Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
My top 3 picks for Obama's running mate
To decide on a running mate, we gotta get rid of a few guys who don't meet my criteria. Like Hillary Clinton, for instance. It's a bad idea for so many reasons. She's way too polarizing for one, and while you don't necessarily have to like your running mate, you should be able to trust them, and I don't think Obama trusts her. Also making Clinton his running mate is totally counter to the whole "Change" thing he's got going on. I'd also prefer someone who isn't a Senator (again eliminating Clinton), because I don't think 2 senators on a ticket is a particularly good idea. That eliminates notables like Claire McCaskill, Joe Biden, and Jim Webb. Finally, it shouldn't be a Clinton backer because it comes off a bit hypocritical for guys like Ed Rendell, Evan Bayh, or Tim Strickland who bashed BO in the past few months to suddenly seem like the guy's best pal. That's easy ammunition for the GOP.
Here are the top 3.
3)Tim Kaine, Gov. of Virginia - It's the "Holy ****" pick. Kaine is a popular Southern governor who in his early 20's worked with Jesuits in Honduras, so that helps relate the ticket to the deeply religious. And despite being a pro-life, anti-gay marriage conservative, he was one of the first to endorse Obama. He'd probably help seal a swing state like Virginia and combine with Obama's popularity among blacks and maybe the Dems could steal a few states in the South. He's also a white guy, so he could help endear Obama to racists across the country. However, Kaine does seem to be an typical old Washington politician, which Obama has campaigned against. Plus his conservative differences might make it hard to convince voters he'd be a good VP besides Obama.
2) Bill Richardson, Gov. of New Mexico - Judas is a great candidate for a number of reasons. First off, of all the candidates for a running mate left, he has the best name recognition, who would lead to immediate seizure of votes for Obama. He's Mr. Foreign Policy, a big hole in Obama's resume. He could also help Obama win swing states like Colorado, California and Nevada, and with its burgeoning Hispanic population and growing black population (both groups combined account for 47% of the Texan population). A running mate like Richardson would greatly increase the chances of Obama winning Texas, and if the Dems win Texas, the election's over. Richardson does have some big problems though. He's F'N AWFUL in debates and during the course of the campaign chances are he will say something stupid. The biggest problem Obama would face selecting Richardon is the fact that not only is he not white, but Hispanic, and that'll be a huge red flag to any dumb white hick who thinks Obama/Richardson would "open the gates" and a flood of illegal immigrants would swarm the good American people. IMO, Richardson would be better as Secretary of State, but I'd be happy with him as VP.
1) Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. of Kansas - She's one of the most popular governors in the country, and was rated as one of the top 5 best governors in the country in TIME. If you read into her history, she sounds like an Obama with more experience. She's even got the whole "working with Republicans" thing going on. Plus you still get the white woman, which would quickly help salvage the votes of female Clintonistas who wanted to see history. Obama and her are also good friends. But the big reason why she should be the VP is that her flaws can be overcome. Her public speaking skills are not very good, but her running mate more than makes up for that. She and Obama will be a target for national security inexperience, but if they load up their coalition with guys like Richardson, Daschle, and Biden they'll make up for it. And the fact that Kansas might be a small state, but she could help him out with women voters in the general election.
Comments (23)
I see Tim Kaine's name being floated online occasionally and by himself, he'd probably be a fine choice, but his Lt. Governor is a conservative Republican who has his eyes on that state's top office. If Obama were to select Kaine, then we'd be losing a Democratic governorship for the rest of Kaine's term, plus probaly one more.
We wouldn't have that problem with Kansas or New Mexico and I'm currently living in the "Land of Enchantment", so I have some opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of Richardson, but I'll leave them for now.
May 12, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Three sound choices - though Tom Levine would bring OH into the fold (and help bolster PA as well)
May 12, 2008 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama could make no possible worse choice than to select an anti-choice running mate. You say "sure, he's anti-choice and anti-gay marriage" ... because clearly those issues don't matter to you, but they matter to a huge number of the Democratic party.
And, don't forget, Vice-Presidents sometimes become presidents. Would you really want Tim Kaine as president?
What is this infatuation with suggesting the most conservative and most offensive to women possibilities? Not just you, but over and over and over people are suggesting people like Chuck Hagel and now Tim Kaine.
you know what message that choice would send? That everything he said about CHANGE was spin and that he really didn't mean it, because his values are so bendable he chose for this critical position someone who doesn't support his values
May 12, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kaine's anti-choice? We may claim there's no litmus test in the Democratic Party, but if there were, abortion rights would near the top of the list for VP candidates.
May 12, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no way an anti-choice Dem will be the VP nominee. It's just ludicrous - especially given the important pro-choice base of Democratic voters. It's an issue that automatically will keep any Dem off of the ticket (just as Guiliani found out that Republican voters won't accept someone who is pro-choice).
May 12, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear, It's been obvious for a long time that Obama's biggest desire it to have everybody love him and that means that he does want to cuddle up to middle of the road Republicans and given how he has alienated many Democrats he may have no choice: he certainly doesn't have any principles that would stand in the way.
May 12, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious as to why Chris Dodd's name never comes up on this list of possibles.
Any answers?
May 12, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute...Tim Kaine is neither anti-choice nor anti-gay marriage. He is a Roman Catholic, but he has said publicly that he would never work to repeal laws that are all ready on the books, and instead favors prevention programs like those of Planned Parenthood. (essentially his position on the death penalty as well, and he has carried out executions during his tenure)
He supports civil unions and extension of spousal benefits to gay partners, but says you can't legislate the actions of a church. A nuanced position, but one held by the majority of Americans.
He is also fluent in Spanish, and has a very devoted following in the Latino community.
His wife is great, too. She's a juvenile judge, they met in law school at Harvard. She's an advocate for foster children. Her father is Linwood Holton, a moderate Republican governor of VA who supported school integration and routinely endorses Dems.
Don't hate on my Governor, now....
May 12, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go Veronica!
As someone who knows his career, is Kaine a good debater? We're going to need somebody who can be a good "attack dog" to balance out Obama's above-the-fray approach.
I never want to see another debate like the Cheney-Edwards one.
May 12, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice analysis, but I must disagree about Jim Webb. He, being a white male with serious military experience and moderate/centerist political viewpoint would be a great balance. He could really give it to McCain and his potential VP pick and assist in picking up VA in the Fall election.
I had not thought about Richardson, but I do approve of the idea. Imagaine him speaking spanish to drum up the hispanic vote evidently tied to Hillary. One could argue the the hispanic vote should go to whomever the Dem candidate is, because it is in thier own self interest, re immigration moderation, social programs.
Final though, Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. of Kansas, independent in her own right, also history making, that may be a balm to the dissapointed Hillary supporters.
I am absolutely sure we will have a woman president one day in the not too distant future, just not Hillary because of all the baggage of the Clinton years and her ability to mobilize the Republican base which despises her.
In fact, considering identity or racial politics, seeing as we have had an endless string of white males since George Washington, just based on distribution of population, I had a strange or rather interesting thought. If the electorate where completely race/gender neutral from here on out, looking only to merits, 51% of the population are women, 49% are men, and 12% are black of both sexes, 14% are hispanic of both sexes and could rise to 24% by 2050. If that were the case, then every other president would be a woman, one in ten black, say two in ten hispanic. But given statistical odds it occurred to me, Obama could be the first AND LAST black president of the United States for a century.
May 12, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Strickland could deliver Ohio I would not be so quick to discard him. Same for Webb or Kaine. What about Gephardt? Could ge make a difference in MO. Could Bob Graham deliver FL?
May 12, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it's all well and good to consider states candidates bring in play, but it's the kiss of death to appoint someone who is shockingly wrong to the base. It shows political calculation trumps principle.
The thing is, Clinton supporters have long argued that many Obama supporters are not supporting him on issues, because she's stronger on issues, they are supporting him on personality. These whacked out offensively conservative suggestions just prove that point.
May 12, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had thought about Bob Graham too. He sure knows his foreign policy. He is an articulate speaker as well and could dismantle anything McCain had to say in short order.
May 12, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb is my choice. He can certainly work with the Repubs, having been one; he is fully as intelligent and almost as good a speaker as Obama; he is really focused on the evils of the developing two-class society; and he is a gun nut.
And he has at least as strong an appeal to the independent "maverick-loving" voter as McCain does.
Women or men who don't vote for Obama because he defeated their "champion" HRC deserve to have the election decided without them. If an HRC supporter tells you she (or he) will actually get off her or his ass and vote for McCain over Obama, she or he is probably lying. With Webb, the "HRC or death" sickos can stay home, and we still win.
Now what can we do to put the stake in HRC's heart for 2012?
May 12, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I guess your entire voting deliberation was chromosomal. Put a stake in her heart? Women deserve to have the election decided without them?
Webb, who has written that liberals are destroying this country, who has written about the racial superiority of the Scots-Irish, who has said women are not qualified to serve in the military.
Well, you pick Webb and goodbye any chance whatsoever of beating McCain.
May 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically a non-substantive response, and one at least as "chromosomal" as you have accused me of being without any basis whatsoever-- and perhaps also a little "hormonal?"
Any Democrat (man or woman) who won't vote for Obama because he beat HRC deserves to have the election decided without them. You object. I therefore ask you, would it be OK to say that only of men? If so, why?
It is not because she is a woman that people hate HRC, it is because she is a phony, an opportunist, a liar, and has contempt for people and for the process. People hate Bush for the same reasons, and he is a man. How do you account for that?
And why don't you post some links that document what you say in your middle graf about Webb? I would be happy to engage you on those issues.
May 12, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, after having read your posting history, especially your busy efforts today to salvage HRC's prospects (not for the nomination that's irrevocably lost, but for something else, mebbe a sweetheart deal on her campaign debts?) I can only conclude that you suffer from overidentification with HRC, and that your critical faculties have been lost in your spasms of idolatry.
May 12, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just today Obama is touting Webb's plan for an enhanced set of VA benefits.
So is Obama a crypto-fascist, an idiot, or a sellout?
May 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I promise this is my last response, I would have stopped earlier, but it's so much fun . . . .
May 12, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not an Obama supporter and not terribly happy that he is now the nominee. BUT, I will vote for him and contribute to his campaign now. I think that Senator Webb would be an excellant VP. Since he is a Marine and has experience at Secty Navy level he can counter McCain's "war hero" status. Senator Webb is an excellant speaker and not someone prone to make mistakes or misquotes out on the campaign trail. The fact that he is a former Republican should bring those Repubs. who are not happy with their party and it's choices over on election day.
May 12, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary for Defense Secretary?
May 12, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
My top 3 picks:
1. Sebelius
2. Sebelius
3. Sebelius
Come on, this is a no brainer. Her public speaking skills are actually very good despite her less-than-stellar State of the Union response. She's no Obama, but a VP isn't supposed to be more charismatic than the President - we haven't had that happen since Teddy Roosevelt. Most "geographic" choices (like Strickland) can only deliver one state at best, but Sebelius would have a HUGE demographic impact that compliments Obama well - she'd draw more women, especially middle-aged women. She's also pro-choice and supports anti-discrimination legislation for sexual orientation. She'd be equally at home talking to progressives and moderates.
May 12, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sebelius
end of rant
May 12, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment