Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Friday Line: Pin the VP on the Nominee

One of the benefits of such a long break between primary votes in the Democratic presidential race is that operatives, reporters and politicians have far more free time to engage in the greatest political parlor game of all: the Veepstakes.

VP Watch

The Fix, as regular readers know, tries to avoid rank speculation. But, informed speculation is an entirely different kind of flying altogether.

To put together this week's line -- which lists the five most likely vice presidential picks for Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) -- The Fix spoke with a variety of party strategists, read all the clips we could find and used plain old common sense.

Remember that vice presidents are usually picked to fill a perceived weakness of the presidential nominee. For McCain, that means the most likely candidates to be considered are youthful (50 and under) and non-Washington types (governors). For Obama, that's someone who can answer questions about his experience (particularly on foreign policy) and help him reach working-class white voters he has struggled win over in the primaries. For Clinton, it's someone with a profile as a political outsider and maybe someone with chief executive experience.

Our picks are below. Agree or disagree? The comments section awaits your thoughts.

To the Line!

JOHN MCCAIN

* Charlie Crist: The Florida governor has a strong case to make that his endorsement of McCain in the waning days of the Sunshine State primary cinched the nomination for the Arizona Senator. Crist's popularity among Florida voters could well strengthen McCain's hand in a swing state in the fall. (It also doesn't hurt that McCain praised Crist as a "great governor" during a campaign swing through the state earlier this month.) The biggest problem for Crist? He's not beloved among conservatives many of whom feel McCain has to pick one of them to get their votes.

* Tim Pawlenty: Pawlenty still remains the most likely choice for McCain. The two have known each other since the 1980s, Pawlenty is significantly younger than McCain (he's 47), and he makes Minnesota instantly competitive. Pawlenty is also playing the politics of the veepstakes perfectly -- denying any interest in the job while not making any Sherman-esque pronouncements.

* Mitt Romney: Politics is a funny business. Two months ago, the idea that McCain would even consider the former Massachusetts governor was ludicrous. It became clear during the nomination fight that McCain disliked Romney and the two men -- as well as their staffs -- clashed day in and day out for months. But, since Romney dropped from the race, he has made no secret of his interest in remaining in the national spotlight. We still think it is a long shot for McCain to pick his former foe, but Romney has some powerful voices within the GOP making the case for him.

* Mark Sanford: The South Carolina governor told The Fix in a recent interview that he spends no time thinking about the vice presidency but acknowledges that any politician who says he or she wouldn't "take the call" is lying. Sanford appears to be ramping up his veep case as evidenced by a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Conservative Case for McCain". (Not terribly tough to read in between the lines there.) Sanford is beloved among fiscal conservatives who are wary about McCain's record on taxes. But, after endorsing McCain in 2000, Sanford stayed neutral in this primary race. Will McCain hold a grudge?

* John Thune: The argument for the South Dakota Senator is very similar to the case for Pawlenty. Thune is young (47), was an early endorser of McCain's presidential bid and comes from the plains states -- a big battleground this fall. Thune enjoys a higher national profile than Pawlenty as a result of his defeat of former Sen. Tom Daschle (D) in 2004 but doesn't have the executive experience that Tpaw boasts.

BARACK OBAMA

Tim Kaine: Kaine has three major things going for him -- he'll be looking for a job in January 2009, he was the among the first major elected officials to endorse Obama and he is popular in a state expected to be a central battleground in November. The problem for Kaine is that he does little to strength Obama's biggest weakness: foreign policy bona fides.

Bill Richardson: Richardson's decision to weigh in for Obama even as the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright bubbled threw the Illinois Senator a lifeline when he badly needed one. The New Mexico governor has an extremely deep resume that would nicely complement Obama's strengths. A Richardson pick could also serve as a symbolic olive branch to the Hispanic community, which has gone heavily against Obama in the primaries, and add to the historic nature of the ticket.

Tim Roemer: Roemer is a new member of the Fix's veepstakes Line. A former congressman from the South Bend-based District in Indiana, Roemer could up his chances if he can help deliver the Hoosier State to Obama on May 6. As importantly, Roemer was a member of the high-profile 9/11 Commission and is currently the president of the Center for National Policy -- a think tank that looks closely at national security issues.

Kathleen Sebelius: If Obama wants to make a truly historic ticket, picking Sebelius might be the best way to do it. Sebelius has won two terms as governor of Kansas -- not exactly a Democratic stronghold -- and did well in her stint on the national stage as chair of the Democratic Governors Association. Sebelius has the same problem as Kaine, however; it's hard to see how she helps Obama convince voters he has the experience to handle the complicated world situation he would inherit as president.

Jim Webb: The Virginia Senator, a decorated former Marine, has the heft on national security and foreign policy that has to make some Obama strategists salivate. Webb's background as former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration could also make him an appealing pick for Obama -- a re-affirmation of the "post-partisan" messaging of his campaign. (Make sure to read Anita Kumar's profile of Webb's early days in the Senate.) The downside of Webb? He is the least conventional of politicians -- often looking uncomfortable when speaking before crowds and prone to make the occasional impolitic remark.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Evan Bayh: The protracted primary fight is good news for Bayh's vice presidential chances as he gets an (unexpected) opportunity to show his mettle on behalf of Clinton in Indiana's May 6 primary. Bayh has a terrific case on paper: two terms as governor and two terms in the Senate from a red state in the Midwest. He's also been one of the most effective and active advocates for Clinton throughout the campaign. Bayh's biggest problem is that vice presidential picks are not always made on paper. His detractors see him a stiff and shallow -- a choice that wouldn't create much excitement.

John Edwards: The former North Carolina Senator continues to stay out of the fray, perhaps waiting to maximize his political capital before endorsing either Obama or Clinton. If he goes with the New York Senator, he would be an obvious veep choice for her, having run nationally three times (twice for president, once for vice president) and easily wearing the populist mantle that Democrats seem to be yearning for. The issue with an Edwards pick is whether it would be perceived as more of the same in an election year where voters want change?

Barack Obama: Given the current dynamic in the Democratic race, it's impossible to imagine any scenario where Clinton wins the nomination and doesn't at least offer the vice presidential slot to Obama. Whether he would take it is an entirely different discussion.

Bill Nelson: Every four years, the senator from Florida seems to be among those mentioned -- but not picked -- for the national ticket. He is a more serious choice in this election, having been an ardent advocate not only for Clinton but also her interests in the Sunshine State. It was Nelson who, unsuccessfully, pushed hardes for the idea of a Florida re-vote. He's also from a state that is almost certainly going to be a batteground in the fall and remains quite popular among Florida's voters.

Ted Strickland: Aside from Obama, Strickland has to be considered the early favorite for the number two slot if Clinton winds up as the nominee. The governor of Ohio delivered his state in a big way on March 4. In the days leading up to that vote, Strickland was everywhere -- a sign of how much Clinton was depending on Strickland's popularity as a validator for her to Ohio voters. Strickland, who held a southern Ohio congressional district before being elected governor in 2006, would, like Edwards, reinforce Clinton's economic message. Unlike Edwards, however, Strickland has experience as a chief executive under his belt.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 28, 2008; 8:42 AM ET
Categories:  The Line , Veepstakes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Obamacains and McClintons
Next: Bob Casey and the Endorsement Hierarchy

Comments

dzkmyns pyegjsw nxqsv aknj mskton qnvts ftikhxl http://www.yndki.kfxynj.com

Posted by: pjqmuw wspzmxv | May 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

rhkod nzsv dgtoyk ukdigyz ptfx qnavhs qkij

Posted by: zckm hgwclxt | May 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe Mike Huckabee isn't even mentioned. Wait a minute, yes I can.
Huckabee has proven himself economically and is consistent across the board. He gets more mileage out of a dollar than any politician I know of. He's demonstrated that he can work well across the aisle. He and McCain would work well together. Each has strengths that would strengthen each other.

Posted by: John Adams | April 11, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I am puzzled to see that the only logical choice for McCain's vp, Mike Huckabee, is not even mentioned in this article. Especially since Romney who came in BEHIND Huckabee in the campaign, is disliked by McCain, ran smear ads against McCain and Huckabee, and ran the most fiscally wreckless campaign of any candidate, loaning his campaign millions of dollars, running in the red (more dollars spent per delegate won). Not a very good resume for his claim to be able to "fix the economy. As a conservative Republican, I am offended with this list that excludes Governor Huckabee.

Posted by: nrobyar | April 3, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

As a Floridian, I think it is important to consider former 2-term Florida Governor and 3-term Senator Bob Graham. Neither Al Gore nor John Kerry would have lost Florida and therefore the Presidency, if they had been wise enough to nominate Bob Graham for VP.

If experience is an issue, one would be hard pressed to find a more qualified candidate. And keep in mind, Bob Graham voted AGAINST the Iraq War resolution while serving as Chairman of the Senate's Inteligence Committee. Since he is about the same age as John McCain, age could be an issue, but surely the Republicans will not bring it up...


Posted by: dajcmj | April 3, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

If Obama gets nominated, he should choose Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his running mate, his wife Michelle as the campaing spokes woman, Rezeko as his financial manager,this way he will be assured to get all the black and Arab votes. Who cares about other races anyway!

1

Posted by: johnycheng1 | April 1, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama picking Richardson is laughable! Why not just GIVE McCain the white, blue-collar male vote & the election. You guys are in LA-LA land if you believe that has a snowballs chance in hell. Richardson will be offered a great cabinet slot though.

Back to reality...Obama shores up the white blue collar vote with Jim Webb, a 4-Star General NOT named Clark, to shore up that Patriotism "weakness" or Ted Strickland (I know he endorsed Hillary, but this shows Obama's willingness to work with everybody...plus the Dems still will need Ohio). Tim Kaine hasn't delivered legislatively and while loyalty matters, performance matters more.

Hillary offers Obama. He takes it. End of story.

McCain, I know nothing about so I won't even act like I do.

Posted by: stevenlreed | March 31, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

I take a great interest in U.S. politics because I have a lot of American relatives, so I wanted to say I HOPE Obama wins, and then if I were Obama, I'd be choosing CORY BOOKER (Mayor of Newark, NJ) to be his candidate for Vice President... WOW! WHAT A TEAM THEY'D BE TOGETHER!

Posted by: kgpsp | March 30, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

For McCain; CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN

What she brings to the ticket: experience as governor (New Jersey) and cabinet member (EPA); 'historic' first as a female vice president (if elected); moderate, independent views; strong on domestic issues.

Baggage which she DOESN'T bring to the ticket: She's not another senator; she's not another white male; she's not ultra-conservative; she's not another 'security issues' Republican. (In other words--except for her appeal as somewhat moderate, independent-minded, and not at all ideological--she's NOT a clone of John McCain and therefore helps to complement his strengths and weaknesses.)

And if her presence on the ticket puts New Jersey into play, that's all for the better.

Posted by: cocktails42 | March 30, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

For Clinton, I would have said Richardson before he turned traitor for the 2nd time (remember Iowa). But either Bayh, who is an excellent politician, or Clarke would be good.

For Obama, to appease the Clinton supporters (many of whom, like me, are the backbone of the party when it comes to campaigning for the candidate), he should pick a woman governor. I like Granholm of MI or Napolitano of AZ. I do not think an Obama/Richardson ticket could win. Both of them were not raised in America, and combined that's too much ethnicity for the majority of Americans to take.

Posted by: dotellen | March 30, 2008 5:38 AM | Report abuse

Jack Reed would be an outstanding choice for Obama.

Posted by: mcoen | March 30, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Romney, Giuliani, or Bloomberg would all work for McCain if he intends to take California. Any of the other named VP hopefuls will not, including Pawlenty. McCain will need someone who is well-vetted and already on the national stage, like Romney, or Giuliani, with no real skeletons coming out in the last minutes of the election. Also, McCain needs a VP that will pull the Party together and be able to raise funds of which all three mentioned above can. Correct me if I'm wrong, but divider Pawlenty has just finished off killing 6 members of his own party. Romney has also won the Mid-West which is important to McCain if he is to win. Romney won Minnesota, Colorado, Michigan and would have won Wisconsin if he had not have withdrawn from the race. Giuliani gave McCain California, New York, and other North Eastern states, also important to McCain. Bloomberg would also most likely give McCain some of the North Eastern states and provide considerable means of monies that McCain also needs badly. Any one of the three can help with economy issues which seems to be the most important part of this election and will likely become more important as the year extends into November. Pawlenty's billion dollar deficit will hurt McMain. Romney and Huckabee has energized much of the Republican base. It was Romney that drove a record Republican turnout in Minnesota. Minnesota's Governor looked a "little tired" to the Republican base, and thus can give McCain nothing but youth. Go Romney, Good-bye Pawlenty, it is clear Pawlenty's star has fallen into the reality of his mean-spirited nature.

Posted by: gouldnen | March 29, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Vice Presidential Hopeful, Pawlenty Under the Mantle of Deception

Minnesota Governor Pawlenty has been labeled, by McCain, as being the new style Republican which must mean it is fashionable for McCain's Vice Presidential hopefuld to wear a cloak designed to cover a complete mantle of deception. Underneath lies awards to judicial corruption, Draconian threats to Minnesota cities that they must struggle to act as Federal immigration enforcement, destruction of the Minnesota tax base, and the show of open disdain for Native American civil rights.

At a Pawlenty forum, Pawlenty's security team singled-out the obvious middle and lower class supporter(s) with the warning, "Do not extend your hand", while Pawlenty extended his arm, past those ordered to not touch him, and reached to shake hands with wealthy donors. Only then did Pawlenty's mantle of deception become viewable. Such shocking actions portrayed Pawlenty's typical disdain and contempt for any other than the wealthy.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Pawlenty supported an affluent Republican judge who was openly holding secret meetings to determine court cases. When a Pawlenty supporter took one of the court cases, that the judge decided via a secret meeting, to the Minnesota Appellate Court, former Appeals Court Judge G. Barry Anderson took part in a decision and ordered that deciding a court case, via a secret meeting, could not be detrimental to judicial proceedings. However, at election time, the Minnesota Ninth Judicial District voters found secret meetings unacceptable for judges and removed, the ex parte district judge for violating Minnesota canon. During the campaign, the ex parte judge stated he held secret meetings all the time and couldn't run the court without them. "We do ex parte all the time." This ex parte judge had previously been cited, by the Chief Judge of the Ninth District, for holding a secret meeting, in a criminal case. Minnesota judicial canon demands that no secret meetings occur. Pawlenty's office was made aware of judicial impropriety, in the Minnesota Ninth District, by a northern newspaper which called for a special judicial investigation.

