The Vice Presidential Searches Are Stalled

In March of 2004, Sen. John Kerry asked James Johnson, the former Fannie Mae CEO and long-time Democratic strategist, to head the search for his ticket-mate.

Whether Kerry made the right choice in the end by picking John Edwards is for history to decide, but the search itself was a model of efficiency and secrecy. It took Johnson and a small team of carefully selected lawyers and researchers a few months to carefully vet the ten or so finalists that Kerry had settled on.

As of April of 2008, Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are way behind Kerry's pace.

The candidates do not discuss the vice presidential search with their senior staff. And neither Obama nor Clinton has established a process for winnowing the field of potential candidates.

Obama has one advantage: Johnson is already aboard. He and wife Maxine Isaacs are major fundraisers, and Johnson is currently Obama's chief liaison to many of the party's undecided superdelegates. It is unclear whether Obama will appoint Johnson to head his search. Some campaign insiders believe that Obama wants Valerie Jarrett, Obama's best friend and counselor, to fill that role. (For Clinton, insiders believe that longtime attorney Cheryl Mills or former chief of staff Evelyn Lieberman are likely to be tapped -- though they don't know, because Clinton herself isn't talking.)

Coming up with a list is easy -- but a competitive primary -- or, if you're an Obama strategist, a fictitiously competitive primary -- turns the active phase of the search into an extra-sensitive operation.

Absent a presumptive nominee, Clinton and Obama might well compile and vet two separate lists of candidates. And there will certainly be overlap. For example: Sen. Evan Bayh may be on both candidate's short lists. Would he consent to an Obama interview before Clinton drops out? What about Sen. Joe Biden, who has yet to endorse either candidate, but who many long-time Washington hands are talking up to Obama donors? Will the vetting process complicate the superdelegate endorsement process?

Aides to Clinton and Obama declined to comment when I asked them yesterday whether any thought had been given to the vice presidential selection process.

Comments

it is laughable to think that mrs. clinton - who faces insurmountable odds to win the nomination - would be wasting brain cells thinking about a vice president.

Posted by lincoln | April 2, 2008 5:14 PM

Obama/Biden '08!!!

Posted by Judy | April 2, 2008 5:43 PM

Kathleen Sebelius is wonderful choice. She's a Dem Gov. from a purely red state :Kansas. She's overwhelmingly popular. to the point that after her first term, repubs started saying that people shouldn't elect her because she'd be tapped for the presidency. She's an expert on the economy.
but of course, that leaves the influential white male swing vote. that's where the obama cabinet comes into play. Republican senators Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel both opposed the war from the start. They've got more credibility on foreign policy that mccain. they've worked with obama in the past and they've made no bone about telling that it wasn't an unpleasant experience. Hagel is mccain's boss in the foreign policy committee. having them on board would definitely bring on collin powell. he's said that he likes what he sees in obama, and that would definitely do it for him. so, with the economy taken care of and foreign policy taken care of, i don't see how we lose the election. Obama himself has said that he isn't looking for people who only agree with him but with people who can disagree without being disagreeable(he said it on hardball again today). the media firestorm that such appointees would trigger would be unsurmountable for mccain. independents would just flush to him. democrats might complain for a week, but they'd join in 2 weeks to avert mccain. moderate republicans wouldn't think about it for heartbeat. they'd just join in. lemme know what you think

Posted by lupercal | April 2, 2008 7:33 PM

Here's what the list should look like:

Webb
Webb
Webb
Gen. Zinni
Webb
McCaskill
Biden
Sebelius
Tim Kane
Sherrod Brown
Webb
and Jim Webb.

Guess which way I'm leaning?

Posted by Greggie | April 2, 2008 8:13 PM

I like the Webb option as well, but I have real concerns that he won't be able to survive a vetting process.

Posted by dry_fish | April 2, 2008 8:23 PM

It's disheartening to me to hear that James Johnson is such a key player in the Obama campaign. I don't care how capable or well-connected he is. He was the father of the despicable culture of beat-the-number and excessive executive compensation at Fannie Mae. The Washington Post laid out the story in an article on May 24, 2006 (which I just found via Google).

I couldn't care less about Rev. Wright or who Barack has as his spiritual adviser, but this really bothers me. I don't think he should associate with or let someone with a history like this anywhere near his campaign.

