Veepstakes Open Thread
Since it's one of the new conversations, I thought folks might enjoy hashing it out in a thread. So many things to discuss: persuasive Webb backlash, discussion of short-term and long-term trade-offs, a whole series of profiles in the reader blogs.
What are you thinking? And don't just give a name, make a case for a candidate or a criteria for making the decision.
Advertisement
Comments (277)
What I'm mainly thinking is that people are treating the VP decision as far more significant than it actually is. We need to break out of the Cheney model of the VP as major figure and player, assuming more power than he is constitutionally granted, and get back to thinking of the VP as a loyal understudy, who carefully follows administration business in case he or she has to take over, but who otherwise stays out of the news and out of the main political action.
May 28, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'd rather see us go back to the Al Gore model of a VP who has a substantive portfolio and functions that complement those of the POTUS, rather than (a) the dutiful attender of state funerals and scribe of thank-you notes, on the one hand, or (b) the Darth Cheney Puppetmaster model.
May 28, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'd like to get back to Al Gore as VP. Seriously. I think he'd be a great choice for Obama. Only he has the heft to mobilize the country and world on global warming/energy sustainability, and if given that portfolio I think he'd do it, because he realizes how little time we really have before it is irreversible. In addition, only he has the heft to fend off the Clintons and thier followers. Unlike Hillary, he is enough of a team player not to overshadow Obama. And because he would only have to campaign for 2+ months, I think he would do it.
May 28, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mimi,
Al Gore's already been Vice President. I don't recall hearing a lot from him about climate change until his movie. I think when Clinton dropped the BTU Tax, he shut climate change work down.
Gore -- and we -- are better off with him as an outside influencer.
RFM
May 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rionn,
You don't recall hearing a lot from him on global warming until his movie because broad public acceptance of global warming as a fact has only existed for about 1-2 years. Media coverage/acknowledgment has been disgustingly minimal. Politicians on both sides of the isle have failed the people of the United States and the World by failing to lead on this issue.
If you look at the record, Al Gore has been championing this issue since before his stint in the White House.
You are right about Clinton and the BTU tax but that has little bearing on weather Gore would be a good addition to the Obama ticket.
May 28, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Twinkletoes. I was commenting on Al Gore's failure to turn his commitment to climate change into policy when Vice President, not the commitment itself. It's simply a role that didn't work for him.
July 10, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think this is an interesting idea. It wouldn't do much to placate (appease? Sorry) the Hillary wing but it would give us gravitas for days. He could actually do very little officially and continue to do his work, and he could step into the main role, so to speak, without further rehearsal.
Let's do it!
May 30, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very few people mention Chris Dodd, but he's my number one. He's the only Democrat who had the balls to stand up to the Bush team as they were trying to dismantle the Constitution. He left off campaigning in Iowa, where he'd actually moved his family, to go filibuster in the Senate.
Here are some other reasons:
1. Helps with Catholics (obvious, but Obama's really weak here).
2. Helps with Hispanics (fluent in Spanish, Western Hemisphere Chair in Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Peace Corps Dominican Republic).
3. Helps with Jews (Dad, Tom Dodd, was on Prosecution team at Nuremberg; Univ of Conn hosts "Tom Dodd Center for Holocaust Studies").
4. Age, seniority, thick resume of legislative accomplishment (all contrasts with Obama).
5. Street fighter; most important of all. Smart, fast on his feet; great counterpuncher; all part of what a Veep is supposed to do).
6. Veteran – Air National Guard
May 28, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
i personally like dodd - his was the only campaign i actually contributed to (to show my support for his filibuster pledge) and he was my second choice after edwards. but i think you have to dig a bit to deep into his CV to get any sort of bump with voters.
May 28, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The downside to this is that Dodd is so valuable in the Senate. His talent for getting things done there would be wasted as VP.
May 28, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was some discussion earlier this year of Dodd making a go at Majority Leader next year. Is this realistic do you think?
May 28, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dodd has said he's going to retire in 2010:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dodd#cite_ref-14
although that can obviously change. But with two young daughters, he is probably winding down his Senate career. To me, that mitigates against a Majority Leader position, although I think he's the best choice. But it also bodes well for him in a VP slot. See my Doddmania VP post further down in this thread.
May 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello Dan,
I must respectfully disagree. The selection of the VP is of crucial importance, as can be seen with unitary executive theory (bad idea!), and as it was before Amendment XII (one of the biggest mistakes in our nation's history). The VP should NOT be a loyal understudy, nor the other side of a wall of plausible deniability (Cheney/GHWB).
He should be a foil for the opposition, providing a check and balance within the executive branch; this was a vital part of our founding father's meticulously crafted framework, foolishly undone in 1804 because of a tie in the Electoral Congress.
As Rodney King and Barack Obama say, "Can't we all just get along?"
It also went so splashingly well back in 1864, after our last little intra-national dustup,
why don't we try it again?
Ya know, there is but one person who brings to mind so vividly the integrity and courage of an American Without Reserve (Daniel Webster), and that man is, without reservation, the man for the job:
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Obama/Hagel '08!
Woo woo woo!
May 29, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until recently I might have said Richardson, but I'm starting to like Tim Kaine (VA-Gov). I don't know a lot about him yet; he seems like a pro-life moderate, which is not what I particularly like about him. What I do like is that he's young (by politician-standards :-) and energetic and the governor of a swing state. Choosing the other Virginia contender (Webb) could hurt Dems' strength in the Senate.
And also, perhaps paradoxically, I like that Kaine does not have many years of experience as an elected official. The "lack of experience" theme will continue to be one of the main lines of attack against Obama, and I prefer to counterattack aggressively ("good judgment matters more") rather than to play defense by choosing a candidate like Richardson (who has major experience) or Clark (who has major foreign policy cred). (That said, I still like either of those two guys that I just named).
May 28, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
THere is simply no way that Obama takes Kaine. Kaine would have to step down as Governor of VA if elected in November and that would place the Lt. Governor (a Republican) in the Governor's mansion (for one year).
Also, Obama is not selecting someone who isn't strongly pro-choice. Especially given that the pro-choice movement has been the base for Hillary Clinton and there is an obvious need to heal that rift.
May 28, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kaine is pro-death penalty.
May 28, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you should go edit wikipedia, which disagrees with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine#Death_penalty_stance
May 28, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kaine is most certainly not pro-death penalty. He actually put a moratorium on executions in Virginia pending the decision in Baze v. Rees. During the 2005 campaign he promised to uphold the law in VA, despite his own personal opposition to the death penalty. So, once the Court upheld KY's lethal injections, Kaine lifted the moratorium.
That said, I don't think he'd be a good choice for VP. Obama can win VA even without selecting any of the VA politicians (Kaine, Webb, Warner).
May 28, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Kaine is anti-death penalty, making him one of the few Catholic politicians to have positions consistent with what the church says.
The fact that an anti-death penalty guy like Kaine can win in a state like Virginia speaks volumes both about his skills as a political leader AND about the degree to which the conventional wisdom is wrong about the political power of capital punishment these days.
May 28, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Richardson were younger I'd want him at VP because I'd like to see him as president but he'll be a bit too old by 2016 to run (yes McCain is running but he's too old for my taste as well). I'd like a VP who can run for president in 2016 so Richardson doesn't fit the bill. Oh, hey, a pun.
Instead, I'd like to see him in a position with greater influence in a normal presidential administration. Bill Richardson for Secretary of State!
May 28, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on Richardson -- but the criteria of who would succeed Obama after the second term doesn't make any sense. VP is not a reasonable step to the presidency unless by tragedy. Fergedaboudit!
May 28, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've send in several threads that I don't like the idea of a Senator-Senator ticket. Get a Governor. Senators already are easily perceived as elite DC insiders and a Governor can add needed executive experience to a ticket, even if they are lacking in foreign policy experience.
I think Governor's Richardson, Sebelius, and Napolitano would make a lot of sense. They all have strengths and waeknesses but I believe the next VP comes from this group.
A couple of non-Governors to consider:
Edwards: until very recently I didn't think having him on board would do much much for the ticket. But after seeing them on stage together and with Edwards new found populism and talk about poverty in America, I'm much warmer to the idea. I doubt he would take it if offered, but Obama-Edwards might be a very very strong ticket (Edwards now a national figure rather than just a former Senator).
Also, I wouldn't be shocked if talk of Daschle on the ticket becomes strong. He's been an early and strong voice behind the scenes for Obama.
May 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought there'd be a place for Daschle in an Obama Administration, but somehow, I'd always thought he'd be Chief of Staff. He seems to be in that Leo McGarry position...since everyonne seems all "West Winged" up all of the sudden.
May 28, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep - that makes sense and would continue his role as the little noticed but knowledgeable key advisor.
May 28, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
and there are those surveyUSA VP match-ups showing obama/edwards as a total ass-kicker (and appalachia equalizer)... even though they're mostly just name-recognition polls, isn't that about all that a VP really brings for the vast majority of voters?
May 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and the positive name recognition of the VP candidate can't hurt Obama.
But at the same time, all the general election polls at this point are fairly meaningless, expect to be a general starting point for the race. (just as all those polls with Hillary in the lead for months before the actual primaries were just a starting point - not an end point).
May 28, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
if a double-digit lead is the starting point, what a great place to start.
with edwards i would have thought that his name recognition would have been much more of a mixed bag than a clear advantage. i think that's what i find so persuasive.
May 28, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the other thing is that Edwards isn't likely to accept the VP nod. If he really wanted it I think he would have endorsed Obama much earlier and I think he would be a mainstay in the media.
May 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards would be perfect were it not for his Iraq War vote. The apology is not enough, in my opinion, to go on total offense with this issue; especially considering the traditional "attack-dog" role of the VP.
May 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's done a credible job of apologizing and saying he regrets it. Although I'll admit that it was a major reason I supported Obama over Edwards in the primary.
May 28, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Biden for his temperament as well as his experience, and the VP role would benefit from his talent for debate. He probably would rather not be asked, but I know he'd be clean and articulate.
May 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from Delaware and I like Biden a lot. I'd be proud to have him on the ticket. He has serious foot in mouth disease though. Also, what he brings to the table is foreign policy cred, but Obama has been trying hard to make the case that foreign policy is where he needs help the least. So... I think that leaves Biden with an offer for Secretary of State. I don't know if DE's governor would appoint his replacement or if there would need to be a special election, but DE goes blue in every national election so it wouldn't really matter.
May 28, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pro-Phil Bredeson (D-TN). He's not yet committed. He's a state-wide twice-elected Dem from Tennessee with a history in health care management. He's a smart guy, good enough on core issues like choice and labor. Keep him in the souteast and southwest, bring the Obama christian caucus through those states enough and they are in play.
May 28, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh -- and also he's currently term-limited. Most of the names being tossed around are Senate Dems. We need to keep that majority...Webb and Warner will definitely be needed in the Senate. The folks swarming to elect Warner will give Obama an upballot boost anyway.
Leave Kaine out of it. He'd be good for an spot in the administration, but he's as boring as Sebelius.
May 28, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Governor Ted Strickland. He would put Ohio in play.
He is very popular, and proved that he could deliver the state to Hillary. It would be an olive branch to the Clinton supporters.
Gov. Strickland was a congressman, before becoming governor, so that gives him a double experience edge. Before entering politics, he was a Christian minister, so that would help Obama to gain some traction in Appalachia.
Bottom line: Winning Ohio is very important.
Strickland gives Obama the best chance to do so.
May 28, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I'm all in favor of Obama's "50 state" strategy, but last time I checked, Ohio was one of those fifty states. And quite frankly, it's an important state where Obama is vulnerable. Strickland gives Obama a much-needed nudge in Ohio.
May 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why Strickland and not Rendell?
May 28, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's video of Rendell praising Farrakhan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIF7A_VdYQs
May 28, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That tape is from 1997, and shows Rendell praising the NOI's traditional family values, not praising Farrakhan personally.
Besides, Rendell is Jewish himself, which I think effectively inoculates him.
In short, not good, but hardly fatal. With Hagee, Parsley, Robertson, Wright, Falwell, Sharpton et al, every politician will have some brush-up with some controversial religious person. Big deal.
* * * * *
As to his supposed reputation for being gaffe-prone, he was pretty deft as a Clinton surrogate in the runup to the PA vote, managing the difficult trick of effectively making her case without pissing off this Obamaphile. He won my grudging admiration.
May 28, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has PA sewn up, he doesn't need the help there. He's more vulnerable in Ohio, and is within reach; Florida may be winnable, but I wouldn't count on it.
May 28, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who lives in Philly, take my word that Rendell is a bad pick. His mouth constantly gets him in trouble, and his performance as Governor has mostly made my life in PA worse.
May 28, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rendell is a victim of Hillary. He showed veryvery bad judgment in showing extreme fervor for Hillary. I think those that took such hard sides deserve to be considered last, unless they show an extreme benefit to the ticket. Like the old saying goes"You lay down your money and you take your chance". Rendell picked a loser. Why would we think he could be a winner in the WH?
May 28, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just keep seeing Strickland standing on stage behind Hillary nodding his lil' bobblehead as she scolds "Shame on you Barack Obama! Meet me in Ohio."
May 28, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Virginia's Senator Jim Webb. Yeah, he's not a governor, but hasn't Dumbya tarnished the brass of the gubernatorial gambit a bit? Webb is tough, independently minded, popular with independents and some Republicans (he used to be one himself), could probably deliver Virginia for Obama, could counter McSame's supposed National Security credentials, and might just bring in some of those White Working Class voters that Obama has had trouble with. He would/will face some criticism for his past statements women, but any candidate you find will have SOME things that will be criticized and attacked.
May 28, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more plus for Webb: Virginia currently has a Democratic governor (Tim Kaine), so Webb's U.S. Senate seat would be replaced by another Democrat.
May 28, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Temporarily. There will be a special election to fill the remainder of the term. People aren't too crazy about Senators being appointed to a 6-year term.
May 28, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
no Webb: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/ixnay_on_the_ebbway.php#more
May 28, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok - Webb's out too.
No endorsing major Republican candidates within the last 10 years is going to be a new litmus test.
Sorry Joe Lieberman, you're out too.
May 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think people are going overboard with describing Webb's positives.
A) He barely beat a Republican incumbent in a Democratic year, even after his opponent used a racial epithet that was captured on camera.
B) There's absolutely no idea backing up the claim that independents like him. Yes, he SEEMS like the guy independents WOULD like. But so far, there has been no demonstration of the fact. Check all of the SUSA polling with VP hopefuls added. Yes, he has no name recognition. But that's exactly my point! We don't KNOW that he attracts independents.
May 28, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Wesley Clark? He opposed the war like Obama, but he's connected to the Clintons and might be a bridge to peace with them. Also, he's from Arkansas and he's liked in the south. He's gotten a lot better on TV by going on Fox (I know, yuck) but he's less threatening to middle-of-the-road folks than a lot of well-known Dems, and he's really pretty liberal.
May 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to re-check his opposition to the war. Also, where is the evidence that he possess any ability to win votes in the South? He won, what... one state in 2004 primary (with 32%)?
I think we need to distinguish between people we FEEL can attract a certain demographic bloc, versus those who actually have.
May 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark did publicly oppose the Iraq War.
May 28, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark brings a unity solution to win over the Clinton supporters without involving a Clinton political opportunist. Clark brings unique and unparalleled foreign policy credentials; a hero in Europe, he'll be able to bring our allies back into the fold. Very liberal social positions (health care, gay rights, reproductive rights, etc.) that will pass relatively unnoticed by centrist voters focused on his military credentials.
Does he put a demographic or region in play the way a governor would? Maybe not. But you could argue he would be able to relate to Appalachian America well (is that a new demographic term?). I also like this selection because it doesn't take any of our strong Senators or Governors out of office.
May 28, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a big supporter of Hillary Clinton and someone who will happily support Senator Obama if he is nominated, I believe that Wesley Clark would be a great fit as his VP. General Clark has the experience of running form President and actually winning some primaries in the south. He is cerebral while having the military experience to offset Sen McCain. Wesley Clark is eloquent and speaks to why a decorated war hero chose to be a Democrat. He can help Obama with a demographic he has struggled with while projecting a positve vision.
May 28, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sentiments exactly. Clark is as good a fit as Webb, but with less potential negatives and a big plus of bridging the gap between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Don't discount the need to bring the factions together, and the symbolic olive branch this selection would make. Very sound decision. The only questions are whether Clark would accept, and whether his heart would be in to it.
May 28, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. If one must go with a military guy, Clark is a better fit temperamentally and politically than Webb.
May 28, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian Schweitzer hands down.
An incredibly popular (70% approval) Democratic governor from a red state. He puts the entire mountain midwest in play.
He has a masters in soil science, worked as an irrigation developer all over the world, speaks several languages including Arabic, and was a member of the Clinton USDA.
He's a Real ID and Iraq was critic and strongly pro-alternative energy (and clean coal but mostly wind etc).
His only drawbacks as far as I can tell is his support for the death penalty and the fact that he's pro-gun. However, he's brilliant, unorthodox, from outside the Beltway, able to put key areas into play, and all around an awesome candidate.
I think it will probably be Kaine, but Schweitzer has been my dark horse for a while now and I really really hope he gets the nod.
May 28, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brain Schweitzer could put Montana in play, but with only three Electoral College votes, the reward would not be worth the risk.
I am practicing how to insert links, so pardon me while I link to a beautiful picture of Square Butte:
Square Butte
If I mess my link up, I would appreciate if someone would advise.
May 28, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, I think he could put more than just Montana and it's puny 3 EV in. I think he'd pull in the entire mountain midwest and make Obama more competitive in CO, a key swing state for him.
Secondly, in order to link to a photo, you type this:
"title of photo"
Re davybavy:
I view that article as an asset, because it allows Schweitzer to pivot and say "well you know I used to like some things about these politicians, but then all this happened, and now I support Obama." That sort of pivoting is what Obama needs in order to pick up disgruntled Obamacans who are Republicans disenchanted with the current GOP. They see kindred spirits in Schweitzer and will come over more easily.
May 28, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
lets try this tutorial again:
a href="url of photo"> title of photo
now just put an open and close carrot before the a href and after the /a respectively and you're good to go!
May 28, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Petey05.
This should be a beautiful Montana sunset.
Square Butte/a>
May 28, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops. I think I will stick to posting links without the fancy abbreviations.
May 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
href="http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/photos/photo_montana_montana.html"> Square Butte/a>
May 28, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schweitzer is unacceptable. His infamous NYT Magazine interview in 2006 was a career-killer in national Democratic politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08governor.html?pagewanted=all
I was just appalled to read the following:
Romney for President??? I am willing to overlook a lot, but this crosses the line.
May 28, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
May 28, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would really suck if McCain had Romney on his ticket...
May 28, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the Brian Schweitzer idea. His appeal would stretch far beyone Montana throughout the west and the midwest. His pro-gun credibility would help Obama in many swing states such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
He would add a new dimension to the ticket.
May 28, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Colorado Dem somewhat involved in state politics, I had no idea who Schweitzer was until a few weeks ago. I don't think he's gonna pull much weight here. Richardson would be much better as a boost in Colorado. We all know him and most like him even more than our Clinton-era appointee Federico Pena, former mayor of Denver.
May 28, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if you didn't know who he was until recently, you don't think his policies and person would play better to CO people?
I mean Schweitzer is pretty much the American's American, which would be great for Obama to counteract all the whisper campaigns.
May 28, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wesley Clark would be a great choice for VP. He's out of the DC loop, quadruple (star) trumps any military cache Mccain has and is an eloquent speaker who has charisma to spare. As a Clinton supporter, he'd help bring the HRC people into the game.
May 28, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on Wes Clark up to the part about being a Clinton partisan. If I'm Obama (which I'm not :), no way do I want a potential Clinton mole inside the White House.
May 28, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on Wes Clark up to the part about being a Clinton partisan. If I'm Obama (which I'm not :), no way do I want a potential Clinton mole inside the White House.
May 28, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wes Clark is a great, but does he ever blink? It's a bit weird.
May 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Evan Bayh. He's a Clinton supporter. He's young (52) but experienced (8 years as governor & 10 as senator). He would help in the Midwest (OH, MI, WI, & MO--and possibly bring Indiana in play). Most importantly, he's the safe choice; he won't cause any problems for Obama either during the campaign or in office.
May 28, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's also vacuous. He does have nice hair though.
May 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it dyed? True, it's not "Jim Webb Red," but it doesn't look quite natural to me.
May 28, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb is viewed by many women as misogynist--not a good follow-up to the primary.
Schweitzer, Edwards or...what about Jay Rockefeller?
May 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Kerry?
May 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude... that is an idea!!
May 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the wildly successful job Obama, Axelrod et al have done in thinking through and executing a successful primary strategy I expect they'll figure out and select the right candidate.
We'll all know soon enough.
May 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly agree with Wesley Clark as the choice. In addition to the points made by Suznaz, he has been in the barrel as a presidential candidate before and his experience with that process should be helpful.
May 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all over the lot on this one. I do not see a sitting
Senator because of Obama's thrust of 'new politics'
and 'change', maybe Nunn, or maybe someone completely
off the scope.
Richardson has strengths and weaknesses; not sure he can
survive a serious vetting. Maybe a man for foreign affairs such as Richardson or the economy, Bloomsburg, or a woman governor to bring in disgrunted Clinton supporters. These are the highest polity areas for Obama. Who? Don't Know!
May 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wes Clark.
May 28, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama/Biden '08
May 28, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to have a Politician that has already proven that they can win a fairly large state wide race. That is one way of vetting their campaign skills. Wes. Clark has not ever done so. He is too much of a risk. You need a seasoned political big time winner.
May 28, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about someone whose won a nationwide race--in fact, 3 of them. Al Gore! Seriously. Who better to head up the global warming/energy portfolio, and he has heft and credibility on most issues. I think he's the best choice given that all the other possibilities have some (in some cases major) flaws. Plus he'd be good. He could do it for the first term, and someone else could come up the ranks for the second term and thereafter.
May 28, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb's my choice.
Just like the guy's grit. Shallow reasoning, but honest.
I don't care what baggage he may have. He completes the ticket as the enforcer.
who's with me??
May 28, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gov Brad Henry (D-OK)
You heard it here first.
May 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oregon's former governor John Kitzhaber (61), an emergency room doctor who has built a credible political movement around universal health care coverage, also has strong credentials as an environmental steward. He may run for governor again in 2010 and does not want to live in DC, but is an energetic campaigner and inspiring speaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kitzhaber
May 28, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
if it weren't for webb's (possible) negatives with women, he'd be my first choice by a mile.
this time last year richardson was my first choice for the top slot. but he showed himself to be a total doofus on the campaign trail ('homosexuality is a choice' + 'my fav scotus = white') and wouldn't even consider him for a high profile cabinet position let alone VP.
i'm a big fan of clark but i think he works better on paper than in real life.
edwards is my top choice and though i would've voted for him in the primary had michigan not mucked everything up, i've only recently come to see him as the best choice for VP.
May 28, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to recommend a David Brooks column, but I actually like his last one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/opinion/27brooks.html
He argues that the VP is more important for governing than for winning elections. I think that he undervalues the role of the VP candidate in elections, but his analysis of who would best be able to help Obama govern is interesting. He argues that Obama needs a Washington insider who can help to press his change agenda on a recalcitrant Congress and federal bureaucracy. For that job, he suggests Daschle or Nunn.
I see the need for such a person. I don't think that person would have to be VP, but the clout of the office could help.
May 28, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm on board with this. I don't think the Dems need to pick a VP to help them win. Everyone's pretty sick of Bush and a 3rd term is not going to cut it. Pick someone who can help AFTER the election:
1. A LBJ-type, seasoned Senator or Congressman who knows how to get things passed.
2. A governor who is a good administrator and can help keep things organized.
3. Someone with military bonafides who can help keep the DOD generals in line (or a SecDef with the same qualifications).
May 28, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Nunn is anywhere near Obama politically. I know he supported him this election, and it would pull Obama to the center which is usual come the GE, however it would alienate a lot of Obama's grass roots activist types that play a huge role in getting him to where he is today.
I think Pawlenty is McCain's smartest choice, but I wonder if Pawlenty would want to be on a McCain ticket, or rather wait four years and be able to have a fresh national stage start and be his own man. If you are linked with McCain/Bush now, you would be probably for the rest of your career.
May 28, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear this concern most often with regards to the possibility of Clinton as VP. I don't buy it. A VP choice might attract a reluctant voter, but I do not see it causing active supporters to abandon their candidate. It might piss them off perhaps, but it would have to be a pretty fickle grassroots supporter to turn against their own candidate because they disagree with his VP choice. That said, I think that policy differences could be a problem. For that reason, I agree that Daschle would be a better choice (though I do like Nunn's military creds).
May 28, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's road to the White House goes through CO, NM, NV. Therefore, Bill Richardson.
However, does anyone else wonder if a Black-Hispanic ticket is too much?
May 28, 2008 2:26 PM |