Following the ex parte Appellate decision, by Judge G. Barry Anderson, Pawlenty appointed him to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Concurrently, Pawlenty appointed Judge Russell Anderson to Chief Judge of the Minnesota Supreme Court where notably Russell Anderson is a friend to the ex parte judge who was removed by the voters. Shortly after the two (2) Andersons' appointments, the Minnesota Senate Majority Leader exposed that two (2) judges, with the surname of Anderson, were holding secret meetings to decided the fate of cases before them on gay rights, gay marriage, and abortion. The Judicial Board, under Pawlenty's administration, refused to investigate and hear the two (2) eye-witnesses to the judicial impropriety.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Pawlenty gave an executive order, on January 7, 2008, using his office to essentially force Minnesota cities to take on federal immigration enforcement to bolster the presently failing federal ICE policies. Pawlenty, showing his disdain and Draconian view against Minnesota cities, threatened, in his new policy, to derail state funds, earmarked for Minnesota cities, if they do not take on the federal immigration enforcement duties. These Minnesota cities are already hard-pressed for financial resources. Pawlenty's new policy forces city resources to be spent on a job that is consstitutionally defined to be performed by the federal government instead of using the badly needed resources for fixing the crumbling state transportation system (until 6 Republicans overrode Pawlenty's veto as another poster above mentioned) and providing the uninsured population with health care in a struggling job market. This new policy has Pawlenty's administrative office being the determining factor for which cities meet Pawlenty's Draconian requirements.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Minnesota taxpayers are now forced to pay a 30-40% increase in property and home taxes while the housing market is crumbling around the middle and lower class. Minnesota has a billion dollar deficit which shows the result of Pawlenty's feed the wealthy tax policies. Pawlenty's tax policies tax the poor and ignore home foreclosures which are at the highest rate ever recorded in Minnesota. No doubt the state deficit is due to Pawlenty's fixation to provide a billionaire public funding rather than providing for the needs of the middle and lower classes. Pawlenty forced his weight, as Governor, to assure a 700 million dollar public loan to a white billionaire (although Pawlenty refuses the colored owner a stadium and claims there isn't any way he can get a stadium - now or later) when Native Americans, in northern Minnesota, are restricted in their ability to buy, sell, and travel.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Pawlenty's administration refuses to accept Native American I.D. as a primary form of identification by ignoring Minnesota law, thereby, disabling Natives from obtaining passports and transacting business in Minnesota. Small business owners, in morthern Minnesota, have informed the news media and this poster, that state, county, and city ordinances dictate what business software they must use. The state dictated software does not have an option to input a Native American I.D. card number, but the software has the ability to input foreign I.D.. I reached the Governor, during a talk show, and the Governor promised me that he would get back to me on the Tribal ID issue, but it's been months, and he has never responded as promised.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Pawlenty appointed a prosecutor (Sheri Schluchter) to a state district court judge position where I live. In Schluchter's most infamous case, she went witch hunting after a Native American Roy Martin. According to the Northern Herald News, Schluchter had Martin charged with an alleged assault notwithstanding 1) That Martin did not fit the description that the victim gave which defined a young white man. 2) That Martin's wife said that Martin was in bed with her at the time of the assault. 3) That Martin, a disabled man, could not have used the escape route that police determined was used by the assailant. 4) That the victim had seen and exchanged greatings with Martin and his wife, at a restaurant, after the assault but did not recognize Martin as her assailant.

But, Schluchter had Martin in jail for about 7 months until a jury, hearing the evidence, took about 2 hours to fully acquit Martin of any involvement in the crime. During Martin's incarceration, the police were provided with the identity of another suspect that fit the description given by the victim and whose modus operandi fit the crime. This information was ignored as the concentration was on an effort "witch hunt effort" to convict the Native American whether he was guilty or not.

It seems, Pawlenty continues to hide under the mantle of deception of being a social conservative Governor, but under closer examination, when his actions and his policies are reviewed, the contempt for the middle and lower class and Native Americans is clear. One could look at Pawlenty's behavior and policies as catamount to racial and financial bias.

Posted by: gouldnen | March 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Ed Rendell would be Obama's best pick.

Posted by: RobtLyman0 | March 29, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Comment #1 from Mark 10036 asks "Why Obama VP for Hillary and not vice versa?" My answer is that Hillary is a divisive with too many negatives to win in the general election. She needs Obama supporters on her side to overcome McCain and pick up votes in red states. She needs Obama to win. The same Hillary negatives make her a drag on an Obama (Pres)/Clinton (VP) ticket. Obama doesn't need Clinton to win. In fact, her presence on the ticket is a losing proposition for Obama.

I think that an important consideration (perhaps the most important consideration) of the VP choice is who would be the best president when Obama's two terms have run their course or when an unfortunate tragedy thrust the VP into the role of president. This means asking the question: Who would I (as a believer in the viewpoints, mindsets and policy points of Barack Obama) think is best qualified to be president of the USA? .

I don't want Jim Webb as president. Bill Richardson is okay. Kathleen Sebelius is my choice. I think the need for a VP with foreign policy experience is overrated. Sebelius brings a steady managerial hand to the ticket. It probably gives Obama a win in a red state. If his presidency is successful, it probably means the first woman president in 2016 which could mollify people voting for Clinton because they want to see a woman in the white house.

Posted by: keithhood | March 29, 2008 6:18 AM | Report abuse

One of Obama's favorite books is "Team of Rivals"

That would certainly increase the odds of an Obama / Clinton ticket.

Posted by: newcomb | March 29, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

I used to think that there was no advantage for Obama to pick Senator Clinton as vice president.

Now I think it would be a brilliant move on Obama's part.

Pelosi has already stated that this won't happen. And the other loser-leaders - Kerry et all - do not want Clinton as the VP. If Obama chooses Clinton it would prove that he can defy and rise above the loser-wing of the Democratic party. This would heal any of the wounds from the Clinton supporters.

Obama by choosing Clinton could use this choice as a symbolic gesture on how he is capable of uniting disparate elements of the Democratic party. What an incredible selling point for his campaign in the fall!

He would lock in Hillary haters, who will love him for defeating Clinton and also gain the good will of the Clinton supporters. McCain would not have a chance.

The fact the Clinton was not even a choice in this article makes it even better - makes it look even bolder and more ingenious.

Obama / Clinton 2008

Think about it, and think again.

Only Barack Obama could pull this off! Incredible! Incredible!

Posted by: newcomb | March 29, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano would be a good choice. She's a two-term governor in McCain's home state, re-elected by a nearly 2-1 majority in 2006. She served as attorney for Anita Hill in her suit against Clarence Thomas in 1991, so she would have major credibility among women and help restore the Clinton voters. She might be able to move some Western states with large Hispanic populations into the Democratic column. Her record as governor is outstanding, having produced a balanced budget without a tax increase every year since taking office. And best of all, she may be more popular than McCain himself and uniquely qualified to take him on in his home state.

Webb would be my next choice, mainly on his defense credentials, but his opposition to women in combat ("Women can't fight")would do little to attract alienated Hillary supporters.

Posted by: rippermccord | March 28, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I think Richardson is a great choice for Obama's VP. The next administration will need to be heavy on diplomacy. For that reason, might I suggest Joe Biden for Obama's Secretary of State?

Posted by: fred.peterson | March 28, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

For Senator Obama: Anthony Zinni or Sam Nunn, even Ed Rendell, to unite the Clinton wing of the "democratic" party.

Posted by: cafam | March 28, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

and wpost--thanks for posting the dupe post--excellent, thanks for putting the facts out there--we have such a short attention span in this country---it wasn't that many months ago, Hillary was about to be coronated in Iowa. :) we see how that turned out.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 28, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Proud--I never said Hasselback was mean or tough or the epitome of vetting-I merely countered your claim that he waffled or whatever--you want it both ways because you don't want to dela with issues.

Adrick--I'll take your "strong post" comment as a compliment--and thanks for the insight--I'm very experienced with "white flight" my family did it in the late 70's/early 80's--I remember my mother being excited I would only have one black child in my Kg class.

Bsimon--thanks for your support!

Posted by: chadibuins | March 28, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA/WEBB
definitely!
Webb and Obama are on the same page on so many issues...most importantly the Iraq invasion/occupation. I thought Webb's reply to 2007 SOTU was outstanding. (And he wrote it himself!) Two super-intelligent guys with great judgement. I love the thought of electing OBAMA/WEBB 2008, OBAMA/WEBB 2012, WEBB/? 2016

Posted by: joy2 | March 28, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Kay Bailey Hutchinson?
Joe Biden?
Brian Schweitzer?
Mike Easley?
Michael Bloomberg?

All far more likely than Roemer (???), Crist (gay) or Nelson (completely ineffective in FL primary scheduling and recount).

Posted by: pcjnyc | March 28, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps MaCain should pick Hillary Clinton, she has done the most for his candidacy.

I hope Obama wins. I do not doubt he will pick a great VP. Just hope Clinton is not on the VP list...

Posted by: saxman_scott | March 28, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I'd loooovvve to see a Gore / Obama ticket, even more than an Obama / Gore ticket but let's face it I'd be happy with either.

But I see someone suggested the (albeit slim) possibility of a Clinton / Gore ticket. Well that ticket did work very well in the nineties, but trust me, the odds of Al Gore accepting the VP nod from Hillary are Z.E.R.O.

Posted by: jimoneill50 | March 28, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

pretty strong post:

chadibuins | March 28, 2008 03:58 PM

The root of the Obama hatred, Chad, is "fear".

After WWII, many white Americans fled the cities to live in the suburbs. This was called "white flight".

It was not rational, but is sure was real.

I only mention this to make a point. The point being: many whites today fear Obama because he is 1/2 black. Now, I am not outright calling them racists. Just fearful. Fear of the unknown, that's what it is.

After Obama is elected, and America begins to regain respect throughout the world, and we begin to actually face our serious problems of an economy crumbling at the core, 48 million Americans with no health insurance and the quagmire we are in Iraq, people will see that there is no need to fear him.

It will take time. It will take actions. But for most (not all, some actually are racists) the fear will subside.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 28, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Why no mention of Joe Biden as VP for Obama?

This is absolutely THE best ticket for America. Obama / Biden 08

I think Hillary would be best served by having Obama as her Veep. But like CC said, not sure he would accept. Although I would hope he would... 8 years as VP, then another 8 as Prez. Works for me!

I still hold that McCain should keep Dick Cheney in his old office as Veep. It maintains the continuity.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq. Was it not Cheney who engineered that debacle? McCain wants to make the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans -- he wants to make them permanent. Was it not Cheney who helped engineer that fiscal chicanery? McCain and Cheney are really eye-to-eye on most things.

Think of the power network Cheney has in place! It is awesome! McCain would be foolish to disregard that behind-the-scenes apparatus and re-invent the wheel.

McCain / Cheney 08

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 28, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

PROUD: My "Feeling" about this guy being bad/wrong is becoming more apparent every day. I suspect something will happen in the next two to three weeks that will absolutely put this guy away, if by some miracle it will be reported in The Media. I cannot see or understand how many "Libs" in the Dem party are so hell bent on supporting him when by any sane reasoning they must KNOW he cannot win the GE. I watched "The View" today and could not believe how he could get away with some of the comments he made. I continue to be absolutely dumbfounded by the fawning over him that brings back memories of Hitler, and his seemingly ability to hypnotize a wide audience of people.

Posted by: lylepink | March 28, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

After all the reasons why Obama shouldn't or couldn't or wouldn't pick Hillary, how about some why he should, could, would?

1. It guarantees him the election, by taking the party and the voters back to the heady days of January and February when the Democratic turnout was swamping the Republicans. No matter who McCain picks, he can't generate the excitement or the turnout on his side that Obama/Clinton would generate among Democrats.

2. It fulfills the old political maxim "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." As part of his administration, she has to go along or risk being banished to an endless round of state funerals and rubber chicken fund raisers, away from the action. Remember, he doesn't have to give her an office in the west wing, or a weekly luncheon or anything else.

3. It proves he's tough and confident. After all, if he can't control his own VP, how can he hope to control his administration?

4. It gives him cover on the experience issue. He can always say, "Well, if the phone rings at three in the morning, I can always consult her." As if ... but he can always say it, while hoping the phone call isn't from his lawyer with news of some scandal she or Bill are involved in.

5. In the end, and being totally honest, if the major qualification for being VP is readiness to assume the Presidency if necessary, one has to admit she is. And if the worst happens, they are so close on the issues that he can know she will continue his basic policies.

While some other possibilities (Richardson, Webb, Biden) offer experience on foreign affairs and some other possibilities offer the gender boost (Sebelius, Napolitano), no one else offers both. He's almost stuck with her, and if she wants to have any future in the party, she's almost stuck accepting.

Posted by: frb2749 | March 28, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

'Yes, and feed him Nutraloaf!

(Or maybe drindl wouldn't argue against waterboarding in this one particular instance.)'

well maybe just this once -- and definitely the nutriloaf. i'm with you on this one proud, inmates have, like, committed crimes, hello-- and if they are given food that is more nutritious than most of the world gets and they don't like it -- let them eat mattress.

religious observation is one thing and i beleive acceptable, but hey, prison ain't the culinary institute.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Sebelius, remember, is the daughter of former Ohio Governor Gilligan. Might be more help there than in KS.

Posted by: FlownOver | March 28, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

PELOSI FOR VP.....I've read thru all of the bloggs....what about Pelosi....she has a excellent record as both a stateswoman and a strong international foerign policy....Pelosi for VP....OBAMA/ PELOSI 08....A woman will be VP for sure this time around...history is crying out for it to happen...

Posted by: blairtimothyb4 | March 28, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Deeper and Deeper
By JAMES TARANTO
March 28, 2008

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," Barack Obama said last week about his "spiritual mentor," the Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.

But now, CNN reports, Obama is changing his tune. Well, sort of:

In an interview on ABC's "The View"-- Obama talks about Wright's reaction to the controversy.

"Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were [sic] inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church," the senator said.

Does this mean he would have left?

Or does it mean he would have stayed but felt uncomfortable?

And when did Wright apologize? Blogger Tom Maguire undertakes an extensive investigation, and the answer appears to be: Never.

In fact, Obama came close to apologizing to Wright.

The ABC News report on Obama's "View" appearance quotes the senator as calling Wright a "brilliant man who was still stuck in a time warp."

So brilliant, apparently, that he has uncovered the plot by white America to kill African Americans.

Meanwhile, the Ithaca (N.Y.) Journal reports on a seminar at Cornell University, where the Rev. Kenneth Clarke, who heads an interfaith campus organization, offered a defense of Wright:

Clarke, director of Cornell United Religious Work, defended sermons by Wright that caused the controversy leading to Obama's speech.

Clarke challenged the audience to go beyond the sound bites and listen to Wright's entire sermon from Sept. 16, 2001 where he criticizes America. Clarke compared Wright's criticism of America to commentary found in speeches by Fredrick Douglas [sic] and Martin Luther King Jr.
The critiques are not unpatriotic, Clarke said.

The statements "reflect a different style of patriotism to which the larger society is often not accustomed," he said. "It is a willingness to criticize the nation and its practices to help the nation, as Dr. King once said, 'to be true to what it has put on paper' in relation to the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution."

A charitable way of describing this is that it requires an Ivy League level of intellectual sophistication to rationalize anti-Americanism as "a different style of patriotism," as if the choice between "God bless America" and "God damn America" were the equivalent of wearing a flag pin or not.

To those of us who are not so sophisticated--or who have a modicum of common sense in addition to a facile intellect--Clarke's defense of Wright sounds either crazy or disingenuous.

ABC News quotes Obama:

"Part of what my role in my politics is to get people who don't normally listen to each other to talk to each other, who [say] crazy things, who are offended by each other, for me to understand them and to maybe help them understand each other."

And there's no question that Obama has promoted understanding between left-wing intellectuals and purveyors of resentment in the black community. That's not so hard, though.

These groups have a natural affinity owing to their adversarial attitude toward America--sorry, "different style of patriotism."

They are not, however, numerous enough to elect a president."

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"How pathetic is it that vetting is now done by Baba Wawa and Whoopie Goldberg."

Would that be more or less pathetic than Sen McCain's audience with the GOP matriarch this week? (I'm talking about Nancy Reagan)


Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 04:44 PM
-------------------
Seiing that both BaBa and Nancy look like skin pulled over skeletons I'd say it's a tie between two old hags.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"How pathetic is it that vetting is now done by Baba Wawa and Whoopie Goldberg."

Would that be more or less pathetic than Sen McCain's audience with the GOP matriarch this week? (I'm talking about Nancy Reagan)

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama VP:

Kaine won't work; too young, and would turn over governorship to a Republican. (P.S. - JD, I think you're being a little too hard on Kaine; he should get credit for his able handling of the VaTech shootings; and the collapse of the Dulles rail plan wasn't his fault.)

Webb is an unknown quantity who can be a bit of a loose cannon. Also, not enough experience to balance Obama's ticket.

Richardson would be a good choice but I, along with others, prefer Biden. Richardson would be excellent at State (although Biden would, too.)

Posted by: jac13 | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

He handled that mean old Hasselbeck, I tell you. He handled her, he's tough! ok? so quit calling him a wimp.

How pathetic is it that vetting is now done by Baba Wawa and Whoopie Goldberg.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

chadibuins writes
"I honestly don't understand what some of you people want from the man"

They want him to drop out.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

P.S. Go Hoyas in 2009!

Posted by: duanelaw1 | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

McCain will pick Sen. Joe Lieberman as his VP. He's 71 and he is not going to put up with someone he either doesn't know very well or that others want him to take. He is going to pick someone he is comfortable with and genuinely likes. He doesn't care what the conservatives want. They didn't elect him and they have to vote for him anyway in the general election. Well, except for Rush Limbaugh, who is voting for his gal Hillary.

Posted by: duanelaw1 | March 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Again Napolitano and Crist are single. And single people do not run for Pres or VP, whether or not they should.

For McCain: Sanford and Pawlenty answer the needs best. And Pawlenty's mullet should really appeal to hockey fans and perhaps improve relations to Canada.

For Obama: Richardson, Webb, or Clark are the ones. All have executive and foreign policy experience. I'm inclined to think Clark will be the candidate since he is least likely to do harm by saying something wrong. And Webb doesn't lose us a senate seat since he wouldn't take his VP seat until after the election and Gov Kaine would appoint a solid democrat like Congressman Boucher or Creigh Deeds who would hold the seat for the next two years and be in an excellent position to hold it in 2010. Webb being unconventional is a problem simply because no one is sure what he's going to say and you can't have a VP candidate like that.

Posted by: stpaulsage | March 28, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Jack Smith1: Your Post is just about what I have been saying for months. The "Envy/Jealous" Factor is now being overshadowed by the "FEAR" Factor. The Media is playing the idea that Hillary cannot win, which is FALSE. The Delegate count and the Popular vote will be for Hillary when the primaries are finished in early June. This is a FACT that has/is nor been reported.

Posted by: lylepink | March 28, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

PROUD--I SAW that interview on the VIEW today--he most certainly handled Hasselback--and she was tough, she asked him the prevailing questions about the issue.

He made that remark in response to her asking if Wright were still the pastor, would he leave--he said yes he would have. He also explained more than once that the issue with Wright is like having the stupidest, most outlandish remarks you have made over the past 20 years be boiled down into a :30 loop and played on Nat'l TV for almost 2 weeks. BUT--he again stated more than once--"This is not an excuse of Rev. Wright's comments"

I honestly don't understand what some of you people want from the man--I don't care if you vote for him; I'm not expecting nor is he that he carry 95% of the electorate--but it seems the issue with a lot of cons(conservatives not convicts) like yourself is that you aren't willing to say he is a good leader--even if you don't support him. You read clips and excerpts, you think reactionary instead of proactively and you listen and deduce subjectively instead of objectively--I apologize if I am offending you, I am not intending to--but it is really grating that no matter how many points are conceded, no matter how many bi-partisan attempts and honest answers to real questions the man answers--you want to make him into some terrible person simply because you disagree with his worldview and political philosophy.

The religious right and social cons have been handfed by the Reps and Neo-Cons for over a decade now--they are used to a sense of entitlement and assuming if they just don't like something it must be bad or wrong and that somehow their delusions don't have to stand up to rational thoughts and arguments. Thye believe they can just throw a scare tactic or wave a flag and use a veteran and everything will be there way because they represent "Americuh"--Well they don't represent MY AMERICA--they don't have the right to use MY FLAG to hide their divisive anti-American fear-mongering--they don't have the right to use and abuse veterans who have died for my rights to support their unjust war, wrong economic policies and jingo-istic, xenophobic rhetoric.

I'm sick and tired of it, and I would bet I'm not the only one--I may be disgusted with Clinton's "kitchen-sink tactics" and disappointed she is fighting Obama like a Republican--but I will sing her name all day long and vote for her proudly in Novemebr before I would EVER vote for anyone who thinks the way Bush/Cheney have run things is just fine.

Let's get real!

Posted by: chadibuins | March 28, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Well, whadda ya know...Today's headlines from the state that gave us Howard Dean:

Nutraloaf: Jailbirds' Punishment in the Can

Some prisons are serving inmates Nutraloaf, a blocky mash of ingredients that provides all the nutrients growing convicts need to thrive -- and can be eaten without a fork or a knife.

Nutraloaf debuted as a punishment. Prisoners who throw food, utensils or even bodily fluids at guards and other inmates can see their regular prison fare replaced with the unsavory loaf, which some find so disgusting it's incentive enough to behave.

Recipes vary, but common ingredients for the jailhouse block include bread, cheese, fruit, vegetables and beans, and just about anything else.

Now some prisoners are arguing that Nutraloaf isn't just gruel, it's cruel -- and they've brought their case all the way to the Vermont Supreme Court.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342772,00.html
---------------------------

"i guess the question is, should he be put in jail, rehab, or happy farm?"

Yes, and feed him Nutraloaf!

(Or maybe drindl wouldn't argue against waterboarding in this one particular instance.)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

obama/obama

that way the cult can be complete.

we are the ones we've been waiting for

Posted by: newagent99 | March 28, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

More back pedaling from the Great Negotiator:
Barack Obama says his controversial former pastor was stuck in a "time warp" and suggests he would have left his Chicago church had Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. not retired.
Now that's taking a stand! Wow, what balls -a pre-taped interview with "The View".
He can't even handle a debate with Elizabeth Hasselbeck.
---------------------

Parroting Glen Beck today, eh?

Poor Liz, stuck in her own 1950s time-warp. Barack once again handled it with ease. Audience right with him.


Posted by: wpost4112 | March 28, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I am still confused about who these "crossover" republicans are voting for?

Is Hillary the weaker nominee or Obama?

The Dem's keep giving different answers. Which makes me wonder if it is happening significantly at all.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 28, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

---------------

Looks like someone's duped you.

Barack was 20-30 points behind Hillary in nearly ever state. She is extremely well-known to every American, the wife of a former and popular President whom many Dems still love. Barack was and is unknown to many Americans.

Given that, Barack leads her in all categories.

Hillary depleted her own monies foolishly, can't control her loose cannons and praises the Republican nominee while tearing down the other potential Dem nominee.

Dupe, Dupe-dupe-dupe-duuuuuuuuuuuuupe.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 28, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

This is out there. Transcript of rush limbaugh saying his operation chaos [which started with R party switching to vote for Hillary and keep her in the race] will have R ringers at the Dem convention to 'choose the dem nominee.'

Either he's flyin high on heroin again, or he's lost it altogether, or he's planning some illegal whatever. In any case, his listeners are eating it up:

"You will not be able to stop phase three of Operation Chaos.

"We have several qualified information technology experts. They run our website, our communications, we are, after all, in the communications business. Several of our communications are, of course, encrypted to prevent piracy and theft. Those technicians, those specialists are working on an encryption method via mobile device that looks like any other cell phone or mobile device anybody would have to get encrypted messages to my delegates at the Democrat National Convention.

This is being tested as we speak, and it will be ready in days. So even if you are forewarned, you will not know, and you will not be able to trust and you will not be able to confirm just which of your delegates in Denver are mine. Part of Operation Chaos. They will have been credentialed. They will have passed all the tests. They will have been to state conventions prior to arriving in Denver. They will have been briefed. They will be told how to vote by me, depending on their number and the closeness of the final vote at the Democrat National Convention in Denver.

"They will be able to receive my constructions via the encrypted hand-held device that nobody will be able to debug because nobody will know whose is encrypted and whose isn't. We will also be sending dummy messages to legitimate Democrat delegates, hopefully we can get some of the legitimate delegates thrown out, as impostors, phase four of Operation Chaos.""

i guess the question is, should he be put in jail, rehab, or happy farm?

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

PROUD: I am glad to hear you are doing your part. I could never understand how these folks will do ANYTHING for another pill. I blame the Dr's for a lot of this for they are mostly interested in making a buck, and not the best for their patient.

Posted by: lylepink | March 28, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Anthony Zinni, Wesley Clark...either of them would add military credibility to any of these tickets. This isn't the usual election. Another pretty face from a swing state won't help anyone.

Posted by: dfc102 | March 28, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I support Obama....would love to see a Gore/Obama ticket....as for McCain, he needs to pick a minority or a woman. The people you have listed are BORING!

P.S. It's time for Hillary to pull out of the race.

Posted by: camhyder | March 28, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

More back pedaling from the Great Negotiator:

Barack Obama says his controversial former pastor was stuck in a "time warp" and suggests he would have left his Chicago church had Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. not retired.

Now that's taking a stand! Wow, what balls -a pre-taped interview with "The View".

He can't even handle a debate with Elizabeth Hasselbeck.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 28, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

In regards to Barack Obama's pick, Jim Webb is the best choice. Southern white, military family, war veteran, author, Sec Nav, and a convert to the Democratic party that pulled many people into voting for him in the senate race. He is an excellent choice and a solid man of character. So what if he is impolitic at times? Much better than telling senators to "f--k off" like the current VP, Mr. Draft Dodger x5.

Posted by: kirinbeer96701 | March 28, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Webb.

Having a line about HRC's VP picks is like having one about Richardson's. It's delusional.

Posted by: ajacobs | March 28, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, hoping to avoid a divisive fight on the convention floor, weighed in on the Clinton-Obama battle Friday by calling on all party superdelegates to declare whom they support by July 1.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/28/howard-dean-calls-for-superdelegate-decision-by-july-1/


Just making up the rules as he goes along, it seems.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis overall, Chris. Agree with squelch about advice for when you're on Hardball.

That said, I disagree about Biden for Obama. I usually include him in the short list, but I think he's unsuitable for the second banana position, much more likely that Obama would want Dodd or Richardson.

Posted by: WillSeattle | March 28, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

1.rharis7--please stop post8ing the same thing--not cool.

2. In regards to your post--as with GWB it is not about gathering a "team of giants" or "experienced players"---You're missing the point---with Lincoln, gathering a team of rivals involves getting those who were in fact "rivals" including their independent, opposing POV.--Lincoln's Team of Rivals speaks more to Lincoln's judgement and character---I agree with the poster earlier--THIS is what makes it so similar to Obama--not an all-star cabinet.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 28, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

caribus; Richardson is a nonstarter for appealing to Clinton supporters and would destroy any chance of attracting uus back into the fold so you are right He would make a perfect fit for Obama and his supporters which we know by now is all that matters to his campaign.

Posted by: leichtman | March 28, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

carabis writes "It is doubtful a lot of the vote that would supposedly be scared off by a non-white male ticket would know "Bill Richardson" is Hispanic."

Hence the ridiculous facial hair, I'm guessing.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

My pics:
McCain/Rice (as in Condi Rice)

Obama/Richardson looks good on paper, but would the American electorate choose 2 people of color?

I also like Obama/Feingold or Obama/Biden.

Clinton is not likely to be the nominee, so I won't waste time guessing there.

Posted by: wsealsjr | March 28, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

lyle, You're right...there's lots of bad folks who would love to get their hands on your meds an either sell them on the street or take them to get high. the problem has been getting much worse in recent years, and local law enforcement has a real uphill battle because typically the laws lack teeth, it's difficult and very time-consuming to prosecute these types of crimes, and if they do the punishment isn't much of deterrent.

There was a case in northern VA a few years ago where they busted an MD and several others for setting up a drug ring for Rx narcotics- these people were getting thousands of C-IIs on a monthly basis. That's the volume it takes for the penalties to be really bad.

Unfortunately, there is a certain percentage of legitimate prescriptions that always will end up being sold on the street for someone other than for whom prescribed. As the label on your bottle says, that is a Federal crime, but one that is not easily prosecuted or enforced.

I do my part whenever possible, and I love busting the bad guys. One time I set up a sting operation where I put M&Ms in the bottle instead of pills and when the guy bought the Rx, the cop was right there to bust him because the Rx was forged. Hoooah!


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

All of the candidates need someone with executive experience who is not tied directly to Washington. McCain needs it less than HRC or Obama and HRC needs it only slightly less than Obama. That means if you are a current member of Congress, you should not be offered the Veep spot.

McCain needs someone who can step in more than the others because of his age. I would be less worried about economic conservatives because they are more likely to vote than stay home and who else will they vote for? Evangelical Republicans on the other hand have no problem staying home. As for the general public McCain needs someone with domestic policy experience. His current message of lets not be too hasty will work no better for McCain than it did for Hoover.

McCain - Most worried about base evangelical voters: Huckabee
McCain - Most worried about the economy/domestic issues (in order): Tommy Thompson, Charlie Crist, Pawlenty, Sanford, Huckabee
McCain - I just need electoral votes (in order): Charlie Crist, Tommy Thompson, Huckabee, Pawlenty

Obama needs someone with a resume. I think John Edwards is an object lesson in why a "Veep who'll bring out the white, blue-collar male vote" is not the strategy to choose. If he couldn't do it for Kerry, who can do it for Obama? I still think the list begins and ends with Richardson. It is doubtful a lot of the vote that would supposedly be scared off by a non-white male ticket would know "Bill Richardson" is Hispanic. This ticket would have to win by bringing new voters into the polls. Specifically black, Latino and the young. If it works it would be a political earthquake. Most elections are people fighting over the same votes as last election. A politician who can expand the voting base is a force. And if he can't do it, Clinton would have lost anyway.

As for Clinton, who cares, its over unless Obama dies or is caught with a dead girl/live boy in his bed.

Posted by: caribis | March 28, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden would be a serious and well regarded choice for Sen Obama or Hillary that is why he will never be given any consideration by Sen Obama but a likely choice for Hillary because of her respect for Biden's national security credentials. I believe Hillary supporters and progressives like Rhandi Rhodes, certainly not an important factor speak very highly of Biden. Governors Sebillius and Napolitano are the political choice,not necessarily Presidential caliber which is the real test, and likely the political choice by Sen. Obama.

Posted by: leichtman | March 28, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

MARK: Not at all. I was only pointing out to PROUD how the use of drugs are so prevalent in all neighborhoods and the seemingly lack of concern by most. I have a bunch of prescribed meds, and no way I can even discuss some of them only but with the closest of friends that I know does not take or need them. Primarily these are for pain, and are highly sought by dealers and users.

Posted by: lylepink | March 28, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I would think Obama and Kathleen Sebelius

Posted by: lexi1 | March 28, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

as a rrightwing blogger put it...

"Okay, so a League of Democracies isn't going to cure the world's ills overnight. But it's certainly a step in the right direction. Undermining the United Nations is a long-term project."

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I really like Webb for Obama's running mate. Richardson wouldn't be bad, either.

Posted by: erimeli | March 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Regarding Obama with Webb - IIRC, Webb had a fair amount of Arab American support in his run vs. Allen. At least in part, that may have been a reaction to Allen. Given the push to link Obama with some of Wright's positions on Israel, Jews, and Farrakhan, I wonder if Webb is vulnerable to the same sort of "he's in the same boat" innuendo. If oppo research digs up someone who made a remark that can be questioned as anti-Israel or, worse, anti-American, then that will accentuate the rumors about Obama. Unfair, and to my knowledge unsubstantiated, but I don't think you can be too cynical about campaign tactics.

Posted by: jca-CrystalCity | March 28, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

here's krauthammer to decode maccain's agenda for you:

'Yesterday in an foreign policy address in Los Angeles, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called for the United States to create and lead a "League of Democracies" in order to "harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests."

Numerous media outlets interpreted McCain's speech as a call for "cooperation" and "collaboration" with allies and the rest of the world, "drawing a sharp contrast to the past eight years under President Bush." But last night on Fox News, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer revealed the true meaning behind McCain's "League of Democracies":

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I like the idea of the league of democracies, and only in part because I and others had proposed it about six years ago. What I like about it, it's got a hidden agenda. It looks as if it's all about listening and joining with allies, all the kind of stuff you'd hear a John Kerry say, except that the idea here, which McCain can't say, but I can, is to essentially kill the U.N."

As Krauthammer noted, he proposed this "League of Democracies" nearly "six years ago," so he would know its actual "agenda." Indeed, Krauthammer delivered a speech on "Democratic realism" in 2004 outlining this agenda which calls for the U.S. to "commit blood and treasure" to spread democracy in strategic areas around the world.

Perhaps McCain does want to "kill the U.N." After all, he backed anti-U.N. crusader John Bolton's nomination as the organization's U.S. ambassador and secretly pushed his confirmation. Bolton famously said "there is no such thing as the United Nations" and if the U.N. building in New York "lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

thinkprogress posted a retraction--something no rightwing website woud EVER do-- so try to pulll back your hysteria:

CORRECTION: As a blog that strives to maintain credibility and transparency, we would like to explain our mistake. When we were alerted to the tip that Adm. Ziemer gave a similar speech in 1996, we searched LexisNexis and McCain's campaign site for whether the senator used the disputed phrases before that time. We did not find anything. After we published the post, the McCain campaign contacted us and pointed to a speech given by the senator in 1995, which appears on McCain's Senate site. As soon as we were alerted to the error, we rushed to publish a correction. Once again, we regret the error, and we apologize for it."

so in other words, the speech McCain 'plagerized' was his own -- from 1995.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

blert-
I like your reference of the money angle, but I question whether Romney would add a lot of money to the McCain campaign. Would Romney dig into the private stash to finance a VP run, or save it for a future Pres run? The better question is: who, among frontrunners for McCain's Veep, is a talented fundraiser?

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Sibelius is the perfect vp chocice to unite the democratic party for Obama. I always liked the fact that Hillary is a women more than I actually liked Hillary herself. Emily's list and other groups will get behind Obama just as hard as they would for Hillary if Sibelius is on his ticket. The contrast between the democrats with Obama/Sibelius running against two white republican men will be astounding. Forget foreign policy, Obama can win on foreign policy by showing he is not a warmongering nut like McCain.

Posted by: jay | March 28, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Say it ain't so Hillary

Is it possible that Hillary has been caught in Another Lie this week?


It has to be astonishing to the average person who leads their life by telling the truth.


It turns out that John Podesta, former Clinton Chief of Staff, heads up the Center for American Progess, which in turn runs thinkprogress.org which ran the false story last week that Senator John McCain had plagiarized some passages in a speech.

One has to ask oneself: Are they serious?


How in the world can another lie, a smear campaign, have as its source a group of Clinton people? The funding and the contributors of the Center for American Progress and thinkprogress.org should be checked out for connections to the Clinton campaign.

At first glance, thinkprogress.org appears to be run by a relatively young editor named Faiz Shakir who has apparently refused to resign over this episode.

A few more clicks of the mouse yields the name of the parent organization and an actual picture or John Podesta.


Enough with the lies. Enough with the smear campaigns. Enough with sending your daughter out to tell the country that the credibility of a Presidential candidate is "none of our business."

America deserves better.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 28, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

bryant_flyer2006 writes
"Minn. is running a surplus and is in good shape financially."

Your data is out of date. Projections based on the 2006 economy produced a surplus (though the state included inflation in revenue projections, but not expense projections). The 2008 data shows a revenue shortfall for MN. State economist Tom Stinson has MN in a recession.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

my bad earlier--I meant to say McCain/Sanford NOT McCain/Strickland.

Strickland should have been listed under the possibilities for Clinton.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Who is Hillary going to pick to appease Obama's supporters?

-------------

If Hill is the Dem nominee, I think the more important question is who is McCain going to choose?

He can pick up some disaffected Obama supporters by going Independent, like Leib or Hagel, or push em right back to Hill by going right, like Romney, whose advisors include the VP of Blackwater.

Trickier for McC than the Dems.

Come Nov most Obama/Hillary supporters will vote against McCain regardless of what is going on now.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 28, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Mannie Harrison from NYC writes, "Warren G. Harding filled his cabinet with the Giants of his day- Charles Evans Hughes, Andrew Mellon and Herbert Clark Hoover.Historians usually rate him as the worst President in our Nation's history. Regardless of those who serve in the Cabinet, we need a President who can weigh the counsel he/she receives and make sound judgments. John MCcain should convince Colin Powell to run with him as VP and Barack Obama should convince Al Gore to take back his old job. Hillary can spend the next four years figuring out what went wrong. Regardess of the November results, the American People owe the Illinois Senator a hearfelt thanks for preventing a Clinton Dynasty." Mannie Harrison

Posted by: rharis70 | March 28, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Mannie Harrison from NYC writes, "Warren G. Harding filled his cabinet with the Giants of his day- Charles Evans Hughes, Andrew Mellon and Herbert Clark Hoover.Historians usually rate him as the worst President in our Nation's history. Regardless of those who serve in the Cabinet, we need a President who can weigh the counsel he/she receives and make sound judgments. John MCcain should convince Colin Powell to run with him as VP and Barack Obama should convince Al Gore to take back his old job. Hillary can spend the next four years figuring out what went wrong. Regardess of the November results, the American People owe the Illinois Senator a hearfelt thanks for preventing a Clinton Dynasty." Mannie Harrison

Posted by: rharis70 | March 28, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Mannie Harrison from NYC writes, "Warren G. Harding filled his cabinet with the Giants of his day- Charles Evans Hughes, Andrew Mellon and Herbert Clark Hoover.Historians usually rate him as the worst President in our Nation's history. Regardless of those who serve in the Cabinet, we need a President who can weigh the counsel he/she receives and make sound judgments. John MCcain should convince Colin Powell to run with him as VP and Barack Obama should convince Al Gore to take back his old job. Hillary can spend the next four years figuring out what went wrong. Regardess of the November results, the American People owe the Illinois Senator a hearfelt thanks for preventing a Clinton Dynasty." Mannie Harrison

Posted by: rharis70 | March 28, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Hagel disputes McCain's claim we can 'win' in Iraq: 'Then we'll be there forever.'

In an interview with CNN, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) took issue with John McCain's frequent declarations that we must "win" in Iraq. "This isn't a win or lose," Hagel said, adding:

"We shouldn't frame this up as a win-or-lose because, when we do that - and this is where I have a major disagreement with McCain, then on that basis we'll be there forever."

i have to agree with Hagel on that. He would definitely be a good pick for Obama..

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

If Napolitano were on the ticket would she have to resign as Governor? I have to quit posting now, but I will look for a reply later.

Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Warren G. Harding filled his cabinet with the Giants of his day- Charles Evans Hughes, Andrew Mellon and Herbert Clark Hoover.Historians usually rate him as the worst President in our Nation's history. Regardless of those who serve in the Cabinet, we need a President who can weigh the counsel he/she receives and make sound judgments. John MCcain should convince Colin Powell to run with him as VP and Barack Obama should convince Al Gore to take back his old job. Hillary can spend the next four years figuring out what went wrong. Regardess of the November results, the American People owe the Illinois Senator a hearfelt thanks for preventing a Clinton Dynasty. Mannie Harrison

Posted by: rharis70 | March 28, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

If Crist continues to survive the gay rumors--which as a fellow Floridian I have no doubt that he will--then I say:

McCain/Crist

If not, then McCain/Strickland or if he's really committed to being Bush's 3rd term, McCain/Rice.

Obama should pick one of the three:
Obama/Bloomberg
Obama/Richardson
Obama/Sebelius

A long shot is Obama/Napolitano or Obama/Kaine--Janet didn't help him win AZ and Kaine has too much of the same "inexperience/no foreign creds argument" Obama/Edwards is a dark horse--depending if the endorsement comes before and helps him carry PA.

Clinton:
Clinton/Ford (Harold Ford from TN)
Clinton/Clark
Clinton/Bayh
Clinton/Nelson (interesting especially if McCain chooses Crist)

Long shots for Clinton: Clinton/Gore -- Clinton/Obama

Speculated, but way too much fanatsy in this day and age--unless we really do see divisiveness carried to the convention--Gore/Obama

Posted by: chadibuins | March 28, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"I admire Governor Pawlenty for the stones it takes to still sport a mullet in this day and age"

Hey, don't mock the doo - it saved him from that bridge collapse....the hair snagged on a piece of steel and the rescuers were able to pull him up to safety.

That TPaw, he's all business in the front...party in the back!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Warren G. Harding filled his cabinet with the Giants of his day- Charles Evans Hughes, Andrew Mellon and Herbert Clark Hoover.Historians usually rate him as the worst President in our Nation's history. Regardless of those who serve in the Cabinet, we need a President who can weigh the counsel he/she receives and make sound judgments. John MCcain should convince Colin Powell to run with him as VP and Barack Obama should convince Al Gore to take back his old job. Hillary can spend the next four years figuring out what went wrong. Regardess of the November results, the American People owe the Illinois Senator a hearfelt thanks for preventing a Clinton Dynasty.

Posted by: rharis70 | March 28, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Warren G. Harding filled his cabinet with the Giants of his day- Charles Evans Hughes, Andrew Mellon and Herbert Clark Hoover.Historians usually rate him as the worst President in our Nation's history. Regardless of those who serve in the Cabinet, we need a President who can weigh the counsel he/she receives and make sound judgments. John MCcain should convince Colin Powell to run with him as VP and Barack Obama should convince Al Gore to take back his old job. Hillary can spend the next four years figuring out what went wrong. Regardess of the November results, the American People owe the Illinois Senator a hearfelt thanks for preventing a Clinton Dynasty.

Posted by: rharis70 | March 28, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Who is Hillary going to pick to appease Obama's supporters?

Posted by: elyse.greenwald | March 28, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

On the Republican side, none of the options are perfect. The base thinks Crist is gay. Pawlenty is no longer particularly popular in MN. Sanford is pretty far right. Romney was running horribly in matchup polls and his fights with McCain would give Democrats lots of ammo. Pawlenty or Thune are the best of those options as they're young and relatively inoffensive while having good conservative credentials.

As for Clinton, CC's analysis is right on. She has to offer the spot to Obama first because it's a guarantee that she would be overturning a lead in pledged delegates. She doesn't do this (on top of her campaign tactics), and the AA community stays home.

Obama can either deal with national security or managerial experience. If McCain keeps making major gaffes like the Sunni/Shia story last week, and Iraq (sadly) continues to deteriorate, national security may matter less than you think. Webb costs us a senate seat. Kaine costs us a governor's seat. Richardson is a great fit on paper, but I personally can't warm up to the guy. He would be a great cabinet pick for sure. If Obama wants a governor, Sebelius and Napolitano are probably our best talents. The media would probably get over the "female pandering" angle pretty quickly as they got to know the candidates better.

Posted by: Nissl | March 28, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Only a few posters have mentioned Janet Napolitano, and I would be interested to hear The Fix's take. I think she could compliment Obama in several important ways -- has practical executive experience as a governor, good public speaker, and she is popular in the West. Plus, while she might not help Obama carry Arizona, her presense on the ticket would force McCain to spend more time and money in his home state.

Posted by: Axisofstupidity1 | March 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Good lord, blert is now in agreement with rat-the. I expect a plague of locusts soon.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Condie Rice loses McCain the election. Can't wait to start a "send a can of Spam to Condie" campaign...reminding voters that she laughed away the minutes watching Spamalot on Broadway while people in New Orleans were floating facedown in the water, then went shopping for shoes on 5th Ave the following day. And was rightly scolded for both by ordinary citizens.

The Marie Antoinette of America.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

McCain needs a superb expert on economics and that can give solutions to the economic failure of the Bush Administration. This is important and needed since it would help those independents that were leaning Dem this year to go for McCain instead (and even push for those Dems that didnt get either Clinton/Obama as the candidate).

Posted by: AnNavia3 | March 28, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

McCain needs a superb expert on economics and that can give solutions to the economic failure of the Bush Administration. This is important and needed since it would help those independents that were leaning Dem this year to go for McCain instead (and even push for those Dems that didnt get either Clinton/Obama as the candidate).

Posted by: AnNavia3 | March 28, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain should pick Ernest Borgnine as his VP, because he needs someone to make him look young. Zing!

Nancy Reagan's endorsement of McCain was huge. Obviously there's something about him that reminds her of Ronnie, and that's important when ... what were we talking about?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 01:39 PM

------------------------
Now there is an idea, two birds in fact with one stone. Nancy ran the White House, while 'Daddy' slept. And she makes McShame look young too.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 28, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I admire Governor Pawlenty for the stones it takes to still sport a mullet in this day and age. He will help McCain with old people who are fans of "Perfect Strangers," who will have senior moments and think that Pawlenty is Bronson Pinchot.

Oh, that's why McCain likes him? Sorry!

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Suppose McC did pick MDH. MDH was a good Governor, a great campaigner, and is capable of being Prez. He also managed to define himself as wanting to write some religion into the Constitution.

He frightens libertarians and wows evangelicals, especially socially conscious ones like the ones who worry about the less fortunate and stewardship of the planet.

I think MDH is a net zero for McC, who would then have to choose MDH on some other basis.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

'drindl, the VA sniper was complaining that the veggie loaf tasted bad- it was a vegetarian menu that he was served, but his complaint and the lawyers efforts were to require the food to be more delicious. That is going to a ridiculous extreme.'

Agreed. That is damn silly.

" Obviously there's something about him that reminds her of Ronnie, and that's important when ... what were we talking about?"

funny.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

John McCain has to choose someone conservative fiscal credintials and executive experience. I think Pawlenty is the best choice, as I began arguing in the summer of 2007. I thought McCain would win the Republican nomination and pick Pawlenty, and think that would be a great team for the nation. Here is my ranking of VP's for each candidate:

John McCain VP:

1. Tim Pawlenty (Minn. gov.)- Pawlenty is a popular midwestern governor who has high approval ratings in a "purple" state. Minn. is running a surplus and is in good shape financially. He has high pluses among independents & conservatives, which is another thing McCain needs. Not to mention he's young and a prolific fundraiser. He's a super choice.

2. John Huntsman, Jr. (Utah Gov.)- Huntsman is a very popular governor in a ruby red state. He's a very conservative Mormon. This would give McCain access to a national organization in the Mormon church to organize for him. Huntsman would also give McCain access to all the cash he would need. #1, Huntsman on a national ticket would raise enourmous sums of money in Utah for the campaign. He would also raise lots of funds from Mormon's nationwide, as having one of their own in a VP slot. Not to mention John Huntsman Sr., Jr's dad, is the richest man in Utah. That would answer the question: how will Republicans compete with the cash advantage of Democrats in 08? John Huntsman Jr. in a VP slot is not a bad answer to that question. Plus, he may excite the socially conservative base.

3. Mark Sanford (SC gov.)- Sanford moved down the list when he choose not to endorse McCain in the GOP race this time around. Still, Sanford is very popular among fiscal & social conservatives, a quality McCain doesn't possess. Plus, Sanford doesn't always toe the party line and, like McCain has an independent streak. He's also beloved by the Club for Growth, who in the past has proven it will put it's money where it's mouth is to help their people win.

Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton needs to finish the democratic nomination race before choosing a VP who won't be needed to run a general election. They should finish the nomination race then let the winner choose a VP for the general.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | March 28, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

What about Condeleeza for McCain's VP? May help with two or three key demographics at once? Plus insulates him somewhat from the inevitable race cards in the GE.

Posted by: mmhenry | March 28, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Romney for McCain is an odd choice, but time heals all wounds, I suppose, and in this case it is as much a matter of necessity. Romney quite obviously will run again for president the first chance he gets, and Republicans tend to reward people who try again, having lost the first time but gained a national profile.

Romney needs the VP slot because, without it, he is out of politics for the next four years, and the nomination helps him extend the profile he has built.

McCain needs Romney because Romney brings money into the race. McCain is weak among conservatives and may bleed votes if he picks someone who doesn't have the stamp of conservative approval, but McCain's biggest need right now is cash. At his current pace, McCain could raise money from now until November and still only barely pull ahead of what Obama is able to raise in a month. McCain's biggest need is for a VP who can raise money much faster than McCain himself can, and Romney, although an odd choice in so many other ways, is the best option.

No Huckabee? Of course, Huckabee doesn't have the fundraising prowess, but he is younger and well-liked. Why is he off the line?

Posted by: blert | March 28, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

B202, you posted something witty yesterday. Were you the author?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

McCain should pick Ernest Borgnine as his VP, because he needs someone to make him look young. Zing!

Nancy Reagan's endorsement of McCain was huge. Obviously there's something about him that reminds her of Ronnie, and that's important when ... what were we talking about?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

A really interesting place to check out what people trading in the political futures markets think about this question is to go to intrade.com. They have a breakdown of vice presidential likelihoods for both parties, and people buy and sell them just like soybean futures.

BTW, I agree with others above that Biden is a vastly underappreciated frontrunner for Obama. I'm a huge Obama supporter, but because of the media's embarrassingly unprofessional mis-coverage of the Wright sermons (they completely act like there was no context for the famous lines that Fox is hyping) and Obama's more real inexperience in a key area, he has two unavoidable perceived "deficits":

1. The media has scared white rural voters into thinking he is racist (he's not, and even the Clinton campaign desperados here know that). Fair or not, he needs a white All-American type regular guy for a mate. That rules out Bill Richardson and I can't think of anyone who better fits the description than Biden. He's affable on the stump too - he just couldn't get any air with the 2 (3?) rock stars he was running against.

2. Foreign policy/military experience needed - inquire within. That narrow the field considerably for Obama. Webb is certainly a strong contender but I think he may be seen as too much of a loose cannon. Wes Clark is in the Clinton camp, Gen. McPeak is a bit too old. Biden is a well-respected (on both sides of the aisle) senior figure and will be sort of a light-side version of what Darth Cheney to Shrub was. I realize he doesn't have the traditional geographical leverage that you often look for in a veep, but he might help some in PA and NJ (where McCain is actually polling surprisingly strong). Delaware's governor is a Democrat so there's no loss of seat there.

I don't get CC's Kaine fascination either. He rode Warner's coattails into office, has zero foreign policy experience and the Lt. Gov. is a Republican. It's a non-starter.

Posted by: B2O2 | March 28, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, does the solution to energy and entitlements involve the drug dealers?

I suspect those were separate thoughts, but stranger proposals have been made here.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Chris, First: As the Dimocrat Socialist go to their "Broken" Convention, they are going to get "Gored".

LOL, I can see him now, holding his Nobel Prize! ;~) Mr. Hot Air causing Global Warming with his Bloviating Speeches!

Second, McCain NEEDS Mitt Romney. Mitt has what McCain LACKS, McCain has what Mitt LACKS! Like each other or Not, they are the Ticket the Job Calls for. Truth, they are going to be in the wrong Positions, BUT, such is life when you have a STUPID Primary System to deal with! :-(
THAT, and a Religious Sectarian Nut-Job named al-Huckleberry screwing up the vote!

The RepubliCANS, need to perform a Shot-Gun Wedding-Get Pastor Cheney and his "Bible", and then get ready for a very hard election. The Anti-Christ could be running against the BUSH-whacked GOP, and be the favored Candidate right now!

LOL! If I did not know better, I'd swear the "ARISTOCRAT" Party was try to find him now! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention in my previous post, but I think Obama could probably convince Al Gore to be his runningmate.

He'd need only to say that he needs him to help unify the party and that Gore would effectively be in charge of directing the Departments of Interior, Energy and Transportation and that the president would defer to his expertise on all things climate change-related.

Obama and Gore have a good relationship and I don't think Al could pass up being even more influential on global climate change policy, even at the expense of his newfound non-partisanship.

Posted by: IndiePendants | March 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

May I add to the advice in re Hardball . Go Zell Miller on his @$$ .

Posted by: borntoraisehogs | March 28, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I had totally forgotten Fiorina and the internal spying, bsimon. Xerxestrust just found his female Cabinet member - Fiorina at DHLS.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes
"I have yet to figure out how you guys recognize my "GENIUS" only at or near the end of the month."

I don't believe I did.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

PROUD & bsimon: I have yet to figure out how you guys recognize my "GENIUS" only at or near the end of the month. I can give you a very simple solution on how to solve the Energy and Medicare problem that are facing us in the very near future. This has been discussed before, but I can't remember if you were a part. BTW, proud, Rush should be prosecuted on the drug deal. Every time I am out the first week of the month, I see the same [I think] drug dealers and buyers, doing their thing openly, and very seldom is anything done by the PD.

Posted by: lylepink | March 28, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"A ridiculous extreme in demanding a tastier veggie loaf is not a compelling reason to soften US policy on torture."

Correct; and John McCain agrees with that too. As a POW and victim of unimaginable torture for years, I think he's uniquely qualified to not only condemn torture, but define it and ensure America doesn't engage in it. He has done that consistently.

On this topic, I think John McCain can win any day of the week against this liberal tripe and mischaracterization of his longstanding record on the issue. To those who want to hear them debate this issue, I'm sure he'd say "Bring it".

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

If McCaine picks any of the people listed , come November Bush might as well hand over the keys to the bunker . Romney is the only one qualified and he is dead in the water due to religous bigotry real and feigned .

Posted by: borntoraisehogs | March 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Although Richardson would be the best, I think a guy like Tom Daschle or a woman like Sebelius could really do wonders for Obama as well.

http://think.mtv.com/briantrich/

Posted by: thecrisis | March 28, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Team of Rivals.

Abraham Lincoln is still viewed as the best President. He was highly intelligent. In no way can you compare Lincoln and GWB. GWB is not even in the same league as Lincoln.

GWB's low intelligence level precluded him from picking the brightest and the best. He only wanted people who thought like he did because his intelligence level does not allow him to analyze opposing views to reach the right decision. It's so much easier to decide when everyone around you thinks the same way. We see know how fateful and destructive this can be.

Not only did Lincoln have a Team of Rivals but so did FDR and these two were great Presidents, because they surrounded themselves with people who didn't always agree with them. Obama is much like Lincoln and FDR.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 28, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

For Obama:

Gov. Kathleen Sebellius or

Former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley!

Posted by: schandra1 | March 28, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"That is going to a ridiculous extreme."

A ridiculous extreme in demanding a tastier veggie loaf is not a compelling reason to soften US policy on torture.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I would echo those here who say Ted Strickland would be a good fit as veep for Obama for many of the same reasons: appeal to blue collar white men, olive branch to Clinton supporters, helps in key electoral state of Ohio, and - tho 1-2 years as governor may not be enough- executive experience.

Strickland's background as a Methodist minister might also help balance out concerns about Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright and erroneous perceptions in some quarters that Obama is a secret Muslim.

I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary for Obama to shore up his foreign policy cred through his veep as long as he puts together a strong foreign policy team sooner than later in the election process.

Just for fun here is also part of my "fantasy" cabinet for an Obama Administration:
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson
Secretary of Defense: Chuck Hagel
National Security Advisor: Colin Powell (a chance to redeem himself for UN speech?)
Secretary of Treasury: Michael Bloomberg
Attorney General: John Edwards

Unfortunately no high profile women are immediately springing to my mind for the above cabinet positions - but I welcome suggestions!

Posted by: xerxestrust | March 28, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

What about AL GORE?

If he comes out at the right time for Obama (which I know doesn't seem likely right now, but still...), Obama would owe him big time.

But what I really think speaks for Al Gore as VP (again) are:

1) EXPERIENCE - From serving in public office as congressman, senator, VP, i.e. he snows foreign policy, but also from the private sphere as a business entrepreneur and serving on various boards of new, innovating and successful companies.

2) CHANGE - he has not been in DC politics for the last 8 years.

3) VISION - his fight for reasoned politics, against climate change, international cooperation etc. has shown his desire to change things, not just an urge for power.

4) POPULARITY - the past 8 years he has changed his image and gained a lot of respect in various areas.

5) WHITE, SOUTHERN MALE - not a small thing to offer given the circumstances ;-)

I can of course be argued that he would not want to be 2nd in command again. But on the other hand, he would probably be able to play a significant larger role than he did the first time, as Obama would depend on him on many issues. And he would then have ACTUAL influence on issues like climate change.

I was a little surprised he wasn't even mentioned in your blog, Chris, and would like, if possible to hear more reason why Obama wouldn't want him and/or why hw wouldn't accept if asked.

Thanks.

Posted by: dsbtog | March 28, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

drindl, the VA sniper was complaining that the veggie loaf tasted bad- it was a vegetarian menu that he was served, but his complaint and the lawyers efforts were to require the food to be more delicious. That is going to a ridiculous extreme.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

'Approved by the base and with a narrow mission to go to his old stomping ground, the Senate, to lead a working panel on salvaging the entitlements, not scrapping them or seeing them go up in smoke.'

Mark, the current Republican position on social security is the same as grover norquest's -- drown it in the bathtub. Bush has been harping on getting rid of SS since before he was governor of Texas. They have hated FDR since the days he was president, and vowed to wipe out every program he ever created, because the whole idea of anything 'social' or 'collective' is repellent.

Just ask an honest movement conservative, if you can find one.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I agree McCain should go with relative youthfulness in a VP, but I think a 36 yr old (Jindal) would be too youthful. Carly Fiorina would be a compelling pick, had she not left HP under a cloud of impropriety (spying on board members is frowned upon).

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Like proud, I think there are limits to the "gutsiness" of BHO. I think better of him than she does, by a far stretch - but I do not believe he has sufficient fortitude to pick Hagel for VP. If he did, it would raise my estimation of him quite a bit.

I do think he would pick some Rs in key Cabinet positions, b/c like David Brooks, I think he is a good listener, and smart, and willing to hear other opinions.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

About Bloomberg --
His endorsement of Jeannemarie Devolites Davis went over really well in the liberal northern Virginia area. NOT. Methinks he looked at the big loss Tom Davis' wife suffered in her attempt to be reelected to her State Senate seat after Bloomberg traveled down to Virginia to endorse her and decided that what plays in New York City stays in New York City.

Posted by: sensible | March 28, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

FDT is not young and he does not look young, but if Americans could be made to understand the imperatives of this [Perot pie charts? Romney PowerPoints? BHO sermons?] then FDT would become a good VP choice for McC. Approved by the base and with a narrow mission to go to his old stomping ground, the Senate, to lead a working panel on salvaging the entitlements, not scrapping them or seeing them go up in smoke.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 12:47 PM
-----------------------------
Two problems sir. One is do you want to keep your party awake? Talk about dull. Second is that Thompson is known to bore easily, not just bore others. Do you think he'd want to sit around and do nothing? He's no Cheney, meaning King Maker, so he will not have the power.

As for Jinal, I don't see the GOP going for a person of color being one heartbeat away from a possible president with one foot in the grave already.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 28, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

'McCain voted against this bill because it tries to make things illegal that were already illegal. '

Try to make sense, could you? He voted for it because he said the CIA shouldn't have 'their hands tied.'

'one of the men complained that he was being tortured in the jail for being served the veggie loaf - he had requested a vegetarian diet as required by his Muslim faith. The lawyers then spent TAXPAYER dollars to defend his right to tasty non-torturous cuisine.'

just as taxpayers pay for kosher food for orthodox jews in prison. do you have a problem with that, or is it only muslims whose religious laws you don't respect?

'No extreme temperatures, no sleep deprivation, no forced standing for long periods of time. '

What is 'extreme'? Who decides? Keeping someone in a room at 80 degrees is different from say, 100 degrees, or 15. Any technique that causes people to hallucinate, as sleep deprivation does, will result in false confessions. There need to be standards, as Feinstein suggested in her bill -- uniform standards so overzealous interogators know where to draw the line. Several prisoners have died in our custody, admittedly from
'interrogation.' Torture doesn't work and its making the rest of the world despise us -- and use it to defend their own human rights abuses.

"Whether the Army Field Manual should be applied to every govt agency is a different question."

No, it's not. There needs to be a single standard beyond which NO ONE goes. Because as we saw at Abu Ghiraib letting interogators make up their own standards results in moral depravity. People need to be constrained from their own dark sides by laws.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I agree with those proposing Chuck Hagel for Obama's VP choice. He seemed open to the idea yesterday in a brief interview he had on CNN. I think it would be an exciting combination and really do a lot to shake things up. I always liked JFK's idea of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates touring the country together and debating and this seems like an extension of that. I guess the DNC would probably not like it, though, as Hagel would surely run for president afterwards and they wouldn't want the Republicans to have the White House... damn party affiliations!

Posted by: Invictus_Sol | March 28, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has that inner security which allows for healthy debate"

Except when it comes to debating or negotiating with his pastor about not inciting hatred against your government and fellow man. Then he says nothing for 20 years and allows evil rhetoric and lies to continue to be spread among his community.

But, he'd be really tough when it comes to those cabinet members who disagreed with him. Pffft. like they would.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, the Jindal idea, although way outside the pundit norm, is the brilliant stroke for McC, I think. The woman who ran H-P? I donno how far outside McC would go.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

cmfalter writes
"Bill Clinton is ineligible for VP."

WJC is ineligible to be ELECTED as VP or P, which is different from being ineligible to BE the Vice or Pres. In theory a former President who is ineligible to be re-elected (WJC, GWB) could ascend to either office by other means, which would mean gaining a cabinet post or speakership in the House, and everyone else in line concurrently becoming ineligible. An admittedly rare possibility...

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Although it is possible to ascend to the presidency (from the VP spot), serve two years (not a day more) then be elected to Pres. two terms (thus max of 10 years) once you are elected twice or serve 2+ years and are elected once - you are ineligible.
Bill Clinton is ineligible for VP. (Not that it would happen)
Posted by: cmfalter | March 28, 2008 12:51 PM

The amendment only deals with eligiblity as it pertains to running for the Presidency again. It never actually discusses the Vice President. The courts have never actually ruled on the eligibilty of a former president running as vice president.
But it would create quite a situation if the sitting president was relieved and more than two years were left in their term, and the acting vice president had already served two terms.

But we are in total agreement, there is no way Bill is a VP candidate.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 28, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

svnightswimming, are you Mycroft to svreader's Sherlock? You do sound like the smarter brother.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"FDT would become a good VP choice for McC. Approved by the base and with a narrow mission to go to his old stomping ground, the Senate, to lead a working panel on salvaging the entitlements, not scrapping them or seeing them go up in smoke."

Perhaps. But I don't know that McCain-Thompson would inspire the confidence of enough swing voters to enable that outcome.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I disagree about Obama being a viable veep for Clinton. The ONLY way she gets nominated is she damages him to the point that he's untenable. If that happens, she could never pick him.

Posted by: svnightswimming | March 28, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Team of Rivals.

Sounds like exactly what GWB did. Is that really a risk worth taking again?
-----------------------

LOL. Best joke of the day.
If you actually read the book, good ol Abe put some men in his cabinet who opposed him. Bush can't abide no-men or no-women. THAT"s why he is the worst of all Presidents. Pathologically insecure and unable to tolerate dissent. A frigid unimaginative and poorly informed and poorly morally-formed mind. A cheerleader pretending to be quarterback.

Obama has that inner security which allows for healthy debate and welcomes those who disagree with him. As those who worked under him at the Harvard Law Review have already spoken about.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 28, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

jnoel002 - " Technically, I think Bill is still eligible to be president for two years. So, does that mean he can still be VP?"

Actually, technically, Bill Clinton is not eligible for two more years.

From the 22nd Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Although it is possible to ascend to the presidency (from the VP spot), serve two years (not a day more) then be elected to Pres. two terms (thus max of 10 years) once you are elected twice or serve 2+ years and are elected once - you are ineligible.

Bill Clinton is ineligible for VP. (Not that it would happen)

Posted by: cmfalter | March 28, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The vice presidency is a lousy job that is interesting only if you are betting on the mortality of the President. Who really wants to be President - what are their dark motivations. Who would want to be
VP under hillary will Bill knocking around the West Wing. Whoever Obama picks should be a pit bull to go after the attacks coming from the Rep. Right. McCain's VP candidate should know a ton about domestic policy because he knows so little - why that recommmends a governor I cant understand

Posted by: nclwtk | March 28, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Of all the original candidates, my recollection is that FDT was the one who chided us about the entitlement explosion.

FDT is not young and he does not look young, but if Americans could be made to understand the imperatives of this [Perot pie charts? Romney PowerPoints? BHO sermons?] then FDT would become a good VP choice for McC. Approved by the base and with a narrow mission to go to his old stomping ground, the Senate, to lead a working panel on salvaging the entitlements, not scrapping them or seeing them go up in smoke.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"One of Obama's book recommendations is Team of Rivals, about Lincoln addressing his experience shortcomings by stocking his cabinet with the best and brightest."


Sounds like exactly what GWB did. Is that really a risk worth taking again?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

drindl,
I have to agree with here with M_in_A about McCain and waterboarding. The dems poorly crafted a bill which limits the CIA to Army manual techniques. He has been very specific in defining waterboarding as torture and a criminal activity. As a vet, he knows that torture rarely proves any useful info., Studies by both the army and the intelligence community prove it does just the reverse. It only demoralizes and dehumanizes those who torture and forever strips them of any moral authority. A short-sighted lose-lose tactic.

Dems haven't effectively dealt with these issues...out-smarted by darker minds in the Bush administration.

Bush could very well be the Pope John XXIII of the Republican party.

And maybe not.

All will depend on his VP choice.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 28, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

IndiePendants - You obvously missed the discussion last month where I was informed by the Floridians here that Martinez was born in Cuba and sufferes from the Schwarzenegger disability.

Got another choice?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

While the 22nd doesn't prevent it, the 12th Amendment does: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"

Posted by: cmfalter | March 28, 2008 12:38 PM

Technically, I think Bill is still eligible to be president for two years. So, does that mean he can still be VP?

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 28, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

pbarnett52

"why not Bill [Clinton] for Veep. I just read the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. 3rd term prohibition is only with respect to the President position. The amendment is silent on Veep."

While the 22nd doesn't prevent it, the 12th Amendment does: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"

Posted by: cmfalter | March 28, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

The bad news is that the baby boomers will start to hit retirement in mass numbers in the next few years, and the Medicare/SS entitlement programs will be taking a much greater chunk of the national budget. It is defintely a huge problem that needs to be fixed.

The dems want to increase spending and regulation at every turn. This approach will not solve the looming entitlement crisis.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 12:28 PM

I and most of my friends, all being under 30, have resided ourselves to the fact that we are never going to see a dime of the money we pay into SS. I say pay-off the boomers and then end the tax so it won't trouble another generation of Americans.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 28, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Bloomberg is a possibility for both Obama and McCain. He's got the post-partisan executive and economic experience both of them need.

Hillary and Obama will not team up. Not because of ego or bruised feelings, but because neither one of them addresses the shortcomings of the other. This is new politics. You don't pick a woman or a white southerner to balance a ticket, you shore up the resume.

Bloomberg is a good pick for Obama, and would probably be paired with a Secretary of Defense like anti-Iraq war Republican Gen. Anthony Zinni and a populist Attorney General like John Edwards.

One of Obama's book recommendations is Team of Rivals, about Lincoln addressing his experience shortcomings by stocking his cabinet with the best and brightest. He'd be wise to follow that example...and assemble the team before the election, not afterwards.

McCain will probably tack right to placate the base, but he really doesn't need to. Hillary and Obama will both bring the base out in a fit of fear and loathing. He should go with someone who will help him with the center or maybe with the Hispanic vote...a Mel Martinez maybe.

Posted by: IndiePendants | March 28, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

It is like Justin Timberlake taking the torch from Michael Jackson. It is just over.....

Posted by: sniezgod | March 28, 2008 10:37 AM
-------------------------------
Except no ones hair went up in flames.

Out of all the picks the smartest is Clark for either, and Rice for McShame. Though I hate her she is loved by the GOP and middle America.

The stupidest? Bill and Pelosi. If Obama does hang on the people who backed Hillary hate her, as do many who see her backing down from a fight with the GOP over the war and impeaching those crooks running the country.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 28, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey zouk - 011011010101101010110101010 and 101110111010110110001110001100110101101

take that.

Richardson would be the best pick for Obama. National security credentials, Hispanic credentials, gobs of executive experience, not an "insider." He benefits Obama in every imaginable way.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 28, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"They're setting the bar pretty high, which is good inspiration for young punks like me (under 40)."

Indeed, the quality of life has absolutely gone way up along with longevity. The good news is that we're now seeing the baby boomer generation more active and healthier as they age, if they get past 60 then the odds are getting better all the time -even for men.

The bad news is that the baby boomers will start to hit retirement in mass numbers in the next few years, and the Medicare/SS entitlement programs will be taking a much greater chunk of the national budget. It is defintely a huge problem that needs to be fixed.

The dems want to increase spending and regulation at every turn. This approach will not solve the looming entitlement crisis.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Also, I should say that just last week I finally and reluctantly pulled off my Webb '06 bumper sticker and slapped an Obama sticker in its place. I'd be pleased as all get out to be smoothing out the bubbles on an Obama/Webb sticker in a couple months. That combination would be like chocolate meeting peanut butter. No racial puns intended.

Posted by: novamatt | March 28, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

why the obssession with Huffington and Kos? I seldom read them -- perhaps you do.


Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 11:31 AM


I think the evidence here is in drindl's favor. One must assume that she goes directly from CTRL-C to CTRL-V with no thought process to interrupt, especially reading and objective consideration.

Just like she never listens to rush, although she does hear it. reminds me of Obama who listens but doesn't hear. You could even go clintonesque if you prefer - depends on the meaning of the word "read" now doesn't it?

Regradless, it is all still regurgitated moonbat nonsense.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 28, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"The downside of Webb? He is the least conventional of politicians -- often looking uncomfortable when speaking before crowds and prone to make the occasional impolitic remark."
-----------------

Just the kind of VP America likes. Not a downside at all. Will go over big with the blue collar voters in Ohio.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 28, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"Just ask lyle."

I'm thinking more of my old man (turned 70 this month) and father-in-law (hits 70 later this year). Both are acting like much younger men than they are, when measured against the 70 yr olds of 20 yrs ago. They're setting the bar pretty high, which is good inspiration for young punks like me (under 40).

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

MCain--Crist? No, already has Fl. base. Romney? No, still the Mormon thing. Sanford? Best bet or perhaps Pauley but he's not well enought known.
Obama--Richardson would bring lots of experience and Hispanics as you say. Sebelius? No, too much change and her reply to state of the union fell flat. Webb? Not a bad choice. Dark horse--good bet none of above will make it.
Clinton--her best strategy would be to announce a VP now, perhaps Strickland or Clark. This would give her an edge and set the news cycle. Nelson, won't win Fl for her. Edwards? No, three strikes means you're out.

Posted by: fulrich | March 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

bsimon . . . thank you for debunking the myth of pawlenty's pull in MN. in the last election, nearly 2/3 of minnesotans voted against him.

also note that mccain didn't win the republican primary in MN. romney did. so tacking pawlenty onto the ticket does not guarantee anything . . . not even competitiveness.

finally, minnesota has not voted for a republican president since nixon in '72.

Posted by: andillformthehead | March 28, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

csp17 is right. BR is quite popular in west TX - the Big Empty. TX stays solid R.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

About Webb, Chris said: "The downside of Webb? He is the least conventional of politicians -- often looking uncomfortable when speaking before crowds and prone to make the occasional impolitic remark."

Considering our current VP's recent quotes ("So?") and occasional unconventional actions (shooting a 70+ year old man in the face with a shotgun), I don't think Webb has much to worry about on this score.

Posted by: kimclare | March 28, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

As much as people might not want to believe it, the country is not yet ready to elect a black man and a woman on the same ticket so I really doubt Obama would chose a woman as a running mate. In the finaly analysis, Obama will chose someone who will bolster him in whatever area (most likely the economy) that will look to be the biggest issue in November. I don't think Clinton will win the nomination. However, if she were to, through superdelegate votes alone, the outcome of which may very well alienate many in the democratic party, a lot of conservative democrats and independents may be inclined to vote for McCain so his choice of VP will be very important. In this scenario, would it be more important for him to chose a conservative to bolster himself with the right wing of the party or would he be better off selecting a more moderate and appealing VP pick to help woo independents and alienated democrats? In any case, it seems to me that the VP choice for the Presidential nominees in both parties will be more important this year than in presidential election years' past.

Posted by: JLF03 | March 28, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"70 is the new 50."

Just ask lyle.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

bondo, I think Rush Limbaugh is a pompous windbag and should be held leaglly accountable if they can prove that he broke controlled substance laws. I have personally seen to it that many offenders of this type have gotten their share of the fullest extent of the law, and have gone to court for the prosecution to testify on my own time on many occassions for violations that seem less severe than what Limbaugh allegedly did.

If they don't have the goods to prosecute him, it is not good news -it's a shame, but it is our system of justice.

I don't listen to Rush nearly as much as drindl apparently does. He's marginally entertaining sometimes, and has defied the odds by making a sucess out of himself despite being fat, delusional, and hopped up on goofballs.

But I put him squarely in the same category as Keith Olbradoodle- a lap dog for the extremists at best.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Stonecreek wrote:

"For Obama, I like the prospects of Richardson (cinches NM and helps in CO, puts Texas in play with appeal to Hispanics, and forces McCain to spend a lot resources defending AZ)."

As a native Texan, I have to disagree with the argument that Richardson puts Texas into play. Remember in 2002, Tony Sanchez, a Hispanic actually from Texas, was the Democratic nominee for governor. Democrats were sure having a successful Hispanic businessman at the top of the ticket running against an incumbent Republican governor more tolerated than loved even by his own party was a sure way to drive Hispanic turnout.

Despite massive self-financing, Sanchez lost by something on the order of 60-40. Not sure how a non-self-financing politician without a Hispanic last name who is not from Texas makes Texas any more competitive for the Democrats.

Posted by: csp17 | March 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm warming to the idea of Hillary as VP. It's an awkward pairing, to be sure, but could heal the rift that exists between them (and between their supporters) and could drive turnout in November sky-high. Hillary's Secret Service detail would have to do double-duty though.

I also like the idea of Bloomberg or Hagel as VP as a gesture toward post-partisan governance. I also like Sebelius. Obama/Sebelius could win Kansas and make me and Tom Frank happy.

Sort of doubt McCain will go with an obvious pick. He is a maverick, you know. Maybe it's Condi, or maybe Giuliani, or maybe he tries to make himself look younger by picking Bob Dole. We had the Double Bubba ticket in '92 and '96, so why not the Grumpy Old Men ticket.

Posted by: novamatt | March 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"why not Bill?" Although the 22d doesn't specifically bar a former two-term President, the Constitutional requirements for VP are the same as Pres which would create a Consitutional challenge to Bill decided by the Supremes. Also, consider the nightmare scenario of a close Hillary win where the electors from NY could not vote for both Hill and Bill (see Constitution--they are both residents of NY) resulting in a contingency VP election.

Posted by: rabram | March 28, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

optimyst: I am not promoting Obama for anything. I think it would be the strongest ticket for the Dems, and anyway the VP position is not all that important when you really get to what they do. He would not be my pick for anything, but my picks represent what I think would be the strongest pick for each party.

Posted by: lylepink | March 28, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

What order are these listed in? Why not list them from most likely to least likely? Are they supposed to be listed alphabetically? If so then Obama should come after Nelson.

Posted by: timmadrid | March 28, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Point taken, GOP - voters should look past McCain's age, regardless of how feeble he obviously is. The fact remains that -- because of his globe-trotting or not -- someone had to stand behind him to keep him on the straight and narrow. That the person who tried to get him to back off his Iran claims is the biggest pro-Israel force in the Senate says something, no?

Good news for you, though, coming right off the wire. "'We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime,' said Leo Jennings, a spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann."

They didn't send him to jail for his drug abuse; why would they send him up for being a fraudulent moron?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

drindl, We had this discussion the other day, and I will continue to correct the lies that you're attempting to spread on this subject.

McCain condemns torture and you know it. The libs try to spin his recent vote, but it's not working. Americans know that McCain has always taken a principled stand against torture. Whether the Army Field Manual should be applied to every govt agency is a different question.

One provision in the recent legislation, (pushed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, if that tells you anything) tried to establish a single interrogation standard requiring the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual.

John McCain, a former prisoner of war, has been an outspoken advocate against waterboarding. McCain has said the practice "is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." He has previously called waterboarding "very exquisite torture."

McCain voted against this bill because it tries to make things illegal that were already illegal. McCain doesn't oppose a ban on waterboarding.

Instead, he opposes the advertising of our methods and believes waterboarding is, and he has helped make it, illegal.

Obama and Clinton want to give constitutional protection to Osama Bin Laden and inform AlQaeda in advance of our plans upon their capture.

----------------
To which, bsimon wrote
"The best way to defeat terrorism is to put them on trial before the world, proving that they are the criminals we say they are."

And I answered:
The litigation of terrorists should not preclude their (legal) interrogation.
Liberals wanted to prevent "harsh" techniques from being allowed when interrogating terrorists. No extreme temperatures, no sleep deprivation, no forced standing for long periods of time. What next? No polyfill, only feather pillows?

When the VA snipers were caught after their weeks-long seige of terror on the Capital region, to which I was subjected as a resident at the time, one of the men complained that he was being tortured in the jail for being served the veggie loaf - he had requested a vegetarian diet as required by his Muslim faith. The lawyers then spent TAXPAYER dollars to defend his right to tasty non-torturous cuisine.

This is the ridiculous extreme to which the ACLU types will go to defend the rights of bad guys. I think we have to use some common sense, and yes, litigation and due process. But, questioning and interrogation is part and parcel of the judicial process one will find themselves in if they are a suspect of a vile criminal act.

to which, bsimon wrote

"The litigation of terrorists should not preclude their (legal) interrogation."

I agree. With the legal bit underscored.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 05:11 PM


So, to recap, moderates who don't repeat generic falsehoods like drindl does agree -and that includes Senator McCain- that watreboarding is illegal and should not be used- and that efforts to make it illegal when it already is are merely ploys used by the left to advance their ACLU-type agenda.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

McCain should name Steve Gutenberg. They worked so well together in "Cocoon".

Posted by: steveboyington | March 28, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

1] The Army Field Manual on interrogation is not necessarily appropriate to CIA interrogation.

2] Waterboarding is not appropriate to CIA or any interrogation.

3] McC opposes waterboarding but thinks that 1] above, is true.

4] Jindal has all the plusses and the one minus [short time as GOV] everyone speaks of above. Add this: he is a tecchie, and McC has wished out loud for a tecchie.

5] drindl, if the NM ad is as you say, I cannot think it is offensive. It insinuates that we have not had, in the recent past, the "American" Prez we wanted.
To my neighbor, a liberal 60 yr. old hawk engineer and 'Nam vet, the ad will tickle his sore spot that GWB and WJC avoided service in 'Nam. Ads work on different levels for different folks. You can easily imagine BHO touting his personal life and saying "today's American for today's America", can you not?

Tickles the people who do not want "same-old".

6] Optimyst, I must wonder the same about JB. This could be especially true for BHO, who was treated well by JB and by Lugar on that Committee.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink:

How is it you have this "feeling" about Obama that makes him unqualified to be president, yet you promote him for VP? If someone isn't qualified, he or she shouldn't be on any VP list. The VP is just a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Posted by: optimyst | March 28, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

"Those over 60 comprise the fastest growing age group in the country"

70 is the new 50.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

To add to Blob42's comment, Bobby Jindal is 36 years old. While that technically makes him eligible to be VP or P, realistically, he is not on anyone's short list for the 2008 ticket.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

bondo- McCain is about as doddering as Obama- in fact I don't see Mac having to take a vacation to rest while Obama was off lying on a beach somewhere in St Thomas- Mac was defying time zones and visiting the troops in Iraq and meeting with heads-of-state in Europe. He hasn't taken any vcas since this whole primary thing kicked off, and he's running circles around the others!

McCain's mother was recently given a traffic ticket for speeding. I don't think your characterization of that gene pool is correct, and you keep harping on the age thing like it's some huge deal...ok we get it - you're a 20-something testoterone-fueled wildman with YAMIC (Young adult male imortality complex.

Guess what, junior? Those over 60 comprise the fastest growing age group in the country, so you'd better mind your disparagements.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Holzhaacker: I agree that Jindal likely will be a great asset to the GOP at the national level, but he's only been Governor for two months. I'd look to him as a VP candidate in four years or presidential candidate in eight.

Posted by: blob42 | March 28, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

'In a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 28, McCain said that the Army Field Manual should be the gold standard for interrogations:

I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about."

So he says. Then he says the US doesn't use waterboarding, which he knew and we all now know is a lie, because the bush administration admitted it:

'AP) Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Thursday the United States does not use an interrogation technique known as waterboarding and argued that Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey would not allow the method.'

And when given a chance to vote against waterboarding, he caved to the rightwingers and voted no:

'WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted 51 to 45 on Wednesday afternoon to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency against high-level terrorism suspects.'

jeezus proud, you are a virtual parrot of zouk. why the obssession with Huffington and Kos? I seldom read them -- perhaps you do.

I HAVE the FACTS. You have your little airheaded rightwing spin.

And you want to talk about originality when your every post is a compilation of standard rightwing cliches?

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Hillary/Obama or Hillary/Byah for the Dem ticket. MCain/Portman or McCain/Sanford for the Repub ticket. These would seem to "Balance" more of each of the parties along the more Moderate line that both of them are trying to project.

Posted by: lylepink | March 28, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I agree with holzhaacker- I think Jindal would be great.

Here's the thing. The VP pick for McCain is mui importante. It will reassure those who are nervous about his age- mostly those who are over 60 are the ones who are worried about this, polls have shown. The VP selection can change minds here.


For the others-particularly Obama- the VP pick is not important and will not add anything to the ticket or cause people to vote for him if they wouldn't already.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I meant Senator Collins, not Collings.

Posted by: eddtalk | March 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Where is Joe Lieberman on McCain's list? He would redefine the VP slot - who can forget him whispering into the doddering McCain's ear on that mideast swing, keeping it real while McCain blamed Iran for everything short of the Jonestown flood.

Along those lines, Strickland would make the ideal yes man for Clinton. The image of him, standing behind Hillary and nodding like a bobblehead to whatever she was whining about during the campaign's Ohio swing, is etched in my mind. He would be no Dick Cheney, that's for sure. Strickland's balls would be in a jar next to Hillary's desk.

Webb would be the best pick for Obama, campaign-wise. I sense he's itching to get out on that campaign trail and unload on McCain and his foolish support of the siege, er... surge. Webb has more credibility on the Iraq issue than McCain, and he's a gun nut and Reagan acolyte to boot.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

VP picks for Hillary Clinton?

We might as well run down the list to see who Mike Gravel might give the nod to. And I'm waiting breathlessly to see who makes Chris' list of running mates for Ralph Nader.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | March 28, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I wish Chris would answer a simple question: Why Joe Biden never cracks his VP lists? Is it because he wants Secretary of State more than VP? I'm absolutely convinced he's satisfied with his senate legacy and is ready to move on and let his son take the seat. He needs a new challenge and would add foreign policy gravitas to either Clinton or Obama. I know he had a deal with Kerry to be SecState if Kerry won in 2004. I'm wondering if it's the same for 2008 with Obama and Clinton. Are you hearing that, Chris?

Posted by: optimyst | March 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

IF Obama is the nominee and chooses another male as vp, I look for McCain to pick a woman, possibly Gov. Rell (CT) or Senators Snowe or Collings (ME). I know some will say that he needs to pick a more conservative choice, but by the time the right wing hatemongers peel Obama like an onion, the conservatives will gladly vote for McCain and any vp he chooses. Such a choice will help with independents and may be appealing to potential cross-over voters, particularly women, disenchanted with Hillary's loss.

Posted by: eddtalk | March 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama:

Joe Biden - scores with both the demographic and foreign policy needs.

Obama/Biden 2008!

Posted by: dab23 | March 28, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

JBritt3 writes
"Finally, Vice Presidential picks don't swing a lot of votes nationally. They can be helpful in their home states, if they bring along a record and some popularity there along with an organization willing to get behind them."

That is the conventional wisdom, but it deserves challenge. In challenging the CW, I will cite the latest (successful) VP pick, Dick Cheney. He was not selected for his ability to add Wyoming to the 'win' column for the GOP. He was instead selected precisely for the reasons you suggest VP picks are not; Dick brought long washington experience (not to mention CEO creds) to the ticket. Remember wet-behind-the-ears Junior back in 2000? He had to add some credibility to the ticket, which is exactly what Dick brought. The so-called 'gravitas' quotient. I know I was not alone in thinking 'huh, maybe Junior won't be so bad, if he keeps making picks like that'. Oh, how wrong we were...

Anyhow, in that vein, I think Pawlenty is a good pick for McCain. Not because he'd bring MN (he wouldn't), but because on paper he's a party unifier. Very hard-line on no-new-taxes (despite the foolishness of such dogma). Plays well with the evangelicals. Cleans up well - he has that youthful, wholesome look that Quayle added to the GHWB ticket, but with competence & experience that Quayle lacked. Pawlenty, on paper, should do two things vital for McCain - shore up the base & appeal to independents.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Jim Webb would be a good choice for Obama, but I am still partial to Tim Kaine.
I think he compliments Obama very nicely and adds executive experience.
I just couldn't see Obama choosing an older Washington insider. It would seem to totally contradict his message (A new kind of Politics). Doesn't choosing someone who isn't about a new kind of politics (i.e. Gore, Daschle, Biden) weaken his change argument?
I kow you wanted to "balance" the ticket, but you need some continuity.

And for McCain, where's the mention of Huckabee?

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 28, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

drindl writes [ad nauseum] "Now, that won't be McCain because his approach to every issue is pretty much exactly the same as Bush's -"


She's channeling Arianna again.
Expect to hear this every day from now until Nov 12th people.


And your statement that McCain is "fine with waterboarding if the CIA does it" is a flat out LIE. Waterboarding is illegal, against the geneva conv. and McCain condemns it and always has.

I know you are copying this b.s. straight off of HuffPo & Kos, but please try to stick to the facts.

And try a little originality for once. Sheesh.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I think Bill Richardson would be an excellent VP choice for Obama or, perhaps, Secretary of State. Michael Bloomberg gave Senator Obama a very kind and complimentary introduction yesterday at the Cooper Union. Is something in the air here?

As for Clinton, why not Bill for Veep. I just read the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. 3rd term prohibition is only with respect to the President position. The amendment is silent on Veep.

Or, maybe, Chelsea if she is old enough!

Posted by: pbarnett52 | March 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Mike Huckbeee would give McCain the conservative right and southern votes that he so desperately needs, and McCain knows he can TRUST Mike Huckabee.

Posted by: dmantey | March 28, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

What about Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer for the Democrats and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for the Repubs?

Schweitzer's a popular Western governor that might be able to help with the rural white male vote...and could possibly bring a couple of Western states along. Sure, MT doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, but I think he would be a good personality and demographic balance (for Obama in particular)

Jindal is a bright, articulate, young, non-white person that I think would balance out McCain a bit.

Posted by: holzhaacker | March 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

You want a Veep with foreign policy bona fides? Obama/Biden.

Posted by: soonerthought | March 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Fascinating statement from Condi Rice. Should make some R heads explode:

"In an interview yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national 'birth defect' that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country's very founding." "That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today," said Rice."

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

McCain's first national ad in NM -- Uber patriotic, uber nationalistic, a parody of rightwing exceptionalism, chest-thumping braggadaccio...

"The announcer ends the ad with this new, ultra-patriotic slogan: "John McCain: The American president Americans have been waiting for."

Could the slogan be meant as a contrast against Barack Obama, with his foreign name and background?"

gee, dya think? it's vomitous. it's also patently absurd and redundant. what kind of president, other than American, would we have been waiting for? Sarkozy? no, it's just to repeat the word, to pound it, because it's calculated rightwing dog whistle politics.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I picture all 3 candidates with different needs. John McCain has tons of experience already and the GOP is looking for a standardbearer for the future to avoid their current situation where there is a real lack of energy for their nominee. I would not rule out a young, conservative House member. Picking from the House allows the GOP to identify an ideal candidate for a future Presidential campaign. Look for Mike Turner (OH), Bob Inglis (SC) or Jeb Hensarling (TX).
Obama needs an older, more senior Democrat to balance his youth. I think you'll see Tom Daschelle or Chris Dodd on the short list. Daschelle is a former Air Force Intelligence Officer who could help heal a divided party. I agree with your Hillary picks, I think Evan Bayh made the deal a long time ago and Hillary likes to reward loyalty. Plus, Hillary needs someone with a good ol boy image. Either Sen Nelson would be a strong pick. Also, Hillary could lure John Breaux out of retirement.

Posted by: gpsbus | March 28, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

In light of Romney's unbridled ambition, if I were McCain and Romney were my V.P., I'd be interviewing a food taster right away

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 28, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I can see Ohio gov. Strickland as a running mate for Sen. Clinton, but why is he not an even better choice for Sen. Obama?

If Obama wins, Hillary Clinton will never be his biggest fan. A lot of her supporters, though, only backed her because they thought she was sure to win. Obama will need to reach out to these people, and Strickland would be a vehicle for doing this. In Ohio, he has long been popular among the working class white Democrats less attracted to the idea of a black President, going back to his days as a Congressman from the southeast part of the state.

Finally, Vice Presidential picks don't swing a lot of votes nationally. They can be helpful in their home states, if they bring along a record and some popularity there along with an organization willing to get behind them. Ohio is one of the biggest of the swing states, and Strickland has all of those advantages. For Obama, he looks like a natural choice.

Posted by: jbritt3 | March 28, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Why not Janet Napolitano for Obama? While he won't win Arizona, she's popular in the West, among independents, and with Hispanics. As a former prosecutor, she's also a better speaker than Sebelius.

Posted by: blob42 | March 28, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Stonecreek, as a Texan you really must know better than to call women [especially farmers and ranchers] "crones", even if someone you know in politics said it in your presence.

If you watched them interviewed, you would think Sebellius shines and Napolitano does not. Their actual credentials as governors are unknown to me.

When Michael Jackson passed that torch to Justin Timberlake was Justin a minor? Was it a crime? How come FOX missed it?

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | March 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

First of all, HRC is not going to be the Democratic nominee unless (A) Obama makes a fatal gaffe or some hitherto unknown/unsuspected liability surfaces; or (B) Hillary manages somehow to throw enough mud at him to destroy his credibility; or (C) the Clintons and the party bigwigs somehow manage to grab the nomination from a befuddled and intimidated convention; or (D) Obama is assassinated or hit by a meteor. In none of those circumstances (except C) would Obama be available for VP, and if C occurs the wounds within the party would be too raw and deep for the offer of the vice-presidency to be credible.

In the unlikely event that HRC is the nominee, look for her to make a conventional choice of a spear-carrying white male running mate--someone who'd be content to be a cheerleader while Bill is the big cheese. Some nonentity like Bayh or Strickland would do.

As for McCain, his biggest gap is credibility on the right and in economic policy. I would expect him to go with someone like Sanford or Portman--or maybe (a stretch) Romney. Or Thune, though he would remind everyone of Dan Quayle. There are too many rumors of Crist being gay for him to pass muster with the social conservatives who still dominate the GOP.

For Obama (who I expect will be the Democratic nominee, barring acts of God), I will bet that he goes somewhat outside the box. Bloomberg, I'm sure, will be on the short list--whether he'd take the job is another question, of course. A military man, perhaps Gen. Zinni, would be another strong possibility. A name I haven't seen mentioned is Nancy Pelosi; she might assuage die-hard feminists outraged that Hillary didn't get the nomination to which they think she's entitled. (Pelosi would be a very strong/historic choice for VP in her own right, but of course she'd be giving up the power of being Madam Speaker.) Bill Richardson is another real possibility for VP (and if not that will surely be on Obama's list for a high cabinet position, such as Secretary of State). A lot will depend on what seems to be the highest need for Obama to achieve "balance" come August 2008: national security/the war (which would argue for a military man on the ticket), a serious economic downturn (the best case for Bloomberg), disaffected women (in which case Pelosi or another woman such as Sebelius might be the solution), or disaffected Latinos (who could be molified by picking Richardson).

Whoever Obama picks is going to have to be a very president-in-waiting, because I fear that the odds are strong that some idiot or fanatic out there is going to try to do another Lee Harvey Oswald. God help us all!

Posted by: jm917 | March 28, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I just got an email that I think was fraudulent but it sounds so good, I am tempted to preceed.

A candidate from Nigeria explains that if I just provide him my bank account number he promises that we will all get along, that all poverty will be eliminated, all wars will end, all environment issues will be settled, all will be peaches and cream.

Never mind that he has no political experience or that he can offer no substantial policies or ideas. Never mind that most of his previous records consist of votes of "present". Never mind that he always supported the evil king of Nigeria and trusted him as a spiritual advisor. Never mind that he has promised to completely empty my bank account. Anything sent on the Internet must be true, isn't it?

He has promised to talk immediately with all enemies with no preconditions whatsoever. except Brit Hume, of course.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 28, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Love the link to the "Airplane" quote! Tremendous!

Posted by: ewb727 | March 28, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

I say Strickland for Obama. Would represent an olive branch to HRC supporters, comfort the ethnic working class and reinforce Obama's message of (apparent) Washington outsidership. Foreign policy experience will have to be sacrificed, better this way with a clear and economy-oriented contrast to perceptions of McCain's old age and lack of change and innovation.

I also think Bloomberg should at least be mentioned in CC's post. He'd offer the same newness and economic focus that Strickland could help incite.

Posted by: hallvard | March 28, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

McCain can't put another white male on his ticket. Don't you get it? He should select a Latino/Latina, that would bring them into the Republican fold for a long time to come. As for Hillary, perhaps she should select Bill, that would be trippy! Barack seems to transcend region and everything else, and so could his VP selection. Biden is still incredibly qualified, but Bloomberg would certainly give our ailing economy a lot to cheer about. He is a quiet, calm, unflappable man who can handle anything thrown at him. After 8 years of Guiliani and all of his abrasiveness, Bloomberg has shown how an inclusive adult can be so much more affective.

Posted by: gckarcher | March 28, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

It would be interesting if Strickland accepted such a nomination, because I saw him take a real, genuine, honest to goodness Sherman about this on one of the national news channels while debating the governor of Iowa over Clinton vs. Obama.

Posted by: jdkaplan | March 28, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

P.S.: Jim Webb (despite his obvious strengths) ain't gonna happen. Democrats can ill-afford to open a Senate seat in a swing state. And two low-time Senators on one ticket isn't exactly the classic formula for success. Besides, as part of a de facto procedural majority in the Senate, Webb can look forward to having a good time there.

Posted by: Stonecreek | March 28, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"Pawlenty is also playing the politics of the veepstakes perfectly -- denying any interest in the job while not making any Sherman-esque pronouncements"

"...playing politics perfectly" would make this statement a baldfaced lie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeFyAd1sDAs

But it seems Shermanesque enough to me.

