« Swing State Watch: Nevada | Main | Cindy McCain, Call Your Board Of Directors »

The Veepstakes Show

10 Jun 2008 12:00 pm

Both the Obama and McCain campaigns like to say that their vice presidential selection process will be secret, compartmentalized and private. But that's not really true. Take yesterday's visits to Capitol Hill by James Johnson and Eric Holder. They spent a half hour each with five Democratic leaders. The discussions with some involved a long list of names; with others, Johnson and Holder seemed to just listen. There's no way that the two would have been able to sneak onto the Hill without being noticed, and there's no way in heck that staffers for members who took the meetings would let the day go by without making sure that reporters knew how important their bosses was/where. So this was mostly public spectacle. Certainly, if, say, Nancy Pelosi expressed her opposition to a Clinton/Obama unity ticket, it would be useful information for Obama, but, well, she's already said that.

The McCain campaign is also conducting part of its process in public. Like the Obama campaign, would-be contenders are asked to campaign, to appear as a public surrogates, to attend barbeques in Arizona, to represent the campaign on Fox News. (Note to Gov. Pawlenty: the McCain campaign was mucho impressed with your performance on FNS against Gov. Tim Kaine.)

The campaigns claim they don't float trial balloons. False. Balloons are floating everywhere around us. Public reaction matters...maybe not all that much, but enough to give us glimpses of the process and enough to give the campaigns feedback about their potential choices.

Comments (25)

Take yesterday's visits to Capitol Hill by James Johnson and Eric Holder. They spent a half hour each with five Democratic leaders. The discussions with some involved a long list of names; with others, Johnson and Holder seemed to just listen.

Someone tell Marc that discussing lots and lots of people is basically the same thing as discussing nobody in particular.

Any word on the real dream ticket? Obama/Webb?

Webb's recent book tour appearances have been impressive, as is his recent legislation. Did you see him talking about the Scott's Irish in Appalachia on Tim's show? He is SO up for the job. When Tim called him on it Webb just cracked up laughing...

McCain needs to pick Jindal. If he is going to follow the UK Tory's centrist conservative lead (where do you think the 'green' logo came from...) he may as well go all the way and pick a minority, or Crist.

Where was Caroline Kennedy? In any case, he needs another woman on his search committee anyway. Studies have shown a tendency to ignore women when there is only one woman on the team. Two women on the team would strengthen the input of both.

Webb.

To Keith Hood: The signals show Obama is already taking women for granted. The Caroline Kennedy appointment is just tokenism, and a poor attempt to appease Clinton's female supporters. Obama's committee is Johnson (a Kerry guy) and Caroline Kennedy (a Kennedy). It is the liberal Massachusetts wing of the party, blocking Hillary Clinton and pretending there is a 'search.' Well, I for one can't think of another candidate who is more qualified than Hillary Clinton for veep. Webb is no dream, unless you favor women not serving in the military. Sam Nunn screams the past. McCasskill has as little expereince as Obama. Sebelius is warmed-over toast: she's the product of a Kansas political dynasty who will not even help win Kansas. How Clinton would get passed over for these second-tier candidates is beyond me. And if she does, I will sit this election out.

E.J. Dionne had a great piece this morning about the absolutely correct choice, Joe Biden. The man would be an excellent foreign policy advocate and amazing attack dog. To be fair, Biden probably should have been the nominee, but either way he would be an excellent number two for the Dems this year.

Regina, you wrote: How Clinton would get passed over for these second-tier candidates is beyond me. And if she does, I will sit this election out.

In 1968 I could not bring myself to vote for Humphrey, a decent and honorable man who nonetheless supported the Vietnam War. (I didn't vote for Nixon either.)

Today it's a no-brainer as to who would have made the better president. Yet Democrats like me, driven by the war as an issue, were the cause of Humphrey's loss in a close election and also the cause of the Nixon-Buchanan strategy of dividing the electorate. This strategy has come to dominate our politics.

Not voting for Humphrey was a serious mistake for me. Are you sure you want McCain?

Ted Strickland. Clinton-supporting, governor from Ohio. Perfect!

Webb is no dream, unless you favor women not serving in the military.

Really? Is this based on anything besides an op-ed piece he wrote what, 30 years ago???

Obama should pick Wesley Clark or Nancy Pelosi as running mate. He needs a lieutenant not a marriage of convenience, like say Hillary Clinton.

Why is Pelosi being consulted but not being considered herself? She's experienced, the highest ranking Democratic elected official (already second in the line of succession), tough, and a major shatterer of glass ceilings.

As a Republican I think the press may be hyping Obama into a mistake with Webb. He is not as popular as the other two VA Dems and the Republican Base who is soft on McCain are still angery over the VA Senate race and they view of how they feel the press smear Allen. And for all this take about him helping with White Males he got Cream by Allen with that vote.

Webb.

He's not a surprising/flashy choice, but he's the RIGHT choice for the country, the party, and Obama. In that order.

He's the only pick who's right for all three. And I think we should keep this in mind:

http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-underrated-and-overrated-veep-qualifications/

If anybody wants to see my criteria or rationale, let me know.

JBS

Pelosi - We need her in the house. If she leaves, we get Speaker Hoyer, and we're back to Democrats trying to out-GOP the GOP.

Sebelius - What Kansas dynasty are you talking about, Regina? Her father was a governor of Ohio, but as far as I know, she's the first of her family in Kansas. She probably won't turn Kansas blue, but forcing yourself to pick a VP from a purple state really limits your selection (not to mention that NY is solid blue - so Clinton would also be eliminated by that same argument). The fact is that she's a popular liberal governor in a solid red state. She's consistently ranked as one of the country's best governors. She's smart, politically savvy, has family ties to Ohio, and very importantly, she has good chemistry w/ Obama (as great as Edwards was in theory, he was not a good choice for Kerry). She's my choice for VP.

Pelosi for veep? Obama doesn't need someone representing San Francisco as veep. Given his cling comments and where he made them, that sends all the wrong symbolic messages to voters.

== Brian Schweitzer ==

Governor with executive experience. Successful record, and "folksy / plain spoken" with "post-partisan" approach. Pro-gun; puts the West and other areas in play. Lived in the middle east and knows Arabic. Heavily involved in alternative energy projects. Smart and clever. Young enough to run in 2016. Apparently devoted to finishing what he's started in Montana, but wouldn't he heed the call if Obama smartly asked him to be VP?

(Forget these insider/lo-info opinions of Clinton, Pelosi, et al.)

McCain needs to pick Jindal. If he is going to follow the UK Tory's centrist conservative lead (where do you think the 'green' logo came from...) he may as well go all the way and pick a minority, or Crist.


Posted by TDE | June 10, 2008 12:16 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear TDE:

Jindal IS a minority with all that emcompasses. If Maccain selects him, then the blue collars will stay home rather than support either tickets.

If he picks Jindal, I can see the blue collars being reminded where their jobs went.

Yesterday I put down $50 on Nancy Pelosi with odds of 50-1 at British bookmaker Ladbrokes. This morning her odds are down to 25-1, suddenly putting her in the company of acknowledged contenders Napolitano, Biden, and Bayh. While not yet a frontrunner, Pelosi solves a lot of Obama's problems. A self-made family woman, Catholic, foreign policy veteran, already vetted by time and position for the presidency. Plus, in my opinion, despite her stated neutrality in the primaries, Pelosi behind the scenes was one of THE architects of the Obama-fronted coup that has deposed the Clintons. Why shouldn't she top off her career with Cheney-like power as Obama's partner in re-shaping the role of the Federal government? And believe me, it won't be Hoyer that she installs as her successor as Speaker. It will be someone much more in line with her thinking on everything.

Obama: smart to pick Hillary, but he's too proud.
so Nunn, Webb, Warner, Biden, or Sibelius.

McCain: best avoid Romney, Rice, Liberman, Jindal
so best picks: Hagel, Fiorina, Pawlenty, Crist, Fred Thompson.

Obama picks a woman other than Hillary? After the battle she engaged in this primary and the bashing she withstood? For a shrill congresswoman whose leadership has produced a congressional approval rating ten points lower than W's? Want to see a real riot?

Obama picks a woman other than Hillary? After the battle she engaged in this primary and the bashing she withstood? For a shrill congresswoman whose leadership has produced a congressional approval rating ten points lower than W's? Want to see a real riot?

Obama picks a woman other than Hillary? After the battle she engaged in this primary and the bashing she withstood? For a shrill congresswoman who tried to run her out of the race and whose leadership has produced a congressional approval rating ten points lower than W's? Want to see a real riot?

> [Hillary's] leadership has produced a
> congressional approval rating ten points lower
> than W's?

Are you crazy? Hillary's approval rating: 60%. Bush's approval rating: 28%.

If you really think that 60% is ten points less than 28%, I recommend going back to elementary school. :)

You Clinton supporters just don't get it.

Picking Hillary as VP would be suicide for several reasons.
1) Too many stars on one ticket, takes away from the top of the ticket.
2) There's only one person the GOP hates more than Bill Clinton...Hillary Clinton. Picking Hillary Clinton as VP would be suicide for the party. The prospect of Hillary being one heartbeat from the presidency would cause the GOP to rally around McCain like we have never seen them rally before.
3) 2 senator tickets never win, I'd be saying the same thing had Hillary won.

Honestly, I think Sebelius may be the best choice as far as women go, and Bill Richardson would be good too.

As to how selfish Clinton supporters have been over this process has absolutely baffled me. Has anyone forgot that this isn't about our personal interests? This is about our country. Sitting out the election or leaving the Democratic party to vote for a man with no record on domestic affairs is suicidal. We can't let McCain win an Obama term is far better than giving Bush a thrid one.

And even if Obama were to choose Sebelius. What the heck would the problem with that be? You'd leave because your person isn't on the ticket!?!? You'd be willing to screw your country by not voting democratic this time around because one person is not number 2 on the ticket??? Look, Hillary came far, and she and her supporters should be proud of how far they came, not angry that they didn't win, it's not her fault, it's not Obama's fault, it's the fault of her campaign staff, they mismanaged her campaign terribly. Mark Penn acted like an idiot throughout the primary and invested in the big states while allowing Obama to rack up monstrous margins as large as 80% in states like Idaho, that builds...fast. To be honest, Hillary would be more effective in the senate, she'd actually have more of a say in policy matters as a senator than a VP. Remember, the vice presidency is where most politicians go to die.