Posted by Larry | April 3, 2008 3:02 AM

How about Chuck Hagel? I´ll admit that I know nothing about this guy other than an interview he gave the other day where he came close to endorsing Obama. But if he has a solidly moderate record as a republican, having him as VP would be genius as it immediately does the following:
1. Makes the midwest even more in play that Obama already does on his own.
2. Shows how bipartisan Obama intends to be.
3. Bolsters his Commander status by having a more senior Senator on the ticket.
4. Unequivocally boxes McCain in on his Iraq stance, since Hagel is openly critical of the war.

Having a midwest senior republican would also be particularly effective in blunting what we already know is going to be the McCain strategy: a redux of Bush-Gore with McCain as the patriot versus the effete, inexperienced, and less patriotic (Hussein) Obama. Camp McCain is going to flog the character meme because they know that on the issues they have an empty tank.

Posted by Stephen | April 3, 2008 5:53 AM

Webb, Richardson and Sibelius. Webb helps with foreign policy and Richardson with the hispanic vote and a New Mexico win would be gravy. Gov. Sibelius brings in women and Kansas.

Posted by Rose | April 3, 2008 10:12 AM

Hillary fired for lies, unethical behavior from Congressional job: former boss
By Hill Truth | The Hillary Project
Posted 1 day, 1 hour ago email to friend tool nameclose
tool goes here
By Ed Morrissey, Hot Air

Dan Calabrese’s new column on Hillary Clinton’s past may bring the curtain down on her political future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer’s behavior during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings:

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

This isn’t exactly news. When her lachrymose performance arguably won her New Hampshire, Zeifman tried to tell people about Hillary’s duplicity. Patterico noticed the effort, but few others picked it up. Zeifman wrote at his website:

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon
representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff — where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethical flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with – or take depositions of — any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Departments special Watergate prosecutor .

The right to counsel is considered one of the inviolable tenets of our justice system. It doesn’t speak well of ambitious attorneys working on a highly-charged political investigation that she wanted to deny someone the right to an attorney. Small wonder Zeifman questioned her ethics.

If all she did was to propose that as a tactic, that would not make it terribly concerning — but she did much more than just spitball ideas. When informed that public evidence showed a precedent for the right to counsel, she absconded with the files to eliminate the evidence. Does that remind anyone of later incidents in the Clinton narrative, such as the billing records for the Rose Law offices and the 900+ raw FBI files on political opponents of the Clintons?

Hillary’s advocates could accuse Zeifman of conjuring up these stories in order to draw attention to himself in the middle of a presidential campaign. However, Calabrese reports that Zeifman kept diaries during this period, urged on by friends mindful of the historical nature of the Watergate investigation. No one would have known at the time that this 27-year-old barracuda would have any sort of national significance — which makes Zeifman’s testimony all the more compelling.

We know that the Tuzla Dash covered for something much more significant in Hillary’s character. Zeifman shows that all of this forms a pattern of lies, obfuscations, deceit, and treachery. Don’t miss a word on either site.

Posted by sylvia | April 3, 2008 10:38 AM

Webb is a no go unless he loses the crazy toupe (people are looking for authenticity) + he's new and a loose cannon. Richardson is a great choice (may have same problem on the hair/dye front) and brings the West and latinos. Clark is very good as he brings military experience, the South and eloquence + he looks the part (don't go all crazy on me, you know it matters). Biden would be perfect if we needed a real tough fighter against McCain (plus again, the hair plugs... what is up with these guys?). Since McCain is weak, better to keep Biden for State, etc. Powell is a no go, it's proven that he lied. Hagel, er, there's just better out there. Picking a woman besides Hillary is a problem as she is the best woman candidate out there (but please not her after her dirty tricks campaign). Or, double down and go with Harold Ford.

Posted by On the VP thing... | April 3, 2008 10:46 AM

Here's a great new name for Obama's V.P. Joe Sestak. He's a Congressman from Pennsylvania's 7th C.D... a retired 3 star Admiral, where he commanded the George Wasjington Aircraft Carrier group of 30 U.S. and Allied ships, 15,000 sailors and about 100 aircraft... served in the Clinton administration as Director of Defense Policy at the N.S.C... after 9/11 was named the first Director of the Navy Anti-Terrorism Unit... graduated 2nd in his class from Annapolis( nice contrast to McCain's graduating fifth from the bottom of his class),,, has a P.H.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard and has endorsed Hilary. Gives Obama an answer to McCain on military and foreign policy, and shows his openess to healing wounds from the Hilary camp. and is articulate.

Posted by Jerry wallace | April 3, 2008 11:03 AM

Here's a great new name for Obama's V.P. Joe Sestak. He's a Congressman from Pennsylvania's 7th C.D... a retired 3 star Admiral, where he commanded the George Wasjington Aircraft Carrier group of 30 U.S. and Allied ships, 15,000 sailors and about 100 aircraft... served in the Clinton administration as Director of Defense Policy at the N.S.C... after 9/11 was named the first Director of the Navy Anti-Terrorism Unit... graduated 2nd in his class from Annapolis( nice contrast to McCain's graduating fifth from the bottom of his class),,, has a P.H.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard and has endorsed Hilary. Gives Obama an answer to McCain on military and foreign policy, and shows his openess to healing wounds from the Hilary camp. and is articulate.

Posted by Jerry wallace | April 3, 2008 11:03 AM

Here's a great new name for Obama's V.P. Joe Sestak. He's a Congressman from Pennsylvania's 7th C.D... a retired 3 star Admiral, where he commanded the George Wasjington Aircraft Carrier group of 30 U.S. and Allied ships, 15,000 sailors and about 100 aircraft... served in the Clinton administration as Director of Defense Policy at the N.S.C... after 9/11 was named the first Director of the Navy Anti-Terrorism Unit... graduated 2nd in his class from Annapolis( nice contrast to McCain's graduating fifth from the bottom of his class),,, has a P.H.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard and has endorsed Hilary. Gives Obama an answer to McCain on military and foreign policy, and shows his openess to healing wounds from the Hilary camp. and is articulate.

Posted by Jerry wallace | April 3, 2008 11:03 AM

Among those often mentioned as a VP candidate for Obama, retired 4-star General Wes Clark is the only one who -- like Obama -- had the judgment and courage to argue against invading Iraq from the start (so he is the only VP possibility who has demonstrated the judgment and courage to deserve being a heartbeat away from the presidency). Clark is also the only VP possibility who -- like Obama -- has shown the combination of eloquence and intelligence that would allow him in the bully pulpit (or the VP position) to educate voters enough to allow them to see through scare tactics like "Iraq is a threat" propaganda or like the "Harriet and Louise" advertising campaign against universal health care. Many propose Sen. Jim Webb as an alternate VP nominee, but Webb's writings -- fiction though they be -- are too unsavory for most voters to swallow once the opposition publicizes certain passages (plus we need Webb in the Senate). Many propose Governors Richardson or Sibelius as alternate VP nominees, but Richardson demonstrated poor judgment in his initial support for invading Iraq (and similarly poor judgment during the Wen Ho Lee scandal), and Sibelius showed during her State of the Union response that she's not enough of a dynamic speaker to be an asset in that regard (and she fails to complement an Obama candidacy in that she offers no accomplishments in the foreign policy or military spheres). Some might argue that Richardson would bring Hispanic voters or that Sibelius would bring women voters to Obama, but once Obama is the party nominee, he will get those Hispanic and women voters anyway. On the negative side, some might argue that Clark's support of the Clintons would hurt the Obama campaign, but on the contrary, Obama picking a prominent Clinton supporter as his VP would show -- as we should already know -- that Obama is big enough to reach out to his rivals and unite the party in a push to put a democrat back in charge of our democracy.

Posted by Chris W-B | April 3, 2008 11:08 AM

Obama /Pelosi If America is so hungry for a female on the ticket. You got strong leadership,foreign policy exp, opposed Iraq resolution. She is already third in command to the presidency,I don't think she would bring as much baggage like Hillary would.

Posted by merle7 | April 3, 2008 11:44 AM

Obama needs a white woman - who isn't Hillary Clinton. It could help appease white women voters who are ticked that Clinton wasn't nominated. I like the Kansas governor. She'd lend some gravitas.

Posted by GenevaGirl | April 3, 2008 12:03 PM

How come nobody's talking Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri? Not only is MO an important border state, but McCaskill is smart, open, a good speaker, and witty. Heck, she even looks a bit like Hillary!

Posted by Baby Boomer | April 3, 2008 12:12 PM

If Obama wants the women vote, then Sebelius it is....

Posted by Brenda | April 3, 2008 12:30 PM

Sebelius would be great

Posted by Gabriel | April 3, 2008 1:09 PM

Sam Nunn or Anthony Zinni for SEn. Obama - I love Zinni best, but Obama-Zinni WILL look like OZ

Posted by Carthage | April 3, 2008 1:44 PM

Webb sounds good at first: he's military experience and former sec'y of the navy under a repub, but he's another senator. Obama needs something more than another senator.

My money would be on Clark for The Clintons. He would be military heft, which neither of The Clintons has and he may be one of the few possibilities who might not mind taking a back seat to bill.