Posted by: jpl5623 | March 28, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

As a Virginian, I am all for either Senator Webb or Governor Kaine. Governor Richardson is also an excellent choice and kudos to him for his endorsement last week. Governor Sebelius is interesting and I could support her. I would add Senator Biden to the list due to his foreign policy credentials. On the whole, I can't wait for Senator Obama to wrap this up and select an outstanding running mate.

Posted by: dnbraggs | March 28, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Webb.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 28, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

For Obama, I like the prospects of Richardson (cinches NM and helps in CO, puts Texas in play with appeal to Hispanics, and forces McCain to spend a lot resources defending AZ). Richardson could have had the Dominici Senate seat for the asking, but after observing Dick Cheney for 7 years he appears to believe that he could also make something of the VP slot. Sebelius is also an interesting pick who smooths ruffled feathers with the "crone crowd" (not my term, but belonging to a rather crusty old pol I know), and also helps with MO and puts KS in play. The same attributes go with one Chris didn't mention, Napalitano, who creates a serious problem for McCain in AZ.

McCain has already picked Romney, and is simply vetting him between now and the convention to make sure that dozens of his father's Mexican half-siblings don't start showing up in the presidential geneology fluff articles.

Can you imagine anyone actually wanting to be Clinton's VP?

Posted by: Stonecreek | March 28, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I honestly think that Jim Webb is the BEST choice for Obama. He has an appeal to Reagan Democrats and veterans which could put Virginia in the lean Democratic column this fall. He can also help Obama in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina (which I think may be in play this fall). I think its a good thing that Webb isn't particularly exciting because Obama is going to want someone who will not compete with him, but compliments him in places where he is weak.

I think that Obama and Clinton will never choose each other as a running mate, no matter what people in the party want. Plus being Vice President is the kiss of death for running for President. The only successful Vice President to win the Presidency in the election after their term was G.H.W Bush. Ford, Johnson, Truman all ascended to the White House and it took Nixon over a decade to win. So anyone who wants to actually be President would be smart to skip the Veep stakes.

Posted by: drgiggles06 | March 28, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).

But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120663639483768965.html?mod=todays_columnists

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 28, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Webb would be a good choice for Obama. It will help those independent (maverick liking) voters that may go to McCain. Webb has military experience as well.
Richardson too would be good on the ticket, but a little too teddy bearish.
McCain needs a youthful candidate to help balance his ticket. Pawlenty seems a good choice. McCain won't win unless the dem nominee implodes in dramatic fashion.
HRC, well, it is over for her. Everyone says never count the Clintons out, but I really believe the torch has been passed. It is like Justin Timberlake taking the torch from Michael Jackson. It is just over.....

Posted by: sniezgod | March 28, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Oh, why couldn't Joe Biden represent a swing state, or at least one with more than a handful of votes in the Electoral College?

Joe, move to Philly!

Posted by: avagabond | March 28, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

The only thing decent about McCain's campaign was he knew what a dishonest piece of $hi+ Mitt Romney is. His recent embrace of Mitt should remind everyone that there is no ideal or value that McCain professes to have that he will not wipe his bum with for the sake of opportunity. Campaign finance, Iraq, the S&L's, his first marriage, lobbyists ... what fun it is going to be to hold those two frauds up for scorn and ridicule, should the GOP put them on the ticket.

Posted by: TheTruth | March 28, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Any thought on Rahm Emanuel for a VP slot with HRC?

Posted by: rgustafs | March 28, 2008 10:17 AM

It would seem to me, the last thing HRC needs is another Washington insider

Posted by: JD | March 28, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

No one talks about Joe Biden with Obama. No one knows more about foreign policy in Democratic Party than him. He was also chair of the Judiciary Committee. He's got a lot of "experience," but, at least to me, does not have the feel of a Washington insider (i.e., would not go terribly against Obama's change message)

Posted by: rdelay | March 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Libs as usual, don't care where their money comes from, as long as it comes:

Thompson and McDermott would have us believe that they visited a sworn enemy of the United States -- one who had tried to assassinate a former president and declared that the "Mother of all Battles" had never ended -- without doing even the most basic research about who was funding their trip? That's hard to believe. And Bonior, who was from Michigan and had taken money from al Khafaji before, had no idea that he was backed by Saddam Hussein? When I spent a week reporting in Michigan for a story on Iraqi exiles, virtually every Iraqi I spoke to told me about al Khafaji and his dirty money. Is is possible that nobody ever mentioned this to Bonior, who recently chaired John Edwards' presidential campaign, before he traveled to Iraq with al Khafaji? Again, hard to believe.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 28, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I should think that you'd list Bill Richardson at the top of Obama's list, since Obama needs help with Hispanics and Richardson stepped in to endorse at the darkest moments of Obama's campaign.
-Trevor Wynne
Washington, DC
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

Posted by: trevorwynnewhitehouse | March 28, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Dick Gephardt would be a perfect fit for Obama. Adds experience and blue collar union votes and practically gives MO to the Democrats, a flip from 2004.

Posted by: dave.hesler.j3ks | March 28, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down.


so let me get this straight. first he didn't hear all that garbage, despite the dumbo sized ears, then he thought it was just typical Black racism with no harming effect and now he claims he was thinking of leaving anyway. since y'all discovered it and made it into a campaign issue, that is.

Kinda like I didn't vote for the war - never mind that I wasn't asked to vote.

I can't wait for the next set of superhuman feats he would have done if asked.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 28, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Any thought on Rahm Emanuel for a VP slot with HRC?

Posted by: rgustafs | March 28, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Hillary: Ted Strickland. Gotta win Ohio.

Obama: Kathleen Sebelius. Gotta make it up to the ladies.

McCain: Charlie Crist. Gotta win Florida.

Posted by: light_bearer | March 28, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Russ Feingold mentioned an interesting choice for an Obama VP: George Mitchell. Thought I'd add the name here.

On the choices outlined here, I'm still pulling for Richardson and Sebelius (Richardson saved himself with the timing of the endorsement for me -- he had dropped off my list after Ohio/Texas). For Clinton, I think it's going to be Clark. Obama won't be offered the slot if she wins.

Posted by: rpy1 | March 28, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

For the life of me, I can't see what's so attractive about Tim Kaine. Yeah, he's a Democrat in a purple state, but so what? He's accomplished virtually nothing since taking office, other than having to backtrack on his abusive driver fees, the regional transportation taxing authority (it was an unconsitutional end run around a previously defeated ballot question for road bonds).

I guess he glows in the halo of Mark Warner somehow.

Posted by: JD | March 28, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I think Wes Clark is a good option for both Clinton and Obama - strengthens the chances of winning Arkansas, undisputed foreign policy gravitas, military credentials, beloved of the democratic base but appeals to independents. Perfecto

Posted by: markstephenbell | March 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I think Wes Clark is a good option for both Clinton and Obama - strengthens the chances of winning Arkansas, undisputed foreign policy gravitas, military credentials, beloved of the democratic base but appeals to independents. Perfecto

Posted by: markstephenbell | March 28, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Comments here ask why not Clinton for Obama?
April Ryan of NPR said on Hardball that Obama and his camp does not trust Clinton.
Obama would never pick her due to not being able to trust her. And with Bill hanging around, it would be a problem.
The democrats NEED to break their addiction to the Clintons. They were fine in the 90s but, times have changed and we need new blood badly.
Democrats need to look to moving forward and not staying stagnant by indulging in this Forever Clintons addiction.

Posted by: vwcat | March 28, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I would bet a whole paycheck on Bloomberg. Foreign policy is going to be nothing compared to the economy and Bloomberg is the perfect micromanaging COO counterpart to Obama's visionary CEO. Richardson would be a much better Secretary of State, and I'll say Sebelius only if this Clinton contest continues past April 22 (which it won't). Otherwise, the ladies will come back.

Oh, and Chris, you've GOT to talk faster when you're on Hardball. Matthews is a psycho and us Philadelphians talk REALLY FAST. He'll eat you alive, man!

Posted by: squintz | March 28, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"why does CC think Pawlenty has pull in MN? Are there polls that show his popularity on the ascendancy?"

I think CC's assessment of Pawlenty is misplaced; Pawlenty is a 2 term R Gov, who won most recently in a year (2006) when the state overwhelmingly went Blue - Klobuchar won very big over Kennedy for the open Senate seat. So on the surface, Pawlenty starts to look like a guy who might have some pull in the state. Dig a little deeper though, and it starts to look like maybe he's passed the apex of his popularity in the state. For instance, the Legislature recently overrode his veto of a gas tax increase (first in 20 yrs in the state) to fund infrstructure maintenance. Keep in mind this is in the state where a bridge fell down last year. Since the veto override, the state DOT shut down another bridge due to structural concerns. Pawlenty is usually a pretty saavy politician, but his handling of this hot potato has been ham-fisted.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

For a short but solid backgrounder about what's happening in Iraq now -- it's a power struggle between various warring groups -- Shi'ite vs. Shi'ite vs. Sunni. It's about five different wars...

'The current fighting in Basra is a struggle for power and resources between Shi'ite warlords. It's hard to say which faction is more alluring or less likely to fall under Iranian sway. Neither seems the sort of ally in freedom and democracy that our president conjures in his daydreams. (The lively blogger who calls himself Abu Muqawama speculates that Bush officials have embraced ISCI [Maliki] because, unlike Sadr, its leaders speak English.)

It's not a case of good vs. evil. It's just another crevice in the widening earthquake called Iraq."

http://www.slate.com/id/2187564/

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I've long thought Webb would be the perfect vp pick for Obama.
And given that Obama did alot of stumping for Webb in 06, has close ties with Mark Warner and Gov. Kane, they would be excellent.
Can you imagine Webb in the vp debate against the republican.
I like Webb's unconventional thinking and ways. It's what makes him outstanding and interesting. He has the chutzpah to stand up for what is right.
Since Clinton won't be the nominee, talk of dream tickets is fantasy. Neither is right for the other.
Afterall, if Clinton was the nominee, why would someone as dynamic as Obama want to be a potted plant to the Billary circus.

Posted by: vwcat | March 28, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Last post - I suppose that when BHO leaked to HRC that she would be his choice for the Embassy in Bosnia he offered her use of the latest technology in helicopters. I assume she in turn offered him Kenya, and a wardrobe for the post.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Obama's Secret Service nickname is Renegade, maybe they will call Richardson "Judas"

Posted by: sickofspam | March 28, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I meant to add -- I don't think Bloomberg would endorse Hillary either.

CC, Crist used to hang out at a gay bar in Tampa called The Green Iguana. There are photos. Two of his young male staffers bragged that they had affairs with him recently. Do you really think that will fly?

harmlemboy is right about Portman. He's very rightwing, very tight with the neos and the free-traders-at-any-cost. He is also very tight with bush and cheney and their choice to continue their dynasty.

Why should Romney renounce waterboarding, Mark? The base loves it... and McCain says it's fine if the CIA does it.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Because of what bsimon has written before, and now, I have discounted Pawlenty somewhat.
bsimon, why does CC think Pawlenty has pull in MN? Are there polls that show his popularity on the ascendancy?

The choices CC has set out for HRC seem like sound Ds with some real ambitions. Are they men who would volunteer to defer to the reality of Bill's presence? To being associated with an Administration and having no visible presence? To being treated like - Quayle?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama/Gore

or

Gore/Obama

Posted by: williamland | March 28, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"I have to mention a real wild card for Obama -- Mayor Bloomberg."

"Why Obama VP for Hilary and not vice versa?"


Both of the above alternatives are nixed for the same reason: neither has the appropriate ego to play 2nd banana.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Kaine won't be out of a job until January 2010--if he took the VP slot and won, he'd be handing over the governor's mansion to the (Republican) Lt. Governor.

Posted by: Jess331 | March 28, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"No Quayle's allowed."

My guess is that Quayle was the last 'Quayle' we'll see for quite a while.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"[Pawlenty] makes Minnesota instantly competitive."

We have disagreed on this assessment before. I don't think Pawlenty adds much to a McCain candidacy here, to claim 'instant competitive[ness]' vastly overstates the case.

To review: Pawlenty barely won reelection in a three person race; his Dem competitor had an on-camera implosion a couple days prior to the election.

sidebar; I see The Fix was interviewed on MN public radio this week regarding the likely Franken-Coleman matchup; I hope to listen to the interview online soon. Sadly I missed it the first time around.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I have to mention a real wild card for Obama -- Mayor Bloomberg. Okay, it's crazy, but -- his introduction of Obama's economic policy speech in NYC was very flattering and he said he would support the candidate with the 'boldest approach to solving the nation's problems'. Now, that won't be McCain because his approach to every issue is pretty much exactly the same as Bush's --domestically, privatization of social security and every other aspect of government, and abroad, unilateral projection of American power.

So I think there's a shot.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

That should read "Quayles".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I thought HRC had been promised "Ambassador to Bosnia" in a BHO Administration.
--------------------------
We have gone around this bend a few times, and I agree that Roemer is the new name of interest. Romney would have to publicly denounce water-boarding, at least.

They all should be thinking about the capacity of the VP to become Prez. That is how we should look at this, as well. No Quayle's allowed.

That seems to me to rule out Thune, at least. Perhaps I am being harsh, I would like to here from someone who knows him.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I think The Fix omitted one or two obvious front-runners.

McCain cannot win the presidency without Ohio, so he certainly will consider Rob Portman, the former six-term Ohio congressman. Portman has many other advantages, too: he has broad national and international experience (presidential stature) with appointments during the Bush administration as U.S. Trade Representative and Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Portman brings fiscal expertise, which McCain admittedly lacks. He's still young (53), and he is respected on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill. McCain promotes the idea of bi-partisanship, so the idea that Portman is well-liked by Democrats could appeal to McCain. The biggest downside for Portman might be that he's too personally close to the Bush family. I heard G.W. Bush wants McCain to select Portman, but obviously McCain and Bush have never been the best of friends.

I would take Charlie Crist off the list. First of all, rumor has it that Crist is gay...so that's just another reason for conservatives to dislike him. And I think McCain is already strongly favored to carry Florida, especially if Obama is his opponent in the fall, so he will not need help in that state. McCain will need help in a major industrial state like Ohio, where Democrats are resurgent because of the bad economy.

For Hillary, I think General Wesley Clark is the obvious choice. I know this is a shallow reason, but it would look bad at the convention if the VP choice towers over the presidential nominee, so Hillary might avoid selecting someone too tall. Wesley Clark is short, so the visual image of Hillary and Wesley together works well. In addition, running against McCain, Hillary still needs to bolster her credentials to be the superior choice for commander-in-chief, so a 4-star general like Clark is a natural to help her do that.

Posted by: harlemboy | March 28, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

In every poll so far, R voters have indicated that 20 - 25% would not vote for McCain unless he has a VP very far to the right. Sanford would probably do, although he doesn't bring mcCain anything much in general name recognition. Romney has money and reach and organization and has been campaigning with McCain, even though they appear to hate each other. But both of them want power so desperately they will get along.

I still think Lleberman is a possibility, even though he's old too, because he has the neocon love and cred McCain craves and a very similar all-war-all-the-time 20th century worldview.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

In terms of Obama's possible VP choices, your addition of Roemer is the most intriguing - he's got the kind of high profile national security cred that Obama will want running against McCain. . In the same vein, I'd suggest that Sen. Jack Reed (RI) and retired Gen. Anthony Zinni belong on the list.

Interesting that you put Obama on Clinton's list of potential choices, but didn't put Clinton on Obama's list. While I don't think she would be a good choice for Obama, if the nomination battle continues much longer, Obama might very well come under pressure to pick CLinton for party unity.

Posted by: terje2 | March 28, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Why not someone like Chuck Hagel for Obama? Seems like the most "post-partisan" of politicians other than Obama.

Posted by: finnpillsbury | March 28, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Why Obama VP for Hilary and not vice versa?

Posted by: mark10036 | March 28, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company