Ambinder Veepstakes Lists, 6/13

Has Brian Schweitzer been mentioned at all? From the little I know about him he'd make an excellent running mate for Obama.

Posted by slicky | June 13, 2008 3:40 PM

OT. Tim Russert dead of heart attack.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nbcs-tim-russert-dead-heart/story.aspx?guid=%7B9FFF60AE%2D0329%2D48A3%2D8B99%2D8C8CF556EEA2%7D&dateid=39612.6492325926-931509623#comments

Posted by drjimcooper | June 13, 2008 3:41 PM

My guess is Obama goes with a young Governor. I also suspect Hillary Clinton and her supporters will not be thrilled with a woman running mate. That leaves Kaine on your list. Jones won't happen--too many ties to big oil.

Kaine would be a pretty solid pick. He has executive experience (he was Mayor of Richmond before getting elected Lt. Gov. and Governor). He's Catholic, and he'd appeal to Catholics.

If not Kaine, then maybe Sebelius. If not Sebelius, then maybe Richardson. If none of them, maybe Mark Warner or Evan Bayh.

But my guess is Obama/Kaine.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | June 13, 2008 3:42 PM

Sebelius is a weak, flaccid version of Hillary Clinton. Expect massive anger from many of her supporters. It will be a transparent attempt to pacify women without really doing it. Many of Clinton's supporters want her, not just any ole woman.

And Webb, serious problems.

Kaine and McCaskill have no experience. It'll be the ticket with the least preparedness in modern history.

Daschle? He couldn't even win the South Dakota primary for Obama.

Posted by Grant | June 13, 2008 3:47 PM

Curious why you don't include Rob Portman for McCain? Seems more likely than Crist because of rumors (true or not) about his personal life.

Posted by anon | June 13, 2008 3:48 PM

To Grant, Sebelius actually doesn't resemble Clinton other than being a woman and having a famous political name.

Sebelius brings no voters in to the mix, while in contrast Clinton has large support among many voters. If you take a look at polls (such as Gallup) since Clinton dropped out, Obama's support has not changed. It had been around 46%, + or - 1 or 2 % points. Sebelius won't add to that, but Clinton will.

Posted by John | June 13, 2008 3:51 PM

"Obama's support has not changed. It had been around 46%, + or - 1 or 2 % points."

Since June 5, it has been as low as 46% in precisely five Gallup or Rasmussen tracking polls. On each occasion it was exactly 46%.

The correct way to characterize it is 48%, + or - 1 or 2 % points.

Posted by Joe | June 13, 2008 3:59 PM

In don't know where you pulled the Democratic list out of, but it's mostly wrong. Daschle and his wife have too much lobbying problems and Jones is a non-starter. Webb is out because of his past writings. Kaine is a lightweight. The finalists are:

Biden
Clark
Warner (not likely because of the senate run)
McCaskill (possible, but her husband's nursing home problems in the past might put knock her out)
If McCaskill's out, Sebelius

I think it will either be Biden or Clark.

Posted by Paleo | June 13, 2008 4:02 PM

By August, the Clinton issue will be mostly solved, which makes it a non factor in selection. I think he could pick someone who will not run for President in 8 years and make the Clinton's happy. To keep the McCain age issue as an under the radar concern, he needs to pick someone who is under 70 on election day (sorry Sam Nunn). I think Biden, Daschle, Gephardt, Bob Kerrey, Clark, and General James Jones make sense for this type of choice.

Posted by G | June 13, 2008 4:04 PM

I'm putting my money on Clark. He was a big Clinton backer, so there's a little bit of a unity bonus (although who knows the effects of picking a man over Clinton herself). He has huge military cred and could help blunt the anti-American, anti-military rhetoric that McCain will use against Obama. He's from the South. And as we've seen, Obama needs a little help with white men, and this would surely help.

Posted by Josh | June 13, 2008 4:05 PM

I do agree with Josh. Clark balances the ticket out very nicely. He's also been uping his national profile again on behalf of Barack which could definitely been seen as eagerness on his part. Also, avoiding taking a senior democratic senator out of his seat might be on the minds of the party since the majority is so thin to begin with. I know Chuck Todd seeded him second in his Veepstakes...

Posted by James | June 13, 2008 4:08 PM

Clark probably has the least downside. Other than internal ego clashes in the military, he's clean. Biden's achilles heel could be the fact that he got his son, Hunter, a job at MBNA as a favor for all the watercarring he did for that company. That could knock him out.

Posted by Paleo | June 13, 2008 4:10 PM

I'd like to echo what slicky said above.

Has anyone mentioned Schweitzer? And if not, why not?

He seems like a slam dunk. Tied with Webb, he is my favorite.

Sebelius & McCaskill seem like it's just a pander to the Clinton vote & a transparent one at that. Neither one has seemed striking in interviews.

Daschle isn't mean enough for VP. Especially for Obama.

And beyond their wiki pages, I know nothing about Kaine & Johnson

Posted by John B | June 13, 2008 4:13 PM

Mark . . . Warner. Former governor with 90% approval rating. Picking Tim Kaine gives Virginia's governorship to a Republican. Kaine's Lt. Gov. is a Republican. Obama's relationships with Kaine, Daschle and Sebelius seem strongest, but he's also on good terms with Warner and Webb. Still, the veep will be Warner from my own guesswork.

Posted by Gabriel Ramirez | June 13, 2008 4:19 PM

the top virgina boy should be mark warner. by far the most popular political figure in this key electoral state, he has a track record of working effectively across the aisle, and has strong private sector experience with nextel.

warner is the only compelling name i have seen floated around. sebelius would be an acceptable choice, but doesnt seem to bring much to the ticket.

pawlenty was far more impressive than kaine on fox news on sunday.

if not warner, then i think obama should pick a person from an elder statesperson.

Posted by Lincoln | June 13, 2008 4:20 PM

the top virgina boy should be mark warner. by far the most popular political figure in this key electoral state, he has a track record of working effectively across the aisle, and has strong private sector experience with nextel.

warner is the only compelling name i have seen floated around. sebelius would be an acceptable choice, but doesnt seem to bring much to the ticket.

pawlenty was far more impressive than kaine on fox news on sunday.

if not warner, then i think obama should pick a person from an elder statesperson.

Posted by Lincoln | June 13, 2008 4:21 PM

Sebelius is a weak, flaccid version of Hillary Clinton. Expect massive anger from many of her supporters.

I don't really see how Sebelius is like Clinton at all. She's a governor as opposed to a senator, and her prior job was an insurance commissioner instead of a first lady. Their personae are also very different -- Hillary stresses being a partisan fighter whereas Sebelius stresses post-partisan compromising. True, they could both bring an emphasis on health insurance... but aside from that, I don't see how she's a version of Clinton unless in your mind every woman is completely interchangable.

I suspect most Clinton supporters would be thrilled to see a woman on the ticket, though there are a few Cult of Hillary dead-enders that view Clinton's cracking the glass ceiling as an "for me but not for thee" statement that feminine advancement is for one person and not allowed for women writ large.

Kaine and McCaskill have no experience.

Eight years of statewide executive experience (lt. governor, governor) for Kaine certainly doesn't qualify as no experience. McCaskill's years of state auditor followed by two years in higher office is less than that -- but it's the same as the oft-mentioned Sarah Palin, Charlie Crist, and Bobby Jindal on the Republican side.

Posted by jbryan | June 13, 2008 4:21 PM

Kaine was Mayor of Richmond from 1998-2002, he was Lt. Gov. from 2002-2006, and he's been Governor since January 1st 2006. That's 10 years of Executive Experience there. McCaskill would be an interesting choice, and she'd also be a fine candidate. Kaine would be a good candidate too. He's been a good Governor, and he'd be a good President (which is ultimately what the selection is about).

Off topic, condolences to family and friends of Russert.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | June 13, 2008 4:28 PM

Interesting how every name on McCain's list is a governor. Despite how much everyone likes to hate him, I've had a grudging respect for Romney since approximately after Iowa. He's competent. It's too bad for him that being a Mormon sinks him with the GOP base.

Posted by illissius | June 13, 2008 4:32 PM

I'll throw my dice:

1) Wes Clark
2) Brian Schweitzer (this is my personal favorite
3) Kaine

Posted by Ed S | June 13, 2008 4:44 PM

The momentum is so democratic that Sen Obama has the luxury of selecting a VP based on how they would govern together, as opposed to how that'll help in the general election.

The great unknown is how well he gets along with these folks and how simpatico they are in terms of their governing styles and the key people that they want to surround themselves with.

For whatever reason, I've gotten the sense that he really respects Gov Sebelius' opinion and would like to work with her.

Posted by JR, Boston | June 13, 2008 4:50 PM

I hope Obama's list is more extensive than that, because I am not impressed. Daschle? What on earth does he bring to the ticket? Not dynamic, not a good debater or speaker, has the ear of no voting block, not strong on defense.

Sebelius and McCaskill, I have posted before to deaf ears but any choice of a woman other than Hillary and you will lose more than the 40% of Hillary supporters who are already at least temporarily lost. It would be an insulting and politically tone deaf move of breathtaking proportions. You cannot insult her supporters over and over and over again and expect that all you have to do is say "Roe v. Wade" and they will come back. I argue with Obama people all the time on this issue and they just dont get it. No...they want Sebelius AND to blame Hillary if he loses. God, does anyone know how to play this here game?

Kaine and Webb are decent. Rendell, Biden, Wes Clark should be on the list.

Are we really this short of good candidates? McCain's list looks better to me.

Posted by Jammer | June 13, 2008 4:52 PM

jbryan, no its not a cult rejection of Sebelius or McCaskill, but it is necessary that Obama have at least some slight sensitivity to how a huge voting block feels before he flings a finger in their faces and expects them all to jump up and say aye with a hearty "Roe v. Wade." I continue to assert that it would be so politically tone deaf and insulting that he really then better be prepared to win without Clinton supporters and I dont think he can. Most women I know who were Clinton supporters are not the least bit impressed with talk of Sebelius or McCaskill, and they are not cultists. The depths of inability of Obama people to see this or understand it makes me very worried.

Posted by Jammer | June 13, 2008 5:01 PM

I like brian schweitzer for the job

Posted by skip | June 13, 2008 5:06 PM

Sebelius has been a front runner for the position from the time she endorsed Obama, if not before she endorsed him and Obama wouldn't be picking her as a woman to satisfy the Clintonites since Sebelius has been on the radar for a long time. She brings a like mind and to me that is more important than whether or not she can deliver Kansas which she will probably not be able to do. I really think that Obama is powerful enough on his own that he really doesn't need to give serious strategic consideration to his VP. He'll win as long as he doesn't pick a time bomb personality. I think a matched mindset and temperament are the most important considerations and Sebelius seems to be the best match on that front.

Posted by Keith Hood | June 13, 2008 5:06 PM

God, does anyone know how to play this here game?

Yeah, I think there are plenty of books on parenting that deal with how to respond to temper tantrums.

Posted by jbryan | June 13, 2008 5:12 PM

I had to look up the word rapprochement. It doesn't sound like a good thing but turns out that it actually is a very good thing.

Posted by Lori | June 13, 2008 5:18 PM

Marc, any light you can shed on the possibility of Mark Warner would be much appreciated.

Posted by DKE | June 13, 2008 5:19 PM

And look, I'm sorry if that sounds snippy, but a temper tantrum is how this sounds to me. No, I don't expect Sen. Obama to fling a finger in the face of women everywhere and then say Roe and expect their support. I DO expect him to work hard (very hard) for the votes of women by making a compelling case on the base of the issues -- and I think on a wide variety of women's issues he's got the right positions, has good proposals, and would be about a billion leagues better than John McCain.

I certainly don't expect him to take their support for granted, to not work for it, to not make an issues-based case, and to limit his case to abortion. But this idea that because there are a small percentage of Clinton supporters (and it is a small percentage, I have no doubt, that would find anyone other than Clinton unacceptable as the sole litmus test for Obama's candidacy) who don't find anyone else but her acceptable and so there should therefore be a total veto of any female candidate is so completely wrongheaded. It is not a huge insult to women everywhere if Obama chooses a woman as his running mate who does not happen to be Hillary Clinton.

Are we really this short of good candidates? McCain's list looks better to me.

Really? I think we've got a pretty fantastic slate of potential candidates, from Webb/Kaine/Warner to Sebelius to Clinton to Clark to Schweitzer to Biden and so on. It's an embarrassment of riches.

Posted by jbryan | June 13, 2008 5:23 PM

Picking Mark Warner causes problems. Suddenly, VA Dems are scrambling to find a replacement for the Senate, though I do believe that a tree stump could probably beat Jim Gilmore in that state.

I also believe Brian Schweitzer is a good choice. Similar in terms of temperament and political style, outsiderism, and he's pretty charming and likable. I get the sense he'd quickly become a media darling. Plus, he's got some executive experience, he's spent time in the Middle East, and he knows energy policy. Gold.

Posted by Lev | June 13, 2008 5:30 PM

I wonder if Obama perhaps thinks Biden isn't clean or articulate enough to share the ticket...

Posted by bws | June 13, 2008 5:44 PM

I wonder if Obama perhaps thinks Biden isn't clean or articulate enough to share the ticket...

Posted by bws | June 13, 2008 5:44 PM

Marc, Gen. James Jones is one of McCain's best friends... lets get serious.

Obama cannot pick a woman who is not Clinton - it will enrage Clinton's female supporters even more; and none of the women mentioned overcome the qualifications question that Obama is facing.

And the one person missing from McCain's list is Meg Whitman.

Posted by George | June 13, 2008 6:05 PM

James Jones would be fantastic, as would Wes Clark. I get the feeling that Obama needs someone with military experience.

This "Obama cannot pick a woman who is not Clinton" meme is stupid beyond belief. Very, very few women are so insanely devoted to Hillary Clinton. Let's not exaggerate the number of Harriet Christians out there, okay?

Now, personally, I don't think Sebelius or McCaskill are ideal choices, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they're not Hillary Clinton.

Posted by jagorev | June 13, 2008 6:55 PM

We've seen so much of Carly Fiorina with McCain recently I've been wondering if he's auditioning her for VP. A lot of people don't like her, and her legacy at HP is questionably. But, she is being presented as an economic expert, and she would offer a lot of appeal to the middle aged women disaffected by Hillary's loss. It would not give him credibility with the right wing of his party, but it would give him pull with women in the center. I hope he sticks with a male running mate.

Posted by Sherry | June 13, 2008 7:06 PM

Reading the comments here, I remember why I wasn't ever an HRC supporter - to her supporters, despite their plaintive cry of "we want a woman!", it wasn't about any woman, but Hillary. For me, that was the main objection.

I've been wanting a viable woman presidential candidate since I first voted 28 years ago, but I want the *right* one. Hillary wasn't it for me.

So now all these people who said HRC was "our banner carrier" are now claiming that other women are an insult? Where is the logic in this? A qualified woman is qualified whether or not her name is Clinton.

Posted by LisaR | June 13, 2008 7:06 PM

Jammer is not the only one making the "no woman is acceptable except Hillary! Any other woman is an insult!!!" argument (see Eve Fairbanks's piece at TNR), but I really prefer to believe they are a minority. Clinton has to be cast simultaneously as unique--another woman will not do--and emblematic of all woman--she's The Woman Candidate, let there be no others. Please could we consider the various female candidates with regard to their qualifications and what they bring to the ticket?

Bah.

I like Sebelius. Because I like her style--quiet competence, popular in a red state means she can work with everyone to get stuff accomplished, long resume--and I'd like to see a Democratic governor with some solid domestic experience who could run something on that side. I also like Schweitzer a great deal, especially for energy policy and pithiness. (Both are also Catholic for what that's worth on the Dem Cath gov theory.) I like McCaskill but two freshman senators seems too much a roll of the dice.

Posted by Deborah | June 13, 2008 7:29 PM

Deborah,

I like McCaskill but two freshman senators seems too much a roll of the dice.

This is really my feeling as well. I like McCaskill a lot, think she's an impressive campaigner and did well in her primary/general run for governor as well as the Senate campaign and this presidential primary. And I also think she's proven to be a great attack dog, a trait that's often lauded in Joe Biden, just because of the forcefulness with which she presents herself. But I agree that two first-term senators is too much.

... except for Webb, who I really like as well, and he's also a first-term senator. But he has experience in the federal government (in Reagan's DoD) that McCaskill does not. Still, I'm coming to accept that as much as I like the guy and his history and personality, the criticisms that women's rights activists have over his past need to be acknowledged and are significant enough that he probably shouldn't get the nod.

I like Sebelius a lot, mainly for the reasons you said. And I like that in Schweitzer or Sebelius, you get an interesting and topical policy background (energy for Schweitzer, health insurance for Sebelius).

I find the idea that Hillary Clinton's success means an effective veto on any other woman regardless of qualifications deeply depressing.

Posted by jbryan | June 13, 2008 7:40 PM

I'm a man who has favored an Obama/Sebelius ticket since mid-2007. Sebelius would be an outstanding complement to Obama on the ticket-- she's smart, thinks well on her feet, and has a long record of accomplishment and standing up for moderation against right-wing crazies. In government she would be a logical Chief Operating Officer to Obama's CEO. Choosing her over Hillary can be easily justified by the fact that she has executive experience and Hillary does not (unless one counts the failed health care initiative and presidential campaign, which were not resounding successes). Politically speaking, she is unlikely to swing her home state to the Democrats, but she helps with Catholics and midwesterners generally, and offers a subliminal reminder that Obama's mother was a nice white lady from Kansas. As for national security bona fides, anyone who can pull off an ad like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPfxOtq5AIg

is doing well in my book.

For what it's worth, Kaine is my second choice for an Obama running mate.

Posted by AJB | June 13, 2008 7:41 PM

To Jammer: You say choosing Seblius or McCaskill will anger Clinton supporters. Most polls are still showing about 20% planning on voting for McCain, and the other 20% planning not to vote or undecided. Picking ANYONE, male or female, who is not Clinton is going to make a lot of Clinton supporters, including many independents really mad.

Obama has to pick Clinton or have a really, really good rationale for the person if it is not Clinton, so that there isn't immediate anger. Expect at least a week of negative stories if not longer if Obama passes over Clinton given her huge number of convention delegates.

Posted by John | June 13, 2008 7:45 PM

The women base of the Democratic party will adore Sebelius.

Beware the motivations of those who claim otherwise.

Posted by David | June 13, 2008 7:52 PM

jbryan is a long time Obama ball washer.
He is either on the payroll or was 'inspired by Obama to be a better citizen.' Treat his views as you would any other evangelical's.

Posted by Obama saved me | June 13, 2008 8:05 PM

jbryan is a long time...

Charming. Thanks for the compliment, friendly anonymous poster. For what it's worth, in 2004 my top two choices (and I had a tough time deciding) were Wes Clark (a long time Clintonite) and John Edwards; I ultimately voted for Clark. This time around, I wasn't inclined to back Edwards, but I was open to Sen. Clinton's candidacy; Sen. Obama made the case on the merits that won me over, though, and she didn't.

He is either on the payroll...

No, sadly. That'd be nice if I could just get paid for posting my opinions, but unfortunately I have to do real work for a living.

... or was 'inspired by Obama to be a better citizen.'

I don't think I've in any way improved my status as a good citizen since coming to support Sen. Obama's candidacy. I'm not doing any community work, not contributing to any charities, and still paying in the same amount of taxes I was before this imagined epiphany you've ascribed to me. Sorry to disappoint.

Treat his views as you would any other evangelical's.

Or (hopefully) people can look at what I say and the reasonings I provide for what I say and make an independent decision based on that.

Now, on the topic at hand, I've laid out a pretty clear and pretty simple position and I've articulated my reasons behind that. If you're having trouble following along, it is, simply:
What in the world was Clinton fighting for? And what were her supporters fighting for? Was it to prove that women are truly equal and can serve in the highest offices in the world? Or that Hillary alone could serve as president? Because if the fight was the former, then I don't have an easy time squaring that with the position that right out of the gate being a woman is an automatic disqualifying factor for any potential VP candidate out there regardless of her qualifications or electoral successes. And I think pushing that position is offensive to the ideals that Clinton fought for and spoke so eloquently about especially in the speech where she ended her candidacy and made it clear that she would continue to support the ability for women to do anything.

One can agree or disagree with what I'm saying, and as I said, hopefully if they do either it'll be based on the reasoning I laid out compared to their own reasoning (which I'd be fine debating; it's something I like doing). Dismissing something just because it's said by a particular individual isn't really productive.

Posted by jbryan | June 13, 2008 8:23 PM

I'll also note that if Sen. Clinton had won the nomination, I'd be supporting her because I think Old Man War will make for an absolutely terrible president.

Posted by jbryan | June 13, 2008 8:27 PM

bob graham (old guy on tickey won't run for pres in 16, maybe we win FL)
ed rendell (jew on ticket will drive lieberman even more meshuggeh to great comic effect and maybe we win FL)
bill bradley (actually from MO, fwiw, good jump shot)
jon tester
claire mcCaskill
judas richardson

Posted by benjoya | June 13, 2008 8:36 PM

bob graham (old guy on ticket won't run for pres in 16, maybe we win FL)
ed rendell (jew on ticket will drive lieberman even more meshuggeh to great comic effect and maybe we win FL)
bill bradley (actually from MO, fwiw, good jump shot)
jon tester
claire mcCaskill
judas richardson

Posted by benjoya | June 13, 2008 8:36 PM

although "tickey" works for me

Posted by benjoya | June 13, 2008 8:38 PM

Some women might like Sebelius, but Clinton's base isn't just women. She's not going to play well with working-class men or Latinos. And some women will be annoyed with anyone except Clinton.

Sebelius is fine, but she's not amazing elected official. Her public appearances have been mixed, at best, such as the State of the Union. She strikes me as the kind of woman that men who don't like women in power put in token positions.

Posted by John | June 13, 2008 9:03 PM

I really like Claire McCaskill. She has a sharp mind and made a number of good points during the primary season such as explaining that congress is already full of fighters, if being a fighter was the solution there'd be no problem.

She's number one on my wishlist. Second would be Daschle who I actually didn't like as a senator but he's grown a lot in recent years and is pretty impressive now.

Posted by Glacier | June 13, 2008 10:09 PM

She strikes me as the kind of woman that men who don't like women in power put in token positions.

John,

So now it's actually the anti-woman position to support a woman for the position of vice president? Which is now a token position, even though it would mean Kathleen Sebelius would almost surely be the nominee for the party in 2016?

Interesting take.

Posted by jbryan | June 13, 2008 10:22 PM

John:

I definitely disagree with the assertion that Sebelius will not appeal to Latinos; apart from the Catholic faith she shares with many, she has been a moderate voice on immigration, signing into law a bill that allows the children of some undocumented immigrants the opportunity to pay in-state tuition at Kansas universities. This is far from the demagoguery that characterizes the Republican party and certain illiberal Democrats. Also, I suspect Sebelius would win more working-class women for the ticket than she'd lose working-class men.

Posted by AJB | June 13, 2008 10:44 PM

The thing with Sebeulius the fact a partial-birth abortion doctor is a big campign funderiser for her will fire up the Republican base for McCain.

Posted by Paul8148 | June 13, 2008 10:58 PM

The thing with Sebeulius the fact a partial-birth abortion doctor is a big campign funderiser for her will fire up the Republican base for McCain.

Posted by Paul8148 | June 13, 2008 10:58 PM

Mike Bloomberg should be on Marc's list. He's a great executive, independent, Jewish, and would wow the press.

From the comments here, it seems that those in the know about Virginia think that Mark Warner would be the strongest Virginian. I like Jim Webb, but don't think he'd fit the No Drama Obama team. From what I understand, the democrats in Virginia could easily find a replacement senate candidate to beat Gilmore.

Sebelius doesn't have any national security experience, and would be pounded by the anti-abortion folks.

Biden is not a "change Washington" type.

I think the two names not listed--Mark Warner and Mike Bloomberg--should be at the top of the possibilities.

Posted by SDR | June 13, 2008 11:33 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXfiOSCfY44

Check out the video of the next VP.

Posted by Lauren | June 13, 2008 11:41 PM

This is an easy decision: Clark or Richardson.

I should be hired to run the veep deal for Obama.

Every other person named has so many deficits for a national ticket you would have to be half-wit to select them.

If you want to know why just ask.

Posted by Marc Adin | June 14, 2008 12:14 AM

Wes Clark is my pick -- not only for his experience and the courage he has shown both in war and in Washington politics, but because if God Forbid anything happens to Obama, Clark would be an excellent President.

And let's face it, folks, both Obama and Clark are so tall and handsome that they'll make all the women voters swoon.

Hate to bring that up but when you have two intelligent, million-times-better on key issues than any Repug guys, then you have a winning Democratic team. And it sure doesn't hurt that they are also fun to look at and listen to.

Posted by nainam | June 14, 2008 12:50 PM

It's insulting to women to assume that just because 1 female candidate does not run a good campaign, that no other female can be considered. My choice is Claire McCaskill, for reasons of intelligence, calm confidence - and she strikes me as someone who could be a real partner to President Obama....and that should be the important thing. I keep seeing examples of "experience" in DC that doesn't mean much in getting anything done. And after she was able to win against an incumbant conservative Senator in MO --gee whiz, she's a complete package.....

Posted by RetireInfo | June 14, 2008 12:57 PM

I was hoping Wes Clark would be entering the race way before anyone announced. Now he would be an excellent balance on the Obama ticket. I've heard Clark speak several times and he is very good. Lots of information and doesnt bore you!

Posted by Nate K | June 14, 2008 1:06 PM

Any so-called feminist who is not willing to consider Sebelius or Napolatino just because they are women who are not Clinton is, to put it gracefully, an idiot. Both of them have governed well in red states. Both of them have styles similar to Obama, which can help lead to a successful administration. Sebelius and Obama have a prior well-established professional relationship. To see both of them as just "women" is downright sexist. They bring a lot to the table that Schweitzer, one of my other top choices, does as well. If Clinton was such a feminist standard-bearer, she would have beaten Obama substantially among women, not won by just 7% among women (and doing poorly among the next generation of feminists). These type of ravings are just signs that it's time for second-wavers to turn introspective and let the third-and-fourth wavers take over the movement. Neither of them would have become governor in the first place without winning over enough working-class whites in states that aren't exactly as rich as Connecticut (and, in the case of Kansas, diverse as Maryland).

Posted by Reality Man | June 14, 2008 1:13 PM

It's pretty simple: Obama is going to choose a white male running mate. He's not going to pick a woman other than Clinton (Sebelius, McCaskill), and he's not going to choose Hillary. So he's not going to choose a woman; it will be a man. It won't be a Latino (Richardson); it will be a white man. But it won't be a white man who has an obvious problem with a particular constituency, so that rules out Webb (women) or Nunn (gays). It won't be a close friend of McCain (Jones). It won't be someone whose wife is a major lobbyist (Daschle). It won't be a Republican or Independent. And it won't be a choice that hands a governorship to a Republican. I'm guessing Wes Clark or Mark Warner.

Posted by owl | June 14, 2008 1:43 PM

I started a Draft Claire for Governor in which we had over 75 team captains statewide in 2003. She instead became a US Senator two years later. Claire McCaskill was a prosecutor in Kansas City, a single mom while serving as state representative for 3 terms and then a State Auditor. Her knowledge of local, state, and Federal levels of governments and how they work is extremely important. There has likely never been a vice presidential candidate which such a record of service.

She has become known as a center of the road legislator fighting for anti ear mark legislation and an accountability office for expenditures on the war. What she is most noticed for is that she has a pulse of the people that comes naturally and speaks out for the people when something is not in their best interest concerning government or important issues. Yes two inspiring candidates who bring out the best in people on the ticket sound real good.

