Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
06.11.2008 12:02 pm

McCaskill mum on veepstakes–sort of

  • Email this
  • Print this

WASHINGTON–Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., is a garrulous politician who loves to joke about how her mouth “gets me in trouble.” But she was keeping it shut tight (trying, anyway) this morning at a meeting with Missouri reporters when she was asked about the veep stakes.

“I’m not going to talk about it,” she said when asked about who was on Sen. Barack Obama’s short list, a subject that has much of Washington buzzing right now.

“I’m not going to talk about it,” she said when asked if she had had any conversations with James Johnson, who is heading up Obama’s vice presidential vetting team. “I know it’s very unusual,” she added. “I just don’t think it’s productive.”

Then she did talk about it, a little. Pressed on the subject, McCaskill said Obama needed to pick someone who “underlines his broad message of change,” someone who bolsters his foreign policy bona fides, and someone who helps him geographically. She dismissed any talk that she was in the running, saying that buzz has been generated “because my mug’s on TV a lot” as an Obama surrogate. (Indeed, she’s heading to Iowa this weekend to headline a couple Democratic Party events for Obama there.)

And what about Sen. Hilllary Clinton, D-N.Y., as a potential running mate? “She’s on anybody’s short list,” McCaskill said.

McCaskill is working as a sort of unofficial Senate liaison to Clinton supporters in the chamber, particularly women senators, in an effort to unify the party around Obama now that he clinched the nomination. She said she’s been a “sounding board” for those who want to relay information or advice to Obama.

She also said Missourians would see “a lot” of Obama before the November showdown with GOP Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and added that he would be campaigning actively in rural parts of the state, not just St. Louis and Kansas City.

5 comments

Comments are closed.

This piece in the New York Times was of course not covered by the PD today.
It is a list of the Clintons “revenge list.” Sen. McCaskill made the list so I was wondering why this went unreported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/us/politics/11clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

— A CENTRIST
2:10 pm June 11th, 2008

Good morning,

I figured you would be interested in viewing this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXfiOSCfY44

http://www.PalinforVP.com

Kristofer

— Kristofer
3:52 pm June 11th, 2008

If this New York Times article that A CENTRIST pasted is true and, that is a big if…God doesn’t like UGLY. These people have better learn that before it is too late.

It shows just how pathetically sick and evil so many people are, people who you automatically assume have good sense at least because they have accomplished so much, but when in fact they are very mentally ill people.

Such a thought process should prove to everyone to that just because one is ridiculously successful doesn’t mean that they are better than you are you are beneath them. This should uplift many to see how blessed that they are to be who they are. When one come across people such as these ones you should stay as far away from them as possible because they are truly sick people, do not even give them the time of day. Shun them at all cost.

I pray that the article is false because if it is true, it is a sign that Obama and the Democratic Party must shun these people, they are bad news when thing are not going their way. They will bite you like the snake and take every opportunity that they can to bring harm to you. It is very dark character.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/us/politics/11clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

— D. Walker
6:14 pm June 11th, 2008

Okay, I looked at the link:
1. This story was under the heading “Political Memo”;
2. Since Senator Clinton is one of two senators from New York, it stands to reason that a New York paper would be interested in the story;
3. Ever since Richard Nixon’s “enemies list”, and before, “payback” by politicians wh felt “betrayed” has been a long-standing practice. So what is new? Where is the story about Bush-Cheney’s “payback” list for Scott McClellan, Richard Clarke, any recently retired general/admiral, etc. who “betrayed them”?

Naivete, feigned or real, does not last long in a major political season.

4. The Clintons will learn the hard way the same lesson others have had to, that even those who “betrayed” them may be needed to help them in the future.

Sorry this is a non-story, or at best something that will show up in the “People Column”.

— RHarnack
2:32 pm June 13th, 2008

Dear Mr. Dean:

We so much supported and contributed to the best candidate to be president, no matter what parties that person is. Hillary is the one, we all think best represent us as Commander in Chief. But the DNC, again make a big mistake in choosing a best qualified candidate for Democratic Party. Our family members , friends, co- workers are still come up with the only issue that we will contribute to the BEST candidate for now. AND we think John McCain is BEST FOR NOW.

Regards,

Kenneth Family

— USAmastermind
11:15 am June 23rd, 2008