Ambinder Veepstakes Lists

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)is the best choice!

Posted by j07 | May 23, 2008 2:11 PM

Bloomberg switched to Independent last summer:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1635129,00.html

I agree with both of you re Sebelius: he really likes her, but she's simply not Presidential material, and at this point choosing any woman over Clinton will backfire fatally. UNLESS... he actually does offer it to Clinton and she actually does say thanks but no thanks.

Posted by along | May 23, 2008 2:12 PM

I have been saying for over two months now that it should be Sebelius...I really like her. Like Obama (I am sure) I find her competent, honest, ethical and a solid person. She has all the qualities I want in a VP and she will not over shadow Obama, she would compliment him. She is also Gov. of a so called red State and is a self made leader, although she comes from a long line of Politicians.

Posted by Karen | May 23, 2008 2:12 PM

So, why the sudden Crist and Jindal buzz? Jindal seems a little dicey (how can you criticize Obama for lack of experience and then pick someone with even less as your vp:), but Crist seems plausible ... or are all governors with less than two years experience off the table? Is it because Crist ... um ... "doesn't vet"?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 23, 2008 2:13 PM

I have been saying for over two months now that it should be Sebelius...I really like her. Like Obama (I am sure) I find her competent, honest, ethical and a solid person. She has all the qualities I want in a VP and she will not over shadow Obama, she would compliment him. She is also Gov. of a so called red State and is a self made leader, although she comes from a long line of Politicians.

Posted by Karen | May 23, 2008 2:13 PM

Bloomberg's not a Republican. He left the party this past year.

Posted by Marc | May 23, 2008 2:17 PM

Janet Napolitano is a lesbian. Replace her with Bill Richardson on the list. All three Virginia boys: Warner, Webb, Kaine, are great veep choices but only Webb can be seriously considered. Warner is by far the best of the three but he's currently winning a Dem Senate seat in VA. Kaine is indispensible because he needs to keep hold of the VA governorship and Warner is term limited. Webb can be replaced by Kaine were he to ascend to the Vice Presidency.

Posted by Gabriel Ramirez | May 23, 2008 2:21 PM

I'm sure whomever McCain chooses will piss me off. As do most of his bonehead decisions. Can't believe we are stuck with him as our standard bearer...he's only a little better than the other two! But that's not saying much.

Posted by joyce | May 23, 2008 2:27 PM

I disagree with her/agree with you on Sebelius as well. Honestly, a good argument can be made that she has more experience than HRC.

Posted by KathyF | May 23, 2008 2:27 PM

What about Colin Powell as a (non evil) Cheney type VP for Obama - meaning that he runs with the understanding that he is not seeking the presidency and possibly that he will only serve the first term. He would put an affirmational stamp on Obama's foreign policy vision, be a substantial surrogate to talk back all the conservative talking heads and leaders scaring up the prospects of an Obama presidency.

Then in the second term Obama can tap Warner after he has been in the senate for four years as the president in waiting.

Posted by Brian | May 23, 2008 2:29 PM

I think at this point Obama has 3 choices: Sebelius, Webb, and Strickland.

They bring with them 3 states that could all swing to Obama, Ohio of course being the most important.

Obama needs to win women voters, and a skilled governer and campaigner like Sebelius--who has campaigned hard for him already would be a plus.

Still, for all of this, I have to go with Webb. First, on the superficial level--he needs someone with military and foreign policy experience. Webb arguably brings more foreign policy knowledge than anyone else as an executive in the defense department for 4 years in the Reagan administration. This is unique; whereas someone like Nunn or Biden brings years of foreign policy experience, they also have been partisans in Washington for ages--and Biden voted for the war. This runs counter to Obama's anti-washington message. Webb is in the unique position to bring major foreign policy bona fides while still, strangely, not having the "insider Washington" aura about him.

But on a more general level, there is something really incredible about Webb. If he's an effective enough campaigner--and this is a big question, as some have raised questions about his campaign skills (though he seems to have no problems in an interview with the media, which is a huge plus)--he and Obama could potentially reshape the electorate and form a new Democratic coalition. Webb has an authenticity as a proud white-working class Applachian (sic) and he speaks for them. If he can get them to rally behind Obama it would be an incredible feat, not just for Obama, but for national politics altogether.

The question of course is, is Webb a good enough campaigner to communicate to white working class voters that they should vote for the Obama/Webb ticket. I think his campaign skills might actually be underrated, but who knows.

And for those who say Webb is too conservative: this is simply not true. He is pro-choice, pro-civil unions, pro stem cell research. He just takes a hard line on immigration and loves guns.

The only concern remaining is disenchanted women voters. My vote is for Webb, but I would understand picking Sebelius as well.

Posted by JY | May 23, 2008 2:33 PM

I don’t see how Obama can reconcile Webb’s thoughts on affirmative action with his own.

www.jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/statusofquotas.htm

Webb: Affirmative Action Behind Obama Woes
www.shadowtv.com/redirect/notification.jsp?vid=ab56ebedbbdc6966f16cbef70abf01c6

Posted by Argo | May 23, 2008 2:35 PM

Honestly, I think many women would be outraged if Obama picked a woman other than Hillary. They would think, "Hillary did all that work, running for president, yet another woman just cake-walks in and gets the v.p. nod?" I honestly hope Obama has thought about that.

Also, I'm a bit puzzled why Gen. Wesley Clark is not high on Obama's list. Talk about foreign policy/military credentials. And he was a Clinton supporter.

Posted by Janet | May 23, 2008 2:42 PM

Honestly, I think many women would be outraged if Obama picked a woman other than Hillary. They would think, "Hillary did all that work, running for president, yet another woman just cake-walks in and gets the v.p. nod?" I honestly hope Obama has thought about that.

Also, I'm a bit puzzled why Gen. Wesley Clark is not high on Obama's list. Talk about foreign policy/military credentials. And he was a Clinton supporter.

Posted by Janet | May 23, 2008 2:43 PM

Rob Portman should be on McCain's list.

I don't think anyone attending that "BBQ" this weekend at McCain's place is a serious contender. That's probably what they're there to be told.

"You're on the medium-sized list but not the short list. Enjoy the burgers."

Posted by Keilwerth | May 23, 2008 2:51 PM

Kathleen Sebelius for VP???

Do people not remember her being caught in this shameless, blatant lie just a year ago?

KS Gov tries her hand at disaster chasing
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/08/ks-gov-tries-her-hand-at-disaster-chasing/?print=1

CNN Reveals Truth About Sebelius’s Iraq-Ruined-Kansas Line, But Still Spins It Her Way
http://newsbusters.org/node/12611/print

Posted by Argo | May 23, 2008 2:53 PM

Yes Janet, choosing any woman over Hillary for VP would pretty much guarantee Obamas defeat in the fall. If would also be a justifiable defeat because picking a woman over Hillary would be so insulting and demeaning that even I, a life long Dem who has repeatedly pledged to support the nominee, would have trouble coming to terms with such a choice.

But I dont think it will come to that. If I read Obama correctly, separated from his loudmouthed idiot blog bullies, he is calm, practical, smart, well read in history and has spoken movingly about Doris Kearns Goodwins book Team of Rivals and how much he admires Lincoln for inviting his vanquished political opponents into his administration. The parallels between Lincoln and Seward and Obama and Clinton are multiple, and Seward, the vanquished favorite who felt he had been cheated out of the nomination, came to love Lincoln and they worked wonderfully together. If the loudmouthed hate monger lunatic fringe on the web can be shuffled to the side where they belong, I see a resolution here that may just work out very well.

Posted by Jammer | May 23, 2008 2:56 PM

Not only is Bloomberg not a Republican, even when he "was" he was the most liberal one in the country. No way he'd sign on to support the party platform. He'd lose his new york base (though we love him). Also, how in the world is mccain going to get a liberal jew down the throats of appalachia and the south?

Obama, on the other hand, could do worse.

C'mon marc.

Posted by Damien | May 23, 2008 2:56 PM

Along and Janet are, I think, accurate in their views about what will happen if Obama chooses a woman other than Senator Clinton. Aside from that, there are other issues to consider. Sibelius, while a fine choice in many ways, is from a small state with very few electoral votes and she brings no foreign-policy or military background to the table. Napolitano won't work; she's not a married woman with children, which is what voters expect of a woman candidate. Bill Richardson? That would enrage many Clinton supporters and I don't think we're going to see a black-Hispanic ticket this time out. Webb is going to be anathema to women due to his stance on women in the military. Strickland won't accept unless Clinton wants him to. He is very loyal to her.

I think, in the end, Obama will need to choose Clinton. I actually think they have very complementary strengths and I disagree that she would undercut his message of change. Face it, there's no greater change than electing a woman.

Posted by owl | May 23, 2008 2:59 PM

Yes Janet, choosing any woman over Hillary for VP would pretty much guarantee Obamas defeat in the fall. If would also be a justifiable defeat because picking a woman over Hillary would be so insulting and demeaning that even I, a life long Dem who has repeatedly pledged to support the nominee, would have trouble coming to terms with such a choice.

WTF? I really don't understand the logic of this position - it seems completely mad to me. Could somebody parse this out for me? Why is it a slap at women to choose a woman who is not Hillary Clinton for VP? Why is it less insulting to women to choose Ted Strickland as VP than it is to choose Kathleen Sebelius? This seems totally mad to me.

I think there are some downsides to Sebelius (her SOTU response was apparently a disaster), but the idea that choosing only the second women running mate ever would be a slap in the face to women is completely mad.

Posted by John | May 23, 2008 3:03 PM

Bloomberg would be an inspired choice for McCain, who knows zip about economics, but I don't think he'd do much to shore up the conservative evangelical base given he's a divorced Jew with liberal to moderate positions on hot button social issues. And while Romney would play well with the NRO crowd, he's electoral poison and McCain hates him.

As for Obama, I think he'll likely choose a white guy from a swing state. I just hope he doesn't choose Hillary.

Posted by mbtogut | May 23, 2008 3:06 PM

John, I can assure you I am not mad although you said it three times. It would not be an insult to "women" and you will carefully note I did not say that. It would be an insult to Clinton, unless he asks her first and she turns it down. As an insult to Clinton if would further enrage her people and make victory in the fall more difficult. If Clinton defeated Obama in a close race for the nomination and chose, oh lets say, Harold Ford, as her running mate, without offering to Obama first, do you think that would be a uniting or dividing step?

Posted by Jammer | May 23, 2008 3:21 PM

The short list? Robert Reich ... Patty Murray ... Steve Novick ...

Posted by RonK, Seattle | May 23, 2008 3:25 PM

Jammer, I absolutely agree with you -- Harold Ford was the simile I was thinking of. John, maybe one has to be a woman to understand this. Take it from Lynn Sweet, who gets the hat-tip from Ambinder above. Sweet says, "But if Obama passes over Clinton, it would backfire to put these lesser qualified women on the ticket." Obama and his wife have both called Senator Clinton one of the most capable, groundbreaking women on the planet. She's done the work, taken the risks. Choosing a different woman will look like a shallow attempt to placate Clinton's supporters. Obama needs those women who support Clinton so strongly. He knows that, too. And frankly, choosing a Clinton surrogate like Strickland or Bayh will do absolutely nothing to win over those women. It will only appease a few party insiders.

Of course, for Clinton there's a major risk here: If the Democrats somehow lose in November, all the blame will accrue to her. But I have believed for many months that a joint ticket would be unbeatable. I believe that even more strongly now.

Posted by owl | May 23, 2008 3:28 PM

I still think McCain would rather go back to Vietnam than run on a ticket with Romney, which is why it won't happen. He just despises the man. Plus, how the heck is McCain going to sell himself as a "straight talker" if he's running with Romney? It makes no sense.

Posted by Chris S. | May 23, 2008 3:30 PM

I like Phil Bredesen (D-TN Gov) for Obama.

Posted by Gnopple | May 23, 2008 3:30 PM

My favorite is Sebelius. I used to not be so crazy about Webb but I like him more and more as I get to know him better. I think Obama needs to follow Bill Clinton's example and go with someone of like mind as opposed to someone who "balances" the ticket. Like mind, to me, often means new blood. That's true of both Sebelius and Webb. It's not true of Bayh, Strickland, and God knows it's not true of Clinton. I still think that a major downside to Webb is the potential lost of his senate seat and the democrats would need to know they had a good candidate for that seat before letting him take a VP slot. Still, I'm a big Sebelius fan and she remains my first choice.

Posted by Keith Hood | May 23, 2008 3:31 PM

Argo:
I think you are misunderstanding what Webb said the other day.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 23, 2008 3:40 PM

I'm rereading some of the reasoning here and want to throw in one more point. Obama is offering a different kind of politics. I don't believe that Michael Gerson ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203015.html ) is an Obama supporter but he captured my feelings when writing, "Obama does not merely talk of a new kind of politics; his charisma, story and tone symbolize a shift in political eras. Obama voters believe they are changing politics forever -- a claim that Al Gore or John Kerry could never credibly make."

I believe that Obama is going to throw out all of the "old politics" reasoning for VP. Foreign policy experience, national security experience, someone to help him with the South, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. None of the usual stuff needs to be the deciding factor in his decision and I don't think it will be. His approach to politics is as revolutionary as automobiles, PC, and the world wide web. Those things broke the rules and brought about a world that only a few could have imagined at the time. He's doing that with politics. None of the old rules apply. We can pontificate all we want but when all is said and done we're going to stand back in amazement at what happens. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

Posted by Keith Hood | May 23, 2008 3:46 PM

I'm rereading some of the reasoning here and want to throw in one more point. Obama is offering a different kind of politics. I don't believe that Michael Gerson ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203015.html ) is an Obama supporter but he captured my feelings when writing, "Obama does not merely talk of a new kind of politics; his charisma, story and tone symbolize a shift in political eras. Obama voters believe they are changing politics forever -- a claim that Al Gore or John Kerry could never credibly make."

I believe that Obama is going to throw out all of the "old politics" reasoning for VP. Foreign policy experience, national security experience, someone to help him with the South, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. None of the usual stuff needs to be the deciding factor in his decision and I don't think it will be. His approach to politics is as revolutionary as automobiles, PC, and the world wide web. Those things broke the rules and brought about a world that only a few could have imagined at the time. He's doing that with politics. None of the old rules apply. We can pontificate all we want but when all is said and done we're going to stand back in amazement at what happens. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

Posted by Keith Hood | May 23, 2008 3:46 PM

Hillary people would be upset if a woman was put on the ticket that wasn't Hillary?

Hmmmm ....

What a bunch of petulant fools.

Nothing would reinforce the thoughts of misogynists more than that.

Outrage of woman other than clinton on the Dem ticket would show them not only to be sore losers, but also petty, and immature.

But if that works for you - go for it.

Posted by sn00t | May 23, 2008 3:50 PM

I actually think Webb and Obama stand very much in agreement on reforming affirmative action along class lines, or at least including lower class whites. I don't know if Obama would go as far as Webb, but I think it would provide a great opportunity for Obama to take a stand on that issue.

Posted by JY | May 23, 2008 3:50 PM

I too am completely confused by this Clinton is the only possible woman strain of thought. I mean, huh? Kathleen Sebelius has been in politics for over 20 years, and has been an accomplished governor. Janet Napolitano has also been an accomplished governor (and was US Attorney and state Attorney General before that). What, their long, successful careers in public service are meaningless? If picked they won't have "worked" for it? I'm really stunned that multiple people are making the argument that Sen. Clinton is the only woman qualified to be Vice President.

Posted by Scott | May 23, 2008 3:52 PM

Keith, can you let me know what is the attraction of Sebelius? I confess not to have closely followed her career. Her SOTU-reply speech, however,was one of the most singularly boring uninspiring speeches I have ever heard and, as a result, I formed an initial conclusion that she would also be terrible in a debate. Does she have any international or foreign policy or defense experience? Why do people talk her up so, and I am serious in asking and wanting to know.

Posted by Jammeer | May 23, 2008 3:53 PM

Anyone but Clinton. If Clinton is on the ticket, Senator Obama loses the votes of myself, my family, and all of my friends I have spoken to about politics. She is poison outside of her particular followers.

Posted by Daniel | May 23, 2008 3:55 PM

Bloomberg is not an R.

Posted by Mike f | May 23, 2008 3:56 PM

And so, Daniel, you and your family will vote for John McCain if Obama taps Clinton as his running mate?

Posted by ezr | May 23, 2008 3:59 PM

sn00t and scott, reread my last post and owl's post. It is NOT that she is the ONLY woman qualified. It is that after THIS campaign and with it so close and with tensions so high, to not ask her FIRST and have her reject it would very simply make victory in the fall vastly more difficult. It seems pretty darn easy to understand that logic and I must confess I am "stunned" and "confused" that people cannot understand the importance of Obama's being able to unite the party in order to win. My guess is Obama understands this and he will finesse it well. If he doesnt, its trouble this fall pure and simple.

sn00t, Petulant fools? Petty and immature? What a wonderful addition to the civilized nature of political discourse. My interest is in uniting the party. Others seem to relish the ability to anonymously hurl insults.

Posted by Jammer | May 23, 2008 4:01 PM

Jammer--I think the reaction stems from the implication that people would be outraged if he picked another woman and not clinton, but that that outrage would not exist if he picked someone else--say Jim Webb. Why? That position makes no logical sense.

I disagree with the idea that Obama should have to pick Clinton (or that the winner of the nomination should pick the second place finisher, more accurately.) But that's something of a reasonably defensible position. The confusion stems from the argument that you and others seem to be making that it's specifically insulting if Obama picks a different woman who he happens to prefer due to the fact that this woman is more qualified, or more in line with his thinking, or a better person to enhance his ticket, or not hell bent on destroying his candidacy and the party, etc.

Posted by brad | May 23, 2008 4:19 PM

Daniel wrote:

"Anyone but Clinton. If Clinton is on the ticket, Senator Obama loses the votes of myself, my family, and all of my friends I have spoken to about politics. She is poison outside of her particular followers."

Yeah, the Democrats wouldn't want to lose your circle of family and friends just for the sake of pandering to her 18 million or so primary voters. You're one of those charmingly and wildly egocentric Obama supporters that I have grown to love so dearly over these last few months.

Posted by lombard | May 23, 2008 4:29 PM

Jammer:

Couldn't agree more with you about Sebelius's response to the State of the Union address. It was the worst response I have ever seen - embarrasingly bad, actually. Not only was it boring and uninspired, as you say, it was also vapid and not at all responsive to Bush's address. If she is not sigficantly better than she showed with that address, she doesn't belong on anyone's ticket.

Posted by lombard | May 23, 2008 4:35 PM

Well - with what she just said about RFK ...

There's no way she's on the ticket ...

Point is m00t.

Next please.

Posted by Sn00t | May 23, 2008 4:36 PM

As a 50 something woman and a lifelong democrat, trust me.. picking a woman other than Clinton is suicide for Obama. Sebelius has a son that has done some creepy game show stuff.

For McCain, I am putting money on this one. Christopher Cox, Congressman from California who is now running the SEC.. He has the wallstreet cred, puts california in play, super conservative, CATHOLIC (should I say CATHOLIC again?). He has a life story that is amazing and was almost crushed in a car accident .. Grew up in Minnesota..

Posted by adeles | May 23, 2008 4:42 PM

Adeles:

Christopher Cox is a very interesting choice. He is not well known but is impressive. McCain could do a hell of a lot worse.

My own favorite would be Olympia Snowe but I know that could probably never happen.

Posted by lombard | May 23, 2008 4:46 PM

Obama - Webb or Richardson. Remember, Obama's path to victory is either through Colorado/New Mexico/Nevada or Virginia. I'm guessing he goes with the Scotch-Irish guy over the Hispanic guy.

McCain - some right-wing crazy I've never heard of.

Posted by goethean | May 23, 2008 5:07 PM

Sam Nunn!

1) Southerner
2) National security credentials
3) Bipartisan appeal
4) Wildcard: If Barr secures the Libertarian nomination, does that put Georgia in play?

Posted by matt | May 23, 2008 5:22 PM

Jindal Fever:

--Reformer
--Not another white boy
--Social conservative makes the base ecstatic
--Devout Catholic taps Obama swing vote weakness
--Health care expert
--More political experience than Obama
--More executive experience than either Obama or McCain

Posted by Eric R | May 23, 2008 5:56 PM

Clinton being the only woman who should be on the ticket is lunacy, frankly. I really doubt that he will ask her because they'd have to continually explain all the references she made to what she perceived as his incompetence. Doesn't make sense.

Posted by Rainy | May 23, 2008 6:29 PM

I think it's most important that Obama choose someone whose politics and positions mesh well with his own. S/he doesn't have to be lockstep, but there has to be an overall good fit. (I don't think it's worth anybody's time to try to game it out to put some state into play.) Clinton presents a number of problems, mainly all of the trash she's talked (all he has is a speech, isn't qualified to be president, is naive to say he'd talk to foreign dictators). Also, her current language/position on the war aside, I her vote for the war (and her overall hawkishness) is a problem. She'd just have to walk back so much that she's already said, and while she'd probably be willing to do that it might play well politically or it could just look ridiculous. Who knows.

For reasons I can't quite figure out I like Webb, but at the same time everyone complains that he has a "woman problem" and that's the last thing Obama needs. (Though query whether, as a military guy, he'd help with "security moms" or whatever they're called these days.) I think there's something to the notion that Sebelius or Napolitano would offend HRC supporters and I think that should be respected. I actually don't love any of the prospective veeps people are generally discussing (except Webb, with his warts and all), so I think it's a pretty tough task and I expect Obama to come up with something a little surprising but also compelling.

Posted by Steve V | May 23, 2008 6:33 PM

For McCain, I think Jindal would pose a problem because Jindal looks so young, and juxtaposed with McCain he would only highlight McCain's age.

As for Bloomberg, I don't think that would be likely either for McCain. McCain putting prochoice, antigun Bloomberg on the ticket would explode whatever left there is of the traditional Republican base behind McCain. McCain could literally lose the entire south with Bloomberg on the ticket.

Plus, I don't know if Bloomberg would really want to run with McCain. That would be hugely unpopular in NYC, and would go against much of what Bloomberg believes in politically.

Also, Bloomberg knows that there is a good chance that McCain loses; he wouldn't want to be identified with a losing ticket.

I also think that Bloomberg would not want to run against Obama, whom he likes very much and with whom he has more policy agreement.

It would be odd for McCain to have a veep choice who would actually agree more with the opposition candidate.

Posted by cm | May 23, 2008 6:48 PM

I think Obama should take a close look at Congresswoman Jane Harman - mature, eminently qualified, as smart as Hillary, foreign policy wonk, support from AIPAC, DLC-type, and a smart way to distance his administration from Pelosi

Posted by nytimer | May 23, 2008 6:56 PM

I think Mark Warner could be a game changer on a ticket with Obama, reinforcing his message of change and helping to bring Virginia into the Dem column. I just don't how it happens given his Senate race.

I'm warming to the idea of Webb, as he brings both national security credentials and a connection to the working class vote of the Appalachian region. But two first term Senators on the same ticket? Perhaps.

I'd be happy with either Richardson or Biden. Both would add foreign policy heft. Richardson would bring New Mexico and help out in the rest of the Mountain West.

I also wouldn't rule out a wild card like Phil Bredesen. Hey, if Obama can ramp up the black vote and increase his percentage of the white vote just a bit, he could legitimately put a few Southern states in play.

Posted by Bob | May 23, 2008 7:55 PM

I think the subtraction has to be considered too. I like Webb on a lot of levels, but I think the loss to the senate is greater than the gain to Obama. Go with a governor if the personality and geography work. Go with Clark if you think you need the military thing. I actually like Hagel a lot, I dont know how the party thing would work. But as goopers go he is palatable.

Posted by moondancer | May 23, 2008 8:31 PM

Re: Obama

Bad Choices:

Kathleen Sebelius - she's a stale campaigner, she screwed up her SotU response, no foreign policy experience, adds nothing electorally

Tim Kaine - Only been governor since '05, also a stale campaigner, no foreign policy experience, widely considered a lesser compared to his predecessor Mark Warner

Ted Strickland - too old (almost as old as McCain), has said he'd prefer to remain Ohio's governor, worked hard against Obama in the primary

Janet Napolitano - couldn't deliver Arizona for Obama in the primary, no foreign policy experience, stale campaigner

Joe Biden - adds nothing electorally (Delware will certainly be blue), could be hard to control though carries significant weight on foreign policy matters, uninspiring as a presidential candidate

Good Choices:

Hillary Clinton - unites party, appeals to parts of the Democratic electorate Obama has undeniable problems with (Latinos, white women), strong debater, would be effective attack dog on the trail, could eat Tim Pawlenty for breakfast

Jim Webb - strongest credibility on foreign policy/military matters of any possible veep, Democratic star, could help electorally in Appalachia, the South, downsides: hard to control/keep on message, uninspiring campaigner, too conservative for some parts of the base

Posted by Marc | May 23, 2008 8:35 PM

Top 3 for Barack Obama

Number 3
strickland would be the best possible rust belt selection, and that is a critical part of the country electorally, as he represented rural appalacia ohio in the house for ten years. he is a pastor. and he would unite the clinton wing of the party.

Number 2
the most important issue in 08 will be the economy. were mark warner not running for the senate, he would be the best fit of the virginia boys. virginia is a critical state, warner has a distinguished record of bipartisanship and sound fiscal stewardship, and he has worked extensively in the private sector (nextel etc). it is a real tricky move to take him out of the senate race though...

Number 1
bloomberg would be a great pick. bloomberg is liberal on hot button issues - pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-immigrant etc. he is a much more likely obama choice than mccain. the right wing would literally revolt if mccain picked him. obama would gain economic credibility overnight with mayor mike and he would be picking a person who could handle the oval office. mayor mike has a done a remarkable job in nyc.

voters are going to be primarily concerned about the economy come november and he needs someone who can help him there

Posted by lincoln | May 23, 2008 9:42 PM

These Democrat nominee choices are ludicrous!

Where is the old white guy to balance the ticket?

Where is ANY military or foreign policy experience?

I concede Jim Webb, but the three factors (white elderly, military, foreign policy) should be taken into serious account.

Put Bloomberg in the Obama column - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/27/obama.bloomberg/index.html

I always felt, personally, that Obama Bloomberg or Obama Hagel was the strongest Dem ticket -- but then again, Im a GOPer.

As far as McCain goes. I think the way to steal Obama's thunder from this primary is to put a woman on the GOP ticket - someone like Senator Hutchison.

Posted by Joey | May 23, 2008 11:44 PM

And so, Daniel, you and your family will vote for John McCain if Obama taps Clinton as his running mate?
Posted by ezr

Sadly yes. This is the impression I get from my family and friends. And it is also the way I feel. I didn't feel that way before this campaign, in fact I used to talk up a Clinton/Obama ticket to some of my coworkers. Now I could never stomach her in the vice presidency or the presidency.

Yeah, the Democrats wouldn't want to lose your circle of family and friends just for the sake of pandering to her 18 million or so primary voters. You're one of those charmingly and wildly egocentric Obama supporters that I have grown to love so dearly over these last few months.
Posted by lombard | May 23, 2008 4:29 PM

You have your opinions and I have mine. I was under the impression that the point of forums was to put our opinions out in the open to be considered. I really do feel very strongly about this.

I am only speaking on behalf of myself and those who I have had long discussions about the primary with. You are right, we are not equivalent to 18 million voters. But I would guess I am not the only person to feel this way. But as I say, that is a guess.

I somehow doubt however that all 18 million voters will vote against Senator Obama come the election if Senator Clinton is not on the ticket. Everyone has their own views and opinions, often as strong as my own.

This consideration makes your immediate statement that I am "egocentric" somewhat confusing however. I would have thought the fact that I avoided making broad claims about large groups of voters would show that I do know others have different views, rather than that I have no empathy or understanding of others views.

Posted by Daniel | May 24, 2008 12:01 AM

"The top five prospects, based on reporting, observation and guesswork, in no particular order."

Sorry to be dense, but is it the top five prospects that are in no particular order, or the different kinds of work you do that form the bases for naming those prospects (reporting, observation and guesswork)?

Posted by chris Steller | May 24, 2008 3:59 AM

I still think Jim Webb is Sen. Obama's #1 choice (good debater (see 2007 SOTU response), fopo experience, Virginia, working class whites, consistent opposition to the Iraq War, not to mention the NARRATIVE for the convention (watch Bob Gibbs' message shop work magic with that pairing)).

But why is Gen. Tony Zinni (Ret.) not in the conversation? He hits a lot of the same points as Webb (from a swing state - PA, consistent opposition to the Iraq War, fopo/military experience), plus he's an excellent speaker and debater.

Posted by Tom | May 24, 2008 9:11 AM

Zinni has made a lot of controversial statements recently, I think, Tom. I don't see him happening for Obama. Webb brings too many problems with the female vote, and Nunn brings too many problems with the gay vote. Besides, Sam Nunn is much less of a "change" than Hillary Clinton. At risk of sounding flip, it does seem to me that all of our presidents to date have possessed a . . . um, male member. Choosing a woman is such a departure from that. Clinton should never, IMO, tried to run on experience as her bedrock asset. Instead, she could have tapped into the desire for change not as effectively as Obama, perhaps, but effectively nonetheless.

Were McCain to choose Olympia Snowe, a lot of Democratic women would seriously consider voting for him if Clinton is not Obama's running mate. That's what I hear among Hillary-supporting professional women in DC. Snowe is well-regarded on both sides of the Senate aisle and is very moderate. If McCain taps a credible woman, Democrats will be up against more than we expecteed for in the fall.

Posted by owl | May 24, 2008 10:16 AM

I just have to say that this Republican from KS who has no intention of voting for Barack Obama would still be very pleased to see Kathleen Sebelius in the White House. And if getting there means she has to serve her time as Obama's VP first than I'm all for it.

Also, I feel like Mr. Ambinder deliberately leaves people like Jindal and Palin off his lists for McCain because he's thinking that they would only be "token" choices... a racial minority and a woman. But the fact of the matter is many Republicans really love Jindal and Palin regardless, and there's no reason why we shouldn't be as excited and honored as Democrats to vote for someone who's not just another old white guy... (though I have nothing against old white guys). Jindal would be a bad choice because he just became governor of Louisiana, but I feel like there's no reason Palin shouldn't be shortlisted...

Posted by Seth | May 24, 2008 1:26 PM

Ambinder, you ought to allow comments on all of your posts. I scrolled down until I found a place that allowed comments to post this comment. Your blog has a sterilized, dead feeling now that you have blocked comments to the vast majority of your posts.

I hope you will reconsider the value of public discourse and the real vitality of what a BLOG represents -- a chance for readers to participate in the discussions. To negate this is to kill the life of your blog.

Posted by Jones | May 24, 2008 2:13 PM

It will be Obama/Richardson. I had mentioned this to Juan Williams last summer. Yes, last summer.

Posted by eorse | May 24, 2008 4:55 PM

The first responsibility of a VP is do no harm: Webb has long passages in his war novels about prepubesent boys having oral sex performed on them - not the kind of topic you'd like to spend time on explaining away. Why can't Warner be like LBJ, who ran for both Senate and VP on the same ballot? Obviously Virginia law would have to be checked out, but Warner seems to have the best resume, puts the best potential states in play [VA and NC], and would be the best personality fit for the job and as debate foil for whoever McCain picks.

I was also glad to see Chris Cox mentioned above for VP, haven't heard much about his prospects for the last six weeks or so.

Posted by loki from WM | May 24, 2008 6:17 PM

How about Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore with the environment portfolio?

Posted by blogblah | May 24, 2008 7:43 PM

All the folks who are denigrating Janet Napolitano should take careful note of who she crushed in 2006 (that being Len Munsil) for re-election. Never heard of him, you say. There's a reason you've never heard of him, which is because no better-known Republican in this state wanted to go down to near-certain defeat to a popular governor who needed only her first name on her campaign signs.

She's dealt as a Democrat with Republicans in a Republican state for years now, and has benefitted from no spouse to move her along. She's gotten her positions on her own merits and in 2006, delivered what may have been a valedictory performance in sweeping aside the Republican challenger for office.

Janet knows how to beat Republicans, and she's a shrewd politician. She'd be an asset for any Democratic administration.

Posted by Josh | May 25, 2008 12:22 PM

A comparison of Kansas and Arkansas:

Population:
Kansas: 2,775,997 (#33)
Arkansas: 2,834,797 (#32)

GDP:
Kansas: $112 billion (#32)
Arkansas: $92 billion (#34)

So Sebelius is comparable to a Mike Huckabee or 1992 Bill Clinton, but she has the additional experience of being a legislator and successful insurance commissioner. It's a stretch to claim that Hillary, by virtue of being married to Bill, is more experienced. Hillary has no executive experience, and the few times she's been in charge of something (Health care reform, her presidential campaign) have been fiascoes.

Sebelius also participates in turkey hunts, for what it's worth.

She didn't blow anyone away with her SOTU response, but I think Obama is looking more for a political soul mate than someone who matches his oratory skills. She embodies his vision and has proven that she has the executive skills to make his vision reality.

She might not bring Kansas into play, but she vacations in Michigan and her dad was governor of Ohio.

Sebelius does not have foreign policy experience, but I'm not convinced that is necessary. Obama could easily make the case that he has a strong team of foreign policy advisors, and the VP does not have to be one of them. Picking someone with a better foreign policy resume than his might come across as a tacit admission that he is weak in this area. I expect him to make the case that longevity is not a substitute for ability, and his VP choice shouldn't undermine this case.

Palin looks great on paper, and she has been good for the people of Alaska, but in interviews she does not come across as being ready for the presidency. McCain, even moreso than Obama, needs someone who could convincingly step in and be president from day one. If people are worried about Obama's qualifications, there is no way they'd be comfortable with Palin or the 36-year-old Jindal.

Posted by Tim | May 25, 2008 3:57 PM

Anyone know why Bob Graham never makes these lists?

Posted by Michael Bacon | May 25, 2008 4:04 PM

What twisted logic??? Apparently, Hillary Clinton is not a woman, she is WOMEN. All other women are less beings to her superiority.

The irony is that every other woman mentioned for VP is a self-made woman, not the spouse of someone more famous than her. Is Clinton so entitled that no woman may become president before she does? Why do women identify so closely with such a flawed individual, when self-made women like Diane Fienstein and Nancy Pelosi are seen as nobodies? I'll never get feminists and their obsession with the Clintons: a serial womanizer and his Lady Macbeth.

Posted by AxelDC | May 25, 2008 4:06 PM

SAM NUNN.

Posted by TheUnknownStuntman | May 25, 2008 4:25 PM

Dems need Sebelius in 2010 to fill Sam Brownback's vacating Senate seat. That'll make her the first Democrat to the Senate from Kansas since the Depression and will add a key vote necessary to move legislation in (what may be) a 60+ Dem majority.

Webb's the guy because he is strong on matters where Obama is weak in the general election such as military policy and bitter white blue-collar Appalachian voters.

Posted by Jim | May 25, 2008 4:30 PM

"It is that after THIS campaign and with it so close and with tensions so high, to not ask her FIRST and have her reject it would very simply make victory in the fall vastly more difficult."

Perhaps, but this feels wrong somehow. Did Bill Clinton choose Jerry Brown or Tsongas in 1992? No he did not. Instead he chose another man. Bush did not choose Elizabeth Dole, but instead chose a man.

However what some of you seem to indicate is that choosing "another woman" is a grave insult to Hillary supporters, moreso than if he picked a man. This might make sense as the VP choice is often based on getting a demographic. Therefore having a woman VP is based in appealing to women. Therefore not choosing Hillary means you're either insulting her ability to connect to women or your denying her chance to be a gimmick. Umm I mean demographic appeal choice.

However if he chose a man it means he thinks he can do fine with women and is going for some other demographic. Like Hispanic, Southerner, elderly, and so forth. Hillary supporters could feel comfortable because she's not those things.

Posted by Thomas R | May 25, 2008 5:13 PM

I think if Obama picks Hagel he would lose the Jewish vote.

Posted by AG | May 25, 2008 5:33 PM

It's not serious to suggest the first african american nominee (on the Democrat side, no less) should pick a female Veep. So, no to Sebelius. And no to a minority male (Richardson, etc.).

The smartest choices for Obama in my opinion, in order:
1. Hagel
2. Webb

Posted by Anonymous1 | May 25, 2008 5:55 PM

Should McCain pick someone even vaguely palatable to swing voters (i.e. someone who is seen as a worthy and likable successor in the event that McCain were unable to finish four years due to health reasons--I see no one like that on this list, by the way), an Obama-Sebelius ticket is suicide in the general election.

Take a good look at likely "swing" states. Every one of them is a big 2nd amendment state.

Every. One. Of. Them.

Sebelius is one of the worst politicians in the country from the perspective of gun owners.

Obama doesn't need to shore up the Clinton left by picking Sebelius. They aren't going to be voting for McCain no matter what he or Obama says.

To win, he needs to reassure the center-left and center-right that he's not going to make any attempts to affect highly-unpopular progressive programs that hint at, for instance, gun confiscation. Webb and Hagel would help him out a great deal with the center. Sebelius is a millstone.

They day FoxNews does their first report on VP Sebelius is the same day that Obama gets permanently depicted as an unrepentant, gun-controlling commie. It's also the day McCain wins the election.

Posted by Shinyk | May 25, 2008 5:58 PM

Gov. Brian Schweitzer from Montana would be a great pick... I think Hagel would be a bold and worthwhile move as well. Either of these picks would show a sincere attempt at a new, post-partisan politics.

Posted by Robbie Ramone | May 25, 2008 6:11 PM

Why does Obama need a white male veep? There are a small portion of Americans who think that's a requirement, but are they really likely to vote for a black President?

If Clinton has shown anything this year, it's that the pro-woman vote is huge, and evidence suggests that it's significantly larger than the anti-woman vote.

Shinyk, what is Sebelius' problem with guns? I know she's opposed to concealed guns, but she recently signed a bill to allow people to own machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, etc. I find it hard to believe that makes her one of the worst politicians in the nation from the perspective of gun owners. She's certainly no worse than Clinton, who strongly favors gun control and wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban. That didn't stop Clinton from winning the votes of gun owners.

I think Schweitzer looks appealing as well. People say he's out because he's running for re-election this year, but does that really mean he wouldn't give VP a shot?

Posted by Tim | May 25, 2008 6:39 PM

What about Wesley Clark? He had a decent following 4 years ago, would be a Clinton stand-in, someone with real military/nat'l security experience, is from Arkansas (so as to help with the appalachian problem), and won't outshine Obama.

Posted by Jesse Wald | May 25, 2008 6:57 PM

Wes Clark would be the best choice, for all the reasons referenced to choose Webb, Hagel, Nunn or, for that matter, Clinton, without the baggage that each of those carry. Former commander of NATO, consistent opposition to the Iraq war from the start, support from the Clintons.

So it figures that no one in the chattering class takes any notice.

Posted by MS | May 25, 2008 6:58 PM

Wes Clark would be the best choice, for all the reasons referenced to choose Webb, Hagel, Nunn or, for that matter, Clinton, without the baggage that each of those carry. Former commander of NATO, consistent opposition to the Iraq war from the start, support from the Clintons.

So it figures that no one in the chattering class takes any notice.

Posted by MS | May 25, 2008 6:58 PM

Keep Reed, Biden, Webb, Dodd, Lugar (wishful thinking) as moderate dealmakers in the Senate.

HAGEL as VICE PRESIDENT is the only selection of the below that is a MUST:

1) V.P. -- CHUCK HAGEL
2) Secy of State -- BILL RICHARDSON
3) Secy of Defense -- WILLIAM COHEN (or possibly switch with HAGEL)
4) Secy of Treasury -- moderate conservative...or BARNEY FRANK?? (can't decide the way to go)
5) U.N. Ambassador -- SAM BROWNBACK
6) N.S.A. -- JANE HARMAN

Posted by g08ama! | May 25, 2008 10:44 PM

Sebelius gave a bad State of the Union response, true, but she's a very shrewd governor and oversaw & maneuvered a lot of high-profile Republicans into switching parties. She'd need training for the debates. I disagree w/ the idea that Hillary supporters wouldn't go for her; I think many of them would be thrilled to have a woman on the ticket. Hillary is out because of her RFK comments. She has talked her way out of the VP slot.

If it weren't for Webb's old comments, he'd be my top choice, but I think it could create a problem with the woman vote.

Hagel is, I think, a no. Obama will pick a Democrat. Obama needs to know that his VP will implement his policies; Hagel's way too conservative on every issue besides Iraq.

goBama, I think you mean "Sam Nunn," not Sam Brownback. But I like your State pick.

Posted by Greg | May 25, 2008 11:57 PM

It's not serious to suggest the first african american nominee (on the Democrat side, no less) should pick a female Veep. So, no to Sebelius. And no to a minority male (Richardson, etc.).
The smartest choices for Obama in my opinion, in order:
1. Hagel
2. Webb

It's not serious to suggest that Obama would pick someone who is currently a Republican for VP, nor it is serious to suggest that Hagel would agree to be VP to a Democratic president.

If Obama wanted to be bipartisan, the more likely choice would be Webb, who was elected as a Democrat in '06 even though he used to be a Republican.

I can see Obama putting Hagel in his Cabinet, particularly at defense, but no way he would pick him for VP. The party would go nuts, especially after he bypassed Hillary.

Posted by Jon | May 26, 2008 12:44 AM

Responses:
1. Women (rather the type of women who are enthusiastic about a female Prez or Veep) showed power in the Democrat primaries. We're talking about the general election. McCain running against Hillary would be smart to pick a female Veep. Obama running against McCain would not be.
2. It's serious to suggest Obama pick someone who is currently a Republican for VP, if that Republican loudly and consistently opposed the War in Iraq. It's constitutional, it helps Obama win the center and supress voter turnout from the right, and the War in Iraq opposition is cover for his base on the left. In fact, it may take something that extreme to get the first darker skinned person elected president, given that they're running from the left side of the political spectrum and as a Democrat. So, in summary, I think Obama could get away with it with his base, and I think it's about the most he could do with his Veep pick to try to win the general election.
3. Webb over Clark. Webb actually wins nominations and elections.

Posted by Anonymous1 | May 26, 2008 12:58 AM

I believe Wes Clark would make a good choice for a number of reasons. He's a Clinton supporter but would have no problem supporting Obama. He fills the military/national security deficits of Obama. Highly decorated 4 star general who knows how to win wars with a minimum of casualties. Very knowledgeable on the intracacies of middle east politics. He's half jewish, extremely smart, was first in his class at West Point. Doesn't have a lot of weight in one particular state but would help with the white male vote in a lot of them. The two of them would look very good together compared to McBush and whoever he'd pick. Can't think of any glaring negatives.

Posted by JDL51 | May 26, 2008 1:32 AM

Wes Clark is good on paper but I think he has a Mitt Romney problem: the only thing most Americans know about him is he wants to be president or VP...badly..."Katie Couric, please call me!" And it just doesn't look good. Might not subtract much from the ticket, but don't think it would add anything.

Posted by Kevin | May 26, 2008 2:27 AM

Wes Clark is my first pick. He has all the military cred you could want, he's smart, personable, and he is more than prepared to handle the logistical nightmare that withdrawing from Iraq will be. Jim Webb is a good candidate, but that's two awfully new figures in politics on one ticket. Clark's experience is extensive and complements Barack's perfectly. He's also an outsider, in a sense, because he hasn't held elected office.

Posted by Morgaine Swann | May 26, 2008 2:31 AM

Shinyk, what is Sebelius' problem with guns? I know she's opposed to concealed guns, but she recently signed a bill to allow people to own machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, etc. I find it hard to believe that makes her one of the worst politicians in the nation from the perspective of gun owners.

Conceal-carry permits are a bigger issue for gun advocates than the ability to buy a "machine gun." Conceal-carry permits go straight to the issue of self-defense/defense of family, where the ability to buy exotic weapons is more of a niche issue for collectors and militia-types (though the words ____ ban will get any gun advocate worked up whether he or she would ever look to arm his or herself with a so-called assault weapon in the first place).

Sebelius strongly opposed and vetoed a popular, uncontroversial measure in a pro-gun state. It's not just that Sebelius had a problem with the Conceal-carry bill; it's that almost no one else in the state did--voter or politician . Once gun owners know that, the election would likely swing against an Obama/Sebelius ticket in the red and purple states that are supposedly in play--and are necessary for an electoral majority. Ohio and Pennsylvania, in particular, are both almost certainly going to McCain if Sebelius can be painted as a gun-controller, which she can be and would be.

There are very few pro-gun-control single-issue voters. By contrast, there might be a few million gun advocates that vote on that issue alone--and many millions more who stongly factor 2nd amendment issues in. Putting someone like Sebelius on any national ticket is a pretty good way to get the opponent elected.

Posted by Shinyk | May 26, 2008 3:29 AM

The idea of McCain picking Bloomberg is completely ridiculous. Pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, anti-gun, New York Jew?

I remember months ago when the idea of an Obama-Bloomberg ticket was thrown out there; it was discredited by nearly everywhere for being way too far left, and now the candidate with the R next to his name is going to take it up? Please.

McCain's got enough trouble not looking like a "true conservative"; he does this and the ONLY people who vote for him will be a minority of Independents, some Jewish Democrats, and super-rich Republicans.

Plus, the VP is supposedly to be an attack dog, and Bloomberg is clearly an Obama fan.

I don't know how you can put him in McCain's top 5 while Chuck Hegel (who has a FAR more likely shot of pairing with Obama) is only a "wild card".

Posted by Luke | May 26, 2008 4:37 AM

Another thing. Richardson and Dodd, wherr they at??

Posted by Luke | May 26, 2008 4:42 AM

JFK/LBJ
Reagan/Bush
Obama/Clinton

Guaranteed win in the general. Obama doesn't want to do it because it will appear as if he needed Clinton's help to win. That is why his campaign worked the RFK gaffe this weekend. They wanted to disqualify her from consideration. The Dem big wigs and even some of Obama's own major DC insiders were warming to the idea of Clinton but the Chicago faction wants nothing to do with her.

Obama should remember that the VP spot isn't worth a warm bucket of piss and do the deed after June 3. Hell, Clinton may even say no and then he can pick whomever he wants without facing any sort of backlash.

Posted by swallow pride | May 26, 2008 8:06 AM

How about Lee Hamilton, Dick Gephardt, why do these names not come up? Great blue collar appeal, great resumes.

Posted by tom hayden | May 26, 2008 8:59 AM

I like Webb, but his prior statements on women in military service roles could piss off enough Clinton females supporters to hurt Obama.

Posted by dave | May 26, 2008 2:30 PM

One thing that strikes me about a lot of the VP speculation: lots of people think the candidates should pick someone young and fresh and new.

I disagree, for two reasons.

First, I think it unlikely that any voter will pick a Presidential candidate based on the fact that his VP is from the same state; there is little evidence, for example, that John Edwards helped Kerry in NC, or Lloyd Bentsen helped Dukakis in Texas. So the notion of picking somebody from a swing state to deliver that swing state is just stark raving mad.

Indeed, it seems to me more likely that a VP will harm a ticket rather than help it- for example, by making a gaffe in a debate. So it is more important to pick a candidate who will not make mistakes rather than one who is exciting, charismatic, etc. So for example, Jim Webb would be a simply terrible choice because his combination of candor and lack of experience makes him a potential gaffe machine.

Second, both candidates, for different reasons, need to focus on experience. One of Obama's difficulties is his inexperience- so like Bush in 2000 (who faced similar questions) he needs an experienced Vice President, someone who voters might think could be a mentor and potential President. That means an Old White Male with some national profile with a reputation for not making mistakes. Think Dick Gephardt or Sam Nunn. (Nunn is older and a bit far to the right for some Democrats, so I think Obama would be better off with Gephardt). Gephardt's mediocre history as a national candidate suggests he won't gain votes. But more importantly, he won't lose any.

On the Republican side, a key part of McCain's message is experience. So to pick someone as or more inexperienced than Obama deflates that message. After all, how can McCain claim Obama is too inexperienced to be President when his running mate is equally unqualified?

So his running mate should be someone younger and more vigorous than himself, but still old enough and experienced enough to come across as a "grown up." Fred Thompson fits the bill- eight years in the Senate, plus he seems old. (I think Romney would be a better President- but Thompson has more gravitas). Again, Thompson's lackluster performance as a Presidential candidate doesn't mean he'd be a bad VP candidate- because the VP's job is less to inspire people than to not make mistakes. (And of course, Thompson satisfies the right-wing base, since he seems to be one of these people who, like one Gilbert and Sullivan character, "voted always at his party's call and never thought of thinking for himself at all.")

Posted by Mike | May 26, 2008 4:16 PM

To go for oddball.

Dave Freudenthal: Popular Democratic governor in one of the most Republican states in the nation.

Daniel Inouye: He's old, Asian, and a war veteran. (Three groups he does poorly with) They'te both from Hawaii so they'll take that state by storm!

Joe Manchin: He's been a popular governor in West Virginia. He's also Catholic and Obama has not done that well with Catholics.

Lastly he could pick Robert Byrd. He's old, Appalachian, and was in the KKK. For a black President to pick him would really be post-racial or something. (This is the least serious one)

Posted by Thomas R | May 27, 2008 12:37 AM

", that John Edwards helped Kerry in NC, or Lloyd Bentsen helped Dukakis in Texas. So the notion of picking somebody from a swing state to deliver that swing state is just stark raving mad."

TR: Neither of those were really swing states.

In 1996 Bob Dole won North Carolina by 4%. In 1992 Clinton lost the state more narrowly to Bush. The last Democratic Party Presidential candidate to win North Carolina was Carter in 1976.

Texas had become fairly strong Republican when Dukakis picked Bentsen. They had not voted for a Democrat to be President since Carter in 1976. (Carter was the last Democrat to thoroughly take the South) In 1980 55.28% of Texans went for Reagan and in 1984 63.61% of them voted for Reagan.

Posted by Thomas R | May 27, 2008 12:48 AM

The only new name I see that looks plausible since my last post is Sam Nunn, since in a perfect storm (black turnout, white evangelical voter suppressed turnout, Barr former constituents voting Libertarian) Georgia might actually be deliverable for Obama, and Nunn could put that over the top. Georgia plus no no general election campaign mistakes could equal the presidency for Obama, if anything could.

So top pick recommendations for Obama revised:
1. Chuck Hagel
2. Webb/Nunn (undecided which is better)

Posted by Anonymous1 | May 27, 2008 1:45 AM

Hagel and Obama have nothing in common except opposition to the war in Iraq. Hagel therefore makes sense only if you are someone who views opposition to the war in Iraq as the principal issue of the day, rather than the economy, health care, deficits, the environment, judges, immigration or whatever other issues are on the table in 5 months. Since most of the people who are focused principally on ending the Iraq war are already going to vote for Obama, I doubt this gets Obama anything in the way of new voters.

Hagel is also good friends with, and on all issues except the war in Iraq, a frequent ally of John McCain, and would be unlikely to run on a ticket against his good friend and ally.

And what state does Hagel deliver -- Nebraska? Who cares. The election is not going to be decided by Nebraska.

What Obama needs to win is someone who can deliver independents who are focused on another issue, or someone who can reassure white working class folks that Obama is OK, or someone who can deliver an important purple state.

Webb gets him a shot at Virginia, Nunn gets him a shot at Georgia, Strickland gets him a shot at Ohio, and all of them help him with working class white men. Bloomberg gets him a shot at Wall Street Republicans and independents who are otherwise socially moderate. Hagel gets him nothing other than what he already has. It just doesn't make any sense.

Posted by Jon | May 27, 2008 3:54 AM

rather than the economy, health care, deficits, the environment, judges, immigration or whatever other issues are on the table in 5 months

Apparent Democratic party plans on

economy: bribe farmers, bribe irresponsible real-estate speculators, talk about caring for the little people

health care: pretend that insurance prices are driving cost of care (instead of the other way around) and provide voters with a new, unsustainable entitlement. Blame subsequent administration (if Republican) for failing to properly administer said entitlement when it implodes.

the environment: perpetuate ethanol fraud in the interest of continued farmer bribery, perpetuate carbon-offset fraud in the interests of doing nothing and saying they did

immigration: hope Senator (or President) McCain again proposes something palatable to Democratic interest groups and hide behind his coattails. Again.

The Democrats have no viable plans for the first three things because no one, anywhere, has thought of any solutions that are possible politically, if any solutions even exist (presently) in the first place. Economies are too big to micromanage effectively (see Chavez, Hugo and Venezuelan food shortages), the technology doesn't presently exist to replace coal plants with anything other than nuclear (which the Democratic party, for some unexplained reason, does't like), and no meaningful Health Care reform via government could take place without dealing with a whole host of issues the Democratic party won't touch for fear of upsetting people and losing votes (Doctor pay, Nurse pay, etc.).

Fair immigration reform is not impossible, but the Democratic party is too spineless to affect it because any immigration plan not involving "rounding them up and sending them home" could cost the party a few less-educated voters, so, as I said, they will again wait for McCain to propose something.

No, come fall, any strategy other than sticking almost exclusively to Iraq or trashing Republicans is a loser for the Democratic Party if voters take even a cursory glance at where it stands on anything. In that sense, Hagel and Webb are perfectly wise picks.

-Oh, and if there's a viable party that concerns itself with deficits, please tell me so I can join it.

Posted by Shinyk | May 27, 2008 4:45 AM

Let me throw out Joe Sestak. Retired admiral, ran against the Iraq war in 2006 (he wants to focus on Afghanistan), one-term Democratic congressman (so he's not tainted by a long time in Congress), strong Hillary supporter and from a swing state (PA, although if Obama can't carry PA without help, he's in big trouble).

Posted by Dave | May 27, 2008 1:09 PM

Hillary Clinton? Absolutely no chance.

Janet Napolitano? No sense in Obama picking her, as she probably won't help him carry McCain's home state.

Sebelius has crossover and executive cred to spare (imagine balancing a state's budget without raising taxes at all!). She's also a good campaigner. She might not be able to flip Kansas, but she'll definitely make the GOP spend more money there than they'd like to hold it.

Where's Blanche Lincoln? Yes, she's a centrist from Arkansas, so this might bring up visions of HRC that BHO wants nothing to do with. But she's hugely popular there, has 14 years in Washington (or more than Obama and Clinton combined, and has never lost an election in Arkansas. She's also under 50 years old.

Finally, I know Mark Warner has put out the word that he's not interested in the Veepstakes. However, I can't imagine he would turn it down if offered - with a potential red carpet to the Dem nomination in 2016. He'd almost certainly turn VA blue by himself, and he'd play well around the country.

Posted by Boyd, Turtle Creek PA | May 27, 2008 1:26 PM

Ambinder Veepstakes Lists

Comments (101)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives