« Off The Grid # 2: An Anti-Obama Strategy | Main | Off The Grid # 4: McCain In The White House » Off The Grid # 3: Obama Veepstakes14 Feb 2008 09:06 am I'm off the grid for the rest of the week. Twice a day, I'm posing questions to which I do not know the answer. I will read through your submissions and post the best answers when I return. Thursday AM question: Who should Obama ask to join his ticket (assuming he gets a ticket) and why? Comments (208)
Jim Webb! a) he's the man. b) he projects newness and fits obama's overall message c) nat'l security gravitas d) he's from VA and would have the support of Tim Kaine, an early supporter of Obama e) he's the man 
Jim Webb.... or one of any number of governors who have endorsed him. My reasoning: To balance the ticket, he needs a Southerner (preferably), either with military or business experience. I think it's wise to put a male on the ticket, as well, because I think overall, this country will be weary of two many "firsts." Also, to maintain his change message, he needs someone from outside of the beltway (a governor?), or at least new to the Washington grind (Webb?).
i've also beend thinking Jim Webb. He's a polished speaker and very authentic. From the south. Military man, Nat'l security cred.
Russell is right - Bill Richardson. Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius would be right behind, in that order. Unlike Clinton and McCain, Obama needs to balance his ticket. He needs an experienced VP to counter the criticism of his own experience (which is, in my opinion, overblown). But, given his "change" campaign, he cannot pick the most experienced people from Washington - Biden, etc. If Richardson says no, some other two-term governor would ideal. Sebelius or Napolitano would be high on the list, but just short of Richardson. Mike Easley from North Carolina? I admit to knowing nothing about him, other than I believe he will be looking for a new job come 2009. Phil Bredesen from Tennessee?
Joe Biden or someone with in-depth foreign policy experience.
Colin Powell. Has the national security credibilty & experience, and is thought of highly by most rank & file members of the GOP. Not sure how his role in the last administration would affect the ticket though.
Excuse the off-topic question - but has anyone seriously considered the possibility that Obama might run as an independent? Some thoughts on that here:
Jim Webb - populist message of John Edwards with toughness and foregin policys creds. Webb adds a manliness to the Democratic ticket that has been missing over the last 2 Presidential cycles. And geo politically, if the Dems win in Virginia it is very difficult for the GOP to hold on the White House.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana - he's demographically "conventional" but a dem. governor of a traditionally red mountain west state. He's fluent in Arabic and a few other languages, if I recall - worked in Saudi Arabia for a few years. Is a HUGE proponent of green energy initiatives.
Obama needs to pick someone who reinforces his core general election message of change through hope and working together. Evan Bayh is actually a quite interesting option for him because Bayh is square enough to not overshadow him, but also provides a kind of cultural validation for moderate/conservative working and middle class whites still somewhat skeptical. Further, Jim Webb becomes a quite interesting option as a regional and biographical balancer. Claire McCaskill would be a solid option as well.
Claire McCaskill Three red state Democrats, any one of whom would help expand the map and put McCain on the defensive.
Joe Biden. He gives an Obama campaign serious and unquestioned foreign policy cred. His positions on Iraq are well thought out. He's likable. In another election with less dynamic and well-known candidates, most Democrats would be satisfied with Biden as their presidential candidate. We know he can play the attack dog role that VP candidates are required to play these days. And - sorry, but this has to be said - he's also a white male. I don't think in those terms, but unfortunately there are a lot of people who still do. I would wonder whether Obama plus a Hispanic or a female VP candidate be a case of too much diversity to swallow for some of the electorate. A white male might help to offset whatever Bradley Effect may exist out there, if it does exist.
Think it has to be a woman. Obama's been beating HRC by winning men and sometimes splitting women. But in order to beat McCain he's going to have to re-establish and exploit the Dem's normal gender gap and get back the women who he's alienated (somewhat) because they saw Hillary as the fulfillment of a long-held hope of a female president. By choosing a women as VP, he can re-instill that hope. While many would go with Sebelius, I think Claire McCaskill is the best choice. A relatively popular, fresh senator in a purple state.
There are a number of ways he could go. "National security picks" include Webb, Biden and Wes Clark. He could go the governor route: Ted Strickland, Sebelius, Tim Kaine or Richardson. He could also pick his national co-chair Tom Daschle. All but Strickland and Webb are Catholic. I think Obama is closest to Daschle and Kaine. So, that might be a factor in the end.
While I like Bill Richardson, and certainly would be happy to see him on the ticket, I'll echo SC Dem and say that after the kind of race we've seen he should probably name a woman. And to that I'd say it should be another new face (not a Pelosi or what have you) to further the "change" message. To me Gov. Sebelius is the obvious pick. But I'd be interested to hear if there are other women in federal office that we don't hear much about, but who could be appealing picks. People like Amy Klobuchar and Susan Davis look interesting to me on paper (the right issue stands and the right kinds of personal history). But I'm afraid I really don't know all that much about a lot of the women in the House and Senate. So I'd say Sebelius - very competent, quite appealing, and fits with the "change" theme.
1. Jim Webb As for the commenters above who mentioned Joe Biden and Colin Powell: not a chance. The only certain thing about Obama's pick is that he will not pick someone who voted for, or encouraged others to vote for, the Iraq war.
Firsts, it cannot be a Senator. Two Senators on the ticket is too much Washington, even if their Obama and McCaskill (who I like but disagree should be a candidate). I think it has to be a governor, or a more creative pick. My dark horse would be Al Gore, which I think would be hilarious and awesome at the same time. I mean, why not? My non-darkhorse would be Sebelius. If Obama is the nominee, she seems to be frontrunner for veep pick.
I hear Al Gore makes a good VP...
It's worth pointing out that Napolitano could put AZ in play, even against McCain. Any thoughts on their relative popularity there?
Napolitano. Can you imagine forcing McCain to contend for his home state? Shoring up the female vote, adding a gov to the ticket (for administrative cred), strengthening the appeal in the Southwest (AZ and NM!) -- and putting McCain on the defensive in his backyard. It's hard to beat that combo. Then pick Biden for Sec of State, Edwards for AG, and maybe Webb for Sec of Defense. And plug Richardson in as an ambassador again, if he wants it.
Sen. Bill Nelson. Helps with Florida and shores him up on national security/defense issues. Doesn't hurt at all that Nelson endorsed Hillary. Shows he isn't being petit about primary campaign.
Sen. Bill Nelson. Helps with Florida and shores him up on national security/defense issues. Doesn't hurt at all that Nelson endorsed Hillary. Shows he isn't being petit about primary campaign.
I was very excited about Webb until he voted for Telecom Immunity the other day. That makes me worry about him. So I think he's probably out at this point. I'm going to throw out a more unconventional choice: what about Chuck Hagel? Obama says he's making a play for a huge coalition and he's bee angling for his Obamacans in all of his recent stump speech. This, plus the Reagan analogy, suggests he's serious about bringing Independents and Republicans into his coalition. They are aligned on foreign policy (at least on the war), and he has distanced himself enough from the Republican Party for it to not seem like a betrayal. You want to make McCain nervous by expanding the field. Pick a moderate republican running mate who is strongly against the Iraq war. Hagel seems to fit that bill...
Hillary Clinton. Cmon. Smart. Diligent. Just not the visionary or the political talent to be the top dog. Comes with huge constituencies, relevant expertise, all that. Ready to be president if something happens. Foreign policy? We can all debate that Iraq vote, can't we? Obama is too young and unknown to pick an unknown with no foreign policy experience. So forget first-term Senators and small-state female governors. Napolitano didn't help Obama beat Hillary, let alone McCain, in Arizona. You'd spend all fall explaining away Jim Webb's various lapses into public nuttiness. Bill Richardson? Wen Ho Lee! So Hillary. Wes Clark. Colin Powell would be brilliant if he'd do it, but he won't. Or Chris Dodd -- smart, speaks Spanish, handsome, been on Foreign Relations Comm. forever. Biden might do. But Hillary's a goos step above the others, except maybe Clark.
Joe Biden. His maverick/straight-talker approach will complement Obama well. His experience and foreign policy expertise could compensate for some of Obama's weaknesses. Both of these could go some way toward canceling out McCain's strengths. But it's not good enough for Biden to be strong; he needs to be better than the alternatives. Why is he better than Webb or Richardson? Webb -- He just got to the Senate in 2007. My understanding is that his seat was really crucial in creating the Democrats' thin Senate majority. He may be just too important to keep in the Senate for him to run for VP. (Aside from that, he seems great.) Richardson -- I assume the people saying he's so clearly the best choice are basing this on his resume and didn't watch the debates. He's great on paper but abysmal in person. He said his favorite Supreme Court justice was someone who voted against Roe v. Wade. He said homosexuality is a choice. He was unconvincing in responding to criticisms of his tenure in the Clinton administration. He bumbles constantly, he's just not enjoyable to listen to, and face it -- he's physically unattractive. Yes, that's shallow, but it matters. He could really weigh down Obama.
Tim Kaine all the way. Like Obama, Kaine has a crossover appeal to Republicans. He also knows how to win in what has historically been a red state. He would help deliver the important commonwealth of Virgina, and (this is a biggie) he speaks Spanish. He would in all likelihood draw Latino voters a serious way. Obama and Kaine together could pick up a few red states in addition to the locked up blue states. Richardson is out. He had all that time on the national stage in those debates and failed to impress. He may be capable, but his presentation is way too weak for the national scale.
1. Jim Webb
Jim Webb. Wesley Clark is a weasel.
The ideal choice would be a charismatic woman who would be perceived as a credible commander-in-chief if something happened to Obama in office and who reinforces Obama's message of change, coming together to solve problems, and opposition to the war in Iraq. I'm not sure there is such a person, however, so the next best choice would be John Edwards. I'd rather not take away a red state Senator or Governor for the largely ceremonial position of veep and picking a longtime Washington insider like Biden would undercut Obama's claim to represent change. If the delegate count ends up a lot closer than appears likely now, Hillary would make a good choice. Otherwise her and Bill's baggage would just drag down the ticket.
1. Tom Daschle
Joe Biden or Jim Webb
Either Webb or Sebelius
I would like to see Jim Webb and not just for electoral reasons. Webb would be a valuable liason to the military which may be skeptical of Obama at first. I also think he could educate Obama on how the military works. They could be a very effective team and have the added bonus of making it more difficult for McCain to attack Obama on national security grounds. Also has a Reagan connection so the so-called Reagan democrats could have another reason to come back into the fold.
Sam Nunn. If called upon to be president he would be ready on day one. He would also be a perfect choice for Defense Sec. Very difficult for mc cain to pick someone as his vp with the same kind of gravitas, as Nunn.
Jim Webb. Not even close. An outsider. Impeccable military credentials. Former Republican. Appeals to white working-class voters. Passionately opposed to Bush-McCain foreign policy. Tough as nails and willing to mix it up with neocons.
Kathleen Sebelius. Hillary Clinton routinely pushes the narrow view -- with which, I'm sure, John McCain would agree -- that the "highest priority" of the President is to "protect and defend the country." In fact, the oath of office binds the President to a larger purpose -- to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. We are not electing glorified co-Secretaries of Defense. We are electing the President and Vice-President of the United States. I'm sure that Jim Webb is on Obama's shortlist. And it might well turn out that Webb is the best choice. But to automatically choose as VP a "military man" would be shortsighted and would set an unhealthy precedent for Democrats. It would be to let Republicans, in general, and John McCain, in particular, drive what must be, from beginning to end, a Democratic choice. And it would be to succumb to the very politics of fear to which Obama's entire candidacy and being stands so mightily opposed. Democrats must own the VP decision, which, once the threshold qualifications are met, is about three things: the short-term goal of growing the general election vote; the mid-term goal of grooming the presumptive Democratic nominee for 2016; and the long-term goal of growing the Party (in numbers and in maturity). All of this can, with respect to Sebelius, be translated as: "Don't underestimate the hunger of a very large percentage of Democratic and independent women for a woman in the White House." Indeed, the electoral benefits of putting a woman on the ticket would far outweigh the more conventional consideration of "geographical balance." (Disclosure: I am a man.) Moreover, the far better and more effective way for Obama to signal foreign policy and national security strength is via his choices for State, Defense, NSA, and Homeland Security -- the people who actually will be responsible for these areas. Should Obama pick someone like Sebelius for VP, he could -- and should -- announce these foreign policy and national security choices shortly in advance of his VP announcement.
1. Jim Webb
Not to throw too much cold water on anyone's favorites here, but something that should be pointed out in this thread is that in the elections literature in poli sci (of which there's thousands upon thousands of pages built off masses of data) there's little to no evidence of people voting for a ticket b/c of who the vice presidential nominee is. It might matter marginally in that person's home state, but the idea that if you name X Obama suddenly might win X's state - well, that's far from clear. And it's even less likely to matter anywhere else. A pick that reinforces the president, and creates more positive press on the national campaign's core themes/symbols (like Clinton picking Gore) is more likely to be beneficial to the campaign. And for the people listing Daschle, Obama and Daschle are extremely close, Daschle is a great human being, and I actually think Obama would like to pick him - but can he pick someone who voted for the war? I doubt it.
If he really wants to balance out the ticket: Sam Nunn
Sam Nunn. From Wikipedia: "During his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Senator Nunn served as chairman of the powerful U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He also served on the Intelligence and Small Business Committees. His legislative achievements include the landmark Department of Defense Reorganization Act, drafted with the late Senator Barry Goldwater, and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program,[3] which provides assistance to Russia and the former Soviet republics for securing and destroying their excess nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. To date, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program has deactivated more than 5,900 nuclear warheads. He was supposedly a top choice to be Secretary of Defense or State in 1992 and 1996 and in a prospective Gore cabinet in 2000."
I also think he's likely to feel the need to pick a foreign-policy/military VP like Jim Webb (who's also from a swing state). However, I think horizonr has a great idea to eliminate this necessity. He could announce not just his VP, but his Sec. State and Sec. Defense all before the convention. If he presented, say, Gen. Clark as Sec. Defense and Biden or Hagel as Sec. State, he might be able to name a Governor like Sebelius, Napolitano, Kaine, or Schweitzer as VP. And running as a 'slate' instead of just a ticket could really negate McCain's only significant electoral advantage, his experience.
Sebelius all the way. Force them to fight for the midwestand and south. She also helps him in Ohio (father was a popular gov of the state)
Why has no one mentioned Russ Feingold- the only man in the Senate who voted against USA-PATRIOT the first time around?
I guess Mark Warner really didn't want to be Vice President, because he would have had it locked down.
Anybody who picks me as their VP is an idiot.
Bill I guess a cabinet position is not enough...
You know, here's a little something of the hair of the dog that bit me, but...well, why not. This election could prove divisive. And in some ways should--after all, only if you get differing perspectives out in the open and actually argue about them (respectfully argue, that is) can they not fester. Elections should not be lovefests, but then neither should they be what they have become--where ya gotta do what ya gotta do. The 'politics of personal destruction' (O, irony, where is thy sting! Upcoming Political Death be not proud.) With Senator McCain verus Senator Obama, we are going to have a fairly classy election from the two principles. The MSM, not so much--if someone on the GOP so as much sneezes in Obama's direction, based upon past performance, well, while what those commericals say about past trends not being predictors of future performance is 'technnically' true.... And of course tempers will be high on each side no matter what. You know, there are a lot of issues I don't care that much about. It's not that they might not be important in and of themselves. But I concern myself most with liberty and how the government should work, and what the relationship of government to citizen, and citizen to government, should be. First Principles. I think we have lost track of those, and in the ever increasing desire to 'win', we put out a lot of legislation that does violence to the principles of popular sovereignity and liberty. And regardless of how one feels about the war, there can be no doubt that political games have been played with it. This kind of thing must end, or else the Republic will end. What does Senator Obama need in a Vice Presidential pick? Maybe he needs someone who is less concerned with Democratic victory than American victory. Maybe he needs someone who is not so much concerned with his own career as the fate of the rest of the country, and can thus serve as an honest broker. So, that wild hair? Maybe, for just once, the two candidates should go find the same guy they can both trust--and not just them. Someone conservatives can trust, someone moderates can trust, and someone some 'progressives'/liberals/whatever Dems know call themselves can trust (btw, Dems, if you stopped giving your names bad vibes you wouldn't have to keep finding old new ones/new old ones) Just as Henry VII united the Houses of York and Lancaster to end the War of the Roses, and perhaps the Era of Moderately Okay Feelings could then begin. And if he would be worried about such a thing...well, I always thought Thomas Jefferson had his views of Vice Presidential duties just about right. The 'honest' opposition, off tinkering at Monticello...
Kathleen Sebelius
In an ideal world? Obama and McCain agree that whoever loses the General becomes Vice President. Back in Reality-land, if Obama wins, Joe Biden would probably be the best pick. He's got the foreign policy credentials, he's well-respected. He does have connections to Hillary. While this is somewhat counter to the "Change" message, it would also give the Clinton voters a reason not to be totally bitter about the defeat. While Webb is indeed the man, he's a little bit too much of a loose cannon for the VP pick.
Seriously folks: Look at your lists. Go through and cross anyone off that voted for or supported this Iraq disaster. Obama WILL NOT PICK THEM. It would ruin his entire argument against McCain. So cross off Joe Biden. Cross off Colin Powell. Cross off Bill Nelson. Cross off Sam Nunn (he's an idiot anyway). Cross off Tom Daschle (he'll be in the cabinet though).
More Axe than who do you think??
Let me go ahead and own my own bias. I have been a big fan of Joe Biden for several years. But... if Obama runs as the Democratic nominee, what will the republicans come at him with? He's too liberal, he has little-to-no foreign policy cred and he has little experience in Washington. This is where he will need someone to run with him that can speak to all of those, and assure the American people that Obama can lead in these areas. Who fits that bill better than Senator Biden? Also, keep in mind that VP is not just about winning the election. We need someone who could assume the presidency if President Obama were to die or have to resign. Joe Biden, people.
Hillary Clinton Obama's whole rationale for being involved in Presidential politics is political unity. To demonstrate his ability to unite the country, he should first unite the Democratic Party, and nothing would show that more than selecting his current rival as his running mate. However, I doubt this will happen, and even if he were to make the offer, I don't see her taking it (I'd imagine she'd want to be Senate Majority Leader or something). With that, he should select someone who is a Clintonite through and through. Maybe it's because I'm an Ohioan, but I think Ted Strickland would make a wonderful running mate.
Bill RichardsonDo any of you who want Big Bill on the ticket live in NM? If you do then I would love to read your rationale for having him on the ticket. I can only think of reason for him to NOT be on the ticket. He has not unified the Democratic Party here in his own state. If anything he has made plenty of enemies since the announcement of his Quixotic run for Prez. I, for one, have really lost a lot of respect for him. The Big Bill who ran for governor in 2002 has disappeared in a cloud of political dust. Obama can do better. Janet Napolitano, would be an excellent choice. I've met her twice and was at her pre-Super Tuesday campaign appearance for Obama. She's very impressive and has a solid grasp of the issues facing American's out here in the West and Southwest.
Bill Bradley. He is experienced without being too old. His campaign in 2000 should have worked out any skeletons in his closet. His message of change and reform in 2000 is not much different from Obama's.
NOT Jim Webb. We worked too hard to get him in the Senate, and a President Obama would need every Democratic Senator he could get. If he picks a sitting Senator for VP, it would need to be one in a safe blue state. Virginia ain't that yet.
As an alternative to my previous, we could continue on with what I said about Jefferson, and do what the Founders did: McCain/Obama '08 Obama/McCain '08 The principle then gets elected based upon the issues, and, shall we say, some other 'penumbras'. I will flat out say I'm not happy about the penumbra--a man should be voted upon who he is, not what he is. However, in the case the above idea went forward, my compliments to the Secret Service and good luck boys, because there would be a built-in incentive to have the Presidency 'switch' parties via unfortunate demise. Maybe not a good idea after all, and personally, I might be happier being the second guy... But nevertheless, there is a certain logic, and a reason why the Founders first had the second place vote getter as the Veep (though not the reason at play here. It was more geographic provincialism rather than partisan provincialism.) And there was a reason the Founder's got rid of the system too. Aaron Burr, a lonely nation calls out for you...
>> Napolitano couldn't bring Obama very close in AZ in the primary. How could she have enough clout to tilt AZ away from McCain? My choice is Webb, though with reservations. He's all the things those above describe, but I'm not entirely convinced he'd be the team player a VP needs to be. He is, however, the only senator who could counter charges that the ticket, made u of two sentors, isn't too washington. My other choice would Edwards, though it seems fairly clear he won't take it. I like Kaine and Sebelius a lot, but Obama needs to counter the charges coming against his lack of foreign policy and military experience. I like Biden a great deal, think he'd be a near perfect choice, but I don't think he'd accept the demotion. Hagel and Dodd are interesting, appealing choices, but would Dodd accept? Would Hagel? Would the Dem conventioniers accept Hagel? Richardson is a good choice on paper, but I cringed all through his debate answers. Which leaves me with Webb.
This idea of Hillary Clinton as VP intrigues me..ironically enough for the reason that I'm viscerally against her running in the first place. With Hillary comes an attack dog - someone who has handled the inevitable swift boating (though admittedly it's less likely to come from McCain). With Hillary comes "experience" - even if that "experience" was as First Lady. But with this "experience" comes her most valuable attribute - a direct channel to Bill Clinton, former President of the United States, who would be able to give invaluable advice to a new President. But of course should Obama be forced out of office, the Andrew Sullivans of this world would have a fit, claiming it was all a part of the Clinton's slimy restoration plan all along. Not saying I'd be ok with Hillary as a VP, just saying it'd be interesting.
Homer Newton comes to mind.
Ann: I think someone like Webb, Schweitzer, or McCaskill. Alex F.: I imagine Tim Kaine would then be able to appoint a strong Democrat to Webb's seat who would be able to hold onto it for the Democrats.
My only reservation about a pick like Webb is do you think it might just reinforce the media narrative that Obama is inexperienced with foreign policy? As in, he picked Webb to cover up his weakness? However picking someone from a purple battleground state is, I think, a must. Sebelius or Napolitano would be great, but it might be too many firsts. I think Richardson might actually be a good choice.
Antony Zinni... Retired several-stars general, ex-marines, served under both Bush and Clinton, special Middle-East envoy, incredible Vietnam record, right age to balance the ticket (about 62) and he is from PA! If you go to WAMU.org and seach for Zinni in the archives of the Diane Rehm show, you'll be able to listen to an hour of the most fasinating speaker. One of the few times in my life I remember exactly where I was driving when I was listening to what he had to say....
Mark Warner is the name that comes to mind. This would be in keeping with the whole "use the VP to reinforce your advantages rather than just pick up a state" meme that people think is the way to go (although such a move would, of course, help Obama take Virginia). And for this election (for the Dems at least), that probably is the way to go. I'm tempted to join the others and say somebody like Sam Nunn. But I think that would risk a bad contrast against Obama's youth, and relative inexperience in foreign affairs. A better tactic might be to see if you can get a heavy weight (Nunn? Wes Clark?) to accept the Secretary of State position in advance, and ask him to campaign actively for you (and maybe appoint one or two other people as well, to flesh out your national security team). A little bit of British style, shadow cabinetry, in other words. Unorthodox in the American political tradition, to be sure, by why be afraid to try new things? It certainly wouldn't be a bad thing to give voters a concrete idea of what your cabinet is going to look like.
I still wish Jennifer Granholm had been born in the U.S. (agree with Ladderman that picking a Clinton endorser would show he's a big person, but I think Bill Nelson's charisma-deprived). I'm also sort of persuaded by whoever said he has to pick someone who opposed the war from the start? What about Feingold, to play up his appeal to independent voters? Or a Clinton-Gore type doubling down on rising star (coupled with a Latino without Richardson's personal problems) by picking Xavier Becerra?
Why would Joe Biden want to be VP?
He shouldn't pick a sitting democratic senator because he needs at least 60 votes in that chamber to move legislation through. I would go bipartisan: 1. Lincoln Chaffee or If not: 3. Bill Richardson He needs someone with gravitas on foreign policy.
Look at this morning's OH polls - this question is highly premature. Still, if Obama survives to the nomination: 1. Kathleen Sebelius Obama can go for "experienced Washington hand," "military experience," or "outsider - executive experience." I think the "experienced Washington hand" like Biden or Dodd countervenes his message. This is a contrast we want against a 72-year-old. "Military /FP experience" is not going to be a killer, not in 2008, not against Mr. 100 Years in Iraq. Webb is fresh blood but I'm worried about his temper. Then you're onto "outsider." McCaskill would cost us a senate seat and we want some executive experience since Obama has none other than this campaign. Richardson is kind of a blowhard who desperately wants the position and doesn't seem all that popular in NM. Sebelius and Napolitano, though, are both renowned managers. Sebelius has more charisma than Napolitano. Sebelius would probably help with MO while Napolitano would help with NM. (CA=D, AZ=R, TX=R).
Why do so many of you perceive Obama as needing a boost on foreign policy? This is not a weakness in his campaign -- in fact, he's been able to play up his international background as a strength in foreign relations, etc. Obama doesn't need a foreign policy buff as VP. He needs someone who will bring in the right voters in the general election. A woman perhaps. A Southerner perhaps. A Midwesterner perhaps. A moderate perhaps. Napolitano is a great choice. Also Sebelius. Strickland maybe? Maybe Richardson, but I doubt it. It won't be Gore. It won't be Edwards. It won't be Biden. It certainly will not be Hillary. It just won't.
Bill Richardson will make an excellent choice -- a decent man with proven track record. Goes with the theme, "engagement with the rest of the world", of President Obama. He also brings in the potential hispanic support that Obama needs in November.
Bloomberg Sebelius
Richardson is a loose cannon; Edwards would be the best running mate. He's not perfect, but it would be a white, male face to add to a historic black candidacy. Lots of folks in this country need that reassurance, unfortunately. http://www.political-buzz.com/
Webb. Like the way it sounds too -- Obama/Webb. Say it out loud three times fast. Catchy.
Here are a couple former senators no one has mentioned: Max Cleland Bob Graham
If the decision is to balance the ticket for national security credibility: Jim Webb If the decision is to balance the ticket for swing state viability: Tim Kaine If the decision is to play "all economy all the time": Warren Buffett
People need to remember that Wes Clark and Bob Graham were dismal failures on the campaign trail in 2000. Zero charisma.
GEORGE MITCHELL
I agree - Sen. Graham from FL should be involved. I am surprised he's been so quiet, after all his efforts to give the senators access to the classified 95-page NIE before the war vote. FYI, Sen. Clinton did not read it - even though she knew none of her staffers had access to this document. I bet she did read the polls that day. Why is the no one mentioning this?
Because Senator Graham from Florida is a little bit more than a weirdo. He kept daily diaries while a Senator and all the entries are a tad odd.
Biden is the obvious choice, to me. The main other possibility is that he looks for someone who helps the electoral math -- i.e. a southerner. But the bench of southern democrats whose profiles would complement Obama's is painfully thin. I don't think Jim Webb is the answer. Mike Easley or Phil Bredesen perhaps? Don't know too much about them, but Obama/Easley has a nice ring to it. Lots of vowels, and it sounds like "Obama, easily"!
N'thing Jim Webb.
William Cohen sounds pretty good too. Axe.. I agree
Kathleen Sebelius is the BEST choice! 1. Obama should not pick anyone who has ties to the Iraq war. His judgment is his best road to the presidency and he will need the ability to attack this issue at will without tarnishing anyone on the ticket. This eliminates Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, and for all the dreamers, Powell. 2. Obama needs to bring executive experience to the ticket. This should eliminate senators or former senators such as Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, and Tom Dashell. 3. Obama's entire campaign has followed a consistent narrative. Even to the point that Obama seemed to slow down when he may peak too early. The Governor of Kansas fits perfectly into that narrative. It is the heartland, the home state of his mother, and of course a RED state. Obama can still make a strong pitch for Virginia with Webb as secretary of state. Webb’s past military experience would add integrity to Obama's plan to get out of Iraq. Without any substantial unknowns I don’t see how the republicans can stop this ticket. It will prevent them from chipping away any disgruntle women with Condi Rice and almost guarantee 16years of democratic control pending a successful administration.
To add to my Kathleen Sebelius prediction: 1. Janet Napolitano couldn't bring Obama her own state in the primary, I wouldn't bet on her to preform against the Arizona senator in the general election. 2. Bill Richardson, judging from his debate performances is too unpredictable and any Hispanic vote that he brings will be countered by the unifying anti immigration vote that is beginning to flare up on the right. 3. Tim Kaine would be a good choice, he delivered his state, however he doesn't bring anything to the ticket that Kathleen doesn't. This may become a liability especially if McCain runs a women VP like Condi, Obama would be picking a man over an equally qualified women.
Tough call. I like Schweitzer a lot, but he's up for re-election this year and probably will want to stick with that. Similarly, Mark Warner should stay in the Senate race in Virginia. Webb could be good. Wish I knew more about Easley. I like Sebelius, but she was deadly boring during her State of the Union response and two firsts could be too many. I think the choice can't be a longstanding Washington insider, so no Biden, Daschle, et al. Just glanced at Easley's Wikipedia page, and he seems pretty OK. A red-state governor wouldn't be a bad balance.
Jim Webb is perfect on paper, but the sad truth is...he's an absolute nutter. And anyone who's ever worked in his orbit can tell you this. Richardson -- again, perfect resume. But an absolute boob...and has women issues. Zinni would be terrific. Powell would be a dream -- but maybe. Nunn is so yesterday and would compromise Obama's brand. It's a pretty bare cupboard.
An old white man.
Good ones above. Just to add: Jon Tester You want someone used to convincing Republicans and Independents to vote for them. Someone who will not only harmonize with Obama's message but add to it.
I dont have a name but i dont like some of the names that have been thrown around. Jim Webb is not a good choice. Ezra Klein wrote about why. Webb for not-VP. I think he's right. Bill Richardson is also not a good choice. Not to mention the un-originality of it, he just comes across as frumpy and a bit disorganized. but he does have jedi-mind trick abilities and would probably be good at State or as UN Ambassador or something. I like the idea of picking a red state Democrat. I think that would underscore Obama's unity message, and put more red states in play that might otherwise not be. In any other year i would have said Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, but he's a clinton hack now. So he's probably out. Sebelius, maybe. I'm not too familiar with her work to say definitively.
This cannot be a senator because Obama needs a majority in the senate (or keep the status quo because Obama would be the Uber Senator, because unlike with Bush, democrats would not need a veto proof majority to stop torture, end the war in Iraq, etc.) also too much Washington insider. He needs a strong VP partnership = military/security guy (I like Jim Webb, but he needs to stay in VA) I like Richard Clarke - the head of the al Queda unit in the National Security Council to prove that Obama isn't 'against all wars, just dumb ones' and refocus the U.S. against islamic terrorism. Can't beat that. The guy has been screaming about al queda for 10 years! Is McCain gonna smear Obama (musilim) if he has the best anti-terrorism fighter on his ticket?
Try to get Gen. Petraus, if he's a democrat. Most military officers register as independents so it may be possible. If not, then Gen. Clark or Gov. Kaine. He really needs someone with National Security gravitas or he'll get skewered by McCain.
Zinni - experienced, appointed by W as well as the Clintons, from PA, and great speaker - more stars and charm than McCain, too!
is it me or is obama more in need of domestic policy gravitas than foreign policy gravitas? his positions on iraq and diplomacy are clear and believable. smokin joe biden or jim webb aren't going to make them any more clear. it's his economic platform that is less inspired, less confident. this is what he needs help with. to that end, Bloomberg would be a pretty good pick, although there's no geographic advantage. Tom Kaine would be good. when's the last time a governor ran for VP? 19never?
Just to expand, the case for Sebelius: KS is 50%R, 27%D If you want an two-term, red-state governor with a reputation for excellence and managerial skill (and don't want to spend the next 2 decades debating whether Hillary lost because she's a woman), this is the pick.
Just to expand, the case for Sebelius: KS is 50%R, 27%D If you want an two-term, red-state governor with a reputation for excellence and managerial skill (and don't want to spend the next 2 decades debating whether Hillary lost because she's a woman), this is the pick. I also think she'd be a *much* stronger pick for 2016 than any of the other candidates I've seen listed so far.
As much as I love Jim Webb and Jon Tester, it's impossible- two first term senators on a ticket? They would get blasted for lack of experience, weather deserved or not. Zinni is an interesting choice, but he's against a pullout in Iraq. At least, that's what the last thing I could find from him (in Nov 06) said. I think the best choice is Phil Bredesen. Old, respectable, able to win in the south/red state areas, and could be able to use his recent handling of the tornadoes (an issue which still hits close to home) in order to show his calm under fire. Also he was involved with a healthcare management organization before becoming governor, and took control of TennCare (Tennessee's version of medicare) as governor, so he could show some expertise on that issue.
Assuming McCain picks Kay Bailey Hutchison, I think someone like Sebelius would make sense.
Heather, I completely agree with you. An old white man would be perfect. I believe America is ready for Senator Obama, and if he picks a person who looks like they are going to "help" him make the VERY hard decisions, they will be more agreeable to vote for him. I put General Anthony Zinni, he has alot of what Senator Obama needs to win the General Election and he is nice looking too.
Why would anyone suggest Edwards? The last thing Obama needs in the general election is to look like he's tacking left. (Almost as foolish as saying McCain ought to take Huckabee or someone from the far right.) Obama's best move would be to find a Governor who is either a) able to bring in a state (or two) which otherwise would not be in play, or b) can help blunt the appeal of McCain with the Hispanic community. Better yet, both.
David G, General Zinni He has been a public critic of the Bush administration and did not support the decision to go to war in Iraq.
DP, Former Majority Leader George Mitchell was at the top of my list until he made the entire Major Baseball League mad. If Senator Obama picks him, he will lose all the States that have ML teams. :)
John Edwards. Edwards shaped the issues of this campaign and many of Obama's plans began as proposals of John Edwards. To make the democratic platform a reality will take hard work and a willingness to fight the status quo in Washington. John Edwards would make a strong partner for Obama, and can help push these issues through. I hope the position will be offered, and I hope he will be willing to accept.
Webb is my choice, but he hasn't endorsed Obama, has he? Also, Easley is a good governor for NC, but I don't see him as a VP. Nice guy, but he doesn't add military or foreign policy cred. And to the poster who didn't understand why Obama needs to shore up his mil/foreign policy cred, note that his international background doesn't help him in that department. We're talking about trying to convince swing voters that the ticket will be strong/effective in the war in terror. Obama may be able to change perceptions of the US, but in the meantime, he needs a credible "bad cop" foil who seems like he's ready to kick some ass. Enter Jim Webb, who has written a book about his ethnicity's proclivity to violence (and who could out-Scotch-Irish even that hothead McCain).
Mark Penn.
Whoever said Richard Clarke is a genius! Wow. Zinni would be good too.
Janet Napolitano, how about having Arizona in play when John McCain is running?
Claire McCaskill?! Seriously, the women who voted for telecom immunity, the woman who win as a Democrat by basically not being a Democrat. Electability means nothing if you elect nothing! Biden is clearly a better choice, a voice of reason and stability if foreign policy and beyond. It's time to stop worshipping the Red State Dems, getting elected means so very little if they do little. Jon Tester is a good example of a red stater who does it right. Jim Webb is okay, but is more useful actually fighting in the Senate (and doesn't have as much upside as Biden). For more on red state dems: http://airingofthegrievances.blogspot.com/2008/02/fear-telecoms-hate-red-state-dems-jm.html
JOHN EDWARDS John Edwards has the fight we need to take back our party and our country. Edwards has also polled time and time again as beating McCain in the general election. Edwards would be a big boost to an Obama ticket.
No freaking way to Bill Richardson. Likeable public servant, yes. But a horrible candidate nationally. Frankly, he seems like he can't be straight with you when he is asked a question. His showing on Meet the Press was so bad he should have quit right there. Sorry, no go with Mr. Bill. Sebelius? Is everyone freaking kidding on this? I mean, I know nothing about her, but watched her horrible performance giving the Dem rebuttal to the State of the Union, and that pathetic sleep-inducing good-excuse-for-a-cocaine-habit performance should be a big warning flag on her. Jim Webb seems like the smartest idea. Running two Senators together is not wise, but with Obama, he needs someone with foreign policy/military experience to counter John McCain, and Webb is the perfect counter-weight to John.
Evan Bayh (D-Ind)
Sam Nunn will be an excellent running mate for Obama. Hillary has too big an ego, but it will ensure democratic victory in November if she joins the ticket. Many Hillary supporters will not vote in November if she is not the nominee. The sad part is Obama supporter will do the same. McCain's victory will be inevitable unless it is a Hillary-Obama or Obama-Hillary ticket.
There is a process of elimination here. It cannot be a senator - The margins in the Senate are too close and two senators on the ticket doesn't help the "change" message. It cannot be a woman or minority - sorry to say, one "first" at a time is probably all you can do in a general. He's got to go white male. He cannot think about what states the VP will carry - there's no real evidence your VP pick will carry a state or region (as commenter Scott points out). Instead, you've got to go with a pick that reinforces the message you want to send, which to me seems to be "Change in Washington, but not the crazy progressive liberal change, but an end to bipartisanship with calm, cool, and experienced leaders (Obama and his VP)". It has to be someone Obama gets along with well, and can campaign effectively. These are a little harder to predict. It would help if it were someone who could blunt the "Obama as other" memes (Obama is a Muslim; Obama goes to a crazy church; Obama won't say the pledge of allegiance) that are out there. I don't think anyone who believes these emails would ever vote for him anyway, but these things have a way of floating around in the ether that sway more reasonable people in subtle ways. My Republican parents like, and might vote for Obama, but if my Mom hears too many conversations about Obama's "wacky church" at bible study she will just go with what she always does, and vote Republican. So, someone that not afraid to Christian it up, or really pour on the patriotism, but in a way that is genuine and effective, could help in some intangible ways. So...who's a white, male, pretty religiousy/soft-core jingoist, experienced governor (or ex-governor)? The list is getting pretty short by now. Help anyone?
Gary Hart. He's got a TON of foreign policy gravitas and he's a good campaigner and debater.
Sebelius gets my vote, such as it is. She will be out of a job anyway in a couple of years, so it is not costing a seat. She has executive experience, and not just that, but she has experience working with a very conservative legislature in accomplishing a fairly progressive agenda. I think she fits in well with the image of government that Obama attempts to project.
musa, You are one very smart, intelligent and thoughful person. You need to send your resume' to Senator Obama campaign. With you on the staff this Primary and General will be over in a matter of months. Your suggestions were perfect.
Either Joe biden or Sam Nunn---no one else should even be considered if either one is willing. Both have unquestionable foreign policy experience, are older, white, and respected. Webb is a loose cannon-married three times and new and unknown. Richardson is all image and a total, complete fool. (Pro guns, womanizer, very weak debater). The others don't matter. Sam or Joe with Barack would be unbeatable in the general.(Sam first choice and Joe second)
Joe Lieberman.
Neil Abercrombie! It would solidify the Hawai'i vote. Hey, just kidding, Neil, you are too cool to be VP. Okay, seriously, Rosa DeLauro of New Haven. But then again, also too cool and smart to be VP. Bobby Rush. A great guy, a great talent, a decent honorable man. Just too decent to be VP. Hmmm, can you see where I am going with this? A member of the US House of Representatives. Okay, probably not any of my really excellent (and they are excellent and inspired, if I don't say so myself) choices but some competent white guy who appears ready for prime time from the South or the non-coastal West. While it's true that in the past VP candidates haven't had much impact, I think it would be fair to say that in this election, people will (unfortunately) consider succession. ps. Happy Valentine's Day to all you wonks who are spending today reading political blogs instead of looking meaningfully into the eyes of another voter.
I'm with John Cohen on the Bill Richardson comment. I was gung ho for him as Obama's VP as early as last April. But, when he came off as frumpy at best in EVERY debate, it disappointed me. Make him Sec of State for sure though. I've been touting Biden since I realized Richardson won't due but I do worry a little about the Two Senators issue. I don't know that would outweigh his GREAT foriegn policy credentials. I hadn't thought about Tom Daschle but I think he should be Top 3-4 choice. I would love to see Tim Kaine but then how do we defend foriegn policy attacks? Webb carries the same "only one term as senator" drawback and we (here in VA) need him in there with Mark Warner next year!
For shits and giggles, he should pick Corey Booker. Go for it, Obama. Double down. If not Booker, then Bobby Rush.
It's gotta be a governor or mayor -- two senators with thousands votes that can be attacked and/or misconstrued is too much. Obviously, there has to be some chemistry and a good working relationship. Also, can't have been for Iraq war. My order of preference 1. Warner My "holy crap!" picks would be Richard Clarke and Michael Blooomberg. Webb is crazy... P.S. No one but lefties care about the telecom immunity issue -- maybe 1 out of 100 voters will know or even care if they knew. It's all about "Who'll keep me from getting blown up and foreclosed on."
Someone mentioned him earlier but I'd like to second Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana. Hope this doesn't jinx Obama though...still a long way to go before the nomination.
Al Gore. If Gore declines. Dodd. Dodd shoots straight. So does Barack.
Voters don't pick a president on who the veep is, but do look at it as the type of people he will pick for his cabinet. Obama has LOADS of charisma already so he doesn't need anyone that is a star. He needs a seasoned pro. Bob Graham is the perfect choice. If Gore had picked him he would have carried Florida overwhelmingly. Graham has been right about all foreign policy decisions leading up to/after 9/11. He fits perfectly with Obama's vision.
Bob Graham would be great.
1. General Wesley Clark
I think he's got to go with someone who resonates with his change theme. Old white male Senators are not going to do it. John Edwards has already been there/done that, and I doubt anybody is going to be excited about replaying it. Bill Richardson may have many nice qualities, but boy, did he look like a clown in the debates, and since then his whole "should I/shouldn't I" endorse schtick and the news about his various negotiations with the Clintons have just been embarrassing for everybody. And Obama'll never pick Clinton; you don't put somebody with negatives like that on the ticket. Sebellius seems like a good pick. A choice that I haven't seen anyone mention, but which seems intriguing, is Charlie Crist. Moderate Republican with very high favorability among Dems, as I understand it; governor of a swing state. Seems like it would be a great choice...though Crist would probably much prefer to be McCain's running mate, alas.
My suggestions? 1. Warner Though Rendell is a Jew, the pick should generally avoid affirmative action bingo (shes a woman! and lesbian! and handicapped! Has a great sob story! And is part ethnic minority! And inexperienced and unfit to lead, but that is minor compared to all the AA bonus points!!) The VP picks Obama makes should go with a solid, experienced person. Who is physically vigorous and should add gravitas to foreign or domestic policy or a combo of them. And not be beholden to Team Clinton and their efforts to turn Obama into a figurehead for their Team with Clintonista power struggles bedeviling Barack. Too old - Sam Nunn, Cohen, Bob Graham, Dodd,etc. My favorite is Evan Bayh. Experienced, reasonably young. Ready for the job. Zinni would be a great pick, too...
If Obama were really SERIOUS about "changing Washington" he'd give Edwards the AG nod. After all - if Obama had REALLY wanted to "change Washington" he'd have stopped taking bribe money from K Street lobbyists when he CAME to Washington. K Street lobbyists endorsing Obama - http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html
So...who's a white, male, pretty religiousy/soft-core jingoist, experienced governor (or ex-governor)? The list is getting pretty short by now. Help anyone? Mark Warner. Did he take himself out of the running or something? I see hardly anybody mentioning him. I don't know how religious he is, but he ran a southern state, so he can't be all that much of an atheistic communist bastard. I think Warner reinforces Obama's appeal perfectly where appropriate, and provides balance, too, where appropriate: Balance: Reinforces: In general, Warner would be a major asset in attacking the GOP where they'll likely be most vulnerable, the economy. And he also brings with him the HUGE possibility of taking the electoral votes of what is a fairly purple state these days, and that would be eminently winnable with him on the ticket. The one thing he doesn't bring to the table is vast foreign policy or defense experience, but I think making the overly obvious "Wes Clark/Sam Nunn" type of running mate decision risks looking a tad hamhanded, and will frankly emphasize (unwisely) Obama's lack of foreign policy experience vis a vis McCain. Obama/Warner would be similar in appeal vs. McCain as Clinton/Gore were against the ultra-experienced George H.W. Bush in 2002. And, Obama can always put together a foreign policy/defense team to work for him on the campaign trail, and to give voters some idea of the pool of Highly Qualified Experienced Adults he'd have to draw from for major cabinet appointments. Also, one benefit for from a Warner appointment is that he's a former governor, so there will be no current political controversies likely to rear their ugly heads, not much of a lengthy voting record to defend (unlike with a senator), and no worries about succession or special elections. I see only two drawbacks: A) He's not a woman (but is Obama realistically going to ask a female to run with him? I kinda doubt it. The safer move is to ask the country to break one glass ceiling at a time; B) Warner surely has presidential ambitions, even though he didn't run this year, so, if you don't win it in November, you've just elevated a potential 2012 rival; still, any of the decent choices under, say, sixty five years of age create this problem, and if you're already worried about losing, you probably lack the confidence to win. One little problem (I just consulted Wikipedia), he's running for the Senate; anybody know if he can run for both offices? Is this completely implausible?
The great thing about this is that, unlike many recent Dems, I have great confidence that Obama will pick the right person; he won't be pushed into a bad move by his advisors or by outmoded conventional wisdom. Just for fun, though: Kathleen Sebelius could definitely work. She has executive experience, shares Obama's unity message, and has mid/mountain-west cred. She'd have to work on her foreign policy chops and she probably wouldn't bring along Kansas, but she wwould send the message that we're serious about appealing to folks in red states. They also seem to have good chemistry. The "not ready for two firsts" argument is totally weak - people who might vote Dem are definitely ready for either or both. I've seen her campaign, and she's usually much better than in her SOTU rebuttal. Brian Schweitzer might work. He shares Obama's unity message, has serious mid/mountain-west cred and has some foreign policy gravitas. We'd have to find a viable replacement, though... Al Gore might work, but wouldn't accept the invitation. Bill Bradley might have worked, if he hadn't gone corporate, but also probably wouldn't accept. General Zinni is an intriguing option, though he might have some 'skeletons' in his closet, may not turn out to be a natural politician (see Wes Clark), and may not be interested. Eric Shinseki just might work. He has serious military and foreign policy chops and is perceived to have been on the right side of the Iraq war issue. His campaign abilities and domestic views would have to be vetted. First ever all-Hawaii ticket? Waii not :D Bob Graham might might work. Obvious plusses. Of course, he'd have to convincingly deal with his health and quirkiness issues, but these might not be a serious liability for a guy at the bottom of the ticket (see: Dick Cheney). - Not Ted Strickland - let the man serve his term as Gov, we need him there. Thank goodness Obama and his team will get to make this decision - It's a tough one!
I'll join Abel in pushing Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana. Not only is he a western Democrat, a Governor, and an all around great-guy, he endorsed Clinton so would be a good way to help unite the party after a divisive primary battle. I also like Biden. I campaigned pretty hard for Biden in NH and on MyDD before he dropped out. He'd be better off in the Senate in a Clinton adminstration, but Obama would be likely to consult him a lot, and he helps balance out the experience image.
The ideal would be a youngish term-limited governor with foreign policy chops from a "red" or "purple" state and good political skills (I don't think gender or race matters much). Obviously, no one who supported the war. The problem is that is a tough wish list, particularly the governor with foreign policy chops part (since governors aren't supposed to be doing foreign policy). So, you could talk me into any of the red/purple governors named above, or maybe Zinni, or even Webb (although I would be reluctant to open up his Senate seat).
Jasper, Everybody seems to like Schweitzer, and he seems like a good pick on paper, but my gut tells me the chemistry between Schweitzer and Obama just wouldn't work. I'm not talking about if they get along, but what it would look like with those two next to each other. It just seem like too much of a stretch. Also, how would he fare in the national spotlight, his schtick might go over in a place like Montana, but what about elsewhere? I don't have good answers to these questions since I don't know a lot about him, but these seem like issues Obama would have to think about. I also think Warner and Schweitzer are probably Hillary's two best picks too.
Did some thinking and reading. It's got to be Zinni. Not only would having a Four Star General on the ticket put the kibosh on any national security arguments, our man Zinni's got a degree in economics. Not too shabby.
Dick Cheney. Think about it!
Gilbert Arenas
Obama needs someone with lots of experience. He needs a foreign policy hitter. He needs someone that is without question a person of honor, not to be confused with a partisan hack. He also needs to be consistent with someone who was opposed to the war from the start. A consistently anti-war ticket is a much easier one to position against McCain as the war candidate. Bob Graham is Nelson is fine, but he is a pro-war, pro-Hillary, empty suit.
MARC ADIN "Believe it." John Warfin
Wes Clarke. Brilliant, Strong on National Security and Foreign Affair, Older and more experienced. Beats McCain on every count and balances Obama. This should be a no brainer.
Wes Clarke. Brilliant, strong on national security and foreign affairs, older and more experienced. Beats McCain on every count and balances Obama. Reconciles the Clinton Camp. The obvious and wise choice.
Claire McCaskill? Highly unlikely. She has no more experience than Obama. Her main asset would be that she's a woman. As we try to get away from identity politics I don't think it makes sense to select a running mate based on sex. What a transparent gesture it would be. As the GOP claims that Obama is short on substance, he needs to make a choice that will answer that criticism with someone who can add weight to the ticket.
Wes Clark. Brilliant, strong on national security and foreign affairs, older and more experienced. Beats McCain on every count and balances Obama. This should be a no brainer.
Here's why I don't think it will be Napolitano. My Governor would have to surrender her seat to the Secretary of State, who is a right-wing Republican. I don't think she would do it. (On the other hand, I expect Sen. Napolitano to be sworn in in January 2011.)
Jim Webb -- has executive and legislative experience
first choice; Jim Webb profile: ex republican white male/ military experience/ a "manly" man Likely he will turn it down - seems to not be the type of guy who can be #2 to anyone -- BUT if he does take it - then Gov Kaine can give the Senate seat to himself ! As MArk Warner will likely win the other -- VA is for Democrats!!
Logic and gut instinct says Sebelius. If she's not up for it, though, I can easily imagine Obama surprising everybody and asking Feingold aboard. Another maverick progressive, with a history of bipartisanship, from a neighboring state in the midwest -- sort of like how Al Gore was Bill Clinton's geographical neighbor and ideological cothinker. Pundits might moan about an imbalanced ticket, but in reality nobody votes for the veep. So the choice might as well be someone in the same uniquely insider/outsider mold as Obama--and Feingold is certainly that. (And potentially a silver bullet against a certain fellow coauthor of a certain celebrated piece of campaign finance reform legislation.) A pandering mix and match a la Dukakis/Bentsen wouldn't convince anybody, and might even be fatal to Obama's core message of change.
I would like to see him run with Joe Biden. He'd be helpful in adding some foreign policy experience/credibility. Bill Richardson might be OK too.
"Whoever said Richard Clarke is a genius!" That would be me. :) Seriously, Richard Clarke is already on Obama's National Security team as an advisor, so you know he's an Obama guy. But he has a lot of experience with Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II (until they threw him under the bus when he left the reservation and spilled the beans to the 9/11 Commission). But it would be a smart move because I think that flip-flopper on torture, John McCain is probably going to put Condi on the ticket if Obama wins the Dem Nomination. He sure has her number. I'd love to see those debates!
What about Tim Roemer? He served on the 9/11 commission, he is from Indiana, and while serving in the house he was know for his work on educational and economic issues.
Jim Webb
blue, Roemer was not pro-choice when he served in the House. End of story there. Schweitzer makes a lot of sense but offers no nat sec cred. Zinni does, but will he help Obama offer an economic distinction from McCain? Jim Webb does both, nat sec plus economic populism -- and a swing state, to boot. But he insists on writing his own speeches; is Obama going to risk his candidacy on someone who will freelance at the mike? IF he'll take the risk, it'll be Webb. Any of those three would be pretty bold choices. I doubt Obama will take a risk. He's going to listen to rather conventional advice, I suspect, and pick someone too obvious, like Biden or Bill Nelson.
PS. No point in debating the Hillary veepstakes. If she comes back to get close enough and pulls it off at the convention, she's going to have to pick, ask, beg Obama to take the VP slot or else she'll be leading a demoralized, divided party whose best activists and most reliable voters will feel robbed.
The worst Steve Collins can come up with to say about Gary Hart is Donna Rice??! Wow. That comment is really very saddening. Gary Hart devoted his life to public service. To this day, 20 years after the outrageous conduct of the media in the 88 campaign, not one woman (including Donna Rice) has ever come forward to claim she slept with Gary Hart. Regardless of what you think, how long must he go on paying? Shall I draw some analogies? He and Lee celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary this year.
Carl Levin.
Like it or not, Gary Hart's presidential viability died with those photos. I agree he was a very good public servant, but we don't really want to invite discussion of either the '84 or the '88 races, do we?
Ted Strickland. He's from Ohio, he's a governor and he's breathing.
Bill Richardson is a bumbling goofball and his foreign policy credentials are suspect. (For starters, he was a lobbyist for Kissinger and Associates and wrote a horrific op-ed piece in the Washington Times lauding Kazakhstan's dictatorship.) For those who have mentioned William Cohen - he's a lightweight. (He was unimpressive as SecDef. And the guy actually wrote an op-ed after 9/11 arguing that we should nuke Afghanistan. This is gravitas?) I'd be happy with Biden, Schweitzer, Webb, Sebelius, Napolitano or Clark. Bottom line: someone smart and serious with a bit of fight in them.
VP = Janet Napolitano I live in Arizona and the Democratic governor is very popular here. More popular than John McCain? Well, it's controversial. SecDef = Sam Nunn, no contest
These comments are extraordinarily thoughtful and perceptive. I hope someone at the Obama camp is reading them Mark Warner is the best choice. Jim Webb always comes off as a heavy. He would be SEC of Defense... Sibelius is not charismatic enough and Obama will win Kansas any way. Hagel will say no. Richardson and Edwards did not endorse when it counted and there must be a price to pay for not supporting the victor when you should have. Wesley Clark is nLt to be trusted (think McClellan Lincoln) Gov/Sen Graham of Florida is too old. Think DukakisBentsen. Mark Warner is the best choice.
Musa is on the money here: So...who's a white, male, pretty religiousy/soft-core jingoist, experienced governor (or ex-governor)? The list is getting pretty short by now. Help anyone?
Chuck Hagel....totally beatable ticket...Hagel could become an independent...Just a complete dream ticket...
biden is a hawk, richardson an opportunist, wesley clarke might create a military industrial complex picture, not a woman to have a woman, we have that dilemma right now... maybe webb is best. marianne
Obama basically has four choices each with their own rationales, and I honestly can't see how anyone else could potentially make the cut: 1A) Jim Web: Kind of an anti-Obama - presentation wise - who mainly agrees with him on issues. Brings military and national security cred to the table. 1B) Kathleen Sebelius: Boring State of the Union response aside a serious campaigner in the Obama mold. So incredibly popular that Kansas would go blue as a result. Also, she has all of Hillary's feminist positives (tilting Florida and NH blue) but none of her negatives, and brings management experience to the table besides. 2A) Chet Culver: Here's what I'd call Obama's Bill Clinton chooses Gore pick. Culvers young (43!) not bad looking, and from the midwest. He enhances all of Obama's established narratives, and could maybe push Iowa into the blue column. 2B) Mark Warner: The odd man out even though he seems like the obvious choice in many ways. But mainly he's just Culver light, or rather Culver safe. Older but only by a few years, from a red state that would go blue with him on the ticket. Offers that all important management experience, more centrist cred and anti Washington-ness. Note: If I were a betting man, I'd only but money on Sebelius and Culver - why? 'Cause you bet with your not your head.
Defense - Zinni
Obama definitely needs to surround himself with as many outsiders (outside the beltway) as possible, not only as VP but his cabinet as well. Fresh faces, fresh ideas--that's the "change" we are looking for. It also wouldn't hurt to cross the aisle for expertise either.
MARIO CUOMO!!!!!!!!!!!
On Cuomo, he would be a great attack dog. As Bill Clinton once said on a taped conversation to Gennifer Flowers, "He's a mean S.O.B.
My rankings: 1. Mike Bloomberg I think they would all shore up any weaknesses Obama may be perceived to have.
Speaking as a Republican from Kansas, I can say that Obama would vastly benefit from adding Kathleen Sebelius to his ticket. She isn't as eloquent or ideologically pure as some of the other potential VP candidates, but she has the sort of broad appeal to all voters that Obama has been claiming he wants to achieve. For example, comparing her to the two other women whose names often get thrown around, I'd say Sebelius is the best. Janet Napolitano, to me (as a moderate conservative), seems like "more of the same" when Obama has been touting a mantra of "change." And Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri, is incredibly popular with the state's Democrats, but I can tell you (I go to school in MO) that she is very unpopular with it's Republicans. If Obama wants to convince moderate Republicans that he really stands for "change," Kathleen Sebelius is his best bet.
A couple of further thoughts: Evan Bayh should not be considered for anything. He is from a nice political family and is telegenic. That's it. He has done nothing of note in the Senate and has been a Clinton flunkie and attack dog against Obama. I have seen him multiple times push... uhmm how do you say... lies about Obama's positions and background. He is what you call a political weather vane. Sort of our answer to Dan Quayle. As for Bob Graham's age, he is 3 mos younger than McCain. I think Obama needs someone who is an elder statesman at his back. However, someone who is measured and brilliant, unlike Herr Cheney. Richardson would not be a bad choice if he was originally opposed to the war. In my book that should be a litmus test. Webb would be good, but Obama really needs someone with executive experience. I fear Webb is too much a hot head and would become the storyline.
I can't believe I haven't seen this suggestion anywhere: Michael Bloomberg! Gravitas, business experience, cash, post-partisan, sophistication--the only thing he doesn't bring is the national security credentials, and he doesn't appeal to Bubba. But maybe this is finally the election where we don't have to do that.
1) Gen. Anthony Zinni
After reading all the comments in the thread thus far, I'm going to update my short list. Mind you, these are people I think Obama *should* pick, not necessarily my prediction of who he will pick. 1. Michael Bloomberg I took Webb off the list because, unfortunately, too many people think he's a nutter. Looks great on paper, though.
One problem with Tim Kaine as the veep choice: Obama-Kaine sounds too much like Obamacan (an Obama Republican).
I haven't read all of the hundred some comments, so this might be a repeat: Colin Powell. Questions as to whether he would do it, although his recent interview was very very complimentary towards Obama. Powell would add heft in the national security arena particularly, which is where McCain is going to be able to go after Obama the hardest.
The Feingold suggestion is intriguing. It would certainly shore up the base... might help the GOP paint the ticket as uber-liberal, but they'll try to do that no matter what, and Feingold reinforces the "it's always the right time to do the right thing" aspect of Obama's candidacy. Also, the meta-story there might be "Obama is fearless": it doesn't look politically calculating at all, and it isn't an attempt to shore up perceived weaknesses. The Feingold choice might say to everyone: I'm going to win dammit, and this is the guy I want coming with me. I like Webb a lot, though he's maybe too much his own man to be number two, and seems a bit unpredictable. I also want to read up more on Zinni and Culver, who seems like interesting choices as well.
Atlanta Dem: I'm suprised more people haven't argued in terms of what the ticket will sound like: Obama-Warner: Kind of hard to get out of your mouth. Moving from the "a" in Obama to the "W" in Warner is tough. Obama-Kaine: Better, easier to say, nice A to K transition. Now that I think about it, Obama needs to offset his three-syllable, vowel ending name with a short-named, hard consonant vp. Not since Calvin Coolidge (thanks wikipedia!) has a president with a vowel ending his name won the presidency. This eliminates some people for sure: Obama-Sebelius - No one will ever be able to say that at a party. Obama-Napolitano- A little easier, still a non starter. Obama-Cuomo- Nice hard C, but too vowely overall Obama-Richardson-In theory, it shouldn't work, but it kind of rolls off the tounge okay. Obama-Hart - not a hard consonant, but it works Obama-Webb - Same for this. Obama-Schweitzer-It works! It breaks all my rules above but I like it. There's something about saying Schweitzer that feels American, or at least German-American. The point is, by the time I finish saying "Schweitzer" I've already forgotten the exoticness (and therefore America- hatingness) of Obama's name. His name evokes hot dogs (with sour kraut), big guns, tanks, and a little bit of Albert Schweitzer too, because us Americans like to kick ass AND help people (once we're done kicking their ass). Brian Schweitzer -his name makes me feel tough and caring. Brian Schweitzer it is!
A quick follow up: Maybe there's more to this Albert Schweitzer stuff. From Brian Schweitzer's website After graduation, Brian and Nancy began a career of irrigation development that took them to Africa, Asia, Europe and South America. He has built hundreds of miles of roads, poured thousands of yards of concrete, buried many miles of pipe, and built hundreds of structures, from houses to warehouses to distillation plants. This guy could single handedly rebuild New Orleans.
Again, I think people suggesting Powell are missing the fact that: 1. Powell would have to basically pull the mother of all flip-flops and attack Bush very publicly, which is something that McCain could beat him with. "A soldier is never disloyal..." 2. Powell would completely blunt Obama's criticism of the war from the beginning. Powell's going to sound a lot like Hillary! if he says "I was fooled..." The VP has to have been against the war from the start (or at least be able to creditably claim it). So, if we are talking about senators, all of those who voted for AUMF are out. Governors better be prepared to have all of their speeches and conversations both on and off the record examined. Also, if Romney or Huck is the GOP VP, you need an answer to the "executive experience" argument. Governors also can point to results, which is why I don't think Obama should pick a senator. So I return to my suggestions of Warner, Easley, Bayh and Napolitano, depending on statements about Iraq from 2002-03 that can be attributed to them.
VP: Webb
Wes Clark - Obama needs to add some serious national security credibility running against McCain, plus: 1) He's a Washington outsider
Agriculture: Dick Gephardt
Jim Webb, hands-down. I can't think of anyone better.
The problem with Webb is two-fold, 1) it would be great to keep him in the Senate (even though Kaine would pick his replacement, Virginia is still a red state); 2) his temperament may not be well-suited to playing second fiddle. That said, I don't know if there's another person out there who can plausibly claim to be strong on national security and a "new face"/Washington outsider. Those two factors alone make Webb him the best choice to complement Obama, IMO.
The more I think about this, the more I prefer Jim Webb. Obama-Webb '08. What a solid ticket.
The obvious choice.....Oprah Winfrey.
Joe Biden. Yes, he's an establishment democrat, but John McCain's entire campaign is going to be based upon terrorism and fear tactics. Joe Biden is arguably the most intelligent foreign policy expert in the senate, he's funny and likeable without overshadowing Obama, and most democrats would be happy with him on the ticket. I would love Sebelius or a woman on the ticket, but Obama can't really afford to have a governor. This election is going to be about three words. Change. Foreign. Policy. Not picking Joe Biden would be an enormous mistake.
"I don't know if there's another person out there who can plausibly claim to be strong on national security and a 'new face'/Washington outsider." And an Iraq War opponent. Not to mention a strong speaker with a very different style than Obama's, a populist, white working-class appeal... the only question is whether he's right for the #2 spot, plus his value in the Senate. (Some are upset about his recent FISA position, but I'm not inclined to make that a litmus test.) I'm not a big Biden fan in general, but he's not a bad choice, either: happy to be an attack dog and well-versed on foreign policy. Plus picking him dramatizes Obama's bringing people together: remember "clean" and "articulate" (and Obama's subsequent defense of Joe in a debate)? On the other hand, Biden doesn't exactly reinforce the "change" message.
Given the margins in the Senate, it absolutely cannot be a Senator from a red state, or a blue state Senator from a state with a Republican governor. So Webb and McCaskill are out. Mark Warner is already running for the Senate, and is probably needed more as a Senator than as a VP. People seem to be ignoring the House. Ever since he endorsed, I've liked the idea of George Miller as Obama's VP.
How about Bloomberg because he could be very well suited to be Vice President?
1. Joe Biden
Bob Graham seems like the obvious choice to me. Graham offers the senior statesman(2x FL Gov and 3x Senator), vocally anti-war, environmentalist, foreign policy/terrorism expert, fiscally conservative, and most popular politician in the Florida all rolled up into one. This seems like a no-brainer. Oh, he is also a farmer and expert on health care policy. And then lastly the famous Senate speech opposing the war.
Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson (all for different reasons). Of these, take Warner. Shame Leo McGarry died in series 6.
Greg's right that the House has been unjustly neglected. How about Representative John Spratt? Congressman from South Carolina since '83, chairman of the House Budget Committee. Captain in the Army from '69 to '71. Author of the defeated "Spratt amendment," which would have required President Bush to consult with Congress again about the use of force after the UN inspections in Iraq. And, for what it's worth, was voted by congressional staff a "House Member I'd Like to See Win the Presidency in 2008."
The only thing the GOP would really have to use against Bob Graham is the Mariel boatlift thing. He was Governor of Florida then. I don't know how that ship would sail.
Many commenters seem to be underestimating the importance of Obama's "change" narrative. It's obviously helped propel his candidacy-- and yet, as a Senator, with a mostly moderate, reach-across-the-aisle, approach, it's more fragile than people may realize. If McCain can successfully paint Obama as "just another politician," then he can move the discussion more easily to experience, a discussion he wins. Given that the biggest impact a veep has in a race is on the storyline (and not, usually, at the ballot box in any particular state), it's probably important that his veep convey this story one way or another. Biden has some other plusses that might mitigate this, but Graham, for instance, even as an Iraq War opponent, strikes me as a bad choice, in part for this reason.
you people cant be seriously floating the idea ofWes Clark. He's a complete Clinton Hack. I've no doubt he'll be on Hillary's short list if she somehow gets the nom, but i really don't see him on Obama's. Besides, he's not really as impressive as his resume would suggest. Whenever I see him, i think, THAT guy was former Supreme Allied COmmander of Nato?? Also, why do people think Jim Webb would be a good choice? He's a one term senator, former republican, and comes across as stiff and a bit grumpy in my opinion. Also, do we really wanna him to give up that senate seat? Thats a seat he could hold onto as long as he wants it, i bet. And how many times can we claim a Virginia Senate seat as a "safe" one for dems?
Kathleen Sebelius. Obama shouldn't try to balance the ticket he should try to reinforce his message like the Clinton/Gore ticket did. A red state guv who has worked with Republicans for progressive change. Don't know were she is on the war but not vocally for it. She fits perfectly.
it is delusional to think that obama or Hillary won't poach the senate and dem governors for VP and cabinet appointments. Saving these numbers in the senate or house or red state governors won't make a bit of difference. Both will need a lot of bodies and owe a lot of people if they win. Plus this election might change the numbers substantially. Either will want to maximize the chances of their cabinets being successful so they will poach the most viable names they can. that said kansas gov is not going to be viable on either coast. yes as a coach for women's basketball going to the big dance but no as a face or presense to help calm the country about change, business, military. Ted Kennedy would play better than her and we know that can't happen either.
I think the best choices for Obama would be Phil Bredesen or Sam Nunn. Either one could place many traditionally Republican states into play. While it wasn't the question posed, I think the best choices for McCain are Tom Ridge, who could keep at least PA, OH, and WV in play, and Carly Fiorinia as an "outside the box" non-white male candidate.
Sebelius. Obviously Sebelius!
Napolitano, Sebelius or Schweitzer could all be good choices. Cleland may have voted for the war, but he's been out of DC and was fucked so badly and unpatriotically that McCain would have to denounce that and risk alienating the base or embrace something that would disgust most Americans. Feingold could help reinforce the idea of a Midwestern ticket, which could actually be a good thing because everyone loves Midwesterners and Obama will already get the normal Dem strongholds while there are plenty of purple Midwestern states to pick up. Even though he is very liberal, he seems to command some respect from your non-elite Republicans, especially in the Midwest. Clarke and Zinni could both be good choices. Bloomberg could be an interesting choice, as could Hagel or even Lugar, with whom he was worked in the Senate a lot on securing loose nukes (and they could get some laughs on the trail over their stories of almost not being allowed on a plain in Russia together). Hart would be unique in combining change with gravitas and experience. He's been on his best behavior since the 1980's and I think Americans have forgiven him. After all, the Governator remains popular nationwide and Republican overreach on Clinton made them look weird and crazy (besides, McCain got divorced after cheating on his wife). Reinforcing the "Republicans are weird sick fucks who won't shut up about sex" meme isn't the worse thing in the world. Chafee could also throw people for a loop and can be charming at times. In addition, both Republicans and Democrats would be fine with the idea of him being president if anything happened to Obama. Pelosi could throw people for a loop in a good way. Boxer would also remind people of their grandmother in a good way, but would possibly too easily be labeled too liberal. Webb is a non-starter because he would be a rather bad, sexist president. Richardson is all resume and nothing else. Edwards would be a lock if not for 2004. Gore is not coming back into government only to take his old job back. I love Kaine, but unfortunately, and I hate to say this, he comes off as too gay for the general. Sadly, this is what I like about his persona, but it probably wouldn't fly and would make the ticket seem to Cambridge. Ford would be a decent choice if he wasn't a bit conservative on foreign policy and the moderate white vote would probably freak out. Salazar is too conventional to fit with Obama's themes and we don't want to lose that Senate vote. Daschle is too Washington for the theme and was a wimp as Majority Leader. Clark is a bit too angry to be a decent VP.
Also, hasn't Nagl also been advising Obama. That would be an interesting choice.
If you look at the RNC talking pts on Obama, he needs someone who matches his message and has experience. Sebelius has zero foreign policy experience. Biden and Dodd both have Iraq war votes to overcome. Bob Graham was an interestng suggestion, especially given our primary problems in Florida. You get a real gentleman who was strongly against the war, has huge foreign policy experience, executive experience, and really really popular in FL. Tom Daschle seems like another decent pick. While he does not offer anything geographically, he knows how to get things done on the Hill, knows foreign policy and might reassure those worried about Obama's experience. He is very well liked in the party too. He was one of the early big supporters of Obama too.
I HAVE THE ANSWER: It can’t be a senator (or Mark Warner, a soon-to-be-senator): Democrats need to hold onto every seat they have. Also, two senators is a weak ticket when McCain is almost certain to pick a governor. It should not be a woman – too much change in one year. Obama needn’t worry about placating woman voters who are dejected about Hillary – women are highly unlikely to vote for the War Party ticket of McCain-Anyone. It would help to have someone who has executive experience and it would help to have someone older. My proposal: Former Virginia Governor and Senator Chuck Robb. He puts purple-state Virginia in play (I live here, trust me on this). He has impeccable credentials (decorated Marine in Vietnam, UVA law school, Lt Governor, Governor, Senator). In Congress he was a fiscal conservative but socially progressive (a rarity in the South). He was considered a real centrist who could work in a bipartisan way. He served on the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence committees. He was defeated for reelection in 2000 in a close race against George “Macaca” Allen. Since leaving Congress he co-chaired the Iraq Intelligence Commission and served on the Iraq Study Group. The only possible drawback is age (he is 70), but there are two positives to that: one, it helps blunt charges of Obama’s inexperience; and two, Robb won’t seek the presidency in 8 years, leaving the stage clear for Hillary to claim the prize she has not earned this time.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Bill Richardson, hands down.
Posted by Russell | February 14, 2008 9:20 AM