democrats being the party of the peopl...So much for Democrats being the party of the people.<BR/><BR/>Hooray for rich white men? What?<BR/><BR/>We can do better than Rockefeller.Politicl.Animalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11547839362832365116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10096241.post-1133051879678029542005-11-26T19:37:00.000-05:002005-11-26T19:37:00.000-05:00There's always talk of a ticket of two people who ...There's always talk of a ticket of two people who aren't both white guys. I think that they should decide not on race or gender, but on qualifications. In the case of Richardson (or Obama, Lincoln, Clinton, Mikulski, et al), its a very qualified person who just happens to be a minority or a woman. I wouldn't be against a Richardson VP choice, and he would be in my top five, but I do think Rockefeller would be number one.Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517093201920954322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10096241.post-1133049458564436232005-11-26T18:57:00.000-05:002005-11-26T18:57:00.000-05:00My own personal preference would be Mark Warner fo...My own personal preference would be Mark Warner for President with Gov. Bill Richardson for Vice President. Richardson has foreign policy experience and a knowledge of how Washington and the White House work. His being hispanic certainly doesn't hurt either. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think the electorate in 2008 will demand more from both parties than a ticket of politically conventional white males.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10096241.post-1133021750614195582005-11-26T11:15:00.000-05:002005-11-26T11:15:00.000-05:00Lincoln did pretty well in 2004 as I recall (56%-4...Lincoln did pretty well in 2004 as I recall (56%-44%). But it was just a 12 point spread I think because Bush won Arkansas so big. Lincoln would do just as well with the female vote as Clinton (and could likely get the church-going women much easier than Hillary).<BR/><BR/>But lets also remember that in 2002 Jay Rockefeller was re-elected 63%-37%, and has a higher approval rating that Robert Byrd.Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517093201920954322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10096241.post-1132987828873500462005-11-26T01:50:00.000-05:002005-11-26T01:50:00.000-05:00Lincoln barely, barely won re-election against a n...Lincoln barely, <I>barely</I> won re-election against a nobody in 2004.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10096241.post-1132982594937429602005-11-26T00:23:00.000-05:002005-11-26T00:23:00.000-05:00I'm on board for a Warner presidency (and have bee...I'm on board for a Warner presidency (and have been for almost a year). Unfortunately SC isn't a swing state like VA (and I think NC will be pretty close next time too), but it is the first primary in the South.<BR/>Warner/Rockafeller sounds like a pretty good tkt., but my favorite is Mark Warner / Blanche Lincoln. Some people mistakenly think Hillary would dominate the women's vote, but I would disagree (she would do miserably among married and childbearing women). On the other hand, Mark Warner and Sen. Lincoln would be able to win single, married, childbearing, and non-childbearing women. Plus Lincoln has been an advocate for rural people, elderly people, and our troops (not just lip-service like the Rep. leadership has done). I think both tickets (Lincoln or Rockefeller as VP) would be nearly unbeatable!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com