Napalitano's term is up in 2010 and she is prevented by term limits from running again. So she would definetely take the VP spot if Obama offered.

As to the issue of identity politics, let me be honest.

I don't think one should choose a candidate just because of race or gender, but too say that one should not use it at all is also wrong.

No one can say that a certain % of Obama mania isn't because he would be the first black president, same goes for Hillary and her supporters.

As long as both candidates do have good policies, and as long as both don't pidgeon hole themselves by pointing to race or gender as a reason to vote for them, then I say use the added excitement to win.

Look at the facts. John McCain is a dull candidate who will attempt to win by bringing up the specter of terrorism. This is what Bush has done for 7 years and the country is tired of it.

Add to that the fact that social conservatives are loath to vote for him and you have the makings of really low turnout for McCain.

Now on the dem side we have record turnout because of the Phenomina of Barack.

That should make winning a lot easier. If there is a way to increase that excitement, such as with a female govenor VP, then what is the problem with that?

Sebelius and Napalitano would both add executive experience to the ticket, and both are very popular govenors who are very competant governing their respective states.

So it is with Richardson also. No one can say he lacks experience, of any kind.

So picking any one of these 3 isn't pandering, its choosing a good, experienced person to take over the role of pres if Obama is incapacitated for any reason.

If it also happens to pump up the dem electorate even more than an Obama/Clark ticket, well so be it. All the better to win in novemeber with.

And if it also happens to set up 16 years of potential democratic rule in the white house, in addition to nabbing 3 presidential firsts for the dems, that is a bonus as well.

The fact is that eventually every race of human will be president of the US, both male and female.

I think it would be beneficial for the dems, (with the demographic shifts being what they are) to try to lock up as many of them as possible.

For example, Barack in 08, 2012, Napalitano or Sebelius in 2016, 2020 and Richardson in 2024, 2028.

All 3 people are exceptionally bright, and well qualified for president.

And all 3 represent historic firsts in terms of presidential politics.

If one looks at the future of America, as well as its past, the demarcation is stark.

For the 08 race there were 10 republicans, 100% white males, for the Dems 8 candidates, 3/8 where either minorities or a female.

Which party shows the larger affinity for diversity? What will America's demographics look like in the future?

I am looking long term. It is definetly true that no candidate must be chosen just because they are a particular race or gender, because if they offer weak positions and lose it will do more harm than good.

But if a qualified candidate appears that can make history and in the process pump up exitement amoungst the electorate, then by all means help that candidate out. Give them the resouces to become a phenominon, such as Obama has and you have a formula for winning elections.

by adamg on 02/18/2008 12:45:44 AM EST