Oh, yes. It’s just what McCain needs - another lobbyist in his campaign.

Yes. McCain needs a Bush clone as his running mate. Oh…I hope he does pick talent so the ads can show his voting record on Bush policies….oh, letters like this make me giddy.

Dear Sen. McCain,
Pleae pick Jim Talent as your running mate!

Please guys remember Jim Talent has a voting record to the right of Jesse Helms. He’d be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Don’t even joke about picking Talent. He is the ultimate wolf in sheep’s clothing. He talks and has the appearance of a moderate, when his voting record shows he’s more extreme than W. McCain needs a female running mate like Katherine Harris, or Linda Tripp.

Cute with the Linda trip comments Rich. While we’re playing with joke nominees I think Obama should take Castro or Chavez, as I think another blogger pointed out they both endorsed him. That would go over swell.

No, as a matter of tactic McCain should take Romney. Physically, Mitt provides a suave and youthful balance to McCains crotchety old man. The fact that Romney has a successful business history and economic record balance concerns on that front for John. Even the geography works as McCain is Arizona and the southwest and Romney has support in the East and the swing state of Michigan. This would be the worst choice for the Democrats as it puts forth a united yet diverse (idealy, not physically) Republican Party. These two are also the personal candidates that Bush is not. As the left likes to attack bush for his lack of service, weakness in education, failure in business and personal demons - these two are the polar opposites. McCain is a war hero, not just served but spent time as a POW. Romney is well educated, successful with nary a skeleton in his closet. As far as the important moderate middle vote goes, this is a great ticket.

The undefeatable Democratic ticket would have been Clinton/Obama. Having her on top of the ticket allows her to take the majority of the heat (shes up to it) while playing off of her experience / gender / and realistic policies. Having Obama second on the ticket would soften questions about his experience. It would provide a charasmatic second that would serve only to boost the ticket. Let’s honestly discuss the fact that a female/minority ticket would be a major positive. And, the two of them again provides a unified party. I personally think that ticket would have provided (barring major issues) at least 12 if not 16 straight years of a Democrat White House. However, the party is fracturing itself thanks to the far left. They’ve pushed the emotional candidate instead of the logical. Not just that, but they’ve also spent time personally attacking and alienating the candidate they disagree with. Don’t put it past Hillary and her stronger supporters to sit out November, or even possibly help McCain. The last thing that party needed was this sort of battle and factioning. Obama himself has a lot to lose. If Obama loses, he’s effectively done as a Presidential candidate. It’s one thing to lose in a primary and rebound, but losing a national - you hardly come back from that. If Obama loses, the Democrats lose more than just one election, they lose the future of an up and coming prospect.

And you need to look far past the Presidents approval rating. That won’t figure in as much as you think in the end. If 70% of people don’t support Bush now, it certainly doesn’t mean 70% will support Obama. The only guarantee for either candidate is 30% on either side. The 40 in the middle decides the election. McCain needs to distance himself from Bushs personality, not necessarily his policy. He needs to play up his bi-partisan endevors. He needs to communicate where Bush went wrong as a leader and that he should have been the choice in 2000. Obama needs to define himself far past the “Candidate of Change”. He needs to completely define what that change is, besides not being Bush. He needs to show in depth knowledge of topics beyond the sound bites he’s been playing with. And he needs to give evidence of working accross party lines without alienating the other side. If he can’t show that willingness and ability, then he isn’t “change” in Washington, he’s another partisan hack President.

Bobby Jindal is a neophyte?! LOL If Barak Obama isn’t one, then neither is Mr. Jindal. As young as he is, he’s already got a good resume and experience beneath him. That said, I hope he doesn’t accept the VP slot and there are many Louisianians hoping he won’t either. Reason? He’s actually cleaning up the state from one term of Democratic bungling and a history of political corruption. If he accepts the Veep slot, he knows that the governorship will go to his Democrat LG, Mitch Landrieu, brother of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. The Landrieus are a political dynasty in Louisiana.