Posted by CDW | April 3, 2008 1:55 PM

Webb sounds good at first: he's military experience and former sec'y of the navy under a repub, but he's another senator. Obama needs something more than another freshman senator.

My money would be on Clark for The Clintons. He would be military heft, which neither of The Clintons has and he may be one of the few who would not mind taking a back seat to bill.

Posted by CDW | April 3, 2008 1:56 PM

Joe Sestak of PA

Kaine of VA

Sebelious of KS

Sherrod Brown of OH

Rob Casey of PA

All of these represent states where Obama needs to win to gain electoral votes in the general.

Sebelius is a two-fer as her dad was former Gov of OH.

Brown was a well liked OH governor.

Sestak brings the military piece and PA that makes him a two-fer along with Sebelius.

The choice being whether the party feels Obama needs a woman on the ticket to make history and appease the Hill supporters.

Whether the party feels that experience is going to be the achilles then Sestak may be the key as he brings it militarily and hopefully he has the skills to woo the blue collar white males. A very key constitunency.

Casey of PA should be considered especially if Obama manages to win PA or come within 2 points of HIll.

Posted by vicissitudes | April 3, 2008 2:11 PM

The perfect ticket, absent the androgenic contamination that is anathema to her true base, is:

Hillary Clinton - Cynthia McKinney in 2008!

Why waste time talking about Obama's choice? Senator Clinton will not allow him to stand in the way of her manifest destiny, to become the 'mahdi' to lead the women of American out of the wilderness of the past and into a bright future of supremacy.

Posted by Shirley Snootsworth | April 3, 2008 3:06 PM

Can't pick Casey. He is pro life. Talk about problems with the female portion of the democratic base. No chance.

Posted by Mike U | April 3, 2008 3:13 PM

Great discussion!
This all turns out to be tougher than I first thought, given the Need-to-appease-Hillary-voters issue versus the foreign policy issue.
As said before, Obama/Clark might come closest.

But how about a completely different avenue? Obama-Gore.

Gore gets a bully pulpit for pushing climate change initiatives, that's the selling point to him. And most of America agrees that he's ready from day one!!

Posted by HHart | April 3, 2008 3:29 PM

Obama/Richardson----its the logical thing to do. Hillary is too much of liablity. It will be so great to not have a Bush or Clinton in the Prez or VP office..........gawd..

Posted by americaneagledancer | April 3, 2008 5:56 PM

The running mate Obama needs is Colin Powell. Experienced in foreign affairs, unquestioned links to the military. He is a steady hand and two black men on the ticket would really shake things up.

Posted by Jarler | April 4, 2008 1:31 AM

I think if Kerry had brought in Clark -- a legitimate war hero -- in 2004 rather than a trial lawyer to counter two draft dodgers, he'd be president today. But, I think Clark is now old news and too far out of the public eye. (Besides, I mentioned Clark to a friend who works in the Obama campaign and he looked ill -- it's just a non-starter.)

The problem with governors and first term senators is that they don't bring the foreign policy expertise you're looking for to counter McCain's "ready on Day One" argument. My surprise choice -- Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who's got a ton of foreign policy experience. Unfortunately, she's got a tough fight for re-election this year, and we'd likely lose the seat to the GOP if she drops out of that race to go for VP.

Posted by UrsaM | April 4, 2008 4:31 AM

Gore, if he would take it, doubtful he would, but serious and substantial and potential President if there was a disaster, which on this day, the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assasination, is not beyond the realms of possibility, also acknowledging JFK. The Obama - Gore ticket sounds strong, with experience,commitment and vision.

Posted by Gadfly55 | April 4, 2008 8:53 AM

Has anyone ever been a VP for two different Presidents? I seriously doubt Gore would take the second banana position....

I think we have to look beyond senators or I'd go McCaskill, I consider Richardson and Clark but am not totally satisfied, I wanted Webb but it turns out he's pretty hawkish so I'm on the fence about that.

I think instead of names we should look at qualities we want first:

Pluses:
Military
Foreign policy experience
Democrat
Economic Expertise
Anti Iraq war but pro Afghanistan war
Pro choice
Governor or Rep of a pink state
Favored by working class

Minuses:
Republican
Anyone closely associated with Bush
Anyone too closely associated with the seedy underside of Clinton

What about someone not in an elected position? Let's think outside the box. Are there folks who are well known and generally admired by the left and independents and are thought of as getting things done?

Posted by KS Rose | April 4, 2008 10:58 AM