But, speculating on the Veepstakes is fun. Admit it. So let’s explore the running mate question.
We’ll start with Obama, because two of the three writers here back him (I’ll let Sean disclose who he is supporting on his own time). Obviously, an Obama-Bloomberg ticket would the dream scenario, it would be a great example of his transcendental politics and would add managerial experience to the mix. Moreover, if Giuliani is the Republican nominee, having Bloomberg on the ticket would probably take New York and New Jersey back out of play (the current Mayor is more popular than the former Mayor). Setting that aside, who else makes sense? How about Obama-Daschle? Daschle adds experience, but he’s a lobbyist now and is the consummate Washington insider, which runs contrary to Obama’s message. Its worth noting, however, that many of Daschle’s former aides are working for Obama. An outside shot might be Obama-Kaine. Selecting the Virginia Governor could help put the still reddish-purple Commonwealth in play.
Moving on to Hillary, I see four strong possibilities; Clinton-Clark, Clinton-Strickland, Clinton-Bayh, and Clinton-Vilsack. Clark’s military credentials and non-traditional background would be a plus, but he doesn’t add anything in electoral math. Strickland would help in the key state of Ohio and his ministerial experience is a plus, but he’s been Governor for a year. Maybe we should give him a chance to do his job for a little while. Evan Bayh might put Indiana in play, but I think that’s a stretch (Indiana last went blue in 1964) and he would probably be replaced by a Republican in the Senate (unless a Dem unseats current Gov. Mitch Daniels in the 2008 election, which is possible). Vilsack would help in Iowa and he’s got a compelling personal story (he was an orphan), but lets face it, Iowa isn’t that big of a prize in the general election and, perhaps its just me, but Vilsack’s surrogate attacks on HRC’s opponents have seemed a little ham handed.
Finally, for Edwards, I think Obama is probably the best choice, though some would worry about number 2 outshining number 1 (as Edwards outshone Kerry in 2004). Other good choices might be Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas or Janet Napolitano of Arizona. Napolitano is probably better from an electoral math perspective (Kansas is not going to be in play no matter what) but then again, maybe Sebelius helps more in Missouri.
What do you think?
All mute points. There is NO question Hillary will be the democRat candidate.
I’m sure you meant that it’s a “moot” point, Kahuna, just like I’m sure you simply forgot to add the “ic” at the end of the party to which you so ham-fistedly referred in your comment.
I really don’t like this “post-partisan” thing that is going with Obama and some others this election. Sure, it sounds nice and all, but the only way a post-partisan approach would work for governing is if all sides agree to it. I know full well that the Republicans in congress will not simply say “oh, he’s not trying to be partisan, let’s not be partisan either.” To think so is hopelessly ignorant, imo. It works for Arnold in California because he has essentially become a Democrat who just calls himself a Republican.
Edwards and Gov. Brian Schweitzer would be a winning ticket, Edwards would be competitive in the Midwest and the Border southern states, while Schweitzer would help with the western states and bring mor support from the netroots and the experience of an executive, but pretty much any red-state governor would compliment Edwards nicely I think.
Obama would be wise to pick a moderate Republican as his running mate, that would say truly unequivically that he is the candidate of change, that he is putting partisan politics in the past, puts his money where is mouth is.
Clinton will probably pick a democrat that shares her voting record, someone like Evan Bayh or Bill Nelson, she almost has to take a male from a red state, because that will help with regional balance and with the male voters who would likely be turned off by a 2 women ticket, if she had been in the Senate longer I wold say Klobuchar would have been a likely choice or Clair McCaskill.
Clinton’s short list is Clark, Richardson, Biden and Webb.
Yep, Senator Webb of red state Virginia. Webb is also the former REAGAN appointed Secretary of the Navy. Take that Mitt and Rudy.
He’d be a great general election choice.
If any of them pick a GOP VEEP they can count themselves out. Moderate Dems are one thing but when you pick someone who is a heartbeat away from changing the Party (thus alliances) of the administration, your toast. Bloomberg doesn’t really fit that category as he was not a Washington Republican.
Clinton/Webb, that’s the ticket. Unless, Obama is willing to play second banana to Edwards. Obama-Biden would be threatening too.
A few thoughts on some of the tickets suggested here:
I suspect that Biden and Richardson won’t get the nod from anyone for the simple reason that both suffer from foot-in-mouth disease.
Webb is a great choice, not just for Clinton, but for Obama or Edwards. The one downside is that he is a loose cannon and the VP position is about doing what the top of the ticket tells you to do.
Schweitzer would be a great running mate for all three, but he’s up for reelection this year, which unfortunatley rules him out. Its too bad because he’d be a great pick.
Obama-Richardson. Richardson brings a wealth of experience, especially in foreign policy, and also helps the Ds cement their already-strong position with Latino voters.
Clinton-Bayh would not be too surprising, nor would Clinton-Clark….
Anyone who thinks Obama would pick a Republican running mate is crazy, I think — and misreading his views. Read “The Audacity of Hope” and you’ll see that he’s not talking about accommodating Republicans, much less teaming up with them, he’s talking about communicating his ideas and looking for common ground and common sense solutions with anyone who will listen. There is a difference.
I agree with Eric. Richardson fills Obama’s needs in foreign relations and overall experience. It would be the best possible ticket given the current batch of Democratic candidates. Biden would be another good choice for the same reasons.
Just because your a republican does not mean you are a right wing crazy person who loves war, you may not be willing to accept it but there are good republicans out there. Republicans who believe in smaller government, defending the constitution, and an efficient welfare and healthcare system. Bashing the other party may seem like fun and easy at times, but we have to remember that nearly half of the country agrees with that party. Does that mean you have to, of course not, but why can’t we all have a debate of ideas and not daemonize the other side for having a differing opinion, please remember that we democrats were in the minority not one year ago, who are we to start calling the minority the dark side. If you actually looked at Obama’s speeches and how he acts you would see that he rails against the way washington and at times the parties are run and operated, we need to throw out conventional wisdom here, the thought that you have to choose a person from your party to be your VP or in your cabinent, that reduces your choices by 50% just because they have an R or a D next to their name, our party says screw it if they are qualified they have to be a Democrat, that is wrong and does not even come close to being an equal representation of the country. Democrats have stood for these values for quite some time, God forbid we do as we say, you want to unite the country, then do it, don’t just say it. Can you imagine the kind of mandate obama would have if he picked a Republican running mate, the GOP would do what? attack a member of their own party? the dynamics would be out of this world. I think John Edwards is/was a great candidate now and in 2004, but a poor choice under Kerry as VP, if Kerry would have chosen John McCain as VP you cannot tell me that he would not have won, and come into office with a very large mandate to change the course in Iraq, just as McCain was preeching
I suspect Zack may be right about Biden and Richardson; an undisciplined VP candidate could sink a campaign and both have had problems. Biden I always saw as being a pick for SecState anyways. It’s a shame about Richardson, because he adds something to every ticket possibility from the top three. But I also wonder if he would do it. I thought Richardson was the right pick for Kerry last time, frankly.
Clinton/Byah isn’t all that likely, IMHO. I don’t know that he guarantees his home state in a presidential election unless he on top of the ticket, you know? Without that, he adds very little (electorally speaking)
Clark is a solid choice for all of them. He’s earned a lot of respect in democratic quarters for his work, he bolsters national security and foreign policy credentials in impressive fashion. he also won’t give away a debate.
Napolitano is an interesting choice. She’ll help on the electoral math, brings statehouse/executive experience to the ticket…I expect to hear her name a lot in the run up.
” … and the VP position is about doing what the top of the ticket tells you to do.”
Um, been paying attention to Darth and Junior?
As for Richardson… would he even take a VP spot?
Yeah, he can’t run for governor again, but the elephant in the room that nobody’s brought up yet is the Senate seat that Dominici’s giving up. That’s Richardson’s for the taking. I can see him (and it breaks my heart to say this) doing as expected in the early states (a distant fourth) and then quietly bowing out of the race and turning his eyes toward the greener pastures of a virtually uncontested (in the same way that Klobuchar’s walk was) path to the Senate.
If Clinton is really bright, she’d pick Clark. They go way back… its possible.
I think Edwards will have to pick a women. In this election, descriptive diversity seems to be becoming a quiet urgency on the left. I’d say Sebelius.
Lord knows what Obama would do.
who in their right mind would run with Clinton? IF HE WEARS PANTS?
If Richardson wants to be VP for any of the candidates he will be the next Vice President of the United States. He’s western in a race that will be about winning western votes. He’s Latino is a race that will be about winning Latino votes. And he has traditional experience which none of the other candidates have.
Janet Napolitano would be a strong choice for anyone though because she is also western and popular and she would help bring in women votes. But I want her to knock out McCain in 2010.
you people will not be happy until there are 100 Demoncratic senators
i’ll be fine with a majority, a rather slim one will force them to work with the moderates, not always a bad thin in my mind
john, I’m perfectly fine with 67 Democratic Senators. That would certainly fix a few things, IMHO.
I’m a little baffled as to why I should stop pushing my ideal and getting my candidates elected when we get a bare majority, but maybe some folks have been listening to Rove’s 50% 1 strategy for too long…
you shouldnt stop Josh, but Mccain is one of you on most issues I like it being in a slim minority, Mcconnel is the best GOP leader, ever, Bush is walking all over the dems, is there a war still on?
I definately like Obama-Richardson.
Like America is going to vote for two non-white men for the numbers one and two spot.
OK OK, so you will but you know damn well it won’t happen in enough states. Sometime when I read the comment section on the PiPress local stories- I doubt if MN would stay blue with a dream team like that.
An African American President that can unite this country and a Latino Veep that can re-build our credibility around the world. That would be over shadowed by what they look like.
Charlie Cook did a poll a while back and asked white voters would they vote for an African American for President most said yes. When asked if they thought other white would do the same, the answer was no.
I o wish we were there but, were not. Get mad at me if you want.
— — — — — -
Evan Bayh brings zilch to Hillary’s ticket. Indiana is a red state that he wins because like him, his dad was governor and senator.
Clark and Webb are the best choices for Hillary. Clark is in the Clinton inner circle and Webb shares advisers with Clinton. Webb would force two senate seats open at the same time in Virginia. Clark really doesn’t have a state he can deliver.
Well you know it will be Hillary and who ever she feels will heel to her call best. Who ever it turns out to be, they will have the status of “Purse Poodle” as we know Hillary will micro manage all and will not stand for a vice pres who is more capable than her. I guess that could mean Clark is in.
LOLOLS!!
“big”
Nitro, it will be fun to post later next year when what I wote become known fact instead of just what I am telling you.
Hillary is the one that is fact!
C’mon Nitro you know you have been drawn to the darkside and are ready and willing to vote for Hillary.