He got elected as a reformer. Becoming VP would erase his goals in Louisiana, much less his credibility there - even if it’s not much by way of electoral votes. He states that he’s not interested in becoming VP and many Louisianians want him to stay as Governor.

I think he’d do Louisiana and the nation better as governor, at least for two terms, then as Vice President. Just as Fred Thompson - if he runs later - would do well for Tennessee and the nation as governor of Tennessee.

RCJ-At least my suggestions are U.S. citizens, your joke candidates aren’t even plausible. Frankly McCain can’t distance himself from Bush without distancing himself from Bush’s policies, which would constitute yet another major FLIP-FLOP. It is absurd to think that Bush’s unpopularity isn’t a direct result of his policies. If McCain wants to disavow Bush AND his policies then he’ll have a big problem not looking like a Democrat, and it’s too late for him to get into that race.

I think Obama should pick Richardson, Edwards, or Wes Clark, any of which are excellent VP material.

Rich - No, McCain can distance himself from BUsh by pointing out where Bush went wrong in his policies. Like securing Iraq after the initial landing and under manning the forces in Iraq during that period of time leading to the chaos in between. Unlike Bush he can better define the sections of the war and define what will happen if we leave incorrectly. But more than anything, defining his Administration as an open and direct Administration is the most important distinction. I know you’ll want to crucify me as an idiot or whatever but if it weren’t for Bushs stubborn nature and his reclusiveness I’d put money on a 50/50 public opinion. I’d also venture that had he implemented the surge 6 months before the midterm Republicans would not have lost so many seats in Congress. The ability to communicate goes a long way and you shouldn’t underestimate it.

My suggestions weren’t plausible, Rich, because they were a joke. You need to lighten up a little.

I’ll agree with Richardson and Clark. However, I’ve always said the worst candidate for the Democrats is Edwards. He couldn’t keep his own seat and he trades on southern charm and slogans. While I disagree with Obamas platforms, I do at least admire is talent and believe he’s sincere. Edwards has half the speaking talent that Obama has and is not believable. Obama and Wes Clark would be very interesting.

But you need to realize that to win the 40% of people in the middle, you don’t need to distance yourself from BUshs policies. Just define what went wrong and how you’d fix it. Remember, at the start of Iraq the overwhelming majority of Americans were supportive. And the realization that the intell was wrong isn’t what turned the tide. Its how Bush conducted it. Middle America doesn’t listen to the concepts that either you support the President or you are un Patriotic, nor do they listen to the “Bush lied They dies” rhetoric. They want direction and definition. No one in the undecided category buys into the “lying” idea. They are undecided and only want definition of what the candidates plan to be.

RCJ-That appeal to the middle is not how republicans captured the Congress. The presidential votes were only close because of the unlikely coalition of fundamentalists, libertarians, gun lobbyists, and bigots. The first two should be mortal enemies. Certainly not undecided independents. Bush’s only policy of the last 7 years that I agreed with was tightening the pollution standards on diesel engines. I don’t know any diehard republicans that don’t fall into either one of 2 camps. Camp one is Bush is great. Camp two is Bush is a lying sac that ruined our party. You may not fall into either camp, but my experience is that you are an exception if you don’t.

Anyway appealing to the middle is not Rove Strategy and we all know he was the architect and chief liar in the Bush administration’s campaigns. You may think that Bush just had some policy failures. I can make the case that nearly every one of his policies were failures. McCain is a near clone of Bush. His support of the troops is a disgrace. How do you vote against veteran’s benefits as many times as he has and still claim to be a troop supporter?

Wouldn’t mind discussing the nature of humor with you. A good joke has to be plausible on some level.

IMHO, Mr McCain could pre-empt both probable challengers by naming Condoleeza Rice as his VP candidate.

kthompson-Rice? “We do not torture” Rice? He’d stand a better chance with Ken Starr.