Steven L. Reed
1441 South Estate Ave.
Springfield MO
stevenlloydreed@hotmail.com

Posted by Steven Reed | June 14, 2008 5:10 PM

I started a Draft Claire for Governor in which we had over 75 team captains statewide in 2003. She instead became a US Senator two years later. Claire McCaskill was a prosecutor in Kansas City, a single mom while serving as state representative for 3 terms and then a State Auditor. Her knowledge of local, state, and Federal levels of governments and how they work is extremely important. There has likely never been a vice presidential candidate which such a record of service.

She has become known as a center of the road legislator fighting for anti ear mark legislation and an accountability office for expenditures on the war. What she is most noticed for is that she has a pulse of the people that comes naturally and speaks out for the people when something is not in their best interest concerning government or important issues. Yes two inspiring candidates who bring out the best in people on the ticket sound real good.

Steven L. Reed
1441 South Estate Ave.
Springfield MO
stevenlloydreed@hotmail.com

Posted by Steven Reed | June 14, 2008 5:10 PM

If we're looking at governors, Kaine is a better choice than Sebelius. One person pointed out that Sebelius is Catholic but, whether or not we agree or disagree with her positions, she is in serious trouble with her bishop over her veto of some pro-life legislation. This means that if she is on the ticket she will draw more fire from the Church on Obama. Kaine, on the other hand, has a good relationship with the hierarchy while still being a moderate Catholic. He can also draw the Latino vote because he speaks Spanish and has done missionary work in Honduras as well as defended immigrant rights while in Richmond. Once Latinos nationwide get to know him as well as we know him in Virginia, it will go a long way to increasing their comfort with Obama. Webb is a problem both because of his conservative position on immigration and because, if Virginia has a solid shot at having two Democratic Senate seats, it's not worth risking one in order for Webb to be VP. Mark Warner has already said that he is not interested in the VP slot, presumably for that same reason. We need him in John Warner's seat.

Posted by Rebel Girl | June 14, 2008 6:42 PM

I like your column, Marc, but your veepstakes line for the Dems is awful. Tom Daschle? The minority leader who couldn't even get re-elected in his home state as a three term incumbent? Maybe for Chief of Staff or as an advisor, but never for VP.

The Democratic Party has tried to push Kaine and Sebelius as rising national stars by giving them the State of the Union rebuttals in 2006 and 2007 respectively. Unfortunately, they both flopped. They are both just bland politicians that aren't tough enough to play the attack dog role that a veep nominee often has to assume.

No way McCaskill gets this. As much as McCain is going to try to bludgeon Obama as inexperienced, having a Dem ticket with two freshmen senators is not a good move. Chuck Hagel has a better chance of getting this than McCaskill and he's a Republican for Chrissakes.

I think it's great the Obama team is looking outside the box. Jim Jones or Wes Clark either one would be great picks. Webb too, although I think he is a little too independent to fall behind Obama. He'll certainly be a finalist.

I hate to say it, but I think Hillary Clinton is a real contender for this. She bowed out of this with more grace than anyone in the media expected and she obviously wants this. Not the frontrunner mind you, this is a race without a frontrunner, but she's in a strong position to be a finalist.

Posted by Marc | June 15, 2008 2:03 AM

Owl and Rebel Girl have it right.

Now that Mark Warner has taken his name out of consideration, it looks like Marc's order of Virginians--Tim Kaine and Jim Webb in that order--is likely.

I think Tim Kaine would be the best choice, for the reasons Rebel Girl expresses. Moderate Catholic, Harvard Law, speaks Spanish, perfect.

Still, I wish that Obama would take a serious look at Mike Bloomberg.

Posted by SDR | June 15, 2008 2:06 AM

I liked Owls's thinking in his June 14th, 1:53PM posting.

It is incredible that so many Democrats are steeped in the cancer of identity politics that they are drawn to "possibles" with huge downsides. SEbelius because she is female!! Whoopy-do! But she also has her biggest donor a partial birth abortionist she is protecting against the majority of Kansans - who want his elective late terms shut down. Or McCaskill because she is new and feisty with no background,,,and did we mention she is a woman??? Napolitano, who is not just a woman but covers another minority group which would add even more "precious diversity" and multi-culti to a ticket?
Did anyone mention Kathleen Blanco is tested, free of obligations, and a .....woman!!! 'Course she wasn't so hot in her big test, but think of how much affirmative action bingo Obama and her could both add up to.

Same with people that claim what the country really wants is a hyper-rich Wall Street Jew who has tried running NYC as a food, tobacco, and firearms safety Nazi??

And Clarke, Dodd, Biden, and Daschle have major baggage in military intemperence, sleaze, banking sleaze& corruption + Teddy Kennedy puppet, and major nepotic problems with his wife and kids - respectively.

My picks would be Rendell or Kaine. Rendell, not because he is a Jew, but because in spite of being a Jew, he is down to earth, Main Street, Philly tough kinda guy. NYC-born, Married to a Philly Catholic. Who has been a well-regarded mayor and Gov in an important swing state and working class folk (the bitter ones) like him. Head of DNC. Military background as Vietnam era Army Reservist.
Kaine because he is also a well-regarded figure in a swing state and like Rendell, has been tested in crisis.

Over on the Republican side, Romney stands out as the best. He helps shore up the base. He offers McCain a seasoned and spectacularly successful leader on economic turnarounds and crisis management and electorally - along with almost 35 years of contact and teamwork at the highest levels here and internationally. He helps out in most states west of the Mississippi except Cali and Hawaii. Plus MIchigan and Ohio and Florida. Yes, he is Mormon, but the same drooling Fundie dimbulbs that hate him for that are the same ones convinced that Obama is a Secret Muslim and his religious teachers little Lucifers. (To Huckabee goobers, Mitt is a hell of a lot less Satanic than Barack).
Yes, despite or because of his high intelligence and faith, he has a serious dork factor. But honestly, if you could pick somebody in the 2008 race out and say "you'll be on point for me, assemble a team and policy develop to adress the heath care crisis, energy crisis, reapprchement with European interests, the fiscal crisis" - I think people in both Parties would say that sounds like Hillary or Romney...and Romney's track record is loads better than Hillary's.

Pawlenty I like, but he is also to the Left of most Republicans. Nice young, attractive, attractive family, Dan Quail kinda guy, though.

Jindal and Palin would do themselves no favors if they bailed out of states undergoing critical turnarounds and corruption reforms that will make or break their future reputations. Not for VP. Not for 40 against 60 odds.

Posted by chris ford | June 15, 2008 9:40 AM

How about former Senator Bob Kerrey? Or is he too old? I would think his position on the 9/11 commission would give him national security credibility.

Posted by Jasper | June 15, 2008 3:58 PM

Bob Kerrey could be problematic in that the right sees him as a war criminal (yet somehow William Calley or whatever his name was was a war hero). How that would contrast with McCain is too unpredictable to take a chance on.

Posted by Reality Man | June 15, 2008 6:27 PM

As for Clark, I doubt we want to put Obama in a position where he either has to embrace or reject Clark's statements on Jewish fundraising in New York. Either Obama looks more like the "scary black guy" by embracing Clark or Obama has to go around bashing his own VP pick.

Posted by Reality Man | June 15, 2008 6:31 PM

Democratic VP Top 3:
1.) Obama/Sebelius
2.) Obama/Clark
3.) Obama/Richardson

Republican VP Top 3:
1.) McCain/Crist
2.) McCain/Palin
3.) McCain/Pawlenty

I think Obama needs to choose Kathleen Sebelius, because I'm pretty certain John McCain in any other situation will be Sarah Palin. Why? Because both are very well-liked female Governors and they'll appeal greatly to Hillary Clinton's supporters. If Obama picks Sebelius, McCain has to pick Crist in hopes of securing Florida.

If Obama picks a male, it should be Wesley Clark because he's a long-time Clintonite and extremely respected by the Democrats and I think he would put up the best fight at Sarah Palin. Trust me, if Obama goes male, McCain HAS to pick Palin because she can possibly be the only candidate to put this election into play for McCain. Only reason she's not #1 in the GOP Top 3 I have is that I don't think she'd put up a good fight with Sebelius.

Posted by kombayn | June 15, 2008 7:27 PM

If the selection comes right down to the wire, Obama has to blink first because the Democrats have their convention first. He likely won't wait until right before because then he would miss out on the news cycles and free press of "Meet the Obama-Whoever ticket."

I wonder if Obama chooses Sebelius to block McCain choosing Palin, making him choose Crist, if that just pisses off the religious right more by having an unmarried man with rumors around him as VP.

Posted by Reality Man | June 16, 2008 12:09 AM

McCain: Please, please, please pick Romney! His anticharisma is overwhelming.

Obama: I actually think that Hillary is the best choice, despite the haters. She has the fire in the belly. If she wants it and Bill promises not to be a distraction, she brings the most additional votes and enthusiasm to the ticket.

Posted by Tim | June 16, 2008 4:35 AM

BTW, Gov. Palin recently gave birth (in April)

Are those who think McCain will pick Palin aware of this? Is she going to travel around the country with a newborn?

Otherwise I would agree, but having a newborn would add a complication. They keep you up at night.

Posted by Tim | June 16, 2008 5:44 AM

There has been talk of an Obama/Hagel ticket. Senator Hagel would add the foriegn policy/national security credentials that seem to be desired. What do people think of that possible match up?

Posted by Charlie | June 16, 2008 1:01 PM

Ambinder Veepstakes Lists, 6/13

Comments (75)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives