Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Friday Line: Veepstakes!

Ask someone who works for either Barack Obama (Ill.) or John McCain (Ariz.) about the search for a vice presidential nominee and, to a person, the response you get goes something like this: "It's way too early to even be thinking about specific names."

Bring up potential VP's with people outside the direct orbit of the campaigns, however, and you get a panoply of names, discussions of running mate strategy, and handicapping of strengths and weaknesses.

Welcome to the veepstakes -- where those who know the most are saying the least and, unfortunately, vice versa.

The Fix, as always, navigates these tricky waters for the good of our readers. Conversations with a variety of operatives who are in a position to have a general sense of the veepstakes have produced the lists you will find below. When it comes to picking a vice presidential candidate, we acknowledge it is something of a moving target -- so if your preferred guy (or gal) didn't make the list never fear, they could show up next time.

Also, since McCain and Obama appear to have the nominations locked up, we are, for the first time, ranking the five most likely veep picks. The number one slot on the Line is the candidate with the best chance -- right now -- of being picked.

Agree or disagree? Have a favorite of your own? Or even a full list? The comments section awaits.

REPUBLICANS

5.Mitt Romney: A few months ago it would have seemed crazy to include Romney on a vice presidential list for McCain because it was an open secret that the two men didn't like each another. But politics is a funny game and Romney is charting out an aggressive fundraising schedule for McCain over the coming months. Still, the two men seem like oil and water and it's hard to imagine McCain picking someone with whom he is not comfortable.

4. Charlie Crist: No single politician had more to do with McCain becoming his party's standard bearer than the governor of Florida. Crist's endorsement of the Arizona senator just before the Sunshine State primary put McCain over the top and cemented his grip on the nomination. Crist's popularity in the Sunshine State also carries potential general election benefits for McCain. But, if polling is to be believed, McCain may have an easier time there if Obama is the nominee. Crist is also regarded with some level of suspicion by conservatives in the party; a problem McCain doesn't need given his past tenuous relations with that wing of the GOP.

3. Rob Portman: Not including Portman in previous lists was a major oversight on our part. Anyone who knows anything about McCain's thinking seems to believe Portman, who spent twelve years in Congress before doing several stints in the Bush White House, will be one of the finalists for the job. Why? Portman hails from Ohio -- perhaps the swingiest of swing states this fall -- and he is a widely touted economics expert, a specialty that could protect McCain from attacks on his familiarity with the issue. Portman is not a well-known name nationally but that could wind up being a good thing, ensuring a honeymoon period as he is introduced to voters.

2.John Thune: The phrase "central casting" can easily be applied to the senator from South Dakota. Thune is handsome, articulate and comes across as a moderate despite his very clear conservative voting record. Thune is also a hero in conservative circles thanks to his defeat of then Sen. Tom Daschle (S.D.) in 2004. The one knock on Thune is that he hails from a state that is already well in hand for Republicans. But, a look at recent veep picks (John Edwards, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman) shows that the traditional "geographic" consideration may be fading in importance when it comes to picking a number two.

1.Tim Pawlenty: So Tpaw and McCain had something of a disagreement over the cause of last year's bridge collapse in Minnesota. The Minnesota governor remains the candidate in the Republican vice presidential field who fits best with what McCain wants and needs in a VP. Pawlenty has been elected twice in a Democratic-leaning state that is almost certain to be a battleground in the fall. He is liked and respected by both conservatives and moderates and gets rave reviews for his political instincts. He has also known McCain for nearly three decades and has been a supporter since the early days of the contest. [VIDEO: Pawlenty Interview]

DEMOCRATS

5.Sam Nunn: It's hard to argue with Nunn's place as one of the pre-eminent Democratic thinkers on foreign policy and defense issues. He spent more than two decades in the Senate representing Georgia and he chaired the Armed Services Committee. That resume coupled with Nunn's status as a white southerner could well make him an appealing pick for Obama. But, is Nunn too moderate (some would say conservative) for the party's liberal base to swallow?

4. Tim Kaine: Kaine's great strengths in this process are who he is and where's he from. A former missionary and a man who openly talks about his faith, Kaine could help Obama bridge the "God gap" that has emerged in recent presidential elections. He is also the highest ranking elected official in an emerging battleground state and his popularity coupled with Obama's appeal to African American voters statewide and white voters in northern Virginia could make the contest for the Commonwealth a barnburner. Kaine's problem is that he has spent just three years as governor (and four years as lieutenant governor before that) and has almost no foreign policy experience.

3. Hillary Clinton: In the wake of Clinton's speech in Indianapolis on Tuesday night, many within the party thought she was opening the door to the idea of sharing the ticket with Obama. Her rhetoric over the past 48 hours, however, particularly her comments about "white voters," may well quash the "Dream Ticket" talk before it begins in earnest. While Clinton has broad and deep support within the Democratic Party, picking her as vice president would seem to run counter to Obama's change message. That said, stranger things have most definitely happened.

2. Ted Strickland: While Obama may not feel compelled to name Clinton to the ticket, he is well aware of the need to offer an olive branch of sorts to the backers of the New York Senator. Strickland, the first term governor of Ohio, may well fit the bill. Not only is he an active and high profile Clinton supporter, he is also the popular chief executive of a state that Obama must find a way to win if he hopes to be president. Strickland, who represented a conservative southern Ohio congressional district before winning the governorship in 2006, could also help Obama deal with lingering doubts about his candidacy among white working class voters.

1. Kathleen Sebelius: The second-term Kansas governor earns the top spot on the Line because of her ability to further bolster Obama's strengths while not exacerbating his weaknesses. Picking Sebelius would affirm Obama's core message of change and would give Obama's run even more historic weight. Sebelius' electoral success in ruby red Kansas would also echo Obama's pledge to broaden the playing field in the fall and ensure that the party is competitive in every state. The one knock on Sebelius is the dearth of foreign policy credentials on her resume. But she has six years of strong executive experience and could be the kind of political partner Obama needs in the fall. [VIDEO: Sebelius Interview]

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 9, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  The Line , Veepstakes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Predictions Redux: The Hoosier-Heel Primaries
Next: Wag the Blog: The Longer, the Better?

Comments

My Dems list in order: (1) Sen. Jim Webb (2) Sen. Hillary Clinton (3)Gen. Wesley Clark (4) Gov. Mike Easley (5) Sen. Charles Schumer

Commentary: I go with "oddjob" for Jim Webb. He will immediately strip McCain of his current lock on white males, military and defense types, and the Scots-Irish vote in Appalachia from Pennsylvania to Georgia (Read his history of the Scots-Irish in US culture). He is the only other candidate as smart as Obama, has cross-party credibility, high-lvel government experience, and is a powerhouse campaigner.

After Webb, I like long-shot Hillary for her built in constituency of white working class voters, Latinos, older democrats and women. After Hillary, I like Wesley Clark, Mike Easly and Chuck Schumer--all smart, experienced, articulate, and effective leaders and executives.

Posted by: Roger Stilling | May 27, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

As a liberal Jewish voter who very well remembers Sam Nunn's Senate career, I can tell you that putting Sam Nunn on the ticket will lose a whole lot of the Jewish vote. And there are other reasons why he would be a disasterous pick. For instance, he doesn't fit into the Obama campaign theme of looking to the future instead of the past. And, as you pointed out, his record overall is very conservative which would risk losing a large portion of the base. I hope this is the LAST TIME I ever hear his name mentioned as part of the next Administration. I hope you just threw his name out there to generate controversy and not because you were serious.

Posted by: Jason Platt | May 27, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

What about Sen Evan Bayh? He won reelection with 60+% in 2004 - Pres Bush won IN by the same margin that year (this shows significant crossover appeal - a big chunk of folks who voted for Bush also voted for Bayh). Bayh's a former two-term governor, so he brings executive experience to the table, is a big HRC supporter, so his selection would be an olive branch of sorts, and he's young and effective enough to be a very credible successor candidate in 2016.

Posted by: Bilbo | May 27, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

This is the best part of the general election season. Both parties genuinely contemplate what might make their platform look better.


The Republicans...

5) Mitt Romney. He has tons of money and he might help McCain with more conservative voters. Remember: John McCain didn't win a majority of voters in any state before Huckabee & Romney conceded. Plus, McCain lost 10% of the vote to Huckabee and Ron Paul in Indiana last Tuesday. McCain has been the nominee for over two months now. In Pennsylvania, a quarter of a million registered Republicans defected to Huckabee & Ron Paul on April 22nd, virtually two months after McCain secured the nomination.
4) Gov. Mark Sanford of S.C. He might help with the hard right, and, he's relatively young.
3) Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. She could help McCain with more moderate Republicans, especially in places like New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin. And she's a woman. How would the far right deal with such a moderate ticket?
2) Fmr OMB Director Rob Portman of Ohio. Firstly, he helps McCain in Ohio, and with the economy. McCain needs help less in the former, and more with the latter.
1) Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minn. He's a younger moderate, but with conservative bona fides. I think it's a pipe dream that the republicans will carry Minnesota, but let them dream.

The Democrats...

5) Sen. Hillary Clinton of N.Y. Highly unlikely, but crazier things have happened in politics. (Let's see how things look in early June.)
4) Gov. Bill Richardson of N.M. He adds to the historic ticket narrative, and puts New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada in play. That right there equals 19 electoral votes. If Obama wins every state John Kerry did, which he will, then that's 271 right there, and we win. Have fun with Ohio & Florida!
3) Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. He's an ardent Clinton supporter, so he'd help heal the wounds. Plus, he's the popular Governor of Ohio. Notwithstanding, I think Obama just might not be able to carry Ohio. Maybe he can, but I don't know if this guy even secures that state. If so, that's plus twenty, which gives us 272. We win.
2) Gov. Ed Rendall of Penn. At first I didn't think this was all that great of an idea, but then I realized how good of an idea it actually could be. Firstly, he's of the most vocal Clinton supporters. Secondly, he gurantees Pennsylvania, so Obama can really go after Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Missouri. Plus, Rendall is Jewish, which could assuage some concerns that some Jews might have about Obama. Additionally, this helps him in Florida, and Rendall's character could help Obama in Ohio as much, if not more, than Strickland himself. Finally, this guy knows how to fight. He's got stones!
1) Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark. Firstly, tons of foreign policy experience. Secondly, a Clinton supporter. Thirdly, he makes it extremely difficult to label the ticket far left, or too liberal. Plus, he's a southern white guy.

New York City Secession 2010

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 12, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

This is the best part of the general election season. Both parties genuinely contemplate what might make their platform look better.


The Republicans...

5) Mitt Romney. He has tons of money and he might help McCain with more conservative voters. Remember: John McCain didn't win a majority of voters in any state before Huckabee & Romney conceded. Plus, McCain lost 10% of the vote to Huckabee and Ron Paul in Indiana last Tuesday. McCain has been the nominee for over two months now. In Pennsylvania, a quarter of a million registered Republicans defected to Huckabee & Ron Paul on April 22nd, virtually two months after McCain secured the nomination.
4) Gov. Mark Sanford of S.C. He might help with the hard right, and, he's relatively young.
3) Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. She could help McCain with more moderate Republicans, especially in places like New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin. And she's a woman. How would the far right deal with such a moderate ticket?
2) Fmr OMB Director Rob Portman of Ohio. Firstly, he helps McCain in Ohio, and with the economy. McCain needs help less in the former, and more with the latter.
1) Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minn. He's a younger moderate, but with conservative bona fides. I think it's a pipe dream that the republicans will carry Minnesota, but let them dream.

The Democrats...

5) Sen. Hillary Clinton of N.Y. Highly unlikely, but crazier things have happened in politics. (Let's see how things look in early June.)
4) Gov. Bill Richardson of N.M. He adds to the historic ticket narrative, and puts New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada in play. That right there equals 19 electoral votes. If Obama wins every state John Kerry did, which he will, then that's 271 right there, and we win. Have fun with Ohio & Florida!
3) Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. He's an ardent Clinton supporter, so he'd help heal the wounds. Plus, he's the popular Governor of Ohio. Notwithstanding, I think Obama just might not be able to carry Ohio. Maybe he can, but I don't know if this guy even secures that state. If so, that's plus twenty, which gives us 272. We win.
2) Gov. Ed Rendall of Penn. At first I didn't think this was all that great of an idea, but then I realized how good of an idea it actually could be. Firstly, he's of the most vocal Clinton supporters. Secondly, he gurantees Pennsylvania, so Obama can really go after Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Missouri. Plus, Rendall is Jewish, which could assuage some concerns that some Jews might have about Obama. Additionally, this helps him in Florida, and Rendall's character could help Obama in Ohio as much, if not more, than Strickland himself. Finally, this guy knows how to fight. He's got stones!
1) Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark. Firstly, tons of foreign policy experience. Secondly, a Clinton supporter. Thirdly, he makes it extremely difficult to label the ticket far left, or too liberal. Plus, he's a southern white guy.

New York City Secession 2010

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 12, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

I was born in Kansas and like Sebelius but don't really see that she does anything for Sen. Obama -- I guess I'd be interested in what Mrs. Clinton's supporters say, though. I think it needs to be a Clinton supporter, hopefully with some foreign policy/defense background. Bill Richardson seemed like a perfect choice until he became "Judas." Deserved or not, the antipathy he raises makes him a counterproductive choice. In my mind I see more likely people like Ted Strickland, wes Clark or Ed Rendell. Ohio, PA, military experience and people that Mrs. Clinton's supporters might accept as a peace offering. I don't think Mrs. Clinton is in the cards at all and to pick a woman just to have woman might be seen as pandering (and I say this just because as a small Red state Sebelius doesn't seem to bring to the table traditional veep qualities). I think both sides are going to be fascinating -- I picked Tony Zinni some time ago but haven't heard much of him since. I'm curious but as Obama's campaign has been run pretty nicely so far I'm sure they've put a lot of thought into this and are going to pick a great running mate.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

McCain - take a look at Olympia Snow or Susan Collins from Maine.

Do the right thing and put a woman on your ticket!

Posted by: Chrissy | May 11, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

McCain - take a look at Olympia Snoew or Susan Collins from Maine.

Do the right thing and put a woman on your ticket!

Posted by: Chrissy | May 11, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Some interesting thoughts there Chris, although I have some different views.

On the Dem side:
I'm surprised Ed Rendell isn't on your list. He's THE man in a key swing state, with an enormous power base in Philadelphia owing to his time as Mayor there, as well as two terms as Governor of PA.

Plus, a key asset he has is that he is a Jew. Obama has major problems with this constituency (Muslim rumors, and some pro-arab aides) and Rendell on the ticket would silence those doubts, bringing a key Clinton constituency on board.

Also he was a big Clinton backer, so it helps to bind the wounds of the primary contest.

His one negative? He's 64 - so hardly the next generation. But then he's younger than Strickland.

Another Jewish possibility is Bloomberg. The Mayor would also provide fundraising clout (not that he needs it) and "bipartisanship appeal". But he would be unlikely to run against his friend McCain.

Posted by: JayPe | May 11, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

im still into kathleen sebelius. six vigorous years of exec. experience, democratic governor in red-state kansas who was re-elected in a landslide, 60%. an amiable middle-aged woman who's got cred with blue-collar workers. the big danger for Obama is appearing too leftist. her and him have the same ideals, and she's a superb manager. she doesn't reinforce any negatives about him. in fact, reinforces his positives. you're worried about the strength gap between the two-white guys on the repub. ticket? that's why obama has to run on the strength of his cabinet. that's something he would have to do regardless of whom he chooses. you don't want voters to have second thoughts about you, as has happened throughout these primaries with late deciders going to clinton. throw in some respectable republicans, moderates, democrats who are more worried about keeping their integrity than about ideological struggles. people you can work with. for example like dick lugar and especially chuck hagel. that takes care of the national security gap. thing is, that security gap can be taken care of easily because it's just a question of gravitas, and that dynamic, bipartisan cabinet would generate a lot of excitement. rave reviews from the media, independents, moderate republicans and democrats. economic issues however can't be transposed because of endorsements. so you need someone who's really good at it. we would actively work the female vote with the prospect of a RESPECTABLE woman as president in 8 years, and african american turnout would be sky-high. with the swing vote becoming the white blue collar vote, a few good picks for cabinet posts would be really beneficial.

Posted by: lupercal | May 11, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Well, the Daily Kos picked Richardson after a 31-round elimination poll:
http://sfreporter.com/articles/publish/outtake-041608-bumps-on-a-blog.php

Posted by: Maassivw | May 11, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama-EASLEY

Easley struck me as engaging and intelligent in his recent Charlie Rose interview. He appears to possess greater political/communication skills than any of the governers mentioned -- or, for that matter, other possibilities such as Richardson, Webb, or General X.

Unlike Sam Nunn, he's the right age and not a one-trick pony.

As a Hillary endorser (but hardly an Obama critic) he could perhaps be of some help as a bridge builder to her supporters. A white Southern governor who's apparantly popular among Southern working-class whites, he could also help allay concerns about Obama's race and connection to Rev. Wright.

Because of North Carolina's military bases, Easley can claim a greater connection to military affairs than pretty much any other governor. Meanwhile, as a governor, he has better outsider credentials than any senator.

NARAL describes him as pro-choice. He's been endorsed by the NRA, but I doubt that's going to drive urban liberals away from voting for Obama, or have major policy implications.

Chris, do your part to put Easley in the VP discussion!

Posted by: sgoldfarb | May 11, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm shocked at a major oversight on your list: no Bill Richardson on Obama's short list?!

The press is always saying Obama needs to shore up white working-class voters and Latinos. Who better than Bill Richardson? Also his lack of foreign policy experience. Hello, Bill Richardson has better foreign policy credentials than anyone in modern Democratic politics! Richardson virtually guarantees New Mexico's 5 EVs for the Democratic ticket, puts Nevada and Colorado heavily into contention, and keeps McCain tied up playing defense in Texas instead of spending lavishly in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Unlike other potential picks (Sebelius, Nunn), Richardson actually has some personality too. I don't see why Obama needs to pick a snoozer for his running mate when Richardson offers such an appealing opportunity.

Posted by: Nathaniel Ament-Stone | May 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I'm shocked at a major oversight on your list: no Bill Richardson on Obama's short list?!

The press is always saying Obama needs to shore up white working-class voters and Latinos. Who better than Bill Richardson? Also his lack of foreign policy experience. Hello, Bill Richardson has better foreign policy credentials than anyone in modern Democratic politics! Richardson virtually guarantees New Mexico's 5 EVs for the Democratic ticket, puts Nevada and Colorado heavily into contention, and keeps McCain tied up playing defense in Texas instead of spending lavishly in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Unlike other potential picks (Sebelius, Nunn), Richardson actually has some personality too. I don't see why Obama needs to pick a snoozer for his running mate when Richardson offers such an appealing opportunity.

Posted by: Nathaniel Ament-Stone | May 11, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I'm shocked at a major oversight on your list: no Bill Richardson on Obama's short list?!

The press is always saying Obama needs to shore up white working-class voters and Latinos. Who better than Bill Richardson? Also his lack of foreign policy experience. Hello, Bill Richardson has better foreign policy credentials than anyone in modern Democratic politics! Richardson virtually guarantees New Mexico's 5 EVs for the Democratic ticket, puts Nevada and Colorado heavily into contention, and keeps McCain tied up playing defense in Texas instead of spending lavishly in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Unlike other potential picks (Sebelius, Nunn), Richardson actually has some personality too. I don't see why Obama needs to pick a snoozer for his running mate when Richardson offers such an appealing opportunity.

Posted by: Nathaniel | May 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

McCain-Martinez v
Obama and who cares.
Likely Rendell-Biden or Strickland or the ultimate insult Judas Richardson.
None of that matters as none them will help save Obama in Ohio or Fla or with Hispanics in Fla or Colorado who
can't stand him. So the D party will be faced with another Michael Dukakas result and deservedly so.Likely Claire McCaskil to mask all the mysoginist statements.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

It would be great to have McCain-Hillary. Kill two-birds with one stone. Obama-Sebelius will annihilate that combination and the people will send a resounding message to voters who are uneducated or unrepentant.

Posted by: FunnyThat | May 11, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

McCain-Martinez v
Obama and who cares.
Likely Rendell-Biden or Strickland or the ultimate insult Judas Richardson.
None of that matters as none them will help save Obama in Ohio or Fla or with Hispanics in Fla or Colorado who
can't stand him. So the D party will be faced with another Michael Dukakas result and deservedly so.Likely Claire McCaskil to mask all the mysoginist statements.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

McCain-Martinez v
Obama and who cares.
Likely Rendell-Biden or Strickland or the ultimate insult Judas Richardson.
None of that matters as none them will help save Obama in Ohio or Fla or with Hispanics in Fla or Colorado who
can't stand him. So the D party will be faced with another Michael Dukakas result and deservedly so.Likely Claire McCaskil to mask all the mysoginist statements.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 11, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I am really surprised that only one other poster has mentioned former California Congressman and current head of the SEC, Chris Cox as a VP choice for McCain. He has the economic cred that Rob Portman has, minus the heavy Bush family connections. Plus, we can thank Congressman Cox for his primary legislative success, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the 1998 law prohibiting federal, state, and local government taxation of Internet access.

McCain/Cox in '08!

Posted by: Joe Nathan | May 10, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Martinez v
Obama and who cares.
Likely Rendell-Biden or Strickland or the ultimate insult Judas Richardson.
None of that matters as none them will help save Obama in Ohio or Fla or with Hispanics in Fla or Colorado who
can't stand him. So the D party will be faced with another Michael Dukakas result and deservedly so.Likely Claire McCaskil to mask all the mysoginist statements.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 10, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Martinez v
Obama and who cares.
Likely Rendell-Biden or Strickland or the ultimate insult Judas Richardson.
None of that matters as none them will help save Obama in Ohio or Fla or with Hispanics in Fla or Colorado who
can't stand him. So the D party will be faced with another Michael Dukakas result and deservedly so.Likely Claire McCaskil to mask all the mysoginist statements.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 10, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Martinez v
Obama and who cares.
Likely Rendell-Biden or Strickland or the ultimate insult Judas Richardson.
None of that matters as none them will help save Obama in Ohio or Fla or with Hispanics in Fla or Colorado who
can't stand him. So the D party will be faced with another Michael Dukakas result and deservedly so.Likely Claire McCaskil to mask all the mysoginist statements.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 10, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Martinez v
Obama and who cares.
Likely Rendell-Biden or Strickland or the ultimate insult Judas Richardson.
None of that matters as none them will help save Obama in Ohio or Fla or with Hispanics in Fla or Colorado who
can't stand him. So the D party will be faced with another Michael Dukakas result and deservedly so. My guess Claire McCaskil or Rendell.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 10, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

How about thinking outside the box, and having Obama offer the VP slot to CT Rep. Chris Shays. Shays is in for yet another hard fight for his congressional seat, and will have another hard fight in two years. He's immensely likeable and is still very popular among his constituents; his only problem is that he serves in a D+6 district that gets bluer by the minute.

Shays is a moderate in every sense of the word, and is known to cross the aisle often. He also represents the richest areas of one of the richest states in the country, and this would bring Obama even more millions and potentially take some away from the GOP.

Shays seems to be well-respected in foreign affairs, though he would have to remove his support for the War. Edwards showed this was atleast somewhat possible.

Oh, and this would also be a colossal and well-deserved middle finger to Shays (and McCain) supporter Joe Lieberman. Obama courting Jodi Rell, a popular liberal GOP governor who signed a civils unions law, would do the same.

OK, it won't happen, but I can dream, right?

Actually, I may have just argued Shays case for McCain's VP slot as well, though Rell would be way too liberal for the GOP ticket.

Posted by: delarge | May 10, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Martinez v
Obama and who cares.
Likely Rendell-Biden or Strickland or the ultimate insult Judas Richardson.
None of that matters as none them will help save Obama in Ohio or Fla or with Hispanics in Fla or Colorado who
can't stand him. So the D party will be faced with another Michael Dukakas result and deservedly so. My guess Claire McCaskil or Rendell.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 10, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Martinez v
Obama and who cares.
Likely Rendell-Biden or Strickland or the ultimate insult Judas Richardson.
None of that matters as none them will help save Obama in Ohio or Fla or with Hispanics in Fla or Colorado who
can't stand him. So the D party will be faced with another Michael Dukakas result and deservedly so.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 10, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

It is really sad that people keep telling other people what Lous Farrakahn's messages are about who has clearly not listen to him ever. He mostly talk about black men in his messages. He mostly talks about what is going on our communities. He talks about oppressed people and situation here and abroad. But I really think it is time that people stop just shouting out stuff when they clearly don't know what they are talking about. And to suggest that he makes him a VP is just ignorant and it shows your ignorance.

I suggest that you crawl back in your cage and continue living in the 50's. Because there is just no more room in America for people like you. As a matter of fact there is no more room in the world for people like you.

Posted by: bridgette | May 10, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Today may be a record- 7 identical posts by the same person. What's with the duplicate posts?

Posted by: dsbyrd | May 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Swift boating is designed for candidates who can not

WIN on their own MERITS.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Voting for any candidate carries its risks, and I feel more comfortable with the risks Obama brings than with Hillary's.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

~

Sebulius? Are you kidding?

Obama already has zero foreign policy experience.

Besides, there is one thing that really turns men off:

white hair.

It makes them think of their grandmothers.

Even other women are not that comfortable with it.

I say that as a 50-year-old with a head of beautiful, prematurely white hair just like Sebelius'.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | May 10, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Someone on this blog mentioned Obama's drug use being used by the Republicans Party in November.

Here are some facts:

Clinton used drugs - erstwhile President

Bush used drugs and alcohol - current President

Obama used drugs - presumed next President

What would be the Republicans basis for nullifying Bush and Clinton and condemning Obama?

That would exhibit a Double Standard and
would speak volumes.

The Republicans would fail (though might try)at reverberating (echoing) nullification for Bush and Clinton and condemning Obama; if they did, the issue would only appeal to "old conservatives" who have a habitual way of thinking and that's fine a long as the rules and laws are within reason and applies to EVERYONE... Their argument would display a quintessence (a perfect example)of Double Standards and American Injustice, which we know still hoovers over many people BUT the fact remains, it is UNACCEPTABLE...

Also, Clinton lied about his drug use to the American people. . .Is that O.K.? No, it was unacceptable.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

To: The Truth

Your comments have lost all semblence of reality. The Superdelegates are not throwing their lots in yet out of deference to Clinton, not wanting to upset her, and out of deference to the voter in the later states, hoping to achieve the sense that the Superdelegates ARE NOT the reason for his win. It is a widely held belief amongst those with a grip on reality that Superdelegates are waiting in the shadows until after May 20 or even the last Primaries in June, to throw their support to Obama. Hillary can not win with delegates, even seating Florida and Michigan in the pipe dream situation that they let Michigans results stand even though Obama wasn't on the ticket. Hillary can not win with the popular vote, once again even taking into account the pipe dream of leaving the results from Michigan stand as is. Her campaign is over for all intents and purposes and her only goal now is to make it to the finish line.

Posted by: Reality Check | May 10, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I understand the Chris gets his almost weekly "Fix" on Pawlenty. McCain can forget ever seeing President if PawTy is on his ticket. Just this past week, I contacted PawTy's office, and it appears I was lied to if I am to take the Minnesota Supreme Court Commissioner at his written word, PawTy effectively moved to put a judge back on the bench who was removed by the voters, disenfranchising 300,000 voters in Northern MN. It will be interesting to watch how these things will come out during the fall campaign. Obama or Clinton should love it if PawTy is on McCain's ticket.

Posted by: gouldnen | May 10, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris Mathews would be awsome as an attack dog VP!

Posted by: dutterback | May 10, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

McCain and Hillary is an excellent combination. It will be HISTORIC and Good for the COUNTRY overall.

If you guys want change, this is BIG TIME CHANGE!

It's good for the COUNTRY, it's good for CONGRESS and it's good for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!

It will be a LANDSLIDE!!! Senator McCain are you listening... Make HISTORY!!!

Finally somethng will get DONE!!!

Posted by: McCain and Hillary | May 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I can't belive that the pick gives no consideration to Senators Nelson (Fl) or Landreux (La). Theswe are states that are far more in play than Kansas in November.

Posted by: dutterback | May 10, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

As for Obama he should choose either Obermann, Cafferty, Russert, or Matthews.

I agree with that!!!

Posted by: Russert | May 10, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"She has a bright political future ahead of her in other capacities- Senate majority leader, Governer of NY, or something else- if everything went right, and that seems unlikely, as a VP she would be done in 2016 at age 68 with the country having had 8 years with the younger president- not a good position to run for the presidency from."

Well, she is running the risk of being perceived as sinking Obama's presidency. Not saying that's what she's doing, but a lot of people think that's what she's doing. Think Ralph Nader. By all accounts, he's a dedicated, devoted public servant, but has been demonized for contributing to Gore's loss. If Obama loses, Clinton might suffer a similar fate.
But who knows?

As for being VP, keep in mind that VP has historically been a lousy springboard to the presidency. You had Bush win in 1988. The last time a sitting VP ascended to the presidency via election (and not by the sitting president dying) was Martin Van Buren in 1837. Nixon, of course, became president, but had to wait eight years after his VP tenure.

But yeah, if she wants to become president eventually, taking the VP spot might not be the best idea.

Although there are plenty of VPs who have risen to the presidency due to the demise of the sitting president...

Posted by: DDAWD | May 10, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

TO:
VP picks for Obama:
Jim Webb, Wesley Clark, Evan Byah, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Michael Bloomberg, Tim Kaine, Diane Feinstein, Bill Richardson, Chuck Hagel
But no, no, no to Hillary Clinton

Posted by: CR | May 10, 2008 4:14 AM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Reply:

The women you selected are great choices.

I like ALL those you listed women and men; good post and would like to add Sen. Joe Biden to the list, good man. I know Biden voted for the final resolution to support the war in Iraq, but I also know he is much more level headed then Bush and feel he would have implimented a better strategy for the war. . . Including an exit plan.

Governor Richardson is my favorite, love him!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama has serious serious problems - the first is obvious - how many of Hillary's people will stay with him.


It does not stop there.

The democrats should consider a third candidate - at this point only a third candidate would be in a position to heal the party.


Edwards should jump in.

If Al Gore wants it, he should jump in next week after West Virginia - Al Gore could easily amass a few hundred delegates by late June - and win at the Convention. If he wants it, it is probably his if he acts next week.

.

Posted by: Well | May 10, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

You must be dreaming. If Hillary wants the job she'll get it. But as her supporter I don't think she should. With National Polls
showing her as a better candidate to match against McCain, if the Superdelegates are thinking right, it will be Clinto/Obama and not the other way around.

With 1/2 or more voters in the country in her favor and 1/2 as many delegates as Obama's (from battleground states, not Red States) there's no way Hillary will not get the VP slot if she wants it.

However, assuming for a moment that Obama gets the nomination, and it's not over until the FAT lady sings, my preference when that happens is for her to ally with McCain as his VP instead.

The McCain-Hillary ticket will make HISTORY in terms of uniting the WHOLE COUNTRY plus first woman VP, first oldest Prez. It's probably what the country needs to get things done in Congress. It will be a LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!

In this scenario I can see 25%-60% of Hillary's supporters swinging to McCain for good to make it happen.

Otherwise McCain should choose Mitt Romney.


Posted by: Mitt Romney | May 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

You must be dreaming. If Hillary wants the job she'll get it. But as her supporter I don't think she should. With National Polls
showing her as a better candidate to match against McCain, if the Superdelegates are thinking right, it will be Clinto/Obama and not the other way around.

With 1/2 or more voters in the country in her favor and 1/2 as many delegates as Obama's (from battleground states, not Red States) there's no way Hillary will not get the VP slot if she wants it.

However, assuming for a moment that Obama gets the nomination, and it's not over until the FAT lady sings, my preference when that happens is for her to ally with McCain as his VP instead.

The McCain-Hillary ticket will make HISTORY in terms of uniting the WHOLE COUNTRY plus first woman VP, first oldest Prez. It's probably what the country needs to get things done in Congress. It will be a LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!

In this scenario I can see 25%-60% of Hillary's supporters swinging to McCain for good to make it happen.

Posted by: Sycamore | May 10, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

You must be dreaming. If Hillary wants the job she'll get it. But as her supporter I don't think she should. With National Polls
showing her as a better candidate to match against McCain, if the Superdelegates are thinking right, it will be Clinto/Obama and not the other way around.

With 1/2 or more voters in the country in her favor and 1/2 as many delegates as Obama's (from battleground states, not Red States) there's no way Hillary will not get the VP slot if she wants it.

However, assuming for a moment that Obama gets the nomination, and it's not over until the FAT lady sings, my preference when that happens is for her to ally with McCain as his VP instead.

The McCain-Hillary ticket will make HISTORY in terms of uniting the WHOLE COUNTRY plus first woman VP, first oldest Prez. It's probably what the country needs to get things done in Congress. It will be a LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!

In this scenario I can see 25%-60% of Hillary's supporters swinging to McCain for good to make it happen.

Posted by: Sycamore | May 10, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

You must be dreaming. If Hillary wants the job she'll get it. But as her supporter I don't think she should. With National Polls
showing her as a better candidate to match against McCain, if the Superdelegates are thinking right, it will be Clinto/Obama and not the other way around.

With 1/2 or more voters in the country in her favor and 1/2 as many delegates as Obama's (from battleground states, not Red States) there's no way Hillary will not get the VP slot if she wants it.

However, assuming for a moment that Obama gets the nomination, and it's not over until the FAT lady sings, my preference when that happens is for her to ally with McCain as his VP instead.

The McCain-Hillary ticket will make HISTORY in terms of uniting the WHOLE COUNTRY plus first woman VP, first oldest Prez. It's probably what the country needs to get things done in Congress. It will be a LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!

In this scenario I can see 25%-60% of Hillary's supporters swinging to McCain for good to make it happen.

Posted by: Sycamore VA | May 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

You must be dreaming. If Hillary wants the job she'll get it. But as her supporter I don't think she should. With National Polls
showing her as a better candidate to match against McCain, if the Superdelegates are thinking right, it will be Clinto/Obama and not the other way around.

With 1/2 or more voters in the country in her favor and 1/2 as many delegates as Obama's (from battleground states, not Red States) there's no way Hillary will not get the VP slot if she wants it.

However, assuming for a moment that Obama gets the nomination, and it's not over until the FAT lady sings, my preference when that happens is for her to ally with McCain as his VP instead.

The McCain-Hillary ticket will make HISTORY in terms of uniting the WHOLE COUNTRY plus first woman VP, first oldest Prez. It's probably what the country needs to get things done in Congress. It will be a LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!

In this scenario I can see 25%-60% of Hillary's supporters swinging to McCain for good to make it happen.

Posted by: Hillary as VP? | May 10, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

You must be dreaming. If Hillary wants the job she'll get it. But as her supporter I don't think she should. With National Polls
showing her as a better candidate to match against McCain, if the Superdelegates are thinking right, it will be Clinto/Obama and not the other way around.

With 1/2 or more voters in the country in her favor and 1/2 as many delegates as Obama's (from battleground states, not Red States) there's no way Hillary will not get the VP slot if she wants it.

However, assuming for a moment that Obama gets the nomination, and it's not over until the FAT lady sings, my preference when that happens is for her to ally with McCain as his VP instead.

The McCain-Hillary ticket will make HISTORY in terms of uniting the WHOLE COUNTRY plus first woman VP, first oldest Prez. It's probably what the country needs to get things done in Congress. It will be a LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!

In this scenario I can see 25%-60% of Hillary's supporters swinging to McCain for good to make it happen.


Posted by: Clinton No VP? | May 10, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

You must be dreaming. If Hillary wants the job she'll get it. But as her supporter I don't think she should. With National Polls
showing her as a better candidate to match against McCain, if the Superdelegates are thinking right, it will be Clinto/Obama and not the other way around.

With 1/2 or more voters in the country in her favor and 1/2 as many delegates as Obama's (from battleground states, not Red States) there's no way Hillary will not get the VP slot if she wants it.

However, assuming for a moment that Obama gets the nomination, and it's not over until the FAT lady sings, my preference when that happens is for her to ally with McCain as his VP instead.

The McCain-Hillary ticket will make HISTORY in terms of uniting the WHOLE COUNTRY plus first woman VP, first oldest Prez. It's probably what the country needs to get things done in Congress. It will be a LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!

In this scenario I can see 25%-60% of Hillary's supporters swinging to McCain for good to make it happen.


Posted by: Clinton No VP? | May 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

The truth is Obama has not won the nomination yet - the superdelegates could end it this week however it is apparent that they have decided NOT to give Obama enough votes to go over the top.


WHY ???


The question as to why the superdelegates are holding back may become relevant and apparent - they do not want Obama to be the nominee because his numbers in November are falling apart.


It is just not the swing states - there is significant concern about downticket races in blue states.


Hillary will win West Virginia, maybe by a massive margin and Kentucky by an impressive margin. That's leaves the superdelegates OPEN to go for a third candidate - there are rumblings about this.


Everyone is thinking about this right now.

There are rumors that the Washington insiders who originally supported Obama intended him to block Hillary - and then the plan was to negotiate his delegates off to another candidate - the plan overshot a bit - however there is caution with giving Obama the nomination.

If Edwards was in the race, a three person race, a deal involving Obama would have been much more politically acceptable.

Edwards should think about stepping back into the race - he has I believe 26 delegates and he could probably get maybe some superdelegates who like the idea of choosing someone else.


That move would block Obama from a majority and allow the negotiations to begin.

While Hillary may be close to done as a candidate, she might be the Kingmaker if she throws her delegates to someone who has a wider appeal and much lower negatives.

Obama could do something similar - be the kingmaker to a third candidate - this is perhaps the preferred route of the Washington insiders - the black community would not feel as though the nomination was "stolen from them" and the democrats could get a stronger candidate for the fall.

This race does not look over, and just might be beginning.


Posted by: The Truth | May 10, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Leon

You fail to believe that a many democrats do not believe she would be a good President at all.


Many democrats do not like her brand of affirmative action.


Many democrats do not like how she handled the health care proposals.


Many democrats believe she is a nasty woman who surrounds herself with nasty rude people.


Many democrats are sick of how the Clintons operate and would rather not have their party dragged down anymore by them.

Many democrats think she would be a horrible horrible President and may think about sitting out politics or pursuing something else if she is in control of the party and the government.


Leon I do not know what is wrong with you if you can not see any of this.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Janet N. won't be on b/c she is from AR and there are unfortunate rumors around her

Diane F. is older than HRC, Jewish and single and was an HRC supporter- I doubt it.

Wesley Clark is a close ally to the Clintons- unlikely.

Hagel is not running for VP against his friend McCain

Bloomberg is an interesting choice- he comes across as entirely independent and perhaps brings in Jewish voters for Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania (although Michigan gets harder with it's large Muslim population)

Graholm is foreign born and by the constitution could not take over the presidency (also a Clinton supporter)- she could not be on the list.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

For anyone who wants to continue to use this forum to hate on HRC-

There is no way that she would accept the VP for a less qualified BHO. She has a bright political future ahead of her in other capacities- Senate majority leader, Governer of NY, or something else- if everything went right, and that seems unlikely, as a VP she would be done in 2016 at age 68 with the country having had 8 years with the younger president- not a good position to run for the presidency from. Unless she were to be given specific powers within the administration,which BHO won't do- I don't see her coming on board.

It is a shame how all the mysogynst and antiClinton hatred disabled her candidacy- she would have made a great president.

Now pile on with your hateful rhetoric Obamopaths- I intend to vote for him and even work for him now- but your nasty, obnoxious words make it harder and harder.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Odd choices. My prediction is that these are more likely

5) In leiu of Strebelius- Claire McCaskill- early supporter, woman and from MO, a state with a lot of electoral votes, another option could be Mary Landrieu

4) Tom Daschle- early supporter, giving him the old dem/white/middle America support

3) Bob Nelson- needs to compete in Florida somehow

2) Bill Richardson- Most importantly- tons of foriegn policy experience. Governer. Latin. All areas where Barak is extremely weak

1) Jim Webb- strong on foriegn policy/defense and from VA.
Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Odd choices. My prediction is that these are more likely

5) In leiu of Strebelius- Claire McCaskill- early supporter, woman and from MO, a state with a lot of electoral votes, another option could be Mary Landrieu

4) Tom Daschle- early supporter, giving him the old dem/white/middle America support

3) Bob Nelson- needs to compete in Florida somehow

2) Bill Richardson- Most importantly- tons of foriegn policy experience. Governer. Latin. All areas where Barak is extremely weak

1) Jim Webb- strong on foriegn policy/defense and from VA.
Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

What about Senator Bob Casey of PA? He has executive experience, albeit as PA's auditor general. He serves on some pretty important committees, like foreign relations and banking - at a time when the war and foreclosures at the forefront.

He appeals to rural voters in Pennsylvania, and that would probably translate across the border in to Ohio.

just a thought...

I liked the earlier poster's idea of Chuck Hagel too. Talk about a change in American politics!


Posted by: Ann | May 10, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

mjames2

I am surprised that your posting has actually refrained from a graphic description


Posted by: what | May 10, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse

mjames2

I am surprised that your posting has actually refrained from a graphic description


Posted by: what | May 10, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Any short list for dem VP needs to include Mark Warner, notwithstanding his campaign for senate. He has successful business and gubernatorial experience, he is a change agent, and he is is not a person identified with Washington so could also run against its ways. He is of the same generation as Obama so he would be and be viewed as the future of the party, has a similar education, is a southerner, and would bring Virginia into the dem column. After Warner decided not to run for president, Obama hired several of his top advisors. I saw an interview he gave several years ago when he was testing the waters for a presidential run. He talks in paragraphs, along the lines of Obama, and seems somewhat like Hillary in his grasp and discussion of policy.
I think Obama would be very comfortable with him and vice versa.
Check out his autobiography on:
http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com/about

Posted by: pjonathan | May 10, 2008 5:15 AM | Report abuse

sparksUSN... I can't believe you even wasted your time writing out that post.

I really hope Republicans keep sprouting this sort of trollop... it is only going to aide Obama's election shellacking of McCain.

If a candidate is running on hope and change, the worst possible strategy is smear and fear... so I hope you clowns keep bringing it on.

Posted by: Boutan | May 10, 2008 4:36 AM | Report abuse

VP picks for Obama:
Jim Webb, Wesley Clark, Evan Byah, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Michael Bloomberg, Tim Kaine, Diane Feinstein, Bill Richardson, Chuck Hagel
But no, no, no to Hillary Clinton

Posted by: CR | May 10, 2008 4:14 AM | Report abuse

A ideal VP for Barack Obama would be Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Both Barack Obama and his pastor Jerimiah Wright have for over 20 years taken Louis Farrakhan's message of racial-hatred of all white people and his hatred of America to heart and made his message their own. Jerimiah Wright's weekly sermons were nothing more than the teachings of Farrakhan. When Barack Obama and his family sat in their pew every Sunday for over 20 years listening and applauding the Farrakhan message, they did so because they agreed with what was being said. Nobody, but nobody stays a member of a church, group, organization, club, or gang unless he or she agrees with that groups message, teachings, or actions. While Obama now tries to spin the uniter and 'can't we all get along' con on white voters that he needs to get elected, the bottom line is that a vote for Barack Obama is the same as a vote for Louis Farrakhan. Obama might as well name him his VP if he's honest.

Posted by: sparksUSN | May 10, 2008 4:11 AM | Report abuse

A ideal VP for Barack Obama would be Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Both Barack Obama and his pastor Jerimiah Wright have for over 20 years taken Louis Farrakhan's message of racial-hatred of all white people and his hatred of America to heart and made his message their own. Jerimiah Wright's weekly sermons were nothing more than the teachings of Farrakhan. When Barack Obama and his family sat in their pew every Sunday for over 20 years listening and applauding the Farrakhan message, they did so because they agreed with what was being said. Nobody, but nobody stays a member of a church, group, organization, club, or gang unless he or she agrees with that groups message, teachings, or actions. While Obama now tries to spin the uniter and 'can't we all get along' con on white voters that he needs to get elected, the bottom line is that a vote for Barack Obama is the same as a vote for Louis Farrakhan. Obama might as well name him his VP if he's honest.

Posted by: sparksUSN | May 10, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

It will matter little whom Obama will pick for the VP slot and I truly believe this would also be true for Hillary Clinton.These two have mangled and hurt each other so much in the past six months that the Democrats have only one choice. GO WITH SOMEONE ELSE. I do believe this is one of the reasons that Clinton stays in the race. She would not mind being VP but NOT for Obama. So if she can manage to hold off his coronation beyond the first ballot at the convention, all bets are off. No delegate is bound to a candidate after the first ballot. Since Obama can not win and Hillary probably is in the same boat that is the only answer for the Democrats. I say Obama can not win because the Republicans will refer to him as Barrack HUSSEIN Obama over and over again reminding the voters of his connection to Muslims. Hillary will have to fight her husbands history of picadillo's ad nauseum. No VP will help either of those two. Get somebody else or we democrats are going to get screwed again with a lousy candidate in an election we should win. (Like 2000 and 2004)

Posted by: Opa2 | May 10, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

Oh Good God now the WAPO Resident Village
Idiot Chris is even trying to audition to
be the new White House Press Secretary for
either his hero and Messiah Liberal Loser
Barack Hussein Obama or Amnesty John McCain
since this "Typical WAPO Fraud Reporter"
will run out of work and things to write
about afer Election Day 2008 and no real
newspaper will hire him.

Posted by: Sandy5274 | May 10, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Jim Webb or Mark Warner, both for Virginia, would be a great choice for VP.

In the meantime, lets send Hillary duck hunting with Dick Cheney, so Obama can put his campaign structure together for the general election.

Posted by: shafqat khan | May 10, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

It is the most ridiculous notion that Romney could not be a good VP because of his "mormonism". What kind of ludicrous idea is it that he can't function because of his religion. Where does it say that you have to be protestant inorder to lead this nation?

Mitt Romney is very knowledgeable and experienced in ecomomics. It is a fact that McCain is not and has said so. Our economy is in dire straits. We need someone who can provide the leadership and know-how to reverse our current crisis.

I would really appreciate it if people stop the religious bigotry and focus on the experience that a person such as Romney can provide to this great nation. Isn't America the land of freedom and tolerance and diversity? Then why the "oh, but he's a Mormon" attitude. I would have you know that Mormons are one who embrace the "work" ehtics that is desperately needed.

The decision is McCain's to make and what he ultimately decides I will accept. But once again, stop with the "oh, but he is a Mormon" rhetoric!!!!

Posted by: Carlos | May 10, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

I like Jim Webb too. His "Fields of Fire" was the first book on the Vietnam war I could read without disgust, after returning from my year there.

What's the story on Ben Nelson? Except for his stand on abortion, he seems like a natural "balance" candidate.

Posted by: hesthe | May 10, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I love your work! Your columns are always enjoyable, engaging, and full of fun and fascinating facts. Keep up the good work!

That having been said, I'm afraid I don't agree with any of your top 5 choices for who should be Obama's running mate! Which is pretty funny, considering that I rarely disagree with what you write!

First off, Sam Nunn is too old, too conservative and too much like John McCain to help contrast the Democratic ticket from the Republican one. Secondly, Obama and Hillary Clinton will NEVER be on the same ticket, mark my words. Oil and water. No chance. Forget it.

So that leaves three very interesting choices of yours, Tim Kaine, Ted Strickland, and Kathleen Sebelius.

Despite how much time lots of us like to spend gaming out which Veep choice could help the top of the ticket to swing a swing state somewhere, history very seldom bears that out, in fact. If you look at the winning tickets for the last 44 years, from 1964 (the last big Democratic land-slide for the Presidency) to the present, I see evidence for only ONE such example: Al Gore in 1992. (I'm not counting 1996 because the incumbency of the President himself was far and away the key factor.)

Admittedly, Tennessee had gone for the Republican ticket in the last 3 elections at that time (1980, 1984, 1988), and for 5 out of the last 6 (the Democrats losing TN in 1968 and 1972 as well). And while Bill Clinton was a fellow Southerner, young, and telegenic, with fresh ideas, it's not a certainty that he would have won TN without Gore. Hard to say, obviously, whenever one deals in "what if's," but I'll concede 1992. Gore helped Clinton win Tennessee. But that was very unusual indeed -- and perhaps related to the most uncommon presence of a credible 3rd party candidate, Ross Perot, on the ballot.

In 1964, surely LBJ was going to win Minnesota anyway, whether Hubert Humphrey was on the ticket or not. After all, LBJ blew Barry Goldwater out of the water in almost every state, winning 61.1% of the popular vote, the highest percentage recorded in the last 108 years (yes, even bigger than 1972 or 1984, look it up if you doubt me), and perhaps ever in American history.

Similarly, Nixon lost Maryland in 1968, despite having Spiro Agnew on the ticket (or perhaps because of it!); and Nixon did win MD in 1972, but that had nothing to do with Agnew. Like 1964 for the Dems, in 1972 Nixon won 49 of 50 states, a huge landslide for the incumbent, losing only quintessentially liberal Massachusetts.

In 1976, Carter and the Dems were going to win liberal Minnesota with or without Mondale as Veep, I assert. In 1980 and 1984, Reagan was going to win conservative Texas (and just about everywhere else in the South) with or without Bush Sr. on the ticket. In 1988, Bush Sr. was going to win conservative Indiana with or without Quayle on the ticket -- heck, hey may even have won Indiana IN SPITE of Quayle!

Finally, in 2000 and 2004, Bush Jr. was going to win super-conservative Wyoming with or without Dick Cheney at the head of the ticket -- er, I mean, as Veep. What a laughably, dreadfully, and criminally awful Administration this has been. But I digress!

So I seriously doubt that Kaine or Strickland would swing Virginia or Ohio, respectively for Obama due to their presence on the ticket. Admittedly, it is not impossible that they would do so -- but history is against them, and I think that Obama will be highly competitive in those two states anyway on his own merits and due to changing demographics in Virginia and economics in Ohio.

Kathleen Sebelius is indeed your most intriguing choice. A Red State Democratic woman governor, she brings at least three pluses to the ticket: ability to win in a Red State and work across party lines, executive experience, and she's a woman, which might be especially helpful in this year of the Obama - Clinton clash of titans for the nomination.

However, the chief problem with Sebelius would be the same for Kaine & Strickland: lack of foreign policy, defense, homeland security experience. And that simply can't be brushed lightly aside. In fact, it's crucial.

September 11 may be over 6 years behind us now, but it's effect on the American political psyche nonetheless remains strong. People are still nervous and afraid. Americans still worry that the world is a much more dangerous place now than it was in 2000 when the U.S. Supreme Court gift-wrapped the election for Dubya. And the American people are correct in this wisdom: it is a more dangerous place today, though due as much to the malevolence and incompetence of the Bush administration as to al Qaeda. They do make excellent partners in crime, don't they? Tailor-made to help each other recruit new followers. Sigh. But I digress yet again!

The economy may now be the most important issue to voters (where a "domestic" choice might help on the ticket, perhaps), but Iraq is a close second. And who knows what will happen between now and November 2008? What if there is another terrorist attack (God forbid!) on American soil? Or another huge foreign policy crisis?

John McCain holds at present a large advantage in that area. And that is no small advantage to have. The number one responsibility of the American President, without a doubt, is to be an effective Commander in Chief and to protect and defend this nation, its citizens, and its Constitution from harm. I am a classic liberal myself, but I see no contradiction here: surely American liberals, moderates, and conservatives can agree on this one, for once?!

I think Obama -- primarily due to his excellent judgment, even keel, thoughtful nature, and ability to learn and grow as a candidate and a leader -- would make a fine Commander in Chief as is. But I know that the Republicans will try to stoke just as much doubt in that as Hillary has tried to do in the primaries. Some reassurance vis-à-vis the Veep choice is very much in order. And probably crucial.

The Democrats will simply not be able to find in one person someone who is a woman, has tons of foreign policy experience, has tons of executive experience, telegenic, excellent "Bubba" appeal to that key demographic that Obama has been struggling with in the primaries, has good judgment, voted the right way from the beginning on the Iraq war, would help swing their home state into the Democratic column in November, would make a good President, and has no big skeletons in their closet. Won't happen. No one's perfect! So Obama will have to pick and choose from the available candidates.

So, without further preamble, here are my Top Ten (a nod to David Letterman here!) choices for running mate for Senator Obama. I present them in the classic way, in reverse order of preference -- just like The Fix does, for that matter!

10. Retired U.S. Army Four-Star General and Chief of Staff of the Army (1999-2003) Eric Shinseki (HI) (age 66)
9. Former U.S. Senator and Iraq Study Group member Bob Kerrey (NE) (age 65)
8. Retired U.S. Army Four-Star General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997-2001) Hugh Shelton (NC) (age 66)
7. Former Secretary of the Navy (1981-1982), highly decorated former U.S. Marine, and current U.S. Senator James Webb (VA) (age 62)
6. Retired U.S. Army Four-Star General and Supreme Commander of NATO and former (unsuccessful) presidential candidate (2004) Wesley Clark (OK) (age 64)
5. U.S. Senator, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and member of the Army National Guard and the Judge Advocate General Corps in his native state of Delaware, Joseph Biden (age 66)
4. U.S. Representative, current member of the Homeland Security Committee, former ranking Democratic (minority) member of the Intelligence Committee, and former (unsuccessful) gubernatorial candidate Jane Harman (CA) (age 63)
3. Retired U.S. Marines Four-Star General, former Commander in Chief of Central Command (CENTCOM), and current professor at Duke University's Terry Sanford Center for Public Policy Anthony Zinni (PA) (age 65)
2. Former Secretary of Defense (1997-2001), former U.S. Senator, former U.S. Representative, and bipartisan Republican William Cohen (ME) (age 68)

*** and Number One is... ***

1. Current (though voluntarily retiring in January 2009 after 12 years of service) U.S. Senator, former and highly decorated Army officer, and bipartisan Republican Chuck Hagel (NE)

Now the ugly but plain truth is that everyone on this list is white, and all but one are men. I looked first and foremost for the foreign policy / defense / national security experience, and secondarily at purely political factors. Given political realities in America today, I fear that American voters will have a hard time adapting to the amount of change that would come with two minorities on the ticket instead of one. Thus I ruled out Bill Richardson (but also because he is a dreadful public speaker and not even remotely telegenic). Also, I fear that the voters would have a hard time dealing with the presence of a woman on the ticket as Veep, even a white woman like Hillary Clinton (whom I ruled out for more reasons than I can count).

Nevertheless, I thought that General Shinseki's credentials (who told Congress in a public hearing at the outset of the Iraq War that we would need 300,000 troops to secure the country, not 1/3 of that many -- and was promptly fired by Rumsfeld for being so wise and honest) were so outstanding that I included him on my list despite being an Asian American from Hawaii.

Similarly, I thought that Rep. Jane Harman's credentials are so strong that I included her on my Veep list as well. (Although her previous AIPAC scandal and poor relations with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi don't bode well for Harman.)

Besides, having a woman for Veep is a toss-up in terms of harsh political realities, isn't it? Because it could also be a plus for the Democrats, admittedly, helping to mollify disgruntled Hillary supporters and perhaps even mobilizing more women to turn out and vote Democratic in November. Who knows? Hard to say.

But all other things being equal, Obama stands a better chance of getting more of the "Bubba" vote in November (poorly educated, white, male voters, especially Catholics and/or rural and urban ones (i.e. not suburban)) with a white male with strong defense credentials on the ticket. Especially against decorated war hero and Navy veteran John McCain. And especially in the Post-9/11 World. Sad but true.

Three of the four Generals (Shinseki, Shelton, and Zinni) are not well known outside of the rarified circles of political punditry. And that is indeed a problem. I'm sure Sen. Obama would prefer not to have his ultimate choice for Veep greeted by the American people with a deafening roar of "Who?"

Gen. Clark is much better known due to his unsuccessful but credible run for the Democratic nomination in 2004. And he has (or had) a strong following that "drafted" him into running, a la Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. That helps him out -- but he has some political baggage (forced into retirement by his superiors prematurely, political blunders like exchanging hats on camera with Serbian war criminal and mass murderer Ratko Mladic, as well as the infamous joke that he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had just returned his phone calls, etc.) that are potential distractions that Obama doesn't need.

Of the remaining five (Kerrey, Webb, Biden, Cohen, and Hagel) in my analysis of my own picks, all five of them have elected political office experience, which is usually considered a plus -- whereas the four generals were never elected to office. But these five have their weak spots as well.

Bob Kerrey is notoriously erratic and mercurial -- even wildly unpredictable at times -- and I have my doubts that this would sit well with Obama and his much calmer, easy-going, even-keeled demeanor.

Jim Webb, whom I used to consider my top Veep choice for Obama, faces a couple of serious obstacles to overcome. First of all, he has a somewhat infamous hot temper -- again, doesn't seem like a good fit with Obama, and I am sure that Obama would greatly prefer to pick someone who, if not temperamentally identical to him, was at least compatible.

Secondly, and worse for Webb, he has women problems. What I mean by that is primarily his much condemned article he wrote years ago about why women can't fight and shouldn't serve in combat positions in the military -- if at all. In the year where Hillary's supporters have had such high hopes for the first woman President ever, picking someone who is an easy target to be labeled a sexist is probably unwise, and perhaps even political suicide for Obama. The number one rule for picking a Veep (other than someone who would make a good President at need, of course) is basically the Hippocratic Oath of Presidential politics: do no harm! Veep choices often can hurt a Presidential candidate more than they help him. Just think of Thomas Eagleton in 1972 as Veep choice for George McGovern, for instance. Or Dan Quayle in 1992. As U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen said in a televised debate with Quayle, "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy." And so on.

Then there's Joe Biden. Joe, Joe, you perennial candidate! And what of the so-called plagiarism scandal of 1988? And your propensity to shoot your mouth off with alarming frequency? Like your statement on camera during the last few years that it would be fine if Roe v. Wade were overturned since all of the states would surely support the same policy? What about South Dakota and a slew of other states that have already restricted abortion as much as they could get away with? What a stupid, stupid remark. And I fear it is one of many by you. You've done many great things -- a long and distinguished career in the Senate, a knowledge of foreign policy that is second to none, author of the Violence Against Women Act, etc. -- but there are plenty of strikes against you. Too bad, really. Because you clearly have a lot to offer.

And now the two safest -- or riskiest? -- choices on my list: Republicans Chuck Hagel and Bill Cohen. I know of no scandals or examples of woefully poor judgment with regard to either of these men -- so they both meet the "do no harm" test better than most of the other eight on my list do. Both are seasoned politicians, highly successful candidates, moderate Republicans (a rarity in national politics these days!), with copious experience at national defense and foreign policy. Both are highly intelligent, well-educated, published authors. Both are well known for their willingness and ability to work across the aisle with Democrats. Both are "unifiers, not dividers," to coin a phrase (although conservative Republicans seethe with hatred for Hagel, we won't get their votes anyway). Both would be gutsy choices, given the fact they aren't Democrats. Which would be the better choice, then?

By a narrow decision, I think Hagel would be the better choice. Cohen is more moderate to liberal on domestic and social issues than Hagel is -- appealing to Democrats -- and Hagel's conservative record there could be a turn-off to the Democratic base. But what would they do? Vote for McCain instead of Obama because of this? I don't think so. The President sets policy, the Vice President follows. That's the way it has always been -- well, except for when Thomas Jefferson was John Adams' Vice President and did whatever he could to undermine Adams -- but that's another story entirely!

Cohen has superb credentials -- many years in the U.S. House and then in the U.S. Senate -- universally well-respected and well-liked -- and a fine and successful tenure as Secretary of Defense in Bill Clinton's second term in office. But being a fairly cerebral sort from Maine, I feel that the fact that he would be temperamentally very compatible with Obama is perhaps outweighed by two other factors. One, he's no spring chicken: he's 68, which is not much younger than John McCain. Could make it harder to make the "hope and change versus more of the same old Washington" Obama line stick against John McCain. And Cohen seems to be done with politics, though I certainly could be mistaken about that.

More importantly, being a New England moderate Republican who worked for Bill Clinton, it is possible that this would work against the Obama ticket in securing a wider appeal to the "Bubba vote."

So I think Cohen would be terrific on the ticket -- but Hagel just a bit better. Being from Nebraska, conservative on domestic / social issues, and very able to speak at length on Nebraska football, I think he would help Obama considerably with the "Bubba vote." And unlike Webb (who also would help there), Hagel would do no harm vis-à-vis women voters. Indeed, he is a ruggedly handsome sort, and speaks quite well. He would do fine on television. And it doesn't hurt at all that he is a highly decorated U.S. Army veteran -- much like McCain (Navy) and Webb (Marines).

What's more, Hagel clearly seems to "get it" about the environment, the crucial need to combat global warming and build a new green economy with America as a global leader. He gets it about how imperative it is to cease to swagger about the world like Dubya and Dick have. He understands international multilateralism, but at the same time will take second place to no one on the need to be clear-eyed and hard-nosed on national defense policy. Like Cohen, Zinni, and Shinseki, I believe he would work easily with Obama in terms of temperament. And Hagel is certainly no egomaniac like the current occupants of the White House: he is voluntarily leaving the Senate in January 2009 after 12 years of service -- exactly like he publicly promised to do in 1996. That is a lot more than many Congressional Republicans first elected in 1994 can say; so very many of them broke their promises to voters to retire after 6 years in office. Hagel keeps his word.

Better still, Senator Hagel has executive experience that Obama largely lacks. He has been a company CEO before. And he was Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs under President Ronald Reagan. Should help appeal to those "Reagan Democrats!" But unlike Webb, who had a similar situation under Reagan, Hagel did not leave office under a cloud (Reagan wrote in his diary that probably most folks at the Department of the Navy weren't sorry to see Webb go). In fact, when Hagel's superior, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs at the time, sought to obstruct Hagel's efforts to aid fellow Vietnam veterans suffering from Agent Orange, he was told that these veterans were being cry-babies and that it was no worse than a case of acne. Hagel resigned at once in protest. He is clearly a man of principle.

Now Hagel (and everyone else on this list) doesn't have the soaring rhetorical skills of a Barack Obama, able to inspire hope and adulation in millions of young voters, new voters, and so on. But who does? Obama is clearly the best at that of either party since Robert F. Kennedy ran for President in 1968. Better even than Reagan or Clinton. Count on it.

But this does not matter -- he won't overshadow Obama that way, which is a gift, actually. Remember when Lloyd Bentsen was a more impressive public speaker than Michael Dukakis in 1988? Ouch! No one needs that kind of problem.

Rather, Hagel adds just what is needed: gravitas. Scrupulously principled. An old hand at foreign policy. National defense experience. Able executive experience. Business and economics acumen -- besides being a CEO he's served on the Senate Banking Committee -- as well as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. No scandals for Hagel (that I know of, anyway). Across the aisle appeal. Appeal to Reagan Democrats, moderates, and independents -- reinforcing Obama's appeal there and combating McCain's appeal to the same folks. Bubba appeal. Appeal to senior citizens. Someone you would like to sit down and have a drink with. Modest and self-effacing. But he's still absolutely brilliant. That sort of thing. A good immunization against Senator McCain's core appeal. And Hagel's not at all too old for the job at age 62.

The biggest problems I see? First, he's not a woman. Duh. Can't have everything in just one person, though, as I've already argued above.

Second, he and McCain are supposed to be good friends. It might be quite hard to get him to run against his old Senate buddy. That old boys club is a tight one.

But you never know. In a November 2007 interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator Hagel clearly stated that, despite (or perhaps because of?) deciding that he himself would not run for President, he would consider being Obama's Vice Presidential running mate. Or serving in an Obama cabinet. It's a wild and wooly and wonderful year in American politics. One can only imagine how this will all turn out...stay tuned!

(c) 2008 by David R. Tucker

Posted by: David in Durham, NC | May 10, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

I see kingofzouk really had some time to play today.

And this is your idol, proud. How pathetic.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 9, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP:

That's right! I forgot that I'd heard Ridge's name mentioned. What a disaster that would be. Almost as bad -- Joe Lieberman.

If non-traditional is in this year, maybe McCain will go with Crist. Or maybe John Hoeven ...

Posted by: mnteng | May 9, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Pawlenty without a doubt will run with McCain. It will also help the Repubs keep Colemen's seat. (even though Franken is pretty much guaranteing that to happen)

As for Obama he should choose either Obermann, Cafferty, Russert, or Matthews.

Posted by: Badger | May 9, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

For McCain, who is like a fish out of water when it comes to economics, Mitt Romney is CLEARLY his only choice. Romney understands that better than 75% of this country is fed up with the cost of "living" which breaks down into many sub-categories like energy (why IS crude $120+/barrel anyway?), taxes, health care costs, and on and on. The fact that we're also in a trillion-dollar quagmire that is bankrupting the country isn't helping anything. The dollar is so worthless right now that I've heard 75% of the visitors to Disneyworld are foreign nationals. The USA is a cheap vacation!

For Obama, I sincerely believe that Hillary would not be his 1st choice nor his best. He's going to need someone from the South, and it could be Webb, it could even be John Edwards. I could see Nun as his Sec Defense, and Edwards could wind up as Attorney General. While not southerners, I could also see Wes Clark or Bob Kerrey as VP fodder. Clark has a very impressive resume and should not be thought of only as a military guy although he certainly would be a great person to have to kick around what Obama should do with winding down Iraq. Kerrey's also has a decent resume, and has been both a senator and a governor... so he'd have some good admin advice to offer.

In Obama's case, I really think the "concern" about needing Billaray's constituency is bunk. Assuming the deal is over in 2-3 weeks, the Democrats have months to heal, and the simple truth is no true democrat is going to cross over to support McCain because right or wrong, he'll be painted as an extension of George W. Bush's policies.

Posted by: drgrafix | May 9, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

For McCain, who is like a fish out of water when it comes to economics, Mitt Romney is CLEARLY his only choice. Romney understands that better than 75% of this country is fed up with the cost of "living" which breaks down into many sub-categories like energy (why IS crude $120+/barrel anyway?), taxes, health care costs, and on and on. The fact that we're also in a trillion-dollar quagmire that is bankrupting the country isn't helping anything. The dollar is so worthless right now that I've heard 75% of the visitors to Disneyworld are foreign nationals. The USA is a cheap vacation!

For Obama, I sincerely believe that Hillary would not be his 1st choice nor his best. He's going to need someone from the South, and it could be Webb, it could even be John Edwards. I could see Nun as his Sec Defense, and Edwards could wind up as Attorney General. While not southerners, I could also see Wes Clark or Bob Kerrey as VP fodder. Clark has a very impressive resume and should not be thought of only as a military guy although he certainly would be a great person to have to kick around what Obama should do with winding down Iraq. Kerrey's also has a decent resume, and has been both a senator and a governor... so he'd have some good admin advice to offer.

In Obama's case, I really think the "concern" about needing Billaray's constituency is bunk. Assuming the deal is over in 2-3 weeks, the Democrats have months to heal, and the simple truth is no true democrat is going to cross over to support McCain because right or wrong, he'll be painted as an extension of George W. Bush's policies.

Posted by: drgrafix | May 9, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

how about Rendell? Casey? I thought Rendell's support of Hillary was ardent, yet gracious. He never supported the argument that Obama can't win. Plus he's good on the stump.

Posted by: Patrick | May 9, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

For all the harping about Webb's fiction writing, people seem to forget that Lynn Cheney, Dick's wife, wrote a novel with lesbian sex scenes in it.

Posted by: mjames2 | May 9, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm a huge fan of Sherrod Brown, but he explicitly promised in 2006 never to run for national office.

Cantwell is a joke. She brings nothing and isn't well liked even here in WA. She's been placed at a NY party with cocaine and Courtney Love. It's rumored she's lesbian or bisexual, and her fondness for late night partying is well known in DC. Even bland, meek Patty Murray, who's much more popular here and wins reelection more easily, would be better.

How about Lincoln Chafee?? :D He also voted against the war and came out for Obama some time ago.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 9, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Feinstein is way too old--well into her 70s. She's never been very good and sucks enthusiasm from liberals.

I'd be curious to hear some discussion of Claire McCaskill.

Bill Bradley might be a decent running mate indeed.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 9, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Sam Nunn will be 70 in September. He seems too old to me, just as McCain is. How about Bob Kerrey? Military and foreign policy experience, also unconventional, and from a red state Obama won in the caucuses like Sebelius.

That said, I like Kaine, Strickland, and Sebelius. I don't think Clinton works as a running mate, but certainly a Clinton supporter seems within reason. Strickland might be able to claim a little foreign policy experience as a 14 year House member. Portman vs. Strickland, both from southern Ohio, would be interesting. I can't remember when we had 2 national candidates from the same state before. Bentsen and Bush were both Texans, but not running for the same office. Was Sargent Shriver from MD?

No more Anthony Zinni, huh?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | May 9, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Someone else said it, but I think Bill Bradley and Obama would make a fine team. Nunn would be good too.

Posted by: johng1 | May 9, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Considering the fact that McCain will make Obama's lack of foreign policy experience a big issue and highlight his own military experience, I think a very strong VP candidate for Obama to seriously consider would be Wes Clark.

Posted by: bsmd | May 9, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

For Obama, Tim Kaine has to be considered a top choice. He will help Obama deal with his faith issue. Sebelius is an obvious choice, as it wins over women that Hillary has had. Plus, Sebelius must do well with the white working class as she has won statewide in Kansas twice. She is a popular 2 term governor, so that adds executive experience to the ticket. Kaine & Sebelius are Obama's best options for VP.

Tim Pawlenty is the best option for McCain. A popular 2-term governor of Minn, a purple state. He has balanced a budget and is known as a cost cutter. He has 6 years worth of executive experience already as governor of Minn. The Republican Convention will be held in St. Paul. My dark horse is SC governor Mark Sanford. Sanford or Crist would be great picks for McCain. All have chief executive experience & bona fides on the economy. Rob Portman may be too associated with the Bush administration policy.

My Rankings:
Republicans:
1. Tim Pawlenty
2. Charlie Crist
3. Mark Sanford
4. Robert Portman
5. Mitt Romney

Democrats:
1. Kathleen Sebelius
2. Tim Kaine
3. Jim Webb
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Sam Nunn

Posted by: reason | May 9, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA - BLOOMBERG '08!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

For Obama, how about John Kerry? I know that Obama, who's been cast as an elist, could do better than to pick Kerry as a running mate but as someone who will always appeal to the liberal base and has the foreign policy experience to counter McCain, Kerry would be an interesting choice!

Posted by: jcl79 | May 9, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised Ed Rendell isn't on your list. That would be an olive branch to Hillary supporters. He would be a huge boost to getting Reagan Democrats. Ohio, realistically, is much less in play than Pennsylvania, which did go Dem the last two years. Given Obama's trouble in Pennsylvania, he could use Rendell to push him over the top. Rendell would also do well in Ohio, Indiana, and other states with white working-class voters.

Posted by: NM | May 9, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

With all the talk of Obama's blue collar gap I am surprised that Jim Webb a true scion of the working class doesn't head your list .With the release of his second
eulogy to working class values "Time to Fight" he will be well placed to counter any charges of elitism that the Admiral's
son will level at the ticket. Jim fills in the gap in quite a few areas .Veteran & Republican -Indy appeal ,border Southern identity & a non-nuanced approach to issues .If you want change James Webb is the choice

Posted by: mike | May 9, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised at your inclusion of Sam Nunn. How old is he?

He has been all but absent from the national scene. When was the last time you saw him speaking on any national issue?

Posted by: Krishna | May 9, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

1. biden- Delaware and Catholics
2. casey- PA. and Catholics
3. richardson- together they make one one guy and a Gov. and Ambassador

I think you have a great column and it is a pleasure to read your take on things

Posted by: mitch kaplan | May 9, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans need to select someone youthful - Romney is the perfect candidate for all of the obvious reasons. If people can overlook his Mormonism that is. They need a ticket that can beat Obama because the Dems will be all over McCain's age. McCain needs to portray himself as a much needed change - and back away from Bush as soon as possible or else he isn't going to have a chance. The Clintonistas will certainly back McCain/Romney anyday over Obama...at least the ones I know of.

Posted by: LionsWatch | May 9, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"Webb is perceived as misogynist given his trashy writing."

I'm not going to argue the mysogeny perception, but aren't his books supposed to be highly acclaimed?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 9, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I'm a little surprised about your rankings. On the Democratic side my first pick is the same as yours. You see Gov. Sebelius interview once and you know she's the one.

My first pick for the Republican side would be Romney. His mastery of economics, his age and telegenic good looks are all pluses for the ticket.

Posted by: piktor | May 9, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I'm a little surprised about your rankings. On the Democratic side my first pick is the same as yours. You see Gov. Sebelius interview once and you know she's the one.

My first pick for the Republican side would be Romney. His mastery of economics, his age and telegenic good looks are all pluses for the ticket.

Posted by: piktor | May 9, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

While I like the idea of a straight shooter, Webb is perceived as misogynist given his trashy writing. His nomination would be an affront to women's lib HRC supporters.

MaryG @4:24, I'm with you, Clark is a better recommendation.

Your post is a breather in this forum, the trollery here is getting tiresome.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

LOUDandDUMB: smart thinking! daaaaaaaaa.........

Posted by: Mayce | May 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

It might have been mentioned in the long list of comments but I would like to reiterate that Sebelius's father was governor of Ohio......

Posted by: gltoffic | May 9, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Vice Presidents for Obama: (not in any order of preference)
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Al Gore
3. Mike Bloomberg
4. Ed Rendell
5. the 5 people on the Fix List
6. John Edwards
7. Nancy Polesi

Sec. of States:
1. John McCain
2. Joe Biden
3. Bill Richardson
4. Hillary Clinton

Sec. of Commerce
1. mike Bloomberg

Sec of Energy
1. Al Gore

Sec of Labor.
John Edwards

Sec of Urban Development
John Edwards

this is a list of just some interesting yet powerful people for a obama administartion


obviously i have not looked at some more 'behind the stage' candidates yet

Posted by: Sean Foots | May 9, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I think Sebelius ruined her chances with her less-than-spectacular delivery of the Democrats' response to the Stat of the Union. I like the idea of Ted Strickland -- but I'd see him turning the offer down becuase he will only have been governor for six years. I'm wondering if there is another person like him who has foreign policy credentials, comes from a swing state, appeals to working class voters, and will be able to boost Obama. Jim Webb seems too much of a loose cannon. Any ideas?

Posted by: David Meyer | May 9, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm a KS Republican who has voted for Sebelius twice. People from outside KS actually are much too impressed by her being elected Governor twice in a Republican state. It's actually quite common for KS to elect a Democratic Governor - about as often as a Republican.

What non-Kansans don't realize is that KS is a three party state consisting of Social Conservative Republicans, Moderate Republicans, and Democrats. It's pretty simple. When the Republicans nominate a Moderate that candidate gets the Moderate R vote and the Conservatives aren't happy, but vote for the Moderate R as the lesser of two evils. When the R nominee is a Conservative many of the Moderates vote for the Dem and the Den wins. Sebelius is just the latest of many Dems to win elections against Social Conservative Republican nominees.

Posted by: tedjv | May 9, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

mnteng, I hope it's not Condi or , God forbid, Tom Ridge I've heard rumored. (Sometimes I think Larry Sabato needs his head examined)

I wouldn't put it past him to pick someone completely different than anyone would think. Non-traditional is good this year.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

You missed the other important part of the Sebelius equation:

She's from Cincinnati, as is her father, former OH governor, John Gilligan.

Thus, you get a twofer with Kathleen -- Kansas and Ohio. That makes her a very strong contender.

Posted by: JohnCincy | May 9, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Bill Bradley would be a good running mate for Barack.

Posted by: Jeff | May 9, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Stop using my old name LOUD and DUMB. I retired that one when I became spectator2. Anyone can tell it is not me by the substance and reason.
My poltroon union only allows up to two lines of nonsense per post. you are not fooling anyone.

Ooops, I may have gone over.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 9, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Mayce, you don't want your VP to seem more substantial than you are - the Dan quayle effect. Mickey is out. How about Pee Wee Herman? As a Dem, that theater stunt can be worn as a badge of courage.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 9, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP:

Thanks for your comments on Jindal. As an Asian-American, I'd be ecstatic to see him on the ticket with McCain. I'm not sure why (culture? language?), but there are very few Asian-Americans at the highest level of government. And some I'd like to forget (Elaine Chao? Ugh.). It's even worse in the judiciary. So, it's great to think that barrier might be knocked down too. But, of course, I couldn't vote for McCain because of Jindal because I'd be called a racist on these boards. ;)

To revive an old train of thought, is there any viable VP candidate that you wouldn't want to see on McCain's ticket? A present-day Dan Quayle?

Posted by: mnteng | May 9, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"One data point doesn't make a trend."

How about a few more:
Kennedy, Durbin, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Dodd, Byrd, Biden, ...well this is a really long list but you get the idea.

I think I see a trend forming.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 9, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I think Mickey Mouse would be a fitting candidate for Obama's VP slot. They are a perfect match and Mickey Mouse gives the Dems someone of substance to vote for.

Posted by: Mayce | May 9, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I know you're probably new to this, one of the few and the proudtobeGOP, but it's common custom to show where you're getting your data from.

Posted by: OddjobXL | May 9, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey LOUD and DUMB -- congratulations, you're living up to your name. One data point doesn't make a trend. Look at real trend data and you'll see what the reality truly is.

Posted by: rlkinny | May 9, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Say what you want about McCain, at least his ears are working. He understands the enemy we face and he seems to have heard about his error on immigration. now if only he corrects his bad behavior on free speech he might become acceptable.

but in an election when you are running against a neophyte uber-liberal kook who seems to despise america, the expectations can be quite low for victory.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 9, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Ahead in West Virginia...by 43 Points!!

Clinton 66%
Obama 23%
Someone Else 5%
Undecided 6%


The other killer tidbit: "45% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary." (NEVER be the operative word here.)

I'm just curious how Team Obama and Andrew Sullivan are going to spin this beyond calling the good people of West Virginia a bunch of racists (I mean, even if they were in the Klan, presumably they get the same pass on that as Senator Byrd--because they're still Democrats). Ha!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

exactly what private sector experience does John McCain have?

Posted by: | May 9, 2008 5:37 PM

Why do you think Libs like him and cons don't? At least he was in the military, a decent compromise. not sitting in the church absorbing hate. Obama is either deaf or dumb. I wonder if he heard that there are Islamists trying to kill us, or is that kind of talk just regular old church talk to him? so he will either not hear it or ignore it. Just like carter and clinton did. maybe deaf and dumb, and by dumb I mean stupid.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 9, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Webb is a DINO and committed treason along with the majority in Congress when they voted for the unconstitutional FISA extension, among other unconstitutional laws.

He's a hawk. He may know how to fight a war better than Bush/cheney, but he is a hawk nonetheless.

We need peace mongers in office, now more than ever.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT | May 9, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Janet Napolitano of Arizona would be a great pick. A smack at McCain, as she's from his home state! And it's serious red country.

I also like Tim Kaine, it would resonate in the South. Or Bob Casey, who worked hard to close the gap in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Working in the private sector is "the kiss of death for liberals."?

Not hardly. Maria Cantwell won re-election pretty handlily in 2006 in Washington State. And since it was implied in Loud and Dumb's post that only liberals live on the public dole, exactly what private sector experience does John McCain have?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The only problem with those VP picks and with McCain himself is they are all Republicans.

No one in their right mind will vote for that in November.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT | May 9, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Jim Webb is the best choice for Obama.

Posted by: Me | May 9, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

XL, Scooter's not on anybody short list for VP, you moron. Nobody cares if he wrote in Penthouse forum. Besides, they'd probably cheer him on.

Senator Webb won't pass vetting by any number of standards. He's one sick puppy. But, go ahead, make my day and pick him, Barry.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

considering that HRC is probably going to be a non-starter, the only person up there on the Dems list with good foreign policy credentials is Nunn, who i had never heard mentioned until Carter suggested it last week. therefore while those are all great candidates, i think that Wes Clark (or another retired general, I've heard a few others mentioned) or Jim Webb (who despite limited senate experience but military and govt before that) are more likely than many of those on the line - or at least are better picks for Obama to make. Clark helps with Clinton supporters much as Strickland would, and Webb has great republican / indy appeal. another good pick would be Biden, who has great foreign policy + senate experience; while his differing views on Iraq could be a problem, it could actually help with voters to show that Obama wanted to bring together different voices on the issue and actually fix the situation. finally bill richardson and evan bayh (after the IN dust has settled) both over exec experience as governors and foreign policy credentials, and are good for appealing to hispanics in richardon's case and heartland / working class voters in bayh's case.

Posted by: corey | May 9, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Sam Nunn was against the 1st Gulf War when even the French were for it. That was a necessary war. If Nunn spoke out about the Bush recreational invasion of Iraq in 2003 I didn't hear about it. Nunn and John Kerry were the only Dems I know who got it wrong both times.

Another argument that experience is no substitute for judgement.


Kaine or Webb from Virginia jump out instantly from any list of potentials. They are like Mount Rushmore figures compared to the names you mention.

Posted by: walden | May 9, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey, proudtobeGOP, if you don't know the difference between writing fiction and real life then I suppose you can't relate to the reality based community. Would explain alot. That said, what do you think of these gems of conservative prose? Somewhat NSFW via the New Yorker:


http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/07/051107ta_talk_collins

Posted by: OddjobXL | May 9, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

You all use to talk about Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, can you start that rumor back up again, we hope McCain picks him as the VEEP, he's a lousy Governor, let's put it this way he's a good a Governor as Lindsey Graham is a Senator they both belong in DC any place but here in South Carolina is fine with me, I think Lindsey out to go on active duty and spend a year in Iraq myself, and since Sanford enlisted in the reserves after 9/11 President Bush out to activate him Somalia sounds like a nice place for him to go to

Posted by: mikey30919 | May 9, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

And who could forget the little incident at the Capital, just one year ago now... when Senator Webb threw his aide under the bus to cover his own a$$ after smuggling his handgun in a briefcase.

In what amounted to a heinous display of cowardice, Senator Webb wasted no time in going before the cameras, holding a news conference during which he denied giving the gun to the aide.

But, his aide said that Senator Webb had given him the weapon and that it belonged to Webb!

So here is Jim Webb facing the cameras with the dilemma of his life. He clearly has a much more conservative viewpoint on the Second Amendment than most of his Democrat colleagues. Yet his top aide has been arrested for committing the unpardonable sin as far as some in his Party are concerned--he brought one of those evil, concealed weapons right into the Capitol!


Webb has yet to strongly defend the actions of his aide. Yet he has not condemned him, either. Walking this tightrope is the curse of being in a party run by extremist liberals.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

The Feinstein suggestion is a good one. If nothing else, she is someone with principles who should be a good match for the image that Obama is trying to project. After all, when the Clinton/Lewinsky nonsense was raging, Feinstein was the only female Democrat who actually came out and said what Bill had done was wrong. I may disagree with her politics, but I have great respect for her and her willingness to go against everyone else in the party who was willing to excuse the whole thing as "boys will be boys" or to deflect the focus to a "vast right wing conspiracy."

After Hillary's behavior during this primary season, I will not vote for any ticket with which she is associated in any way. I will vote for McCain or anybody else who might be running that has a reasonable chance of defeating a ticket with a Clinton on it.

Posted by: gko | May 9, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"She was vice president of marketing for six years at RealNetworks"

the kiss of death for liberals. working for an evil profiteering corporation and not on the dole as the rest of the Lib leadership has done their entire life.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 9, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Finestein

McCain/Coulter

Posted by: cowanl | May 9, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"Either that or he's been lifting the Johnny Walker two times to every one for Ted Kennedy."

shows what you know Proud. FYI it's Rebel Yell and Chevis, repectively.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 9, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Mark Warner would be a strong choice for Obama. However, perhaps more out of hope than realism, I'll mention another possibility: Senator Maria Cantwell.

Cantwell is not well known outside her home state of Washington, but that's true of a lot of the people on this list. Although Washington is likely to go for Obama anyway, she was born and raised in Indiana, so she could potentially help carry that state. What's more, she's no political lightweight. She has as much time in the U.S. Senate as Clinton -- both having been elected in 2000 -- and, given her term in the U.S. House and her time previously in the Washington legislature, she has much more experience in public office than Clinton. But unlike Clinton, she's still fairly young at 49, so she'd be a viable successor in eight years. As a female who supports Clinton, she'd help draw back a lot of Clinton voters. She has stong environmental credentials, having led a major battle to prevent drilling in ANWR. One big negative: like Clinton, she voted for the Iraq War, albeit with a lot of publicly-stated caveats prior to her vote.

However, in one respect she appears to have an advantage that it seems no other Democrat named here has: private sector executive experience. She was vice president of marketing for six years at RealNetworks before she was persuaded to run for the Senate. This would give the Democrats a leg up in an area where they haven't had one in a while.

The biggest question with Cantwell is... would she want the job?

Posted by: cabd | May 9, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"he also gaveled in the Senate every time the rest of them couldn't make it in to work"

That's right! No wonder Senator Webb has such a strong, manly, right arm. Either that or he's been lifting the Johnny Walker two times to every one for Ted Kennedy.

Maybe after he loses his re-election bid or gets picked up for veep and dooms the ticket, he can go back to writing - The Adventures of Captain Blowhard.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

If you flyover rubes vote for me, I will make sure you get to keep your guns and gods.

(Is that elitist? I am not sure.)

Posted by: snObama | May 9, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

jim webb for all the reasons stated above plus an obama/webb ticket produces an enormous positive emotional/gut feeling. webb would help offset florida by cementing swing states like virginia and colorado. they would make a great team.

Posted by: i.b.sage | May 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Wow - Will Jones - Atlanta

you know some really big words. you are me hero.

did I meet you in the stall at Hartfield?

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 9, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

My choice for Dem VP is Bob Casey. He is attractive, smart, articulate, a bona fide Catholic, popular and from a big iffy state. And looks all those things on TV. Sam Nunn would be my other choice for all the reasons you gave. Unfortunately, he is past his time. Clinton is poison. The others - Kaine, Sibelius,Strickland - are just too dull and inarticulate. They are good people but pedestrian. (Is that elitist? I am not sure.) Please put Casey on your list.

Posted by: JiaLi | May 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Jim Webb is the man we need to perfect the Obama presidential ticket. Nunn's time and connections are past.

While Nunn's Coast Guard experience was no doubt enjoyable and honorable at the time he went, those "of a certain age" know enough to consider that Jim Webb, a highly decorated combat Marine officer, author and public servant whose electoral victory over a racist, anti-Semitic poser is instructive of, and qualified to lead the task we have ahead: identifying the frauds, racists, criminals and traitors of the Fifth Column...for the most part hiding within the GOP...who have hijacked America to feed their perversions and enrich the obvious fascist plutocracy Sam Nunn has done nothing to correct, let alone extirpate...and get them out of office, behind bars where appropriate, or tried, convicted and swinging for their treason.

Jim Webb is a man. Those of us with sons would like to see a new day dawn in America where moms and dads can look forward to a time when being a complete man is expected as "normal," appreciated and not discouraged...when the concerted efforts of pervert Beta Males, like homosexual draft-dodger George Bush, his secrect societies with their homosexual rituals and bondage, is rejected with its Roman Catholic pedophile priesthood as inconsistent with America's Ideals, the Pioneer Spirit that shaped us, and the best interests of Truth, Justice, Righteousness and Grace in the U.S. at home and around the world.

Should we not cultivate a moral, honorable spirit in America? Why should our military need to fill its ranks with illegal immigrants and foreigners looking for citizenship?

Military service should attract the best of our blood. Are the brightest and best willing to place their lives at sacrifice in combat when the perfidy of false war begun by treason is fully understood, and only those willing to fight are sociopaths, thugs, mercenaries, and the unenlightened?

Jim Webb has proved himself worthy of America.

In eight years a Webb election would build well on President Obama's and continue the long journey we have to restore Our Nation's Treasure, Mottoes, and Honor.

www.theamericanfundament.blogspot.com

Posted by: Will Jones - Atlanta | May 9, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans love Palin, but she's unknown and being a Republican from Alaska conjures up images of all kinds of ethical challenges (not for her personally, but what did she know and when did she know it)."

Not only that, but she's got 2 years as governor of one of the smallest states in the union, and before that two terms as Mayor of Wasilla (pop 5,000). Saying she is qualified to be President (the ONLY true standard for selecting a VP) undermines what will be the main line of attack against Obama for Republicans. Same goes for Jindal. He's got more outside of government experience, but still just a short time in Congress and a year as Governor ain't going to cut it with the campaign these guys want to run.

I think Republicans need a solid ocnservative who will put the right more at ease, probably a current governor (again, the two senators thing just doesn't work IMO), and younger, but not too young to contrast too much with McCain. I'm thinking:

Mike Rounds (SD)
Mark Sanford (SC)
Haley Barbour (MS)

if not on this list, Portman or Romney would be the next tier, the former before the latter.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 9, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Coolest April In 11 Years
The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. National Climatic Data Center

al gore call your office. Your 15 minutes is up! Another messianic Lib flops due to reality creep. guess who's next?

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 9, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"After reading many of these posts, I see that many of Hillary's supporters are just like her...crass, negative, threatening bullies."

Like I said: HRC supporters don't much like Latte drinking, starry-eyed, Obama-freaks who claim dislike for their candidate is equivalent to racism either. I will find it very difficult to cast a vote for someone who I feel will be a disatorous President (see Jimmy Carter). I won't vote for McCain either. If Obama refues to put Hillary on the ballot I would probably just not vote for President. Nader? I hate that guy. Libertarian? Not on the ballot in NC.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama should NOT select Joe Biden or anyone else who voted for the Iraq war resolution! Obama's early opposition to the catastrophic war is a strength in the general election campaign, which would be squandered should he select someone like Biden.

Posted by: John | May 9, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

What does Obama need?

(1) Older White Women who supported Clinton
(2) California and it's Latino Voters
(3) The Jewish Vote
(4) Someone with extensive (especially Foreign Policy) experience
(5) Someone the Clinton's will support (especially their big California donors)

Who fits the bill? Obviously, he must pick Dianne Feinstein.

Posted by: Independent Voter 15 | May 9, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"crass, negative, threatening bullies."

that is otherwise known as the Liberal base. but their power is waning fast. Even Obama is begging to be seen on fox now.

Too bad for Krazy Keith, his days are numbered.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 9, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Be fair, Proud, he also gaveled in the Senate every time the rest of them couldn't make it in to work.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | May 9, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

After reading many of these posts, I see that many of Hillary's supporters are just like her...crass, negative, threatening bullies.

Wow, I will be glad to see her go!

Posted by: Susan | May 9, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Vice Presidential Candidates 2008

Republican- Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Senator TX

Democrat- Jim Webb, Senator VA

http://jamestshirley.blogspot.com/
I posted this as 'Chip' earlier.

Posted by: James T Shirley | May 9, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

What about GEORGE MITCHELL? Nobody is talking about him, but he's got great credentials. Loads of foreign policy experience (helped broker the Irish peace deal) both in DC and outside. Known for working across party lines and resolving sticky situations. Respected by almost everyone. High level of integrity (Led the baseball steroid investigations). Moderate. Prior Senate Majority Leader.

Sounds like a perfect match. Am I missing something?

Posted by: ballin1 | May 9, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I hope Obama does pick Webb as his VP. The only reason the guy won his Senate seat is because of a horrible gaffe by his opponent that happened to be caught on camera . Maccaca is Jim Webb's only accomplishment. Without that, he'd still be standing in front of a mic somewhere with a pair of tan boots thrown over a rifle, reading from one of his novels.

Aside from unanimous passage of a bill to name Gloucester, Virginia's Main Street post office in honor of the late Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis, Webb's Senate career has been unremarkable.

He is better known for his prurient writing, as recently as 2001 -his novel recounted an episode involving a father and young son in Thailand...

"A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red they appeared burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from the little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy's penis in his mouth."

In "Fields of Fire" (1978) Webb includes a rape scene: "Dan dared to crush her to him and she acquiesced and he marveled at it, could not understand it. But he felt a sense of total power from the knowledge that she despised him and what he stood for, and yet was unable to restrain her nether parts from seeking him."


Yeah, that's VP material all right.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"

You keep putting our governor, Pawlenty, at the top of the list. You also keep calling him TPau or something like that. NOBODY CALLS HIM THAT HERE!

Furthermore, Minnesotans are sooooooooo angry at Bush...you really can't imagine the depth and intensity...that Obama will be a shoo-in.

All of this you would know if you ever actually visited here."
-------------------------------------------
I love this post. It shows how little CZ knows. CZ is truly an inside the beltway guy, who lacks the fundamental understanding that politics is about understanding people. To understand people, you actually need to go visit people.

Finally, Pawlenty is a joke. He is a weak person, and he is not fit to be President. McCain is senile, but his advisers are smart enough not to put such a weak person on the ticket.

Posted by: GoHuskies08 | May 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

My mudpies are my greatest accomplishment.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 9, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Sebelius, Kaine and Strickland have 0 foreign policy experience. Any of those three would be a disastrous pick for an already foreign policy-challenged Obama. Nunn has been out of the Senate so long that he is not a credible VP candidate because anyone under 45 probably doesn't even remember or know who he is. Hillary -- no way. Also, hate to be politically incorrect, but Obama has to have a white male as VP.

While I don't support Obama in any way, if I were recommending possible VP candidates to him, I would suggest John Edwards (helps immensely with the so-called "Bubba" vote that clearly views Obama with suspicion); Joe Biden (solid Washington credentials PLUS huge foreign policy experience that Obama desparately needs); or Gov. Richardson (helps Obama with the Hispanic vote where Obama is weak, and also beefs up foreign policy credentials).

Posted by: Sam | May 9, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

If HRC voters follow through with their assertions that they will vote for McCain in the fall, she will truly go down in political history.

Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, Hillary Clinton, Strom Thurmond, George McGovern, Ralph Nader.

Not the list she'd hope to be on.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

No list necessary, here are the two VPs. Give me my cred' when it's over...

Republican- Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Senator TX

Democrat- Jim Webb, Senator VA

Posted by: Chip | May 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm an elderly woman, a Democrat who voted for Barack Obama. But I have wishes for good candidates for both parties, with the idea that either party might win, and in both cases I want the result to work out well for the country.

For the Republicans, one of the two candidates I thought would work out best for the country actually won the nomination. Now I'm hoping for the other one to get the Vice-Presidential nomination: Mike Huckabee. He's conservative and that ought to appeal to most of the Republican base, but that isn't the reason I'm hoping for him. It's his personal character, which shines through with every appearance he's ever made. He is a man of high integrity and he has enough self-confidence to stick with doing the right thing, in spite of all the old normal political pressures of the old politics. He might not appeal to Rush Limbaugh, but would attract more than enough crossover voters to make up for that.

It doesn't hurt a bit that Mike Huckabee has a lot of practical experience for running things, and the intelligence to think creatively, assets that both ordinary and elected Democrats in his state recognized when working with him. Americans are looking for change and a McCain-Huckabee ticket would at least give Democrats a good run in that area. Mike Huckabee, whether you agree with his policy positions or not (often I don't!) will be doing what he can see is the moral thing to do for the country. If something should happen to John McCain in office and the Vice-President had to assume the Presidency, Mike Huckabee would be qualified in every way to do the job, and the country would have no trouble uniting behind him. (His idea for a marriage amendment probably wouldn't pass, and a few other things wouldn't get through Congress... but he would get along well with both parties in Congress. Not underhanded at all, he would enjoy the trust of politicans on both sides of the aisle.)

I'm a Democrat and a huge admirer of Barack Obama. But if something happens that he can't win, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would make me the happiest about the political condition of the country. (Whatever pundits might say to Senator McCain that Huckabee is too conservative to appeal to Democrats and independents is just wrong. Mike Huckabee is the Republican with the most crossover appeal, once you actually listen to him, as opposed to listening to the pundits. Example: listen to his speech to the Detroit Economic Club.) A happy note: his guitar-playing at rallies would be one symbol of change and attract crowds of independents, youth, and potential crossover voters.

For Barack Obama's running mate, I heard a name mentioned on MSNBC the other night, someone I hadn't thought of previously, and as soon as I heard it, it instantly made good sense: Wesley Clark. Lots of other Democrats would be good too, but I can think of no weakness at all if Wesley Clark is the choice. I'll support whomever Barack Obama chooses, but Wesley Clark is my suggestion.

The most important asset is that Wesley Clark would make a great President, should something happen to a President Obama. Other assets: he has campaigned nationally and learned a thing or two about doing it. He's not a particularly partisan person--it took him awhile after leaving the military to decide which party to join--and he has a national following composed of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. There are plenty of implications to this: he'll for sure be putting the interests of the country before the Democratic Party, something the country yearns for with politicians in both parties. His honor and integrity are beyond reproach.

The high military job he previously held means that as he was coming up through the ranks he learned to take orders and to excecute those orders well. There's no chance he'd busy himself with trying to micromanage the Presidency from a seat in the Vice-President's chair. He would also know enough to carry out special assignments given to him by the President, and to carry them out well.

The particular job he once held in the military involved both war and political negotiations involving that war in foreign countries. There's no chance he doesn't know how unexpected complications can arise, no chance he doesn't know that how you treat people matters, no chance he doesn't know how to measure his words carefully. And no chance he doesn't know the implications of going to war.

We are going to have to rebuild our military, and the President is Commander-in-Chief. He will, of course, be listening to the Joint Chiefs, but it wouldn't hurt at all if the Vice-President were an extremely knowledgeable person sitting just outside of the command chain to offer another objective opinion on what the options will be.

Before hearing Wesley Clark's name mentioned, I'd thought up a bunch of people with executive experience, as offering the "how to" knowledge and advice that would be helpful to a President Obama. But Wesley Clark would have that kind of skill too--it just wouldn't have originated from a Governor's chair. You have to have organizational skills to run an army.

Finally, Wesley Clark has a temperment that would fit with Barack Obama well. He's a measured and thoughtful person, and more than a little bit intelligent. He's a uniter, not a divider. He has no long history within politics, so much of the dirty tricks part of politics is not second nature to him. Second nature to Wesley Clark would be Duty, Honor, Country. Although a President Obama didn't come up through the military, he's not into dirty tricks either; Duty, Honor, and Country is what his candidacy is all about.

Posted by: MaryG | May 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Mike Steele's love for puppies is the most substantive thing on his resume.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 9, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Looking, just out of curiosity, why are you so certain that Obama cannot carry Virginia, under any circumstances? Is it the strong DOD/Navy presence that will go heavily McCain?

Posted by: JD | May 9, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Bloomberg, why else would he change status to independent?

Posted by: piper | May 9, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

The wiseacre in me says that Obama's VP needs to help with the white working class.

How about an out-of-the-gear-box choice to ensure he carries 45 states?

Obama-Dale Earnhardt, Jr. 2008

That might force McCain to partner up with Larry the Cable Guy.

I'd PAY to see that VP debate.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 9, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama has zero chance of winning Virginia against John McCain. No matter what he does. It makes no difference even he picks Mark Warner, Jim Webb or Tim Kaine. It may make race closer because Mark Warner will also be in the ballot, that's about it.

Just forget about Bill Richardson. He just went to see Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez of all the people. Free-lancer like him does not cut with Regan white democrats. He may have great resumes on paper, thanks to Clinton but he is just very terrible campaigner. If Obama wants to lose 40 states, he will pick Richardson.

Let's face it, Obama is more or less of democratic nominee with all kinds of quota system just preserved for blacks and other minority votes by DNC.

General election is totally different ball-game. Democrats have never figured it out.

Obama can not win this general election unless he gets majority of white votes (male or female). Period. Just getting younger white votes and 100% of black votes would not be enough for him. Obama will never win majority of latino or asian votes especially in California.

It is even possible many grade A candidates will turn down his VP offer.

In the end, he will lose.

Looking forward to 2012!

Posted by: Looking Forward To 2012 | May 9, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

This is wayy off. Sam Nunn, does nothing for the ticket as VP, but I could see him in a cabinet position. I agree w/previous posts...Obama needs a strong WHITE alpha MALE to balance the ticket (sorry Gov. Richardson & Gov. Sebelius).

My top 3 in order: 1) Sherrod Brown, 2) Jim Webb, 3) Wes Clark. Stray from that blueprint & we'll quickly see him turned into Dukakis by the RNC & 527s!

Posted by: VIP | May 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

At some point Obama will have to realize that if he picks Kathleen Sebelius or Ted Strickland, HRC voters will stay home in November. We bled for our candidate, she got 50% of the popular vote and won a ton of states. Not picking HRC will truly be unprecedented. Obama people don't particularly like HRC, we don't like Obama. If you want to unify you need to swallow your pride and grow a pair.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I think there are several reasons for picking VP, while I agree that carrying a state is not as strong as it once was, for Obama it is also going to mean having the VP help carry states he has trouble with. Then there is helping with your week points, Obama's is race, foreign policy, and shoring up hard core Hillary fans. For McCain it will be age, his turn from moderate to Bushlite and the economy.

I think Romney is a bad choice because of the reason he failed, being Mormon. With the current LDS scandal in TX it will be fresh on peoples minds, no matter that they were not associated with UT. Then there is the strong dislike from McCain.

Christ helped him in FL but they will never let him pick a closeted 'single man' his age. That goes for Lindsey Grahm as well.

Your other picks for the GOP look OK but I would think Hagel, Powell, Haley Barbour, Lott, or any other one who is not too young, making McAge look even older.

The choices of Dunn and Clinton are bad. Nunn would be a slap in the face to the Clintons and Gays because of DADT. Nunn was pissed at Bill for not clearing the Gays in the Military issue and forced Bill to back down with DADT on his first issue in office. Obama has pissed off gays enough with his picking homophobic preachers for his SC October fundraisers.

One thing everyone knows about the Clintons is the ability to hold very long grudges. That is why Richardson is also a bad choice. Maybe for a cabniet post but not on the ticket.

Hillary will not be offered the VP, nor do I think she wants to play second fiddle after sitting behind Bill and now lossing the race. She is I'm sure working on her terms for bowing out before the convention, probably on June 2.

Her best bets now will be a prime spot at the convention, help with her debt, and most important, the Majority after Obama wins. Reid has been horrible and Hillary will love being in the spotlite. I voted for her, and am seeing her here tomorrow at a fundraiser with Chelsea. I thought she had a better chance in this racist country, as was shown with the Wright episode, but think there is too much bad blood now for both of them and their core followers.

Some bad picks from bellow. Gore, he will not want second again, plus is loving his stand and Nobel. Edwards, he did nothing for Kerry, even could not help with NC. Plus Elizabeths health must be worse by now, and she knocked Obama's health plan for Hillary's.

I don't think Obama needs a woman, with the Supremes on the table woman will not want McCain picking them. Plus the Govs don't bring much on the military. Wes Clark is his best for that, and would be a good counter to even McCain on that.

The best attack dog would be Webb and he would help with mods and conserves who are still pissed at McSame. While he can be a bit of a hot head and loose canon, Biden is worse at putting his foot in his mouth.

Worse pick so far today, Madeline Albright. You have to be an American citizen.



Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 9, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

For the Republican side:

-Michael Steele
-Kay Bailey Hutchison
-Sarah Palin
-Bobby Jindal

I love this list from MBW for the GOP. It's kind of the "anybody but a white guy" school of Republican strategies. I don't know anything about Steele, but even Hutchinson's colleagues admit she's a policy lightweight who hires staffers just to hold her purse!

Republicans love Palin, but she's unknown and being a Republican from Alaska conjures up images of all kinds of ethical challenges (not for her personally, but what did she know and when did she know it).

Jindal's brand new in Louisiana and came in riding the ethical reform horse when the press shellacked him for wanting to pay his Economic Development Secretary $320K and his deputy $280K. Budget restraint doesn't appear to be his strong suit.

No, the Republicans will do what they've done since time immemorial when they're in a world of hurt ... turn to a rich, white guy to pull their fat out of the fire.

Posted by: Tom Paine | May 9, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Vnd22: You are on target about The Media suppressing the vote in states where Hillary is expected to win, WV and Ky., along with the territory. Each and every day I find it more appalling that The Media could be so "Biased" and they make no excuse or try to hide it in any way.

Posted by: lylepink | May 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes it can be dangerous to put someone on the ticket solely because it balances a percieved weakness. Does putting a foreign policy heavyweight as VP really help Obama reassure those who may see him as weak there? I don't really see how, the VP has no formal role in foreign policy, and the nomination only serves to highlight the weakness and bring out that discussion, just as putting Bobby Jindal on McCain's ticket would only serve to highlight McCain's age and, in that context, undermine any argument that Obama is not ready for the presidency due to clack of experience putting such a newbie to politics one heartbeat away from the job yourself.

I'd posit a few rules about the nominee. First, we haven't had a sitting senator elected since 1960, largely because the Senate record is so much fodder for the opposition. I don't expect to see two senators run together, it's too easy to get people distracted digging into where they have cast different votes. Jim Webb might be acceptable since he's only been in office a brief period, but he's still borderline on that count. The Dems also don't want to worry about losing a vulnerable seat or one with a governor from the opposite party, so a few more key players are out. I think it will be important for the Dems to seek unity by offering the post to a former Clinton supporter, so I'm more inclined to lean towards Gov Strickland or Gov Rendell, with Clark, Nunn, and Richardson as more outside possibilities (Though I think one of the three will be SoS instead, with maybe Dick Lugar as SecDef, if he'd take it). Both Rendell and Strickland are from key battleground states that are in play (though I think Ohio moreso, PA seems to be growing more blue as time passes), while Rendell would add his Judaism to the ticket as well, helpign to quell a few conspiracy theories out there and shoring up Obama's support with the Jewish community (though his youtube comments on Farrakhan might rule him out now too as it would just bring that garbage back to the forefront).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 9, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I do think that Kaine is an off pick. Kaine would do little for the campaign. While Virginia could be won by the dems with a little help, it will be Warner who will do the heavy lifting in his senate bid. Warner will win by a landslide and if he connects himself with Obama, Barack has all the help he needs for Va.

Posted by: matt | May 9, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

You keep putting our governor, Pawlenty, at the top of the list. You also keep calling him TPau or something like that. NOBODY CALLS HIM THAT HERE!

Furthermore, Minnesotans are sooooooooo angry at Bush...you really can't imagine the depth and intensity...that Obama will be a shoo-in.

All of this you would know if you ever actually visited here.

Posted by: SteveBurns1947 | May 9, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Two comments:

1) Sherrod Brown should be on the list. He's from the critical state of OH, has a long resume, is a strong populist who would fit well with the Obama message, and finally, has a way-cool wife.

2) Chuck Hagel is a far right-wing Republican who does not deserve to be touted as a Democratic VP. He is one of the main reasons the Kyoto accords got sidetracked even before Bush snuck into office. Hagel flew to the Kyoto negotiations to take the side of the oil, gas and coal interests and then co-sponsored a successful resolution against Kyoto in the Senate.

He may be right on Iraq but he's wrong on nearly everything else. I'll be disgusted if he's the Democratic VP nominee.

Posted by: kindler | May 9, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

JIMMMMMM WEBBB!

strong
military cred.
a win in virginia would be huge
alpha male helping win some dudes over
cross-over appeal to Republicans
impossible to paint the ticket as unpatriotic (former navy secretary, son in Iraq)

...an obvious choice, Sam Nunn is pretty solid also, but he's old, boring, and does not deliver a state.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

JIMMMMMM WEBBB!

strong
military cred.
a win in virginia would be huge
alpha male helping win some dudes over
cross-over appeal to Republicans
impossible to paint the ticket as unpatriotic (former navy secretary, son in Iraq)

...an obvious choice, Sam Nunn is pretty solid also, but he's old, boring, and does not deliver a state.

Posted by: Max | May 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Thank you bethechange1 for one of the more thoughtful posts. The rants of the overly passionate get tiresome.

Posted by: dcampbell1 | May 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama desperately needs an alpha male to balance the ticket. One who will not let the ticket look weak (i.e. Mondale-Ferraro). Jim Webb would be great... Yeh, he's rough around the edges, but Obama is smooth around the edges. They would balance each other well. Also, hard to tag the ticket as unpatriotic given Webb's resume and the fact that his son is in Iraq. Lastly, VIRGINIA!!! I wouldn't want to make Jim Webb mad in a dark alley, that's the kind of VP that Obama is going to need.

Posted by: Mark | May 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Instead of Tim Kaine, Virginia's current and fairly popular governor, why not Mark Warner, Virginia's previous and way more popular governor? I'm from Virginia and can tell you he would carry the state. But beyond that, he served four years as governor and presided over great economic growth in the state, and he came from the business world, giving Obama more credibility with the economy and the private sector in general. Yeah, he's running for Senate at the moment, and favored to win, but wouldn't he rather be VP? A couple of years ago he was planning on running for president himself.

Posted by: cavemandave | May 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I saw a post by someone called "sickofspam" and I could tell by the font that he/she was lying. I have no idea what he/she was talking about, but...

Seriously, Sebelius (please, people, if you can't spell you could at least copy and paste) has been successful against long odds as a Democrat in four statewide elections in KANSAS! If she were really another "say anything" pol (and I'm not naming names) I'm pretty sure we'd have a nonpartisan, factual basis to know it by now.

Posted by: FlownOver | May 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Wes clark! allows obama to reach out to the clintons without picking hillary, and brings foreign pol/military experience. its a no brainer

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

What's with the continuing obsession with Sebelius? She's from a blood-red state, zero foreign policy experience (which is BO's #1 weak point, NOT white voters as the media wants you to think), and she botched the SOTU response, by most accounts. She's a fine gov., but she shouldn't even be on this list, let alone #1.

The #1 on the Dem side also was left off the list. Joe Biden gives Obama everything he needs to complement his shortcomings. He is tailor made for the job. Think a good, honest, version of Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Mark | May 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Probably the dumbest post by CZ of all time. Seriously folks this guy does not know politics. How he has this job is beyond me. He hasn't made one prediction right all year.

Anyway, I digress. The Dems list is far off. Strickland??? Sebelius? Kaine? None of these are acceptable.

Only Sam Nunn fits what Obama needs in the area of foreing policy. Here is a real list in no particular order: Jim Webb, Nunn, Wes Clark, Rendell, Richardson.

They all (with the exception of Rendell, who brings you PA) add foreign policy to the table, which is what Obama needs - he doesn't really need it, as Obama as one of the big-thinkers of our time, but there is an appearance that he needs it.

Posted by: GoHuskies08 | May 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I like all of your choices but Nunn. The word says it all. He's a figure from the past, not what Obama is trying to demonstrate. I think Claire McCaskill should be on the list instead.

Posted by: Jim | May 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Sebelius will be the VP nominee over Hillary Clinton's dead body. Clinton will want to preserve the option to run again in 2012 or 2016, and there is no way on earth she will step aside voluntarily if she will end up as the second-ranked woman candidate, later on. If Obama wants to win, he needs her to step aside voluntarily. Therefore, the VP candidate will be male.

Posted by: zenwick | May 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Ajay says: "The SUPERdelegates will think twice before antagonising half the party faithfuls reflected by Hillary's candidacy. "

And the superdelegates (not sure why you feel the need to capitalize like you do) will think twice before antagonising the majority of party faithfuls who voted for Obama's candidacy. Obama will have more pledged delegates, and will have the popular vote. To overturn the will of the people like that would be a political nightmare for all Democrats.

I reject your math about "big state" wins. And where do you draw the line between big states and kind of big states? Is Wisconsin a big state? It's certainly a swing state that was barely a blue state in 2004. It was a blowout in the primary

Re: Wright, Ajay says "How can the SUPERdelegates just ignore that or take it lightly in this very crucial election."

Easily. Because it's irrelevant. It's a distraction. Rev Wright has absolutely nothing to do with Senator Obama's character, leadership abilities, and ideas to improve the country. American's should be able to dig through the dirt. If they can't, that speaks more poorly of the American people than it does for Obama.

Posted by: Ryan | May 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Sam Nunn is beyond unacceptable to the LGBT community, whose votes (and money) are indispensible to the Democratic party, due to his despicable, bigoted conduct during the 1993 gays-in-the-military debate. A VP choice needs to mend fences, not create new chasms in the party.

If Obama needs to a running mate with military credentials, Wes Clark would be a far better choice who also opposed the Iraq debacle.

Posted by: Jeff Jacobberger | May 9, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Probably the dumbest post by CZ of all time. Seriously folks this guy does not know politics. How he has this job is beyond me. He hasn't made one prediction right all year.

Anyway, I digress. The Dems list is so far off. Strickland??? Sebelius? Kaine?

Only Sam Nunn remotely fits what Obama needs in the area of foreing policy. Here is a real list in no particular order: Jim Webb, Nunn, Wes Clark, Rendell, Richardson.

They all add foreign policy to the tab le, which is what Obama needs - he doesn't really need it, as Obama as one of the big-thinkers of our time, but there is an appearance that he needs it.

Posted by: GoHuskies08 | May 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

What? And no Ed Rendell? Imagine a Black President AND a Jewish Veep! :-)

How about Bob Graham? Voted against Iraq War: Check. From important swing state: Check. Popular in home state: Check. Executive experience: Check.

Posted by: Ramki | May 9, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

The GOP noms for sacrificial lambs are fine, but the short list for Dems is off.

Other than Sibelius. To her name add: Dodd, Richardson, Gore, and way down at the end in the 5 slot put Clinton.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson - for reasons previously stated, including his energy and foreign policy experience. He's from the West, his Hispanic background can help Obama make inroads with an important voting group, and Richardson is very folksy. He would add a "down home" style that Obama seems to have difficulty with.

Ed Rendell. He's Jewish and would be a valuable link to Jewish voters in important states like Florida. Plus he would shore up voters in PA and neighboring Ohio. He's also a link to the Clintons.

Joe Biden - for his knowledge of foreign affairs. He's Catholic and would firm up Obama's support with that important voting group. He proved himself an eloquent and strong campaigner when he ran for president. He could also be Obama's "pit bull", making whatever attacks and attack responses that the campaign needs.

Claire McCaskill - my sleeper choice. Of all the Obama surrogates who pushed his candidacy, she was the most eloquent. She is very personable and seems extremely knowledgeable. Plus she's moderate and understands the Midwest swing voters.

Posted by: Ted | May 9, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Steele is an interesting choice. Ran a relatively close race in the ultra-blue Maryland. Also, he's black and loves puppies.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"Next time around, we won't hear as much of the breathless reporting about the 'first viable female/black candidate'."


And thank the Good Lord for that! It's getting really old. Thanks to the democrats with their chickens coming home to roost, the rest of the electorate will hopefully be spared the ad nauseum identity politics next time.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Pawlenty will NOT deliver Minnesota and will be as helpful as Lieberman or Edwards were as veeps. While Portman's economic experience may be nice it would be just as effective to pre-nominate him as Treasury Secretary. Because there is nothing like practical domestic experience to a voter, Crist is the best candidate for McCain. McCain does need one or two Republicans to vote for him, but what he needs more than anything is someone who has shown a willingness to defy Republican dogma to get stuff done. Jindal would be an interesting second choice.

There is no such thing as an Obama-Clinton ticket there is only a Clinton-Obama-Clinton ticket as in Bill-Barack-Hillary. Does anyone, much less the guy running for President, really want that? Ideally, there would be a white Southern governor with loads of national/international experience to run with Obama. Richardson is as close as it comes. There is no better resume in the party. His last name is as white as it comes with the advantage of driving a huge Latino turnout. And while Sebelius may have many fine qualities, she doesn't guarantee Kansas and too much change is not a good thing. After Richardson, in order, it is Easely (nothing like a soothing Southern drawl to assuage voter's concerns over pretty much anything - Edwards biggest mistake was in not using one) Rendell or Strickland.

Posted by: muD | May 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I hope someone will remind me how The Media plays Dem and Repub after the Conventions are over. I suspect many of you will be quite surprised when the dirt begins to take hold and the ....hits the fan.

Posted by: lylepink | May 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Assuming Obama is the nominee, I hope that Wesley Clark is on his VEEP list. Offering Clark a spot on the ticket would be a symbolic olive branch to the Clinton camp. Having a silver-star-winning, once-wounded Vietnam vet who went on to become the Supreme Allied Commander Europe/NATO would be a good counter-balance to John McCain. The fact that he's a genuinely smart guy, a Rhodes scholar, and a Presidential Medal of Honor recipient, wouldn't hurt either.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

For the Republican side:

-Michael Steele
-Kay Bailey Hutchison
-Sarah Palin
-Bobby Jindal

Posted by: MBW | May 9, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama-Hagel. Hagel is easily qualified, has been vigorously opposing the Iraq War, and as a independent Republican, would instantly reinforce Obama's message of bridging divisions and would probably be popular among independents.

Hillary Clinton? Absolutely not! Why on earth would Obama want a VP and VP-spouse constantly working to undermine him? She undercuts just about everything he stands for and would look even more inauthentic and untrustworthy eating all her negative words about him than she does hawking her pandering gas-tax holiday. Never!!!!

Posted by: Steve | May 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"There's been no sea change, imo. This thing will happen and is happening as an evolution, not a revolution...Suffragettes notwithstanding."

The process, by nature, is evolutionary. Because of the skills & experience necessary to reach the presidency, it would be irrational to expect a slate of candidates in 2012 that proportionally represent the population as a whole. Obama and Clinton both entered the presidential race through unusually brief political careers, but they have both also reestablished expectations for candidates that match their genetic makeup. While both have certainly attracted support because of their genetics, both have likewise attracted support independent of gender or skin color. And that's the point: Obama's candidacy isn't about being the 'black' candidate and Clinton's isn't about being the 'woman'. Next time around, we won't hear as much of the breathless reporting about the 'first viable female/black candidate'.

Posted by: bsimon | May 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Here's my list---no particular order:

-Kathleen Sebelius
-Brian Schweitzer
-Jim Webb
-Bill Richardson
-Sam Nunn
-Phil Bredesen

Some others:
-Dave Freudenthal (Wyoming Gov.)
-Janet Napolitano
-Blanche Lincoln

Posted by: mbw | May 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I understand the need for Obama to associate himself with military experience. But couldn't he do that by indicating early on who he would pick for jobs like Defense Secretary? If he named someone up front and shows that he's surrounding himself with the best in that regard, wouldn't that free him up to pick someone with executive experience for his veep spot (like Sibelius, which has the added advantages that Chris mentioned from the getgo)?

Posted by: MAW | May 9, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone remember the Virginia senate race a few years back between Webb and Allen? At the end, Allen was accusing Webb of being sexist based on things he had written in college and based on the characters in some of his books. I don't remember.

I think it was all nonsense, but if Webb was selected for VP, what do you guys think of this line of arguments was brought up again especially after a primary that was so gender charged?

I like Webb, though. A lot like McCain, straight talking, war vet with a lot more actual foreign policy experience than McCain. Seems like the rough and tumble guy that McCain is trying to be. Probably takes Virginia out of play for the Republicans as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 9, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin writes
"HRC has changed the ball game. No one will ever dismiss a female candidate again as not being "serious" because she is a woman."

I think that's probably true. I wonder whether or not Obama has done the same for minorities. Considering the frequency that people recommend Richardson or Jindal has running mates for one or the other, perhaps he has.

Posted by: bsimon | May 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The real dream ticket would either be Obama/Bill Richardson or Obama/Madeline Albright. Consider it the ultimate olive branch to Clinton supporters without the Clinton baggage.

Plus both shore up Obama's supposed weakness in foreign policy experience. Both have Washington experience, but would now be considered Washington outsiders. Either ticket would also appeal to demographics that Clinton has been pulling in -- Hispanics and women.

Posted by: kks | May 9, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I heard Sibelius talking on the radio and to me her voice sounded like she was lying. I forget what she was talking about but I formed the impression she is a say anything politician. This is the opposite of Obama's message.

Posted by: sickofspam | May 9, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_Austin writes:
"No one will ever dismiss a female candidate again as not being "serious" because she is a woman."

I disagree. It depends on the woman. Hillary's campaigning has gotten better over time, but I don't think it's a game changer - her negatives are still way too high.

The fact that she rode Bill's coattails into political power only points to a bigger hurdle for women to acheive political sucess at the highest levels on their own. Many still judge her for staying in her marriage, of all things. Without it, would she have gotten into the US Senate without ever holding elected office before?

There's been no sea change, imo. This thing will happen and is happening as an evolution, not a revolution...Suffragettes notwithstanding.

It is reasonable to expect the same standards of excellence, character, and work ethic from women as from men. Nobody gets a pass, no should they. I'm just sayin, statistics do not bear out your hypothesis as of yet.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Its not over until the fat lady sings! The fat lady here are the SUPERdelegates!!

The SUPERdelegate math has to work its course for Hillary to decide its time to call it off.

With just ONE big state win Obama is on shaky grounds in the General election cycle against McCain.

The SUPERdelegates have to decide and they will take their time in view of the potential "white backlash" against Wright comments and Obama's 20 year association with Wright. How can the SUPERdelegates just ignore that or take it lightly in this very crucial election. In the name of party unity the SUPERdelegates may be inclined towards the "dream ticket".

Thus it maybe the SUPERdelegate pressure that really unites the party after all with the "Dream ticket". Obama has to come off the pedestal and be prudent, practical and common sensical over his VP choice. Consider the delegate difference between Obama and Clinton and it says it all.

Clinton may be the only unifying factor left with Obama at this juncture of the race! I for one, given the millions the Clintons have made and will continue to make, do not for a moment believe where Hillary drops out due to lack of money at this point in the race unless the SUPERdelegates force the dropping decision on Hillary by coalascing around Obama. The SUPERdelegates understand how general elections are won and they do also undestand the "Exit polling" with the potential of a white backlash with a single ignition from Wright.

The SUPERdelegates will think twice before antagonising half the party faithfuls reflected by Hillary's candidacy.

The fat lady will sing but carefully the SUPERdelegates will take their own time until August or until Michigan and Florida are amicably seated. Hail our independent minded SUPERdelegates!!!

Posted by: Ajay Jain, Garland, TX, USA | May 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama would be well-served to pick someone who 1) has executive experience, 2) can deliver a key battleground state, and 3) has ties to Clinton and her supporters. The one person who fits this bill is Ed Rendell. He guarantees Pennsylvania for Obama in a way perhaps no other VP choice can guarantee a battleground state. It removes Pennsylvania as a battleground state. An alternative option would be someone with great foreign policy gravitas. The best choice for Obama in that regard is Joe Biden.

Posted by: JSR | May 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I have asked around to people here in L.A., and no one seems to care.

Everyone is exhausted by the Clintons/Obama slugfest.

Both sides are bitter and vowing to stay home in November if their candidate does not get the nomination. For once, I believe them. They're really angry and the result will be a low turnout and perhaps even voting for McCain.

Posted by: Jim, Los Angeles CA | May 9, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm struck by some of the polarized, dare I say bitter posts by HRC supporters. It is not so black-and-white (no pun intended). I live in MI and I was a Bill Richardson supporter at first. If experience (HRC's first slogan) were the main motivation for choosing a candidate, then Richardson or Biden should have been #1. Richardson dropped out before the MI primary, so I, like a lot of dems I know, voted uncommitted because at that point, my concern about Clinton was that she had the Al Gore 2000/John Kerry 2004 problem: uninspiring, wonky speeches that were all about her. I was open to considering her, but Obama's speech after the Iowa caucuses really moved me and I did some research about his positions and found they were nearly identical to Clinton's. After New Hampshire, when Clinton showed some humanness (the teary moment and the finding her voice speech), I was also moved and, as a woman, wanted to be impressed by her. I moved toward Obama sometime after S. Carolina and certainly during Ohio/Texas primaries when I felt some of the Clinton's negatives were becoming more apparent. Also, by then, I saw that Obama was managing a far-superior campaign in terms of financial solvency and going strong in every single state, even the "little" ones, as the Clinton campaign liked to dismiss them back then. It is funny that Clinton has become the "champion of the little people" because her campaign started as the establishment candidate with the big donors who were taped out quickly once Obama started to come on strong. The sad fact for HRC is that she never really did find a consistent voice until just recently; her early campaign themes did not connect as well as Obama's did; and she was so sure she would win, she didn't plan financially or organizationally for a long primary season. My point: to dismiss Obama supporters as only kool aid-drinking zealots is only a way to diminish his strengths as a candidate/leader and it may hide your own disappointment in your own candidate who also has many strengths, but under-estimated Obama as a competitor and the ability of Americans to be open to a fresh face, fresh perspective/tone, and yes, to an African-American man who ran a more feminist campaign (in the best sense) than she did.

If HRC supporters vote McCain out of spite, you will be the Nader voters of 2008. No matter what you think of Obama, his priorities and the people he will surround himself with will be far closer to your core values for America than McCain's. With McCain, say hello to endless war, more machismo foreign policy, more pandering to the religious right, more conservative supreme court judges, and a threat to Roe v Wade. We all need to take a step back and stop the name-calling and emotional reactivity: Think before you vote.

Posted by: bethechange1 | May 9, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The safest and probably best choice would be Bill Richardson, whose domestic and foreign policy experience is unquestioned.

But here's a new thought: Gary Hart. The ex-senator has experience in foreign and military affairs. His "other affair" was so long ago that it shouldn't matter anymore...and at least she was hot, not like the fat southern chicks that Bubba used to do. Too old? Gary Hart is younger than John McCain.

Posted by: Chuck | May 9, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

While Richardson's foreign policy and energy credentials are superior to any other VP candidate, let's not forget another huge bonus he brings to the ticket:

Being from the West.

Few national politicians can speak fluently about the issues in the nations fastest growing region. Knowing the ins and outs of water policy (HUGE in the next 8 years), land management and energy acquisition, Richardson can speak to an area that is usually ignored in the national political scene.

With Richardson on the ticket, we can capitalize on the blue trend in Western states by speaking to them about issues that matter to them. Think picking up Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and making McCain work for Arizona.

*McCain offers this perspective as well, which makes it even more important to have someone to match the talk of the US West.

Posted by: matt | May 9, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse


Ask any supporter of Hillary Clinton and they'll tell you it's way too early for Barack Obama to be looking for VPs.

The media is working to stamp out Senator Clinton's remaining chances by telling voters in the remaining primaries that this race is over, that their votes won't count. They are effectively working to suppress voter turnout and the popular vote in places she'll likely win (WV, KY, PR). It's unjust.

Posted by: Vnd22 | May 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

No one likes the idea of the "Dream Ticket" except ivory tower pundits or Republicans. Hillary's base does not exist. They're not voting for her, they're voting *against* him. Women, older and younger will vote for Obama no matter what. Democrats lose the blue collar vote -- they lost it in 92' amnd 96'. So for the love of GOD, stop talking about Obama-Clinton. Neither of their supporters like that idea. It's not a compromise, it's a penalty.

Posted by: Gabriel Ramirez | May 9, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I am curious why you didn't include Jim Webb for Obama's VP. He seems like he'd be the best choice! I also like Sebelius, but, living in Washington state, had never heard of her before this year.

Posted by: erimeli | May 9, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Mark Warner would absolutely be the best choice here. (Unlikely, but still...)

He's extremely popular in VA... he's fresh and young like Obama. Also, given his relative youth vis-a-vis the presidency, we'd have the chance to keep it for 16 years.

Posted by: chad | May 9, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I just don't see the down side to Jim Webb. Even if he is stiff on the campaign trail (and I am not convinced that he really is so bad), Obama is dynamic enough to make up for that. What Obama needs is not another great orator; he needs somebody with strong military credentials who was also against the Iraq war, even as his son served in it. Webb brings that, along with a post-partisan character (remember, he used to be a Republican and served in the Reagan administration). Plus, his switch to the Dems was animated not just by Iraq but by the widening economic inequality in the country. Finally, he clearly appeals to rural white voters. Webb shuts up all the morons who try to question Obama's patriotism or national security bona fides.

Posted by: mjames2 | May 9, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Pawlenty has angered JMac, so that means no go there. Romney is still number one on the list. Gotta be.

And Hillary is Obama's only choice.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | May 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

You didn't mention Jim Webb, but put Sebelius as your number one choice? Obama will win women in November, that is not a problem no matter what the polls say. He needs to attract Scots-Irish men -- like Jim Webb. Webb's home state is actually Missouri. And the Vice President needs to be able to go negative, *very* negative, since Obama cannot do so. Obama-Sebelius is a pansy ticket that will echo Mondale-Ferraro!

Posted by: Gabriel Ramirez | May 9, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Obama supporter that will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS ACCEPT A CLINTON VP.

She's done we want her to go lead the senate where her skills of weaseling and flip flopping have value.

One "Cheney" style dinasaur political weasel VP is enough for a life time!

Obama/Richardson
Obama/Sebelius
Obama/Hagel
Obama/Kaine

NEVER clinton
Obama/Patraeus

Posted by: JBE | May 9, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

reispace wrote:

"What about Bill Richardson? Come on now - two-term governor of a swing state, broad and deep foreign policy experience, an expert in energy policy, and a Latino to boot that could help win Nevada and Colorado!!! Richardson should be up there with Sebelius. Please God, NOT Sam Nunn!!"


CC included Senator Nunn because he knows his qualifications. Nunn has likely forgotten more about foreign policy and nuclear energy than many leaders will ever know. That said, he has a life and successful career outside of DC and has turned down similar offers from both sides of the aisle in the past. Sell your bias somewhere else, reispace. Those of us who know this man aren't buying.

Your Latino point should be discussed further. Much has been made of White bias against Senator Obama, yet nothing seems to be said when Latino pundits bash him on the air. If their concerns run that deep, should a Latino VP candidate really make it all go away?

Posted by: jrn | May 9, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Strickland ?
Isn't he the bozo on that Hillary video where she says shame on Obama. I can't see Obama hanging out with a joker like that.

You didn't include Richardson on the list. He has numerous benefits: extensive experience in Washington, Western governor, Hispanic, foreign policy experience.
Wow he looks like the perfect choice !

Posted by: Matt | May 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Gore

Posted by: Spoof | May 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I think it's interesting to note that CC and all the posters are considering the vice-presidential candidates in terms of who can add to the electibility factor. Given that one of the responsibilities of the VP is to take over the presidency if something should prevent the president from completing his or her term of office, I am very aware of need to assess VP candidates in terms of their qualifications to assume the presidency, if necessary. One of my own personal tests when thinking of potential VP candidates is, "Would I vote for this person if he/she were running for President?" That question immediately eliminates some people from my consideration and puts others on my "maybe yes, maybe no" list.

Posted by: marmac5 | May 9, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I think Kaine would be a good choice, and would probably lock up deep purple Virginia for Obama.

For McCain, I would not rule out Huckabee. In one sense he has the "populist" downside, but he can bring evangelicals and actually counteract the dems generally more populist appeal. Also they seem to get along and that is a good thing. But based on what I've seen recently, I think that he will make a more convential political decision, like a Romney.

It really depends on whether McCain comes back to his senses in time. He is doing himself a great disservice in his attempts to assuage the concerns of certain parts of his base. He needs to lead Republicans, not pander to the more reactionary segment(s) -- those who are most against him will not come around and love (although they might still vote for him).

He should let his independent colors fly, and tell unwary Rs to deal because the alternative is worse. Otherwise he will have no chance of winning the independent vote, which is what he needs in Novemeber. They are his natural constiuency, just like evangelicals were Bush's.

I guess he learned nothing from his primary experience. Stay true to yourself. What works for Bush does not work for you.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Today, a friend who was deeply invested in the HRC campaign wrote:

"I believe that putting a woman on the ticket will not assuage HRC supporters; I think it would actually backfire and anger the 'bitter ones' even more."

I replied:

"HRC has changed the ball game. No one will ever dismiss a female candidate again as not being "serious" because she is a woman.

There is an overnight sea change that has occurred, and I think it is lost in the noise of the campaign. Sebelius and McCaskill and Rice even Palin are discussed with the sense that they are 'relevant', same as males.

This is one mess of toothpaste that is not going back in the tube. Your point is taken, but events and history may have just swept over it like a tidal wave. Almost half the lawyers in America are women now and lawyers are the fertile recruiting ground for politics. I will now live to see a Senate with 40-60 women in it. I believe it is that near, and that HRC broke the last remaining surface tension on the pond."
--------------------------------------
I believe this. Do you see it this way?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Why no mention of Jim Webb? I have said before, and I'll say again, I'd PAY to see Jim Webb and John McCain debate the Iraq war in Lincoln-Douglas fashion.

Each and every time McCain mentions the word "surrender" he proves why he is unfit for the office. Nobody needs anyone that maniacal in the Oval Office. He would be the American equivalent of Ahmedinejad or Hugo Chavez, as far as off-the wall freakishness.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 9, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Sam Nunn makes a lot of sense for the reasons stated. If it weren't for the need for the symbolism of foreign policy and national security expertise on the ticket, I would propose my own favorite--Bill Bradley. There are lots of competent foreign policy experts that can serve as advisors on the NSC and elsewhere on the Executive side. Obama and Bradley would provide a combination of thoughtful intellect unmatched in my(lengthy)lifetime.

Posted by: TedDR | May 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Sam Nunn makes a lot of sense for the reasons stated. If it weren't for the need for the symbolism of foreign policy and national security expertise on the ticket, I would propose my own favorite--Bill Bradley. There are lots of competent foreign policy experts that can serve as advisors on the NSC and elsewhere on the Executive side. Obama and Bradley would provide a combination of thoughtful intellect unmatched in my (lengthy)lifetime.

Posted by: TedDR | May 9, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Obama is running a new kind of campaign. Should he really pick another politician as a running mate?

He'll first consider that the VP will be doing in his administration. Then, he'll choose an articulate and intelligent person from anywhere.

Best that he not choose a Senator from a swing state. He could choose Barbara Boxer who I really like. She voted against the Iraq war resolution.

He could choose someone who has made it in industry, an upstart with charisma. Think out of the box.

Posted by: Harry, Los Angeles, CA | May 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

davestickler,

Mark Warner would have been a great pick except that he is running for Senate right now, in what is every analyst's #1 pick for most likely seat to change hands this year.

This is John Warner's seat and John is retiring. Mark Warner is unopposed for the nomination and polls with double digit leads over both possible GOP opponents. We'd be nuts to pull him out of that race when it's such an 'in-the-bag' pick-up.

And by the way, Mark Warner is far from politically inexperienced. He ran a close but unsuccessful campaign against John Warner for Senate in 1996, came back to win the Governor's mansion in 2000, spent months campaigning intensely for Tim Kaine in 2005, and then spent much of 2006 and early 2007 preparing for the Presidential campaign that he ended up pulling the plug on. Mark Warner was out there speaking at JJ Dinners around the country and stumping in Iowa and NH for months.

That is some heavy-duty political experience.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | May 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Mr. McCain should select George W. Bush as his running mate.
1) As with Richard Cheney in 2000, he can have no further presidential ambitions
2) This ticket would assuage Rightist qualms on McCain's conservative credentials
3) Mr. Bush would not be able to run away and hide from his mistakes, and give Pres. McCain a handy whipping-boy
4) He would hopefully be denied the Pres. pension while vice president, saving megabux to the taxpayer
5) Pres. McCain could humiliate him daily for the sins of S. Carolina in 2000

Posted by: Matthew | May 9, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Boomer,

Jim Webb ran the entire United States Navy. If that isn't major league executive experience then I really don't know what is. Prior to that, he was Undersecretary of Defense in charge of the entire US military reserves. Again, big-league executive/management experience.

DAB-NY,

The Virginia Democratic party has a very deep bench at this point. If Jim Webb leaves the Senate to become Vice President, our Democratic Governor, Tim Kaine, would get to select his replacement to finish the term. Creigh Deeds, Chap Peterson, Rick Boucher and Brian Moran would all be capable of waging extremely credible campaigns to hold the seat at the end of the term. Or perhaps Tim Kaine could appoint himself to fill the remainder of the term and resign as Governor.

The seat would not be in any immediate danger of flipping if Jim Webb were to become Vice President in January of 2009. Unless Tim Kaine were to suddenly drop dead before then and the Republican Lt. Governor would step up to the plate and get to appoint a Republican. But we're getting pretty darn speculative here.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | May 9, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Tim Pawlenty adds nothing to a McCain ticket. Minnesota is such solid Obama country that Pawlenty couldn't even carry his own home state.

For Obama, it's Bill Richardson. He bolsters the ticket with his solid foreign policy credentials, executive experience as Governor and Energy Secretary, legislative experience (14 years in Congress) and terrific relationships on Capitol Hill. He easily delivers New Mexico's 5 electoral votes and helps with Latinos in other key southwestern swing states like Nevada (5 electoral votes) and Colorado (9 electoral votes), and he shores up the Hispanic base in California, pretty much guaranteeing a big Obama-Richardson win there. And call me crazy, but the early match-up polls continue to show Obama competitive with McCain in Texas. With Richardson energizing the Valley and Obama whipping up enthusiasm in his urban-suburban-young voter base, an Obama-Richardson ticket can at a minimum force the Republicans to play defense in the biggest "red state" of them all.

Richardson is also well liked and well respected by everyone in the party---well, everyone except James Carville, and I say good riddance to James Carville. Richardson would be an important rallying point for the Democratic Party unity drive. Imagine the televised images of everyone's favorite teddy bear Bill Richardson warmly embracing first Barack and Michelle Obama and then Bill and Hillary Clinton on the convention stage, burying the hatchet, Richardson the symbolic bridge between the Clinton wing and the Obama wing of the party. It's just too good not to happen.

Posted by: Brad K | May 9, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

zouk, I see you've read Gallagher this morning as well. Imagine Anne speechless. :)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Rather than picking VP on democratic side, whey these fellows are out of my selections:

1) Sam Nunn: how many times in last 25 years, we heard of this fellow in some one's short list as VP choice. He retired from senate, how long ago! Analyze this, he is out.
2) Jim Webb: Fresh but untested. Known for bad temper like McCain. Too hard to give up secured senate seat.
3) Bill Richardson: Just went to see Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Free-lancer does not cut with Regan democrats. He is 100% out.
4) Tim Kaine: Who! He is not presidential material at all. Kaine did not evenwin Virginia with landslide. Not certain, he can even carry Viriginia on next election.
5) Kathleen Selbius: No national exposure. No presidential material for me. If Obama can not win West Virginia, he can not win Kansas. Simple.
6) Ted Strickland: He is getting old but one will be poll tested every week by Obama camp. If he has positive plus 6% to carry Ohio, he has some chance.
7) Bob Graham: Most experienced candidate available for VP. Did not do well when he ran. Do you know why he retired from the Senate? He is tired and done from politics like Dick Chenney. He is good insurance candidate from Florida. If Obama is winning McCain by at least 10% on national poll of polls, he will be considered. He is poll tested for ever. Safe bet. You can not go wrong with Graham.
8) Joe Biden: Talks too much. To long in senate. Failed twice when he ran. Never.
9) Mark Warner: compatible with Obama like Clinton/Gore ticket but Reed wants to win Virginia seat. Out.
10) Clare McCaskill: Her experience is lighter than Obama. She needs to stay in senate to gain some more experience.
11) Jennifer Granholm - fresh but imported from Canada, just like Arnold in California. They can not run.


Posted by: Out From 2008 VP List | May 9, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Think about this one at for a minute....

McCain/Clinton 2008


Outside the box, I know, but stranger things have happened.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Sebelius all the way. Clinton's strongest supporters support her for one reason and one reason alone and her resume in no way builds upon Obama's. Sebelius is executive, red, and hey, also has a vagina. Imagine that!

Posted by: squintz | May 9, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

These Wes Clark comments are little silly.
He came across as an empty suit when he ran for office.
Give me a break.

Posted by: Cal | May 9, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

EVERYONE LOVES A UNIFORM. ESPECIALLY WHEN 'WES CLARKE' IS IN IT. HIS APPEARANCE AND VOCAL APPEAL IS OUTSTANDING, & SPEAKS SPANISH, HAS A WORLD OF MILITARY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, WILL NEGOTIATE BEFORE PULLING THE TRIGGER. I THINK HE'S PERFECT. TOO MANY POLITICIANS INVOLVED, NEED SOMEONE WITH 'LINE' EXPERIENCE, TO GET US OUT OF THE AM'BUSH'. PLENTY OF OTHER INTELLIGENT DEMS TO FILL THE CABINET.

Posted by: DAVY DO RIGHT | May 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Best VP choice for Obama is Jim Webb. Former Reagan Administration, had a son in Iraq, and he helps put Virginia in play. Democrats don't have to worry about losing the senate seat because VA has a Democratic governor. A southern, moderate to conservative man is a perfect balance for Barack.

Posted by: Robert | May 9, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain/Clinton

what a pair.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 9, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Anyone but Romney for McCain's VP would be OK. I like Huckabee and I think McCain does too. The one requirement is that the person by YOUNGER than McCain. Pawlenty would not deliver Minn., and Portman might not be able to deliver Ohio.
For the Dems, Obama needs someone with foreign policy experience. This is a no-brainer, so Bill Richardson or Joe Biden would be excellent choice, in that order. Richardson would probably deliver New Mexico for Obama. The election could be so close that the Land of Enchantment might count significantly.

Posted by: Caleb | May 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Kennedy of course!

Posted by: London Calling | May 9, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

While this may be a fanciful idea, I think that Obama's reconciliatory tone may lead him to pick either a more conservative Democrat (Sebelius, Sen/Gen Nunn, Gen. Zinni are all great thoughts)or a moderate, anti-war Republican with great credentials in foreign policy and an ability to appeal to those elusive working class voters...Sen. Hagel. Hagel likely wouldn't accept, but if he did, that would be a brilliant ticket.

Posted by: Iain | May 9, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

What qualifies HRC for the Supreme Court?
She flunked the bar.

Posted by: everymay` | May 9, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT
WEEKEND LISTINGS 5/11/08

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT)
Obama supporter

TERRY MCAULIFFE
Clinton Campaign Chairman

CHRIS CILLIZZA
Washington Post and Author of "The Fix" at WashingtonPost.com


Way to go, CC!

Posted by: novamatt | May 9, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

SLAM DUNK, MAKE HISTORY, EXPERIENCE, APPEAL, STAR POWER, THE ONE AND ONLY - AL GORE

Posted by: SPENCER | May 9, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Your pick of Reps were all white men - what does that say about the GOP?

The winning team is OBAMA & HILLARY the leaders of two CAUSES (they are beyond campaigns) with very committed followers. This UNITY ticket is beyond RED & Blue states.

Quit thinking yesterday and balanced geographical tickets. If the two frontrunners, with constituencies who feel it's their time (and turn) are not both on the ballot too many Democrats will stay home. The Dems need both on the ticket to win. That's thinking today and tomorrow, i.e., "It's Time For A Change".

Posted by: Peter L. | May 9, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Jim Webb is that his seat in VA is a hard one to give up. I think he is tremendous, but I guess Kaine could select his replacement.

Obama/Biden

Nunn - Defense

Posted by: DAB, NY | May 9, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Kaine would be an interesting pick in Virginia. It would not only benefit Democrats in 2008 by making Virginia a real possibility, but it would help Democrats in 2009 in Virginia. There GOP LG and AG have made an agreement where the AG will run for Governor and LG run for reelection. If Kaine is the new VP come January, then the LG would become Governor and that agreement would go down the tubes.

Not that Obama would be thinking about helping the 2009 Virginia Governor's race, but Kaine certainly would be.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to submit my 5 picks (in no order)

1. Sebelius, Kansas
2. Richardson, New Mexico
3. Salazar, Colorado
4. Napolitano, Arizona
5. Bono, Ireland

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to submit my 5 picks (in no order)

1. Sebelius, Kansas
2. Richardson, New Mexico
3. Salazar, Colorado
4. Napolitano, Arizona
5. Bono, Ireland

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Also, Ted Strickland has a very close relationship with David Wilhelm, the Chicago political bigwig and Obama supporter. Wilhelm served as the youngest DNC chair ever, and was appointed by Clinton. Wilhelm is influential in both Clinton and Obama circles, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him push Strickland as an asset to the ticket, and a unifying force.

Posted by: Abby | May 9, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I posted earlier Chuck Hagel as a VP for Obama. I will provide some rational

1)Iraq is core issue for Obama. How best to demonstrate that Iraq is not just a Democratic Party Issue

2)Reaching out and uniting the nation is next core issue. How best to demonstrate with a republican on the ticket.

3)Most importantly 8 Years on Obama-hagel will make Hagel too old to run for president keeping core democratic base happy.

4)Chuck Hagel has all the strength and gravitas that is needed in a VP not to mention broadening the electoral map.

Posted by: Chuck | May 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Proud: McCain has the luxury of choosing anyone HE likes. Leichtman: I am in agreement with you about many of us that support Hillary will never vote for Obama and support McCain. There is just to much BAD about him, and without anyone in a position to do the proper research and get it out into The Media, it must come soon before it is to late. We will be sick when these BAD things eventually come to light.

Posted by: lylepink | May 9, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama - Biden


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPev5sEdTjg

vs.

McCain - Thune

Posted by: DAB, NY | May 9, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Webb for Democratic VP -- he's got the background to help Obama convince people that we can "end the war with honor".

Posted by: rlkinny | May 9, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I think you are missing something (or know something we don't) by excluding James Webb. He has military and defense policy experience, he helps with white working class and southern voters, and he helps put Virginia in play. What else could you ask for?

Posted by: SK | May 9, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I am disappointed with today's line. The Fix may be doing lots of homeworking, but is lacking in imagination.

As Hillary inspires feminist dead-enders to look elsewhere, Johnny Boy needs needs to think about a female running mate. How about Mary Bono Mack? Would that put California in play?

Posted by: AZBob | May 9, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Anyone but Clinton!

The Nightmare ticket of Obama-Clinton would make everyone unhappy!

Bill Richardson would be a much better person for the #3 slot on this list.

Posted by: Franky | May 9, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

SLAM DUNK, MAKE HISTORY, EXPERIENCE, APPEAL, STAR POWER, THE ONE AND ONLY - AL GORE

Posted by: SPENCER | May 9, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

NMAIF wrote:

My first choice, however, would be Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a firm Clinton supporter. Same reasoning applies. Photo I have seen indicates she is almost as tall as Obama.

My Comment:

In the abstract a great choice. But she was not born in the United States and is ineligible to be elected President (and thus ineligible to run for Vice President). If the Constitution had been amended to allow the Arnold to run, she also would have been eligible. But as of right now, she is not eligible. And that's too bad. She's very bright and would have been a great combination with Obama.

Posted by: Granholm Can't Run | May 9, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised neither Senator Casey nor Governor Richardson make your list. Casey would reassure many "values" voters and, despite not carrying Pa. for Obama in the primary, is a popular young Senator who would embrace the Obama message and could carry Pa. for the Dems in the fall. Richardson has foreign policy and administrative experience and would reach the inmportant Hispanic vote. Despite Carville's rant, the Clinton folks will not boycott Obama because of Richardson. He, too, is in line with the change message.

Posted by: Ankobra | May 9, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

What about Bob Casey? Obama will need help winning PA, a critical state for a Democrat to win the White House. Casey would also help with blue collar whites and Catholics.

Posted by: Brian | May 9, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I really don't understand the ground swell of support for Sen. Webb for VP. I don't see how he balances the ticket. He has no executive experience. His foreign policy credentials are fine (certainly better than Obama's), but not as strong as Nunn's or Richardson's. Plus, for what it's worth, he's on his 3rd wife.

I would think that Richardson provides the best balance for Obama - governor of a reddish state, Hispanic, former cabinet secretary, former UN ambassador and foreign troubleshooter, and former congressman. Evan Bayh is another guy who would be great, but he's been a strong Hillary supporter since the beginning of the process. Sebelius may appear to be an attractive option, but she's perceived as a bit of a lightweight (not to mention the lack of foreign policy experience).

Posted by: Boomer | May 9, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

best Veep pick for:

Obama is Joe Biden

McCain is Dick Cheney

Posted by: AdrickHenry | May 9, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

My top 5 dems:

5)Jim Webb
4)Janet Napolitano
3)Mark Warner
1b)Kathleen Selbius
1a)Ed Rendell

Napolitano and Webb would be my personal favourites...both tough, could help in swing states, and each brings a big 'bloc' with them. Webb could play well in the rust belt, the south, and his home state. Napolitano could turn the western third of the country 'blue'.

While I'm not a fan of HRC, hopefully this can pave the way for a woman to campaign and win. I do think HRC would be a good supreme court justice...a thumb in the eye to her critics on the right who'd have to see her on the bench...maybe CJ someday.

McCain should pick Crist...anything else is just foolish.

Posted by: Patrick | May 9, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

If you are considering a party elder like Sam Nunn, it seems incredible that you would overlook former two-term Florida Governor and three-term Senator Bob Graham. As a former Chair of trhe Senate Intelligence Committee, who opposed the Iraq War, it would certainly address the foreign policy issue on Obama's terms.
In addition, it would make Florida very difficult for the Republicans to carry, since Bob Graham has been very popular in Florida for a very long time.

Posted by: Florida Democrat | May 9, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow Chris, MAJOR oversight not listing Webb or Clark, for all the reasons cited above (especially Webb given his blue collar, military red state, bipartisan, gun lovers appeal). For those who say Richardson, Dem political insiders have been saying for the past two years that they guy has enough skeletons in the closet to make Spitzer look like an angel. However, I do agree Obama has to do something to counter the obvious appeal McCain has to Hispanics given his past (emphasis on past!) support for immigration legislation and macho posturing.

Posted by: David | May 9, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Proud, I did not know Jindal had acted so quickly, and I am in his neighboring state. That's good.

Jindal joins Palin then - Rs with the best "accomplishment-to-baggage" ratios on the possibles list.
If "bachelorness" were not considered baggage, there would be three.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 9, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Dave, I like your picks. Please, ABC. Anyone but Clinton. We don't need Bill lurking about the White House. Obama wouldn't be able to turn his back.

As it is, it'll take a village to get Clinton off the field!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 9, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Jim Webb or Wesley Clark weren't mentioned in the posting. Weird. I agree that these are the best two choices in that order.

Posted by: Duh | May 9, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

What about Colin Powell? A Veep spot would give him the chance he desires to redeem himself after his stint as Bush's sectry of state. His foreign policy/national security credentials are strong. He is well respected.

Posted by: jpl | May 9, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama has to pick a veteran. Jim Webb or Wesley Clark. Problem with picking Webb is that it would relinquish a Senate seat in a state not guaranteed to fill it with a Democrat.

Posted by: seamus | May 9, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

As far as I am concerned, Juan McAmnesty and his Land Deal Cronism is Toast!

Thank God he showed his Colors soon enough.

I have to wonder if Colin Powell is interested in being Mitt Romney's VP?

I DEMAND an END to the INVASION, Empoloyers of Illegals FINED, and Invaders GONE!

Posted by: RAT-The | May 9, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

All of my picks for Obama have already been voiced but let me add that the Fix missed every single one of them, and for that I am disappointed Chris!

My top 5 VP picks for Obama (in order)


5. John Edwards
4. Russ Feingold
3. Claire McCaskill
2. Jim Webb
1. Bill Richardson

My picks 4 and 5 are not solid ones either... Feingold is too similar to Obama in my opinion (does not add to the ticket very well, though having him run in 2016 would be great). I've never been sold on edwards either, something about him has a used car salesman like quality, but that is just personality for me. Wes Clark almost knocked him off my top 5.

Posted by: Dave | May 9, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Women are slightly more than 50% of the population. What's this "interest group" stuff?

Posted by: aleks | May 9, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA/BIDEN '08!!!

Posted by: JR | May 9, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Chris: I'm rather surprised that you did not include Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell as a high choice. Ohio's Strickland may or may not be able to deliver Ohio, but Rendell can deliver Pennsylvania, a key swing state, and is very popular within the party and therefore has some extended legs. I would put him at the very top of the list frankly.

Posted by: ProfSM | May 9, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

foreign policy is certainly one of the top two jobs of the president and i don't think obama can afford to not have someone with that expertise as VP.
My veep line would be:
1. Wesley Clark - right on the war, has run for Pres, is polished with the media, could heal a little of the Clinton wounds.
2. Jim Webb - appeals to appalachian voters (the one group that obama has had trouble with), has military, foreign policy experience. could help tip VA. kaine can appoint a good democrat to fill the spot. is he ready to be Presdient?
3. Bill Richardson - best resume of the bunch (exec AND foreign policy) has run for pres. tips NM. and he doesn't have a tiff with hillary supporters. james carville has a tiff with him - vast majority of voters don't know or care. just some concern about smoothness on the stump and personal concerns.

Posted by: st paul sage | May 9, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Jim Webb. It's a no-brainer.

In the campaign, he helps bring in Reagan Democrats.

In an Obama administration, he has the standing to ask the hard questions of the generals if they try to give him selective "facts on the ground" about Iraq. I doubt if a governor from Kansas would be able to do that. Sam Nunn would, but with no disrespect, he's too much a figure of the past.

Yes, Webb has a temper, but quiet as it's kept, so does pretty nearly every other politician. But the military is almost certainly going to try to bluff and bully any Democratic president, and Webb will almost guarantee that if they should try, they won't succeed.

Posted by: Andy Moursund | May 9, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

No way Obama can pick someone with zero foriegn policy experience. We're in the middle of two wars!

Posted by: Joe | May 9, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Jim Webb. Look, when it comes to the election and you've got McCain trying to posture like the lone patriot left on the map, wrapped in flags and accusing tones, only Jim Webb can properly puncture that pose.

He's a decorated Vietnam vet whom nobody can dispute served his country well from a family of military folks. His son's in Iraq. Webb's an ex-Republican that served under Reagan as Secretary of the Navy. Who better to symbolize moving beyond traditional politics than this guy?

More than that, like Obama, he's always come off like a different kind of politician. A real truthteller and maybe someone who didn't just get into politics to burnish his own ego, for a change.

Heck, isn't McCain's big standard that he's the straight talker? Compare Webb and McCain any day. Do it. Obama won't even have to respond to the guy - Webb can take him apart with one hand behind his back.

He's pro-gun, Southern and has a lovely family to boot. What more do you want?

Best choice bar none.

Posted by: OddjobXL | May 9, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

mnteng, Jindal's in line overall with McCain wrt the pro-life, pro-gun R platform. Overall, the Presidential candidate's views on these fine details are far more important, and Mack's moderate stance on stem cell research and other agenda items won't change because of his VP's ideology. He'll dictate the platform and the direction, I have no doubt about that.

No Cheneys needed this time for the Rs.

What is great about Jindal, is his own life story is a testimony to the American dream. "My mom and dad came to this country in pursuit of the American dream. And guess what happened. They found the American dream to be alive and well right here in Louisiana," he said.

It's a story of how working to achieve the American dream coincided with Louisiana voters' buyers' remorse over the performance -- or, rather, NON-performance -- of the state's hapless Hurricane Katrina-era governor Kathleen Blanco.


Jindal is MCCainesque in his committment to ethics reform and fiscal transparency. He has rid his state of those "feeding at the public trough," as he calls it.

"They can either go quietly or they can go loudly, but either way, they will go," he said, and he called the Legislature into special session to address ethics reform.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Richardson's resume is obviously better than anyone's. Tellingly, this did not benefit him very much in his Presidential campaign.

I think that he would make a poor choice as a running mate for two main reasons. 1) I don't think he is rhetorically aggressive enough to support the President's agenda. Obviously he would not have to be as pitbullish as Dick Cheyney, but he needs to be somewhat aggressive from time to time. I have not seen any evidence that he can do this, at least from a public communication standpoint.

2) Any benefit that he brings to the ticket in terms of electoral math in the Southwest would be cancelled out by the fact that McCain is popular in that region. In addition, McCain's immigration policy is pretty well-liked by Hispanic voters, which will diminish the effectiveness of Richardson's appeal also. The bottom line is that the Democrats stand to gain more with many other demographics.

Posted by: Greg | May 9, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Insane Hillary just a few minutes started calling for more debates. This has stopped even being funny anymore, she must be completely insane.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I'd love to see Feingold.
1) He has gobs of experience, which is the big complaint about Obama.
2) Even so, he fits the "change" meme.
3) He'd really pull in the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" while Obama draws in the moderates and Republicans.
4) He'd keep the youth that Obama has drawn in convinced that he isn't making any deals.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | May 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

1. Charlie Crist. Never going to happen. Charlie is well known - for many, many years - to be very deep in the closet. And that will certainly be exposed even further than it has to date should he be the VP nominee. The "cons" of the Republican party would never vote for a gay man.

2. How could neither Jim Webb nor General Clark not be on any short list for Obama? An Obama/Webb ticket would kick major ass.

Posted by: MiamiDude | May 9, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

It's difficult to argue with choosing Senator Webb as Obama's running mate.

My only problem with Governor Richardson is his attitude. Mr. Richardson certainly has the best resume of any of the possibilities (he had the best resume of any of the presidential candidates too). But does he really have what it takes to be a Vice Presidential candidate? Obviously one does not need to be a Dick Cheyney style pitbull, but doesn't a Vice Presidential candidate need to be capable of taking an aggressive posture every once in awhile? Have we ever seen that from Mr. Richardson?

On top of that, I think that there is a good possibility that any benefit that Richardson might have in the Southwest would be cancelled out by the fact that McCain is popular in that region and already touts an immigration policy that is favorable to many Hispanics.

Posted by: Greg | May 9, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

If people are fretting about Obama's appeal to Reagan Democrats, being branded as too liberal, and potential weakness as commander-in-chief, Jim Webb would be the candidate of choice. The man was a Marine and served in the Reagan administration as Secretary of the Navy. An Obama-Webb ticket would be unstoppable!

Posted by: ndbehaviorist1 | May 9, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

The VP for Obama is Freshman Senator D-VA, Jim Webb - think no further...

Posted by: ct2k 12830, houston | May 9, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

If you are considering a party elder like Sam Nunn, it seems incredible that you would overlook former two-term Florida Governor and three-term Senator Bob Graham. As a former Chair of trhe Senate Intelligence Committee, who opposed the Iraq War, it would certainly address the foreign policy issue on Obama's terms.
In addition, it would make Florida very difficult for the Republicans to carry, since Bob Graham has been very popular in Florida for a very long time.

Posted by: Florida Democrat | May 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

But if Tony Zinni were VP he would make Jim Webb look like the soul of teasipping politeness.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 9, 2008 9:44 AM

Exactly what is needed for a Vice-Presidential candidate: attack dog instincts, respect from the public, and ability to navigate the bureaucratic landscape.

Posted by: Truman | May 9, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Mike in VA, I think that Senator Clinton would make a better Senate Majority Leader than Supreme Court Justice.

(Personally, if I was pulling for someone in the Senate to be on the SCOTUS, it would be Feingold)

Posted by: rpy1 | May 9, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP:

Isn't Jindal pretty far right as well? All I know about him is that he's pro-life, pro-gun, anti-stem cell, for teaching ID in school.

Posted by: mnteng | May 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

You missed 2 that I think would also make sense.

1. Jim Webb - military background, southern, economic-populist. Would help him tremendously w/ white vote, and also, possibly tip Virginia (like Kaine).

2. Bill Richardson - lots of foreign policy experience. More importantly, his hispanic background would help Obama tremendously in the Southwest. Would give him NM, and possibly Nevada and Colorado. But, this would be risky, especially since he's had trouble w/ white voters.

I think Webb would be perfect. The only problem is... would be take a "VP's" role or be too macho and outdo the O-Man.

Posted by: David | May 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Not Tim Kaine. While he was a very early Obama supporter, he doesn't leave office until 2010. Maybe he'll attract Republican votes in VA to get him out of the governorship so that the Republican Lt. Gov. will take over the office. But I think that the Democratic voters may feel betrayed.
Not Sibelius. Did you actually listen to her response to the State of the Union speech, or did you fall asleep?
Not Bloomberg. When he came to northern Virginia to campaign for Jeanmarie Devolites-Davis, he laid a big, fat goose egg, or would have, if anyone had taken him seriously.

Posted by: NoVA | May 9, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Slightly tangential, but what about Obama eventually nominating Hillary for the Supreme Court?

Posted by: Michael in VA | May 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Senator Richard Burr (NC) is a good choice to be McCain's running mate. My previous post explains in further depth what he brings to the ticket right now - he basically brings everything to the table but notoriety, which McCain doesn't need.

But even if McCain does not win the election, I think that Senator Burr is the type of individual that the Republicans would like to introduce to the American people in order to establish future inroads to the electorate.

Posted by: Greg | May 9, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

My "line" for McCain from back in February. I need to get around to doing up some predictions for Obama.
5. J.C. Watts
4. Elizabeth Dole
3. Mark Sanford
2. Jon Huntsman
1. Rob Portman

The full details on my thinking and other possibilities at http://nbpolitico.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-s-mccain-third-veepstakes.html.

Posted by: nbpolitico | May 9, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

You know, Lucky Lakeshore, you didn't have to throw in that line "If NYers want her, that's their problem." Hillary's been highly effective for our state. She won over tons of Upstate Republicans by meeting with them and working with them! She cares about people, she works hard, and she knows her stuff. She doesn't run a highly effective presidential campaign, though, does she? That's what happens when you rely too much on your Inner Circle (or "cronies," as Hillary Haters may call them). She should've learned from Dubya that cronyism does not pay.

Posted by: dognabbit | May 9, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Sherrod Brown.

Posted by: Ted | May 9, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Dude, Obama/Edwards! You knew it was coming...
Posted by: Gabe | May 9, 2008 9:36 AM

I highly doubt Edwards would want to run for VP again, especially with Elizabeth sick.

Posted by: aleks | May 9, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

SInce Obama is the old guard , establishment candidate, how about Kennedy or Kerry or Pelosi ?

Posted by: Mika | May 9, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

SInce Obama is the old guard , establishment candidate, how about Kennedy or Kerry or Pelosi ?

Posted by: Mika | May 9, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Spanky writes
"As a resident of Minnesota I'm baffled by the popularity of Pawlenty. I can think of one significant accomplishment unless you count voting against transportation funding prior to the bridge collapse."

Spanky, I too am from MN. I think Pawlenty, on paper, is the 'ideal' GOP candidate. He's been absolutely immobile on 'no new taxes'. He's liked by the religious / social conservative voters. He's telegenic. He's outmaneuvered the Dems regularly. While he's not overwhelmingly popular in MN, he's the kind of guy that can campaign elsewhere & markets well as a 'successful' governor - much like Romney did, though people from MA apparently don't share that sentiment.

Posted by: bsimon | May 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

I like your choices of Sebelius, Kaine and Strickland but I would replace Clinton with either Webb or Richardson.

I understand that the major knock against Webb is that he holds a critical Senate seat, but I still think it is a mistake to leave him off the list.

As for foreign policy experience, you just cannot overlook Richardson.

Posted by: dnbraggs | May 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

There is one obvious choice for Obama to consider which was overlooked and that is Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania. I believe Chris Matthews of Hardball was the first to mention him and while I immediately dismissed him, it has become cleared each day that he the obvious. No other person has more plus factors - Just consider:

1. The popular governor of a State that the Democrats must retain who showed his political strength in the primary and whose state abuts the state that will probably choose the winner and in many ways mirrors it - Ohio
2. The one politician more than any other that the Clintons rightfully are indebted to. They cannot sit on their hands if he is on the ticket and Bill Clinton will be a tremendous asset in the rural South. It puts the South in play andeven if Obama was to lose the South it will cause McCain to expend time and money in a his territory.
3. One hell of a politician. He more than any other understands the nuts and bolts of big city politics. He knows how to control a state by winning in the city and surrounding area. In other words he knows how to get the vote out on election day. Remember besides being a Governor, he was Mayor of Philadelphia and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. While his roots would seem to point to old time politics, I submit that it is important in bringing change to recognize the past - give it a vote and not a veto. Rendell has his feet in both camps.
4. He is Jewish. This is a plus because of Florida. I bleive there would be a problem with the Jewish vote in Florida going to McCain becuase of the Lieberman factor. Rendell takes care of that and would be a big factor in Obama possibly beating McCain in Florida.

Posted by: J. Field | May 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

There is one obvious choice for Obama to consider which was overlooked and that is Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania. I believe Chris Matthews of Hardball was the first to mention him and while I immediately dismissed him, it has become cleared each day that he the obvious. No other person has more plus factors - Just consider:

1. The popular governor of a State that the Democrats must retain who showed his political strength in the primary and whose state abuts the state that will probably choose the winner and in many ways mirrors it - Ohio
2. The one politician more than any other that the Clintons rightfully are indebted to. They cannot sit on their hands if he is on the ticket and Bill Clinton will be a tremendous asset in the rural South. It puts the South in play andeven if Obama was to lose the South it will cause McCain to expend time and money in a his territory.
3. One hell of a politician. He more than any other understands the nuts and bolts of big city politics. He knows how to control a state by winning in the city and surrounding area. In other words he knows how to get the vote out on election day. Remember besides being a Governor, he was Mayor of Philadelphia and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. While his roots would seem to point to old time politics, I submit that it is important in bringing change to recognize the past - give it a vote and not a veto. Rendell has his feet in both camps.
4. He is Jewish. This is a plus because of Florida. I bleive there would be a problem with the Jewish vote in Florida going to McCain becuase of the Lieberman factor. Rendell takes care of that and would be a big factor in Obama possibly beating McCain in Florida.

Posted by: J. Field | May 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

There is one obvious choice for Obama to consider which was overlooked and that is Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania. I believe Chris Matthews of Hardball was the first to mention him and while I immediately dismissed him, it has become cleared each day that he the obvious. No other person has more plus factors - Just consider:

1. The popular governor of a State that the Democrats must retain who showed his political strength in the primary and whose state abuts the state that will probably choose the winner and in many ways mirrors it - Ohio
2. The one politician more than any other that the Clintons rightfully are indebted to. They cannot sit on their hands if he is on the ticket and Bill Clinton will be a tremendous asset in the rural South. It puts the South in play andeven if Obama was to lose the South it will cause McCain to expend time and money in a his territory.
3. One hell of a politician. He more than any other understands the nuts and bolts of big city politics. He knows how to control a state by winning in the city and surrounding area. In other words he knows how to get the vote out on election day. Remember besides being a Governor, he was Mayor of Philadelphia and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. While his roots would seem to point to old time politics, I submit that it is important in bringing change to recognize the past - give it a vote and not a veto. Rendell has his feet in both camps.
4. He is Jewish. This is a plus because of Florida. I bleive there would be a problem with the Jewish vote in Florida going to McCain becuase of the Lieberman factor. Rendell takes care of that and would be a big factor in Obama possibly beating McCain in Florida.

Posted by: J. Field | May 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

How about Bill Richardson?

Posted by: Lee | May 9, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Since Hillary's ego has spun out of control creating a split within the party between Afro-American and Women not to mention blue collar voters the best choice is Sebelius. I figure that since the Clintons have played the race and gender card to the hilt there will have to be a women on the ticket. Sebelius takes care of three things, she is from a red state ,that state Kansas has many small towns and a growing Hispanic community. Many work in the meat packaging plants and have put down roots in that state.. Although she has no foreign policy experience look at all those who did ended up in the Bush administration and made a mess of things. Experience hs to balanced with character.
I think that Obama should also mention his cabinet picks. My selections are;Holbrooke for state, Hegel for defense, Celand for veterans, Nunn as arms control, Zinni for security & Richardson for the UN. I havent mentioned any women because McCaskill has only a year or two in the senate.Rendell or Patrick Fitzgerald for AG. Feinstein would also be a good choice but that in choice Arnold would pick a Republican to fill her seat.
Corzine would make a lousy choice for veep. The only way he will be re-elected is if the Republicans pick another loser to run against him. I think that NJ may just go Republican this year. I took a long look at the map that the Star Ledger printed after the 2004 election-much of NJ was red for Republican.
If Hillary keeps going the way she is going she will doom her political future. She should stop the race baiting and playing the gender card. She may be tough but she is a Clinton which means that speaks out of both sides of her mouth.I do think that in 2010 a few more senators will be leaving -hopefully that will include Joe Liberman . Maybe he will be invited to spend time with Mc Cain at his ranch when he is retired after losing in November.I think that Biden would be an excellent veep choice-he would have made an outstanding president but unfortunately it wasn't meant to be. His experience, intelligence , dignity and maturity is still needed in the senate. For the next majority leader I would go with McCaskill .

Posted by: New Jersey | May 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"How About Chuck Hagel for Obama"

I agree with this poster an antiwar Republican fiscal conservative from Nebraska on the ticket with Obama would completely change the electoral map. Hagel most certainly would bring in some independents and Republicans that are not to thrilled with McCain.

However Kathleen Sebelius would seem more likely a pick, solid governor who would satisfy the many women supporters of Hillary knowing a woman will be on the ticket and she actually has more real experience than Hillary.


Posted by: Scott | May 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I also like Sebelius as a potential pick for Obama, and I've been touting her to friends for months.

Another name that I'm surprised no one has mentioned is Russ Feingold. Like Obama, he has a strong belief in process reform, and despite a fairly liberal record he has shown an ability to draw some Republican votes in a politically competitive state. He's also smart and reportedly a great speaker. Possible downsides include his recent divorce and lack of religiosity credentials. But if Obama opts for a strategy of "doubling down" by picking a VP candidate who reinforces his message (a la Clinton-Gore) rather than ticket-balancing, I think Feingold is a possibility.

Posted by: LDK in DC | May 9, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Natn99 -- agree somewhat with the MD KKT point, but I will tell you when I met her at the 2004 convention and she was told I was a 1st CD delegate, her comment was "I didn't know there were any Democrats on the Eastern Shore." She learned (as others like Mikulski already know) that you may not be able to win with the ES Dems support, but you can sure lose without it.

I think some have made good cases for Webb and Bayh, two that will also make the ticket stronger. Both are VERY moderate Dems, and like Sebelius, Bayh brings a lot of recognition and support in a Red state, although the last time they voted Democrat was in 1960, the only time my Hoosier father voted for a Democrat for President. Before the Christian right got control of the politics in Kansas, it was a very progressive state. They may be finally coming to their senses.

Posted by: vmi98mom | May 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

How about Mark Warner for Obama? He's inexperienced in politics, but he had a very successful term in office, was a successful businessman, would help in Virginia, and was a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination before he decided to drop out.

Posted by: davestickler | May 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Is this supposed to be a discussion of who would be the most helpful VP, or the most likely?

For the odds on the most likely, it's worth looking at the RealClearPolitics website to see what people are betting:

http://fantasy08.realclearpolitics.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=7663&eventSelect=7663&updateList=true&showExpired=false#

At the moment, the odds are:

1) Clinton (21%)
2) Webb (12%)
3) Richardson (9%)
4) Edwards (8%)
5) Gore (6.5%)


Posted by: TRM | May 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Each of the nominees will have to do some heavy ELECTORAL calculation before they can select a short list. On the Dem side Rendell fits the the top of the list. An ethnic/working class Clintonista from a big blue (how many E votes??)state who can probably swing other rust-belt states, AND Florida, Ca, NY, etc.. The others, contrarty to the media stampede, will not be as fit, nor as sanguine to "the call", as it would now appear. Contrary to the perceived "CW", when "your president" or your "nominee" calls, THINKING types don't automatically jump off the roof. That is for the opportunists, flim-flam types, and political pundits. The thinkers review their chances, contributions, and futures in the public arena, and decide accordingly.

On the Repub side, the ELECTORAL calculation is tempered by AGE. John Thune is a pit-bull, a ready attack dog, and capable of balancing the ticket, both geographically, and ideologically. He did such a job on Daschle that I don't think the man has yet recovered. He would make it to the short list.

Posted by: L.Sterling | May 9, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone on Chris' list has much chance, except possibly Strickland and Portman.

For Obama, I think Napolitano is the best pick; she's a much better campaigner than Sebelius and popular with the right demographics. Nunn, Graham, and others are too much a throwback to the past. Bloomberg would reinforce the image of urban elitist. Richardson didn't do well enough in the primary. Webb is a possibility as is Rendell.

For McCain, the obvious choice is Jindal. Earlier this week when I mentioned this to a group of people, the supporters of Obama, Clinton, and McCain all thought he would be a great choice. The Republicans desperately need to recast themselves as something other than the party of old white men. Jindal is not only a young Catholic from immigrant parents, but he also has a background in health policy and in his short time as governor has already pushed through some major reforms. The only other one I can imagine is Palin.

Posted by: George82 | May 9, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

SUPERDELEGATES AND HEADS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS MAKING A BIG MISTAKE BY LETTING HILLARY AND BILL CLINTON RUN THE SHOW.
To washington Post blog..

I blog on ABC often even though I know they are a large supporters of Hillary.
I support Obama
But Hillary Clinton endless meaningless effort to stay in the race to damage Obama..
To damage our Party has made me so dishearted.
The Dem THINK oh this is good for the party its not. It's disappointing that the only reason Hillary is still in the race is because super delegates some at least are afraid to say it's over because she is Bill Clinton wife.
I feel the Democratic Party cares more about Bill and Hillary than its people.
This has been an unfair process on Obama who never really wanted to engage in ugly attacks..No only Hillary with her using every dirty trick she could find. Obama came in as the underdog and Hillary is still treating this way.
What she is really saying about this I can get more White votes is "don't elect the Black man..He can't win" To me that is what Hillary is really saying.
IF we don't win with Obama I will BLAME Hillary and Bill. The two top democrats who seem to can't let it go.
Even at the expense of our Party.
At this very moment I'm so sad.
Sad that our party is going down in a year where we had it all.
Hillary bringing up gender, bringing up race bringing up any and everything she can to win.
And no one is saying anything.
The media jumps on whatever story gives them the most ratings, not really caring themselves.
We are all here in this blog, blogging like fools..fools with anger or sadness like I feel right now.
Sadness in this process..
I don't know if I'm going to vote this Nov
Even if my main man Obama wins the Nominee because Hillary Clinton has made so dishearted about how unfair this process has been
How she has been able to get away with so much with media being her puppet, with her lies, I could never trust her.
That excitement I had about being a Democrat feels gone, About feeling like apart of something big is dying..

Posted by: betty | May 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone on Chris' list has much chance, except possibly Strickland and Portman.

For Obama, I think Napolitano is the best pick; she's a much better campaigner than Sebelius and popular with the right demographics. Nunn, Graham, and others are too much a throwback to the past. Bloomberg would reinforce the image of urban elitist. Richardson didn't do well enough in the primary. Webb is a possibility as is Rendell.

For McCain, the obvious choice is Jindal. Earlier this week when I mentioned this to a group of people, the supporters of Obama, Clinton, and McCain all thought he would be a great choice. The Republicans desperately need to recast themselves as something other than the party of old white men. Jindal is not only a young Catholic from immigrant parents, but he also has a background in health policy and in his short time as governor has already pushed through some major reforms. The only other one I can imagine is Palin.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

IMHO we'd all better practice spelling "Sebelius." She is (as noted by other commenters) a Catholic (albeit pro-choice), successful in a very red state with six years' executive experience and a solid track record (as state Insurance Commissioner) dealing with health insurers.
Also it's not often mentioned that she is the daughter of a former governor of (wait for it...) OHIO! Ed Rendell has said he'd support her as Obama's VP candidate, and she'd generally soften the disappointment of HRC supporters.

Posted by: FlownOver | May 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices leapt to a new peak of more than $126 a barrel on Friday, hitting a record for the fifth straight session, in a market given an additional spur by tight supplies of diesel.

"Lingering geopolitical fears and high heating oil prices are helping the market, but the speed of the rise is too fast," said Tatsuo Kageyama, analyst at Kanetsu Asset Management in Tokyo.

Posted by: watch out | May 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Sam Nunn would be a great pick for Obama--accomplished, smart, and possessing some serious gravitas that would deflate arguments over lack of foreign policy or defense creds. Sibelius would also be a decent choice, but I see her exposed to some of the same arguments thrown at O--lack of experience, etc. I think the other three are much more conventional and I don't see HRC as a workable option.

Posted by: bigkens | May 9, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

STILL arguing over the DETAILS ... WHO Should be VEEPS ... FOR ... the 2 Guys who have Already SOLD YOU & ALL your posterity Down the River - to the NUKE INDUSTRY: McCain & Obama.

They Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill.
THAT is why THEIR Wholly-Owned MEDIA is PRO-Obama/Anti-Clinton.

Clinton Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill & her ENERGY PLAN "does not include nuclear". THAT is WHY Obama's GOT the MEDIA & The MONEY.

Gonna BUY OBSOLETE 70-Year OLD Nightmare Technology --- instead of NEW CLEAN REnewable Energy? UnGodly EXPENSIVE Nightmare nuke technology?

PLAIN ENGLISH: Doesn't make a damn bit of differene WHO the VEEP ... MIGHT ... be
WHAT MATTERS is the ECONOMICS and SPREADING nuke waste/terrorist TARGETS all over the Country --- EVEN MORE than they already are.

DO Something to STOP the INSANE GREED! SPREAD the WORD - to everybody on your email list ... blogs & news media locally and nationally ..all over the web blogs ... especially in all the UPCOMING PRIMARY STATES.

Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

As a resident of Minnesota I'm baffled by the popularity of Pawlenty. I can think of one significant accomplishment unless you count voting against transportation funding prior to the bridge collapse.

Posted by: Spanky | May 9, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

How about Chris Dodd? He's a catholic (a group not in tune with Obama), speaks Spanish (could help in the west), is good with the interest groups (to be read women and labor), is chair of the banking committee (it's the economy, stupid), is #2 on the foreign relations committee (sures up Obama's experience issues), and is from the Northeast (cutting off McCain from even thinking about trying there). Additionally, he endorsed Obama, isn't flashy, and won't overshadow Obama. He's great on the progressive base issues, such as the environment and protecting the constitution. Finally, his message of calling people to service, while not overly heard in the primaries, fits with Obama's. Yes, he would be in his 70's after two terms, but that would ease the alarm that Obama has picked his "successor" to would-be future Presidential candidates like Mark Warner, causing them to be more willing to help the ticket (Warner also once worked for Dodd).

Just a thought.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Mrk,

Not that I'm all gung-ho for Sebelius on the ticket (no defense or foreign policy experience), but you need to think through your logic there about Sebelius wanting to be at the top of the ticket some day. The only way that makes sense would be if she was entertaining the idea of running against Obama in 2012 when he would be an incumbent. Which is pretty much absurd - incumbent Presidents do not get defeated in primaries. It just doesn't happen.

She sure as hell ain't getting the nomination in 2008. If Obama lost this year then nothing would be stopping her from running in '12.

Bottom line is that there is no more secure path to the White House or at least to a nomination than by first becoming Vice President. Al Gore, Bush Sr., Walter Mondale, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman were all VPs before they were top-of-the-ticket nominees. And Franklin Roosevelt had been a running mate on a losing ticket earlier in his career. So was Bob Dole, come to think of it.

The path from accepting a VP nod to becoming POTUS is still a tough one that obviously not everyone succeeds in. But the success rate among former VPs is still far greater than among Senators, Congressmen and Governors who never appeared on a national ticket before trying for the White House.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | May 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Picking a number two is very important. I still remember the 2002 Maryland Gubernatorial race, when by all accounts KKT should have had an easy ride and picking the wrong Lt. Governor, which immediately turned off the party base destroyed her chances. That being said, Obama will never choose Hillary for VP because it will immediately turn off his base of support - which will be more damaging than the Hillary supporters who will switch to McCain, because if she is on the ticket they probably still wouldn't vote for Obama. I think the Republican list is accurate, but feel the ranking for the Democrats is off. I still think that Jim Webb from Virginia would be more highly considered than Tim Kaine. Webb has the military experience, did very well in rural towns, is Reagan Democrat and can put VA in the Dem column, probably better than Kaine. He will also be more attractive nationally than Kaine (although Kaine will likely get a Cabinet post of some kind, but after the 2009 VA election, since the Lt. Gov is a Republican.

Others to consider, I think Evan Bayh is a more likely choice than Ted Strickland. He can help in Ohio and who knows maybe even Indidana. Hes a Clinton loyalist and has alot of appeal.

I don't think Obama will choose a woman - too much history making. I think the country is right on the edge in supporting a black man or a woman, but both at the same time would cross the line in some places. I dont think he would take the chance.

I think Obama would be well served if when he chooses his VP pick, he surrounds himself with surrogates that could be potential Cabinet choices. I think he would have some Republicans in his Cabinet, like Dick Lugar, but to give a preview of what he's looking for in a Cabinet would be helpful.

Posted by: natn99 | May 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton appears on the Democratic ticket, I will hold my nose and vote for it. But I won't give any money or work for the campaign. Obama is great; Hillary is a plague. She needs to be kept out of our lives. If NYers want her, that's their problem.

Although Bill Richardson's foreign policy "experience" is mostly a result of his being appointed to fancy positions simply because he was a Friend of Bill's (his childhood as a rich kid in Mexico City doesn't count for much for me), he would make the most sense as a VP candidate. He could help in the West and with Latinos and maybe win over some of Hillary's less-bitter supporters. Obama has to have someone with at least the appearance of having some foreign policy chops.

Posted by: Lucky Lakeshore | May 9, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

incidentally nads, someday maybe you will grow up and understand that with your continued insults of Hillary, Bill, Chelsea and 16 million HC supporters, why so may of us are not only angry with your campaign but likely will be creating a new generation of Hill Dems for McCain and Yellow Dog rs, and why it is b/c of supporters like you that your candidate will likely lose Fla, Ohio and Pa and will turn Sen Obama into the next Michael Dukakas.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

The best choice for Obama is Jim Webb, D-VA;

- Foreign Policy/Defense Experience
- Change
- Bipartisanship
- Virginia
- White working class voters, and guns

What is not to like?

Posted by: mattcrow | May 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

If McCain's considering a senator, he shouldn't pick Thune. He should pick the coolest Republican senator of all: Susan Collins! And who's the coolest Democratic senator? Well, I think that might just be: Barack Obama!

Posted by: dognabbit | May 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if some of these potential VP nominees are studying up on international issues. If Sebelius can do a good job of discussing foreign policy, I think she'd be a great pick.

Posted by: mike | May 9, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Chris--

Obama picks Biden -- pit bull who will mix it up (letting Obama stay above the fray), with foreign policy credentials and knows how to debate. Tough old guy with name recognition.

McCain picks Chris Cox -- smart as could be, lots of experience, conservative and youthful. He should be in your top three (and will be by July).

As the first person to get McCain's pick right, I want a T-shirt.

Tyler

Posted by: Tyler Durden | May 9, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

tony writes "Charlie Crist is the best one for McCain, unless he feels the need for diversity ..."

Oh, I don't know.... i think Crist is fairly diverse, if you know hwat I'ma sayin and I think you do.

I think Crist would be great! I'd put him at Number 2 on the Line.

Thune is too far right. Adds nothing to the ticket. The only way we can win is to keep the ticket center right.

#1 Jindal


hey lyle, thanks for that vote of confidence!!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 9, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: DAB, NY | May 9, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Isn't Napolitano Canadian by birth? That would put her out of the running.

Oh and I meant "security Moms" in my earlier post.

Posted by: vmi98mom | May 9, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

leichtman could be BHO's choice to heal the rift.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

This has been an exciting and very beneficial primary for Democrats. There has been an increase of voters across the political spectrum. Most states have actually witnessed a campaign and heard the words of the candidates. Sure. A little mud was thrown but that is politics. In a few weeks, the focus will shift to the general election.

OBAMA-HAGEL '08

Just imagine the power of that ticket! Where would the opposition begin their attack? What better way to bring the nation together? Forget political geography. Look at these two men. This ticket would sweep up the great American middle (and a few from the far left and right). Wishful thinking?

Think about it.

Frank Tillery
One of U.S.

Posted by: FATillery | May 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad you plucked Mark Sanford from the list of Republicans. As for Obama, he can't pick any woman other than Clinton without it looking like a slap in the face. Where's Bill Richardson? He endorsed during the Rev. Wright saga.

Posted by: Martin | May 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Since Senator Obama admits using drugs. I have a question that the Washington post should ask him, "Did you snort the cocaine or ingest it?" How about asking, "If Senator Clinton knew about you not having been vetted, why did she not release the damaging material early in the race and destroy your candidacy? (say maybe in Iowa)" Could it have been to prevent the destruction of the democratic party? Or maybe to preserve the democratic party? Maybe journalists should beginning reporting on her restraint throughout the process and stop trying to create a rift between Black and White Americans.

Posted by: Nelson Roman | May 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

HRC has negatives that would energize the GOP to overcome their ambivalence towards McC.
He would be crazy to pick her.

Wesley Clark is a serious thinker,is fluent in Spanish, and would help secure the middle road. Ending the war is one of Obama's central tenets, and Clark is a good choice to help do that. Also throw a bone to the HRC camp, though not the women.

McCain's VP?--Who cares, no matter who he chooses, we are voting on Bush 3. That is not to say that he may not win.

Posted by: smartinsen | May 9, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

For McCain:
Good choices presented. Don't forget Lindsay Graham, who could be a good Pres. candidate in a few years. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell would be good as well (if they accepted). Huckabee would make the campaign entertaining (it's hard not to like the guy), but is probably not a good choice.

For Obama:
Dodd and Biden could work but they are too NE liberals. Mark Warner would be an excellent choice, but he's already running for the Senate. Ken Salazar would bring Colorado into play and help court Latinos (I'm not even sure if he speaks Spanish, but he has a Spanish last name). George Mitchell would be an interesting alternative to Nunn (he's been involved in foreign affairs quite a bit). Hillary and Strickland would be poor choices. I like Sebelius as a choice as well. I really like Bill Richardson, but I think he would be much more useful as a Secretary of State than as a VP.

Posted by: JPHT | May 9, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Steve and jmot I agree with you 100% about Richardson. It would be a grand idea to stick Obama's finger in the eyes of all HC supporters by selecting Gov. Richardson.

He will do it for one reason and one reason only. To insult one more time the 16 million HC supporters many of us who are entirely sick and tired of the way that we have been abused by the dirty tricks of the Obama campaign (deliberatly having the Gary mayor hold back Indiana results he had in his pocket according to the Lakeside mayors at 7:30 pm, until after 2 am to make sure and spin the media) and your campaign's deliberate efforts in Michigan and Fla to block every single completely paid for revote in those states under Sen Obama's terms simply b/c he knew that would change the dynamics of the race, after being slapped with insults of the Clintons including yesterday's throwing the w word at Chelsea by an Obama supporter, and after tolerating being labeled old, shriveled up, uneducated, evil, monsters and racists (by fabricating posts and then slapping our names in the sign in),being told that every HC supporter who dares to question Obama is a R and "needs to leave the party now"(many of us will remember those sentiments very clearly. And we will not forget being spit on at our caucuses by Obama supporters,having Obama supporters show up an hr late at our caucus and scream they must be included even after a vote to end any new caucus particpants, receiving robo calls at 2 am spreading disinformation about our caucus locations(played on Channel 2 news here in Tx., having our cars keyed, and Obama supporters going into our yards and tearing up our HC signs and replacing them with Obama signs. Adding Bill Richardson as VP will finally accomplish what many Obama supporters here have strongly urged for months, the final and total destruction of the D Party and total alienation of 16 million of us to join John McCain. Congratulations. You and your crowd will have accomplished something that no one would have thought possble, turning 16 million Yellow Dog Dems into Rs.

We are bitter and cling to our religion and many will soon turn to HillDemsforMcCain.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 9, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you've put together a very interesting and accurate list. I'd like to add a couple of names.

I believe Senator McCain's running mate will have to be a well known cultural conservative. They've been too important to the Republican party for the last 8 years to ignore on the ticket. A potential candidate, and I realize this is way out in left field, could be Rick "Mad Dog" Santorum, the former Senator from Pennsylvania. His presence would energize the cultural base of the party across the country, slamming the door on possible upsets in the south which would doom McCain's candidacy. More importantly, he would give McCain a very good shot at Pennsylvania where Obama showed some vulnerability. If Clinton had turned out as the opponent, Pawlenty would have been my pick, but I think Minnesota and Wisconsin are lost causes against Obama.

For Obama, I think General Wesley Clark will be given much consideration. He would fill out the foreign policy and military elements missing from Obama's resume. He could also put Arkansas in play. Finally, his inclusion would help to mollify staffers from the Clinton wing of the party, as he is one of their own.

Posted by: GawkSquawk | May 9, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

lylepink is a diehard Clinton supporter, so his judgement on the election outcome if Obama is the candidate is questionable. That said, I like Sebelius for the job. Her father was Governor of Ohio, so she brings those credentials as well as her popularity in Kansas, and her approach to politics fits with Obama's. We don't need a "foreign policy" Democrat, there are lots advisers that will sign on and bring the heft needed in that area. McCain's focus on issues outsdie of the US to the total detriment of internal affairs will kill him this election. All those "secirty Mom's" that voted for the GOP in the last 2 elections are looking at their children now being the ones sent to be shot at. I don't see them voting for someone who wants to continue the Bush policy in the ME. I also don't see the feminists now supporting Clinton lining up behind a guy that could swing the Supremes to the far right for the next 3 decades. Campaign rhetoric is just that. As much as Clinton's supporters believe that Obama will lose, I just don't see the majority of those that voted for her in the primaries defecting to vote for McCain. BTW, I voted for Edwards, so I have no dog in the hunt except electing a Democrat. I will work for whomever the nominee is, and hope that individuals like lylepink, whose analysis I have appreciated for years, will do the same. Afterall, we are talking about this country's future and we cannot afford 4 (or 8) more years of the GOP in the WH.

Posted by: vmi98mom | May 9, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Jim Webb. I can't believe you actually included Sam Nunn but not Jim Webb, who actually has grassroots support.

Sam Nunn is 70 years old. Too old for VP. He would have been a good pick for Al Gore in 2000 but his time has passed.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | May 9, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Claire McCaskill:

Woman from a key state to draw in Clinton's strong support from women.

Posted by: Geof | May 9, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

How does a choice that requires the qualifier "stranger things have happened" come up as number 3? Presumably, Kaine or Nunn would not be such strange choices yet somehow their odds are longer than Clinton's. Sorry, but Clinton ain't gonna happen, and I doubt any of her die hard supporters will be considered either. Images of Strickland obediently nodding along while Clinton says "shame on you Barack Obama" will not exactly project a strong, unified ticket. Richardson belongs in the top 5 before either of them.

Posted by: dougJNJ | May 9, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

It is easier to gain a Veep's enemies than the Veep's friends. Hillary Clinton has a plethora of the former, and few of the latter which are not approachable through other channels.

Besides, how would you like to serve as president with a vice-president whose primary occupation is sticking knives in your back? Plus, having an ex-President hanging around the house all day like an unemployed brother-in-law who you have to watch every minute to prevent him from swiping the silverware and heading to the pawn shop. An Obama-Clinton Whitehouse would be the house from hell for Obama (and the Democrats). Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Stonecreek | May 9, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

make that..Jane Harman

Posted by: scrapster | May 9, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

(The Fed govt. is Moving 30 Tons of Plutonium from Colorado to South Carolina ... getting ready to make FUEL rods for those 29 New Nuclear Power Plants Cheney/GE/Westinghouse are planning to build in several Eastern States. (their PLANS are far advanced; licensing hearings have already been scheduled for the first few nuke plants.) BTW inhaling a plutonium particle will kill you from lung cancer ------ within a week.

From May 9 New York Times:

Nuclear Waste Move Spews Political Fallout in 2 States

By DAVID FIRESTONE
The movement of 30 tons of weapons-grade plutonium from Colorado to South Carolina has officials arguing over whether the move is over national security or politics.

By DAVID FIRESTONE (NYT)
Energy Department files notice that it will begin shipping nuclear-warhead plutonium to South Carolina from Colorado for processing into power-plant fuel, possibily as early as May 15; South Carolina Gov Jim Hodges has threatened to block shipments if federal government does not agree to remove plutonium in case processing does not go as planned

Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

If McCain wants to solidify the Republican base, he would be smart to consider asking Richard Burr to be his running mate. Senator Burr has promoted a very strong conservative agenda since he took office as a Member of the House in 1995 (part of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America").

While he has accumulated a good deal of legislative experience in a variety of areas, Mr. Burr can hold his own with any Democrat in a debate on health care, which is not something that many Republicans can say. Health care is also an area where Senator McCain could use a boost in expertise.

Senator Burr's main weakness, in my view, is that he is somewhat unknown to the general public. However, I don't think that Senator McCain's campaign necessarily needs anymore celebrity.

The bottom line is that Senator Burr brings a) integrity; b) conservative philosophy; c) youth; and d) the South to the table. I think that he likely will sneak onto Senator McCain's list of potential running mates.

Posted by: Greg | May 9, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

How about Jane Harmam?--a moderate, female dem with serious homeland security cred..

Posted by: scrapster | May 9, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Clinton should pick her political twin Robert Mugabe, in order to heal the racial wounds.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 9, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I think Bill Richardson would, under ordinary circumstances, be a smart pick; however, these are (happily!) extraordinary times with an Obama at the top of the ticket. I would worry that Hillary's "hard-working whites" would gag over the prospect of having two minorities leading the ticket. A Jim Webb would lend both foreign-policy and good-ol'-boy gravitas to the ticket. Rendell was so zealously a Clinton fanatic that I don't know how he & Obama would work together. Nunn is too old & out of the loop.

All McCain needs to do to really help Obama is to continue sucking up to the right-of-right crowd, as he's done recently in discussing his Supreme Court philosophy. So I wouldn't be surprised if continues in this vein with his veep pick. However, if he wants to reaffirm his "maverick" bonafides, choosing a Christine Whitman or Snowe of Maine wouldn't hurt at all....

Posted by: Bob in CT | May 9, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Senator Biden would be the perfect Vice President (I thought he would be a great President too).

Unfortunately, the fact that he tends to run his mouth and provide unfavorable soundbites to the media, combined with the fact that he comes from an inconsequential state in terms of electoral math, do not make him a great Vice Presidential candidate.

Moreover, I think that he can do more good by holding onto his Senate seat. His positions on the Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees will be incredibly important during the next administration.

Posted by: Greg | May 9, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama will go with Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. He needs to buy forgiveness from white women for beating Hillary.

McCain's running mate will be Matlock.

Posted by: aleks | May 9, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Steve and jmot I agree with you 100% about Richardson. It would be grand idea to stick Obama's finger in the eyes of all HC supporters by selecting Gov. Richardson.

He will do it for one reason and one reason only. To stick to 16 million HC supporters many of us who are entirely sick and tired of the way that we have been abused by the dirty tricks of the Obama campaign (deliberatly having the Gary mayor hold back Indiana results he had in his pocket according to the Lakeside mayors at 7:30 pm, until after 2 am to make sure and spin the media) and your campaign's deliberate efforts in Michigan and Fla to block every single completely paid for revote in those states under Sen Obama's terms simply b/c he knew that would change the dynamics of the race, after being slapped with insults of the Clintons including yesterday's throwing the w word at Chelsea by an Obama supporter, and after tolerating being labeled old, shriveled up, uneducated, evil, monsters and racists (by fabricating posts and then slapping our names in the sign in),being told that every HC supporter who dares to question Obama is a R and "needs to leave the party now'(many of us will remember those sentiments very clearly, adding Bill Richardson as VP will finally accomplish the total destruction and alienation of 16 million of us to join John McCain. Congratulations. You and your crowd will have accomplished something that no one would have thought possble, turning 16 million Yellow Dog Dems into R.

We are bitter and cling to our religion and many will soon turn to HillDemsforMcCain.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 9, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I was thinking of Clare McCaskill the other day. Not sure why - a bit too new, especially for Obama who may need someone with more experience, but it would be an interesteing choice.

Posted by: hmmm | May 9, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

There are many names I think that could be added to the Democratic list.

One name should be removed: Hillary Clinton.

She may help the ticket in November, but she is the antithesis of the Obama message of change and will kill his presidency in the long run. No HILLARY!!

Posted by: Susan | May 9, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I think the timing for Romney is perfect if Obama is the Dem Candidate. The Religion issue would be off the table. Also, Pawlenty is a bad choice. Romney could help McCain in Mich, NV, Colo, an possibly Calif. What happened to Huckabee???

Posted by: Ed | May 9, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is the perfect Dick Cheney for John McCain.

I also like a crossover for Obama in NYC mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

Posted by: MackAA | May 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I cannot believe that Bloomberg is not on your list. The economy is the number one issue. Bloomberg's positions on the issues and his insistence that the US address our really serious issues now are closer to Obama's than any other politician of either party. He speaks his mind even more than Obama. Bloomberg has lots of money. He has led the country on policy issues that Obama favors. As one other has replied, his selection reinforces Obama's main message of governing with independents and some republicans. Obama has the anti-war credentials and has a clearly enunciated and clearly different approach to foreign affairs and has some very talented advisors on foreign and military affairs.

Posted by: pjonathan | May 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I cannot believe that Bloomberg is not on your list. The economy is the number one issue. Bloomberg's positions on the issues and his insistence that the US address our really serious issues now are closer to Obama's than any other politician of either party. He speaks his mind even more than Obama. Bloomberg has lots of money. He has led the country on policy issues that Obama favors. As one other has replied, his selection reinforces Obama's main message of governing with independents and some republicans. Obama has the anti-war credentials and has a clearly enunciated and clearly different approach to foreign affairs and has some very talented advisors on foreign and military affairs.

Posted by: pjonathan | May 9, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

McCain is going to have "tzuris" (major problems, as we say in Yiddish) if he picks Pawlenty. I can already see the adds with the bridge collapsing & their votes against funding transportation. I don't advocate exploiting a tragedy for political gain, but I'm hardpressed to see McCain selecting Tpaw who was governor during one of the country's worst human made disasters...

As for Obama, I think Schweitzer is intriging, as is Toni Zinni. But I would certaily move Tim Roemer onto the list, as I would former Sen Bob Kerrey from Nebraska. He has the foreign policy credentials to round out a ticket with Obama and served as an outspoken member of the 9/11 commission. He's got "chutzpah," which could present some pros & cons to Obama, but he certainly is an attractive candidate.

There are way too many stories floating around Bill Richardson & his "zipper problems" that disqualify Obama from selecting him.

Hillary won't be on the list unless Obama is absolutely forced to do so. He can't trust her. As one of my best friends--an outspoken feminist & long time support of HRC said to me Tuesday night--game over girlfriend.

Finally, don't count out Sen Joe Biden or former Sen Bob Graham of Florida. They both bring a level of gravitas to the ticket, even if they don't exactly fit the change bill.

Posted by: M. | May 9, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

What foreign policy experience does McCain have ? Except for his vote on Iraq, there is nothing noteworthy in his record. The media are overhyping the foreign policy or "national security" credentials of politicians. All we need our politicians to have is common sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I'm on the William Cohen bandwagon for Obama as well (can I get a Fix t-shirt for that?). He's so off the Dem's radar that he can be considered by the Party as a compromise, "safe", choice. His upside is tremendous, with minimal, if any, downside. That, and he looks like a stereotypical American "leader" (a.k.a. Mitt Romney for the Dems), but with a real national security background. Second choice is Tim Kaine, but with the reservations previously voiced. 2 "youngs" don't make a right.

On the other side, I like that Hailey Barber labeled himself as "too conservative" to be VP. An audition if there ever was one. Bobby Jindal, whom I like a lot, would look like McCain is pandering for the young vote. Anyone on either Bush administrations is not invited. Second choice for the 'pubs - Bloomberg if he can be coerced (Pres in '12?). If only that Gov. from Alaska didn't just have a baby, this would be an ideal year for a 'pub woman VP (no, I don't think Condelezza will reconsider).

Posted by: medhat | May 9, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

"Lylepink" and "Jenn2" present two alternative universe theories - it does not matter who either picks, the election is already decided and Senator McCain has won (lylepink) and Senator Obama has won (Jenn2).

Polling indicates that Sen. McCain was the most competitive Republican in what appears to be a Democratic year and that he still runs well ahead of his party in head-to-head stats. It also indicates that Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are quite close, at this early measure, and that there is potential fluidity among independent voters. There is no objective evidence to support the alternative universes of lylepink and Jenn2. The campaigns know these numbers, so Portman and Crist; Strickland, Rendell, Graham, and Nelson
are boosted by them, for obvious reasons.
55% of voters are women and it is about time to recognize that fact. Thus Sebelius, McCaskill, Snowe, Whitman, and Palin are in the mix, too.

These are not the only considerations by any means, but the potential closeness of the race must be considered (with due respect to lylepink and Jenn2).
are in the mix

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | May 9, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: VirginiaMom | May 9, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden 2008!

Posted by: DAB, NY | May 9, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Richardson. He brings in the Hispanic vote. This would put Florida in play, as non-Cuban Hispanics are a big voting block there.

Nunn? No way, too conservative and divisive. This is the same guy who, as Chairman of the Sen. Armed Services Committee during debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," denied retired Sen. Barry Goldwater (Mr. Military) the opportunity to testify in favor of letting gays serve openly in the military. Nunn would mock Obama's strategy of inclusiveness.

Posted by: Garak | May 9, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

But if Tony Zinni were VP he would make Jim Webb look like the soul of teasipping politeness.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 9, 2008 9:44 AM

Hilarious!

I still think Kaine would be a good selection. Remember he is term limited, and once Warner wins the Senate seat there is no where for him to go in VA politics. Kaine is getting some sort of National appointment, I do not know whether its VP or a cabinet position, but it's going to happen.

Obama could choose a less dynamic running mate, IMO. However, I think McCain needs to find a very dynamic running mate and I think Jindal or Palin might meet the criteria. It would help bridge the age gap which will probably haunt McCain.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 9, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Here people,

Before you Vote for Obama, or McCain

Read Up on WHAT you're BUYING for your children, & grandchildren, & great grandchildren .... just a SMALL sample of the NIGHTMARE you will find by GOOGLING:

Hanford WA nuclear waste, Rocky Flats Denver Plutonium:

There are 160 tanks of high-level waste at Hanford, and 67 are assumed to have leaked about a million gallons into the underlying soil, Dr. Kendall said. Running alongside the complex is the Columbia River.

By the 1960s, Hanford (which at one time included the largest nuclear reactor in the world) was dumping more than 15,000 curies of radioactive material into the river each day, and ocean fish up to 150 miles from the river's mouth have been found to be radioactive.

"The records have either been lost or are incomplete; they're still finding sites up there," he said. "Those sites are simply dripping radioactivity into the river and they will continue to do so for a very long time."

Complicating the problem is a method once used to conserve storage space. Ferrocyanide was added to some of the tanks to precipitate out some cesium and strontium nuclides so the liquid could be drained into leaching fields, Dr. Kendall said.

The resulting compounds in the tanks are explosive as a result. There was an explosion of this type in the Soviet Union in 1967, resulting in radioactive contamination of three provinces.

"That place is sodden with plutonium-you have no idea," Dr. Kendall said of Hanford. "I thought I knew something about radioactivity, but I never saw anything until I went there."

At Rocky Flats, where plutonium was made into the fissionable portion of nuclear weapons, tiny particles of plutonium emit alpha particles (posing a threat to human health in even the tiniest quantities) and can also ignite on contact with air.

There were two serious fires there during the Cold War as a result, he said. The closed plant contains hundreds of miles of contaminated piping and ductwork serving the gloveboxes used by workers. There are almost 13 metric tons of plutonium on site, some of it "in forms not safe for long-term storage," he said.

The plant was closed by the Department of Energy so abruptly that bottles of plutonium nitrate are still resting in those gloveboxes. "This is hot stuff if you walk out on it, and for the most part, it is still there," Dr. Kendall said.

Some of that material could go critical, resulting in greatly increased releases of radioactivity, he added. Residents near many US facilities have taken action to force the government to deal with the contamination, "but Rocky Flats has the most angry and upset constituency of any element of the DoD weapons complex."

Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

For Obama, in conjunction with his stellar debate performances and his "elder statesman" role in the party, his unquestioned foreign policy expertise and knowledge of the judiciary---it SHOULD be Biden.

Too bad he will not get to debate Rudy in the Veep debate. That would be PAY FOR VIEW!

Posted by: ataridem | May 9, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Why are so few possible candidates from the west or southwest mentioned for Obama? Wouldn't he need to have geographical balance?

Also, why are there so few women on the lists?

Posted by: BearlyOnLine | May 9, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is a good choice. He is always impressive in media appearances, articulate, on message, persuasive. He followed his convictions on Iraq and, as a former Sec. of Navy, could help convince the public that our best hope of rebuilding our broken military is an Obama-Webb administration.

He could try to smile a bit more though.

Posted by: DEfarmer | May 9, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Personally, I would LOVE Romney. Then the media will balance the continuous Rev. Wright sermons and speeches with McCain's mother on Hardball ripping up the Mormons for screwing up the Salt Lake City Olympics...and then so it had to be a Mormon to fix it!

Please, Johnny! Pretty please with sugar on top--pick Willard!

Posted by: ataridem | May 9, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I'd love to see the VA governor for personal reasons, but I'm another who thinks Wes Clark is the dark horse.

Once the national campaign begins in earnest, McCain will start hammering Obama's foreign policy youth (just as Obama will hammer McCain on economic issues) and Clark would help quell that.

Plus, he's the olive branch to the Clinton people, especially in their home state of AR.

Posted by: gem | May 9, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Since Sen. Nunn name is at the top of the list...how about his partner in reducing loose nukes: William Cohen. A Repubulican, former Sec. of Defense under Clinton and former Senator from Maine and establishment guy

Posted by: Rocco | May 9, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I think it will be a Virginian, but not Kaine or Webb (though either would be fine choices).

There's already behind the scenes planning for the possibility that Obama picks Mark Warner. Don Beyer is ready to take Warner's spot as the Democratic Senate nominee (likely still a sure victory with Warner on the national ticket).

Warner is the king of Virginia politics and would be a steady running mate whose bring-us-together-to-move-forward approach is the same as Obama's.

Posted by: John Z. | May 9, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I like Napolitano, personally, but I don't think it's going to happen. Sebelius is much more likely.

As for the Republicans, who cares? Obama/Anybody v. McCain/Anybody = >40 blue states

Change the anybodies, you change the range by a state or two.

Posted by: Jenn2 | May 9, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Where is Richardson? I think he is Obama's best option with his appeal in the Hispanic community, his executive experience and the foreign policy experience that he brings. I am curious as to the negatives that would keep him off the list.

Posted by: Steve | May 9, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Webb needs to be on this list. Biden should also be included. And, if Obama needs a Hillary supporter but doesn't want Hillary, what about Corzine?

I could also be happy with Wesley Clark.

Posted by: Adam | May 9, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I still think that Brian Schweitzer, Montana's Governor, should be at the top of this list. He provides Obama with an even stronger foothold in the West, which will be critical, and can still bolster the "outsider" message that will underpin Obama's campaign.

Posted by: Navin | May 9, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it makes any difference if Obama is the Dem nominee, McCain can choose anyone and win the GE.

Posted by: lylepink | May 9, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Since the democratic party is essentially an amalgamation of interest groups, I think you could group Obama's potential choices this way:

Women: Sebelius, Napolitano, McCaskill. I think that all three provide essentially the same value; would be interesting to see a more in-depth comparison of them.

Wise old men with foreign policy experience: Richardson, Biden, Nunn. Of these, Nunn is clearly the weakest, having been out of pocket for so long. A good pick for 1992, but 2008? Richardson has the best resume, but wouldn't help bring the Clintonistas aboard. I don't understand why Biden isn't viewed more favorably for VP, since I think he would have a lot to offer.

Hillary: Warrants her own category. Obama would essentially be acceding to a co-presidency and a Clinton Restoration Lite, which doesn't match the change theme. He'll only do this if he feels like he has no other choice in uniting the party.

Swing Staters: Strickland, Kaine, Graham. I don't think Kaine brings nearly as much to the table as many seem to think--not actually a very impressive campaigner or effective governor, who had the advantage of a weak opponent in 2005. The obvious choice here is Strickland, who could serve as the olive branch to the Clintons and guarantee the election by delivering Ohio.

Posted by: JJ | May 9, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

One last observation - many truly talented public figures are not cut out for electoral politics. They are cut out for national service, however. Zinni is, how shall I say it, a blunt and stunningly effective Marine.

He could be National Security Adviser to any Prez - he would not be like Berger or Rice, a "yes" person. He maybe could be SecDef in any Admin.

Another example: Holbrooke is the kind of junkyard dog you want negotiating in Dayton, but he is no electoral pol.

Richard Clarke could be and was anti-terror coordinator for Rs and Ds and he was by all accounts very good at. He is a lifelong R.
By all accounts he would be a terrible electoral pol.

There is a pool of talent that both BHO and McC should be looking at for these important non-visible jobs. But if Tony Zinni were VP he would make Jim Webb look like the soul of teasipping politeness.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 9, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I am not sure why John Thune or Hillary Clinton is on this list. Neither McCain nor Obama has true executive experience. Obama has no foreign policy experience, either. I don't really count running a community orangizing group out of a warehouse in Chicago executive experience. Being a Naval Lt. comes closer, but the orders you give are still orders you receive. The real analysis are the governor's on this list.

For the Republicans, Tim Pawlenty is still the best choice for McCain. I have said it since day 1. He's the best choice, has good rapport with McCain, is a great fundraiser, has successful executive experience & is popular in Minn., is young & is popular with conservatives & moderates. He has actually balanced a budget there in Minn. He has the reputation as a cost cutting governor. Rob Portman may not be the best pick due to his ties to the Bush economic team. I know he has impressive credentials, but they may need to wait and maybe have a Portman vs. Strickland gubernatorial race in 2010. Romney should definately be considered on this list, but it's unlikely he will be choosen. Crist has to be considered carefully. With all of the insurance issues they have in Florida, Crist has done alot of things to try to help bring the flood & wind insurance & people hard-hit together to help all involved. Plus, Crist just seems to be popular there in Florida with high approval ratings. Not to mention, he basically put McCain over the top to help him win Florida...and the Republican nomination with Florida. My dark horse: South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. My rankings:

1. Tim Pawlenty
2. Charlie Crist
3. Robert Portman
4. Mark Sanford
5. Mitt Romney

For the Democrats.I think Kathleen Sebelius is Obama's obvious VP choice. He could go Tim Kaine, as that would be an interesting pick. That may help him with his religious issue. I don't think he could win Va. even picking Kaine, but we would see. I don't see Strickland being the pick, either. Obama may, for pure political purposes, pick Clinton to try to hang on to "white, working class democrats" she is garnering support from. But I doubt it. My dark horse is RI senator Jack Reed. Here is my list for Democratic VP.

1. Kathleen Sebelius
2. Tim Kaine
3. Jack Reed
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Sam Nunn

Posted by: reason | May 9, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I see two veteran US Senators as the top choices for McCain and Obama, respectively. Joe Lieberman as McCain's choice would give him the patina of bipartisanship in this year of change without offending dyed in the wool conservatives. And Richardson for Obama would give that ticket (a) foreign policy heft, (b) a counterweight in the desert southwest, and most importantly (c) strong appeal to Hispanics. It would also give Obama establishment credibility while still being able to tout his change cred.

Posted by: beantownobserver | May 9, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Ummm... How bout Bill Richardson. foreign policy experience, executive experience, comes from the southwest, an emerging democratic region, and is HISPANIC!!! He compliments Obama, secures New Mexico, and shores up the hispanic vote which Obama has had trouble with in the primaries. I think Sebelius and Kaine are in the mix, but foreign policy experience is a key req. and Richardson is the only one that offers it with the demographic and executive experience help to boot.

Posted by: JMOToole | May 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

i bet obama considers nyc mayor michael bloomberg as his VP. bloomberg has obviously had his eye on a national office for some time now and this pairing would wonderfully reinforce obama's message about bringing people together. it would be an easy fit too considering bloomberg was a dem just a few short years ago.

Posted by: sns | May 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

As a Missourian, I am happy to see Senator McCaskill being touted as a possible VP pick. She would Missouri into play. The Democrats in Missouri will be out on election day because Attorney General Jay Nixon is running for governor and the state's GOP is in disarray after Gov. Matt Blunt's unexpected retirement.
McCain needs to pick someone who could balance his ticket in regards of gender and race. My suggestion is Alaskan governor Sara Palin. She is very popular and would bring youth to the ticket.

Posted by: chs89 | May 9, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Dude, Obama/Edwards! You knew it was coming...

Posted by: Gabe | May 9, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Where is Bill Richardson? The match of Obama 's change message with Richardson's impeccable foreign relations record (not to mention a very strong executive record) is perfect.
Additionally, without the right pick for VP, the dems could be looking at losing a large chunk of the latino/a electorate to McCain, whose immigration stance and familiarity with the voting bloc (Arizona) could strongly appeal. Richardson blunts McCain's encroachment on that important group of voters.

Posted by: matt | May 9, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

One poster mentioned Snowe for McC. Do they get along well?

No one has added the two youngest R stars to the McC list, so I will:
Jindal
Palin

McC gets along very well with Jindal, we are told. Both he and Palin were elected as reform govs and Palin has already swept a lot of dirt out of the AK closet.

For McC, as for BHO, the biggest states in real play are FL and OH. That may have some effect. Still, Crist's bachelorness is suspect to many R voters. As with BHO, but maybe more so, McC will have to actually like his VP. Does he like Portman?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 9, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't matter who he picks for VP.

He's the ...stalking horse... GE etc. is running for President to get McCain elected.

Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

The WP fronts a look at how Sen. John McCain pushed a land swap deal through Congress that will "directly benefit" one of his top fundraisers. After approval of the legislation, which will allow an Arizona businessman to exchange remote land for valuable property owned by the federal government, SunCor Development was hired to build thousands of homes in the area. SunCor Development is run by Steven Betts, a longtime McCain supporter who has raised more than $100,000 for the Arizona Republican's presidential race.

There are plenty of other eyebrow-raising aspects to the deal. McCain wasn't very eager to support the swap at first, but that all appeared to change after the businessman who owned the remote land hired a group of lobbyists that included several people who once worked for McCain. Some have also criticized the legislation, saying that the federal government got a raw deal. This isn't the first time that land swaps pushed through by McCain have come under scrutiny because they benefitted campaign contributors.

Last month, the NYT took a look at how McCain has sponsored legislation that helped a wealthy Arizona businessman, who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the senator, get millions of dollars from the federal government in complex land exchanges.

Posted by: FYI | May 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

>>>> I agree with McCaskill as a VP for Obama. She's been very vocal in her support of him and comes from another 'must carry' swing state.>>>>

McCaskill ... very new 2006 crop of congresspeople....From Missouri, where
GE, Westinghouse, Excelon Corp. of Illinois, Entergy, 3 Consortiums are planning to build ONE of the 29 new nuclear power plants ... enabled ... by
THE CHENEY ENERGY BILL.

That's HOW & WHY she got elected: HELP Put OVER Cheney's NEXT BIG Energy Ripoff.

BTW ... did you KNOW ... GE owns NBC/MSNBC, Westinghouse owns CBS.

AOL TIME Warner owns CNN (& don't we all just KNOW what GOOD Citizens AOL TIME Warner is.)

Jut THINK ... How MUCH ... would CNN's ADVERTISING REvenues DROP ... IF CNN did not Put out the OBAMA Kool-Aid ... just like the other TV MEDIA?

This Election is not about: black/white, male/female/right/left/Democrat/Republican.

Its About $$$$MONEY $$$BIG MONEY. The $BILLIONS to be reaped from building 29 New nukes...& EVEN MORE $BILLIONS to be reaped --- for the NEXT 30 to 40 Years
FROM ... HIGHER ELECTRICITY RATES.

Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

I think McCaskill is a much better choice than Sibelius, and they are closer. I agree with many that Webb is too strident and stiff; don't think he'll make a good attack dog. If he really wanted to be bold, he'd reach across the aisle and ask Chuck Hagel. I think HRC and Obama have to make a deal that he asked her and she declined.

Charlie Crist is the best one for McCain, unless he feels the need for diversity and there the pickings are pretty slim.

Posted by: tony | May 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

What about Tony Zinni? Opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Extensive military and foreign policy experience. Would be seen as someone who could bring about change by having inside the Beltway experience but not part of the Beltway culture. His age would allow him to fully serve Obama's interests and not his own future political viability as a presidential candidate in 2016.

Posted by: Truman | May 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson can probably have one of several seats at the table [Ambassador to the UN is a fit, ambassador without portfolio is another that y'all have not mentioned] and he will probably actively campaign for BHO in the west.

But there is a rift among Ds that must be healed as well and with the wealth of choices available, Chris's first two look good.

I would think that Strickland's ten years or so in Congress from that conservative district serve him well here. He and Rendell were the two local pols who did the most for Clinton, but Strickland has national experience, and the kind of background that makes him more palatable to
conservative leaning independents. He is a Methodist minister and he has a PhD in psychology, of all things. He is popular enough in OH that he might actually turn it for the Ds. I do not think there is bad blood between him and BHO.

I have never heard him give a stump speech.
Is he any good at that? JudgeCrater and bhoomes are in OH. Critique Strickland, please.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 9, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

For the Dems, Nunn would be a very good choice, don't worry about the liberals, myself included, we're thrilled with Obama and just want to win. 2 other very good choices not mentioned are Dick Gephardt and Sen Bill Nelson. Gephardt flips MO, adds experience to the ticket which I think is a legitimate concern among the undecideds, and will make working class voters happy. Nelson puts Florida in play and has experience on Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees

Posted by: dave | May 9, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

chuck --

I like your idea of Hagel as a VP for Obama.

Posted by: nads1 | May 9, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

The primaries have exposed deep rifts within the Democratic Coalition. Liberal Whites and Blacks on one side, Working Class Whites and Latinos on the other. Conventional wisdom aside I actually think this is an advantage, because your crazy if you think that a Republican party headed by McCain is a solid voting block. Winner takes all primaries papered over Republican's devisions that I would bet will come back to bite them in the general. You think McCain can appeal to Huckabee types and Wall Street types and maintain favor among independents? Magic 8 ball says... "Signs point to no."

So now that Obama looks inevitable whats a son of a Liberal White mom and a Black father to do? Well, as a party we are lucky because our nominee is a friggen' expert when it comes to finding commonality with people with different experiences. He's had to negotiate issues of identity for so long its just second nature to him. So you know he's going to work hard to find out how to let Working Class Whites and Latinos (with whom I think he has a better chance) know when he's crafting policy their experience, their realities, thier problems, are real to him and are in the forfrot of his mind. THIS DOESN'T MEAN HE HAS TO PANDER ON PROTECTIONIST TRADE POLICY! What it does mean is that he needs to explain how a high school education can still make a good life in America. The dollar is going to be cheaper for a long time and that means that US manufacturing (with sensible policy leadership) will make a comeback as long as it is high-skill and flexible. Tell Germany that you can't be a rich country with universal healthcare and have a current account surplus based on manufacturing!

But the overall point is Obama would be CRAZY, let me say it again: ABSOLUTELY 100% CERTIFIABLY LOCO not to pick a veep with whom working class whites could instantly identify. Seeing how Bubba is constitutionally barred from the job, two candidates are on my short list. Tim Kaine is one since he gets the Guns and God thing that Obama has problems with. But the other I think is stronger: Ed Rendell. First of all rule one is the veep is not coming from inside the beltway. All senators are automatically ruled out. (And hold on people! I think Richardson is a smart and charismatic politician with an eye for going policy, but I just get the feeling that somebody needs to have a look in the closet before we jump on that bandwagon). Second of all Rendell is plain smart. He's strategic thinker who satisfies the ultimate veep requirement. He'd make a good president. Second he's managed a large state decently (Penn.) which is basically like running a small country - He's got all kinds of experience. Plus it would be great to lock down one of the big three (others being Ohio and Florida) with the veep. Third he's a strong supporter of Hillary. At first I thought this would be a disadvantage but then I realized with all the unifying that needs to happen this is actually a big advantage. Besides, he's like Obama in that he's a straight talker who finds a way to cut through the political spin to say what he thinks. I'm sorry. Obama simply can't put a Clinton on the ticket. Thats too much baggage for a country looking to get off the wrong track and looking for change. A prominent Hillary supporter is the next best thing. (Woops, Richardson you blew it!)

But most importantly: this man just looks like he got off shift work. I mean he's a little ugly and grunt-ish. That old hound-dog would look great at those hard hat photo shoots.

His major problem electorally is that he's Jewish (though his wife is Catholic). Having both a Black and Jewish man (or for that matter a Woman) on the same ticket would be a gamble on the "exotic" side if your plan is to appeal to working class America. Especially since on the other hand, you could have a veep like Kaine who would be an interesting play into the republican God brand territory. I mean I think a lot of religious people in previous elections wouldn't even consider the democratic candidate even if they largely agreed politically. With Kaine on the ticket if they liked the democratic issues, say like universal health care, they could vote democratic without feeling like they were betraying their religion. A plus about the Wright thing is that now everyone knows Obama goes to church, and now he can talk more freely about it because its already been brought up. But still... where do you think a White Cristian would feel more comfortable on Sunday, in a Mormon Temple or a Black Church? In the end however I still think, Kaine or no, we likely are a couple of election cycles away from cracking the evangelical republican lock. Abortion is still too important an issue.

Rendell always denys that he's going to seek higher office but like Chuck Schumer I think he does so not for a lack of ambition or skill but because he knows how hard it would be to win as a Jew on the top half of the ticket. But as Obama and Hillary are showing notions of who is and isn't electable are kind of in flux right now.

I say Rendell pack your bags: your going on the trail. Final stop -- Number One Observatory Circle.

Posted by: David Ferguson (dafergu3) | May 9, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Many of you people are soooo funny.

First, The MEDIA feeds you the
KOOL-AID / Propaganda,
then you sit there all day "discussing" all the ...little details...
all the "ins" and "outs"
of your Kool-AID induced ... delusions.

Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

As for Obama VPs, I still stick with Bob Graham as the best choice. He brings FLA back in play (at a minimum), he adds gravitas to the ticket, he read the intel and was right on Iraq. From what I've heard, his health is fine.

The "olive branch" candidate would be Ed Rendell. He probably brings PA with him, he's Jewish, so he'll resonate as did Lieberman with the sizable Jewish vote in FLA, and he's definitely a made Clinton guy. The CLintons would HAVE to campaign for the ticket, because they owe Rendell. As governor of a neighboring state, I presume he'd help bring OH in line. (Though I wonder if he'd WANT it, I don't pick up that he has Presidential aspirations himself.)

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 9, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I agree with McCaskill as a VP for Obama. She's been very vocal in her support of him and comes from another 'must carry' swing state. Wes Clark would be good as well but he's been fairly absent on the media front....

For McCain, Olympia Snowe would be a good choice.

Posted by: Rick | May 9, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

4TH Question:

.... How come the MEDIA ...Still... hasn't brought us THIS NEWS:

::::His Whole Campaign is Founded on
ONE BIG LIE:

Obama claims 7 years experience in the Illinois legislature - Working Across the Aisles, Bringing people together to get good CHANGES passed -as exemplified by 26 good bills with his name on them.

A Chicago reporter says all 26 bills were passed in ONE Year and they were NOT Obama's.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3418/10516/
EXCERPTS:
But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure.

Then Emil Jones Jr. (became the Senate Majority leader), He became Obama's kingmaker.

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

During his seventh year in the state Senate, Obama ... sponsored a whopping 26 bills including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

Working Across the Aisles/
Making CHANGES = ZILCH

Taking Credit for Other People's Work/ INTEGRITY = ZERO

p.s. I checked for info in Obama's book "Audacity of Hope" which came out in 2005. In that book HE says those 26 Bills were passed in ONE YEAR.


Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama should put Hillary in charge of getting us out of Iraq. If she fails, she destroys her political standing.

He should consider Feinstein and Napolitano as VP candidates.

I like the idea of Kaine, which makes skipping Edwards very reasonable.

Nunn would seem "old Washington" to me and out of the news, but that could be a comfort to older white voters.


Posted by: RI Voter | May 9, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

After Hillary's crack to USA Today, she's got to be off the list. Rev. Wright would make more sense.

If a Repub had said what Hillary said, he'd be crucified as a racist. If Obama had marginalized working-class whites the same way that Clinton marginalized blacks, he'd be called all kinds of a racist.

It's not about accuracy, it's about SENTIMENT. Rev. Wright was right in many respects, but he proved himself to be full of anti-American sentiment, and THAT is what bothered people about him (and, by association, Obama). Geraldine Ferraro was right in many respects, but her sentiments were polarizing. And she had to go. Now the candidate herself -- not her preacher, not her fundraiser, not her husband -- HILLARY CLINTON HERSELF -- has made a far more racist statement than any of them. Dems need to kick her to the curb, now, and show there is no place in the party for abject racists.

Or, they can simply concede that Dems are inherently no more friendly to blacks than Repubs, which is what I've been saying for decades.

Bottom line: if Obama was wrong for staying in Wright's church, Clinton has to be ten times wronger for uttering Wright-like racial pandering. Here's the audio, listed for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 9, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Despite Richardson's indifferent and/or uneven campaigning record, he would bring NM into the fold. Most significant, as a Latino he would powerfully attract that segment of the population already irritated with the GOP in states like CO, NV, and perhaps even TX. As a westerner, Richardson would have a general appeal in places like MT and other western states and even in midwestern states with substantial pockets of Hispanics.

Also Richardson is in an extremely credible VP candidate because of his extensive foreign-policy experience. In fact he is a perfect fit since Obama has stated that he, unlike Bush (and presumably McC) would negotiate with opponents of the US. NO ONE has more experience--OR success--at this than Richardson! He has instant credibility on this issue because of his resume.

At a strictly political level Richardson would cement the Spanish-speaking portion of the electorate for Democrats. Demographically it's the fastest-growing segment of the electorate. Bringing it more firmly into the Dem fold would be a put-away move that would reduce Repubs to the status of a regional party that it is already fast becoming.

Posted by: Boston Raven | May 9, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Third Question:

How come so many of you people are BUYING what the MEDIA is selling?

SAME MEDIA that SOLD You BUSH (twice).
SAME MEDIA that SOLD You the WAR in Iraq.

... Why in the world would you BELIEVE them NOW, or, BUY what they are so obviously and BLATANTLY trying to SELL You: An Obama .... ????

Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

I would go with Sibeliius for Obama followed by Strickland, Feinstein and maybe Richardson. But Sibelius was my choice from the beginning especially with her connections to Ohio also.

McCain may try for that surprise Snow from Maine, Sanford of SC shores up Conservatives, but most likely Pawlenty.

Posted by: Charlie | May 9, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Cilizza--

I would like to ask you to ban the person who posts as Words of Wisdom. This person spends every day on this site, poisoning the discourse with ugly racism.

We all appreciate free speech, but when someone repeatedly abuses that privilege for the express purpose of spreading lies and hatred and bigotry, they should be banned.

Posted by: request | May 9, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

NEXT Question:

Since Obama's had all the TV MEDIA giving him $BILLIONS in FREE ADVERTISING/PROMOTION; Pushing his PRODUCT since last November,

and,

He's had 2-5 Times more money than Clinton

.... how come he's only ahead in delegate and popular vote count ... by less than ONE PERCENTAGE POINT?

Diesn't that make Hillary Clinton the STRONGEST CANDIDATE, BY FAR?

Just suppose, for instance, Clinton had ONE, or Two of the TV networkds PUSHING for her ...

Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Ed Rendell would be a good pick. He brings to the table everything Strickland does (except Ohio), and, in addition: (1) is Jewish, helping with a potentially disaffected D constituency, (2) is one of the best campaigners in the country, and (3) unlike Strickland, is nearing the term-limited end of his governorship. Rendell would be the kind of olive branch to the Clintonistas that Obama needs to make, and he's far closer on issues to Obama's core supporters than Sen. Bob Casey.

I can't see HRC wanting the VP because she would be too old to run for president again, and I can't really see Obama wanting her because of (1) some of the things she's said, and (2) what does he do with Bill?

Sebilius is from a small, very red state. Nor is she known as a great campaigner. She makes no sense except as a symbol, and Obama himself is all the symbolism needed.

Nunn's too conservative, too old, and has been out of politics too long. He wasn't all that much of a campaigner even when he was in politics.

Kaine would be interesting, but doesn't do anything to add heft to Obama's relative lack of experience and should isn't about to have to give up his Virginia position. Carrying Virginia would be nice, but carrying Pa. and Ohio are essential.

Posted by: Bexis | May 9, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I would go with Sibeliius for Obama followed by Strickland, Feinstein and maybe Richardson. But Sibelius was my choice from the beginning especially with her connections to Ohio also.

McCain may try for that surprise SNow from Maine, Sanford of SC shores up Conservatives, but most likely Pawlenty.

Posted by: Charlie | May 9, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I've got a couple of questions:

Why has all the Major TV MEDIA:
NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, FOX been putting out PRO-Obama / ANTI-Clinton PROPAGANDA all day every day ... since Last NOVEMBER?

Posted by: elme | May 9, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Bob Casey is a weak performer. He really cannot even speak clearly and forcefully enough to get through a successful appearance on Meet the Press. I'm sure he is a decent man, and he may even be an OK senator, but he is not a leader.

Al Gore???? What on earth makes you think he would be remotely interested in the position? And what advantage do you think he would bring to the ticket? Is there anyone who wouldn't already be voting for Obama who might do so because Gore is on the ticket as VP?

Posted by: THS | May 9, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

I've been impressed with what I've seen of McCaskill in her Obama advocacy.

Missouri has been trending red, but with Obama's primary victory and a native daughter on the ballot, it would be a HUGE electoral pickup.

Obama-McCaskill will also sound reassuringly Anglo for the millions of "low info" voters out there.

She's the full package of being well-spoken, a woman, from an electorally important state, and with a solidly white-bread-sounding name.

Posted by: Shmenge | May 9, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

My list for Vice Presidential candidates under Senator Obama would be as follows:
1. Al Gore--shores up traditional Democratics, particularly union members and Jewish voters.
2. Governor Bill Richardson--brings strength in the West and with Hispanic voters.
3. Senator Jim Webb--brings "bi-partisan" flavor and strength in key swing state.
4. Senator Bob Casey--brings strength with traditional Democrats and Catholic voters, in addtion to key swing state.

Posted by: EBK | May 9, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Err, there is a question about John Edwards as Barack Obama's running mate, or else there wouldn't be a thread for you to make such silly statements beneath.

John Edwards would be utterly wrong for Obama: he doesn't add any voltage in NC (Obama will win NC on the basis of black and young turnout, if he's going to); and he's way to the left of the mainstream that Obama needs to reassure.

I've tipped Sibelius for months - but my only query is that he may need to do something about Hispanic support, and that points to Janet Napolitano...who would also happen to put Arizona in play given that McCain isn't overwhelmingly popular in his home state.

Beating McCain in Arizona would erase the "wrong" of Gore losing Tennessee in 2000.

Posted by: Adam Gray | May 9, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I have admired Wes Clark since 04. He isn't a dramatic speaker but no one has better credentials than he does, especially in foreign affairs and military matters, both weak points for Obama. And, he would help heal the two sides since he has been a strong supporter of HRC.

Posted by: JackC | May 9, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Three reasons you might not think of why Tim Pawlenty cant carry Minnesota in the Fall for McCain:

1. Carol Molnau -- She's the Lt. Gov and would succeed Pawlenty. Oops--she's also the former Transporation Commissioner on whose watch the I-35W bridge fell. She was run out of her former position by a lynch mob. Nobody wants "Governor Molnau."

2. Anti-War State -- Early and often people in the Twin Cities have been vocal in their hatred of the War and George Bush. Demonstrations during the Republican Convention will highlight that. But here's something you didn't know: Minnesota has one of the highest National Guard enlistment rates in the country. All across the state there are swing voters in small towns who know friends and family that have been jerked from their jobs and sent to Iraq. Independents hate the war as much as Democrats.

3. T-Paw isn't that popular to begin with. Yes, he's won re-election in 2006, a Democratic year. But look it up: it was a one point win over an irritable, sometimes prickly candidate, Mike Hatch (and a Lt Gov candidate who didn't know what E85 was..very dumb mistake in a farm state.) The DFL (Democrats) turned out 200,000 for the caucuses. The Republicans turned out 50,000.

Obama is hugely popular in Minnesota. The North Star state will shine blue this Fall. Count on it.

Posted by: Here's why T-Paw can't carry Minnesota | May 9, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Wow, those Dem picks seem way off the mark to me, with the possible exception of Sam Nunn. Obama's main perceived weakness is his lack of experience, so he's got to pick someone distinguished and nationally known. Bill Richardson fits the bill for me, appealing not only to the experience gap but to the 'regular guy' and Hispanic vote.

Posted by: Josh | May 9, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

The best person is Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. He opposed the war from the beginning...served as secretary of the navy under Reagan, appeals to those Reagan democrats, Was a decorated Vietnam Marine vet as well as has kids in Iraq as Marines now. He Strengthens Obama's weakness on national security as well as being a lively energetic guy from a swing state in Virginia

Posted by: David | May 9, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

I like the idea of Strickland or Sebelius for VP. Don't forget that Sebelius' father was a popular governor of Ohio in the 70's. I also like the idea of Sam Nunn as Sec of State and I would like to put forward Max Cleland as a possible SecDef. I want John Edwards as Attorney
General. He would be the best since RFK. Al Gore for Interior, if he would take it.

Posted by: PRinNJ | May 9, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Senator Casey of Pennsylvania would be a great choice. Would the left wing of the party accept him because of the abortion issue? His selection would undercut McCain with some conservative blue collar Democrats and would help in Pennsylvania. Nunn is too old and has enough baggage with don't ask, don't tell. Forget Clinton!

Obama-Casey for 08.

Posted by: svbreeder | May 9, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

There is no question that John Edwards is the best person to be Barack Obama's running mate.

Posted by: Julian | May 9, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

A lot of people said the same thing about Al Gore when he was selected for VP, and at least as VP, that worked out okay... I'd be happy with Sebelius, but I'd love an Obama/Richardson ticket.

-->No to Richardson. He simply does not seem impressive to me. He's an engaging and, apparently, reasonably capable guy, but he seems undisciplined and unfocused. Just not an A-list player.

Posted by: Joe in SS | May 9, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

How can you miss Claire McCaskill. I thinks she's far more likely than Sebelius. Is Jim Webb too stiff? If he really wanted to be bold, he'd reach across the aisle and ask Chuck Hagel. Crist would be tops on my list for McCain.

Posted by: tony | May 9, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Good topic and comments this morning, IMO.

Part 1

I no longer have a sense of what direction McC is headed with his candidacy. Conventional wisdom would have him tack to the center, but he has worked pretty hard to consolidate base. McC's age continues to cause many of us to want to scrutinize his Veep pick far more closely than we would the pick of a 46 year old. And I am closer to McC's age and in good health, but I share the apprehension.

Part 2

BHO's field is wide open, but both your second and first choices would be excellent political decisions for him, as would so many others [except the ineligible Granholm] mentioned by the posters. I think one poster meant "Bob" Rubin; I do not know of "Dick".

Part 3

HRC has opened the door to a woman becoming President - no one will remark on gender next time. Unfortunately, her campaign has too often struck the tone of scorched Earth combativeness we recall from her years as First Lady. The better HRC - the one who has been Senator - was also on display. She may well become SenMajLdr and she may do that well. But I agree with the posters that she began her campaign with high negatives, she has achieved higher negatives now, and her negatives are baggage that cannot be added to a ticket.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 9, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

What about some low key guys.

Sen. Bingman (did I spell it right?) from NM. The west is important. I have heard Harry Reid, isn't interested in serving more then one more term, imagine if Obama could pick up 15% more of the western Morman vote then Kerry/Gore? What about Sweitzer or Baucus from Montana (I'm having a spelling/memory problem it's too early and I'm too lazy to google)?

I think this list is to Washington focused. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama a "50 states strategy guy" picks a person like this. Then pulls a Bush, pick his senior cabinet before the election. Remember how Bush rolled out Powell and Cheney before the election to show "I have grown ups around me". Yeah I know it didn't work out policy wise, but it did get him elected.

Posted by: dopper0189 | May 9, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

What about some low key guys.

Sen. Bingman (did I spell it right?) from NM. The west is important. I have heard Harry Reid, isn't interested in serving more then one more term, imagine if Obama could pick up 15% more of the western Morman vote then Kerry/Gore? What about Sweitzer or Baucus from Montana (I'm having a spelling/memory problem it's too early and I'm too lazy to google)?

I think this list is to Washington focused. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama a "50 states strategy guy" picks a person like this. Then pulls a Bush, pick his senior cabinet before the election. Remember how Bush rolled out Powell and Cheney before the election to show "I have grown ups around me". Yeah I know it didn't work out policy wise, but it did get him elected.

Posted by: dopper0189 | May 9, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

How About Chuck Hagel for Obama

Posted by: Chuck | May 9, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Don't see Webb as a VP choice, perhaps Secretary of Defense would be a better role for him. As far as VP choices I would be inclined to support Strickland.

Posted by: sibwalker | May 9, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Webb has the right personality to be vice president. He likes to fight, which might make you think he'd be good at playing the attack dog role that VP candidates sometimes play, but he's a poor campaigner. On the stump, he's wooden and self-righteous, and he's socially awkward. People in VA are disappointed in him as a senator because he doesn't show up and shake hands.

He might BE a good VP, but I don't know that he'd help Obama BECOME president.

He might be good as SECDEF.

Posted by: THS | May 9, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who spends more than an hour or two with Mitt Romney finds his lack of values, his huge ambition, and his fake personna, really repellent. McCain already feels it, and I can't believe he'd sentence himself to having to deal with Romney on a daily basis through the campaign, and maybe even into the White House.

Posted by: lenstewart | May 9, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Nope, not Webb. He's an indifferent, somewhat uncomfortable campaigner, and he tends to shoot from the hip. Besides, if elected VP he would open up a senate seat in VA that the Democrats need to hang on to. That could be tough: after Mark Warner, who's a prohibitive favorite to be elected this fall to succeed John Warner, there's no obvious choice besides Gov. Kaine -- who I suppose could appoint a seat-warmer and run himself when he finishes his one term-limited term in January '10. And Tom Davis, a very popular NoVa congressman who passed on a run against Mark Warner and is going to retire at the end of his current term, could generate some support in the GOP after Jim Gilmore is steamrolled by Mark Warner.

Posted by: jac13 | May 9, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama/Richardson or Edwards

or

Obama/Whitman. Whitman former NJ gov and EPA head. Moderate repub.

Posted by: Greg | May 9, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

1. Sebelius
2. Webb
3. someone no one has talked about but would bolster Obama among military folks (and Clinton supporters): Hugh Shelton

Posted by: RS | May 9, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

We should perhaps be thinking more explicitly in terms of the distinction between getting elected and serving in a new administration.

That is, it might be that a Hillaryite such as Strickland would be a good candidate, but would he be a good advisor/colleague for President Obama?

I mention him just as an example. The same question should apply to any candidate.

Posted by: THS | May 9, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

I would have hoped for Richardson a few months ago, but his tiff with the Clinton camp may make that impossible.

I would put Claire McCaskill on that list instead of Kathleen Sebelius. McCaskill is might bring in the women's vote as well as the state of Missouri. She has been everywhere on the cable shows lately promoting Obama's cause and seems to be an articulate, well-prepared spokeswoman on his behalf. Downsides would be her limited national political experience.

Posted by: Eric | May 9, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

"Though I hate to admit it, I think Hillary has earned the right to be asked."

Hardly, otherwise she would drop out now. It isn't at all clear that Hillary would be the strongest addition to an Obama ticket and her sense of entitlement suggests she would be expected to be treated as some sort of co-President. Obama should JUST SAY NO to the idea of Hillary has the VP.

Posted by: RealChoices | May 9, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Tim Kaine works. He's highly qualified and a great campaigner, BUT he's a first-termer like Obama and, more important, would cede the governorship to a Republican lieutenant governor who, although he intends to run for re-election as lt. gov. in 2009, would be a place-holder for the presumptive GOP gov. nominee (AG Bob McDonnell) and make it tough for the Democratic nominee -- probably Sen. Creigh Deeds, who lost to McDonnell for AG by about 300 votes.

Obama needs help in OH and PA, so he might go for either Strickland or Rendell -- he's probably more compatible with the latter, although that's just a guess.

I agree that Richardson and Nunn are better as cabinet choices.

Biden's my favorite. I know a lot of people see him as a windbag, but when he's on his game there's nobody better-versed on foreign policy and national security, and the VP debate between him and whatever empty suit McC chooses (who cares?) would be a rout.

Posted by: jac13 | May 9, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

what about Jim Webb?
Obama could use a man with balls on the ticket!

Posted by: trettin | May 9, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

What about Sen. Webb? He seems to be a perfect complement to Obama. He has the foreign policy credentials, he agrees with Obama on Iraq, he can't be Swiftboated, and he has a great appeal with rural whites. In fact, he has often stated that the Democrats need to connect the rural white voters with the African American voters. This would seem to be a great ticket, no?

Posted by: Dsmac | May 9, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

In view of the extremely close result of a woman in the Democratic presidential nomination contest, there are a lot of Democratic, Independent, and even some Republican women that will think women got shafted big time if there isn't a woman on the ticket.

Most African Americans have supported their "favorite son" Obama, there has been even larger support in vote totals by women, mostly white, for a "favorite daughter", Clinton. To avoid a big time backlash by women I think it is a necessity for a woman to be Obama's VP.

However, I don't think Clinton is the right choice in view of the numerous available video comments about Obama she has made and which can easily be exploited by McCain and his surrogates. Thus, the only logical choices I can see at the moment are Governor Kathleen Sebelius or Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Clinton of course would have to be offered an extremely important cabinet position so as to avoid a possible backlash by purely Clinton "cult" women.

Posted by: Ernie | May 9, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

"If she accepts a vice presidential nomination, she is basically saying that she will forego any opportunity at a future Presidential run on her own in return for a guaranteed Presidential nomination if Obama wins two terms."


Could you expand on that comment? I don't understand how running for vp now precludes a future run on her own, win or lose.

Posted by: SupremeWu | May 9, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Obana needs help with Catholics, older women, and under $50,000 earners.

Kathleen Sebelius - Catholic; married to a federal judge with Republican roots; expertese in dealing with the health care industry (won the issue in Kansas); and is a popular executive in a Red state not known for its wealth (increased her margin in second term).

I can understand why she would be an asset.

Posted by: wml | May 9, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is the worst name the Dems could put at the top of their ticket -- it's like tying an anchor to a ship that's trying to leave the dock.

The Clintons are the most polarizing figures in politics today -- and the most energizing forces the Republicans could muster to get out their voters.

Why on earth would the Dems even consider handicapping themselves this way? Secret death-wish, maybe? Who knows?

Posted by: nads1 | May 9, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Kind of interesting that only a couple of comments so far concern the Republican ticket! Maybe it's true that all the excitement is on the Dem side.

Is it important to think about choosing someone who, at the end of Obama's second term, would be young enough to run? Most of the people mentioned here would be too old to run on their own. I know that Obama's youth makes the idea of choosing someone w/ more experience relevant, but he could choose someone in his or her early 50s, rather than someone near or past 60.

Posted by: THS | May 9, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Interesting rankings. Think your assessment is on the mark with the GOP, but I think Zini is more viable than HRC among the Dems because HRC lost whatever leverage she might have had to force Obama to offer her the VP spot with her poor showing Tuesday night as well as her white voter comments. I would substitute Zini for her and include Ed Rendell as well. I rank them 1-Nunn brings along conservative Regan Dems 2-Sebelius brings along white women 3-Strickland gives you Ohio electoral votes, 4-Rendell gives you PA electoral votes 5-a tie btwn Kaine who gives you Virginia electoral votes and Zini who isn't a politician and as a military man help to resolve Iraq war.

Posted by: charles laffiteau | May 9, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

I've been saying it for several months now. McCain is such a weak candidate that Obama doesn't need to flow with the conventional wisdom. What Obama needs is someone who is ready to be President from day one. He needs someone who can help solidify the base of the Party as he reaches across the aisle. He needs a pit bull who can help him remain above the fray as he goes up against the right wing noise machine this fall, someone who's itching for the fight.

He needs to be able to take that fight to all 50 states. He needs someone who isn't beholden to the DLC, and who is a rock solid member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. It's sad to say it in the 21st Century, but if he's going to be the first black President of the United States he needs a Vice President whom the right wing fears more than anyone else, just for that extra measure of safety that the Secret Service can't provide. That man was endorsed by Al Gore and Jimmy Carter in 2004. His name is Howard Dean.

Obama/Dean 08
Last, Long Lasting Relief
For the Fierce Urgency of Now!

Posted by: Subway Serenade | May 9, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

My dark house candidates for Obama have always been Bill Cohen, Dick Rubin or James Witt. All play into the change message Obama is pushing, each has a nearly rock star background in an area where Obama could use extra muscle and each has been vetted before so there should be a low risk of skeletons hampering them.

Posted by: Phil | May 9, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

My dark house candidates for Obama have always been Bill Cohen, Dick Rubin or James Witt. All play into the change message Obama is pushing, each has a nearly rock star background in an area where Obama could use extra muscle and each has been vetted before so there should be a low risk of skeletons hampering them.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

How on earth did Hillary Clinton make it onto the Dems list? She should never have made it for precisely the reasons cited as making her a problematic choice. This may have been feasible in Dec/Jan, but not since she's gone all Captain Ahab on her quest for the Great White House. Bill Richardson would fill in her slot much better.

Posted by: Alex van Ommen | May 9, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Romney's big problem will continue to be the LDS church and now the news of the FLDS whether a splinter group or not. There is still a lingering doubt about just who'd he answer to (i.e. church elders or political leadership). Crist, on the other hand, would be a slam dunk.

Obama has more choices, but Clinton isn't one them. After her mismanaged campaign, race baiting, fibs and all the past b.s., the GOP 527's would have a field day. Also, Obama wants us to think of him as the "change" candidate. Clinton is no "change agent".

Richardson, Biden, Dodd and those mentioned above are certainly well positioned as is Rendell. We'll see how this pans out, but you can bet the 1.5 million who contributed to his campaign, including this poster, won't take kindly to any Clinton involvement.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Can't be Granholm, as she was born in Canada and Article II section 1 of the Constitution requires a person to be a "natural born citizen" to be eligible to be President. (I presume that this requirement also applies to Vice Presidents, although I'm not certain whether that's ever been decided.)

http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168--57920--,00.html

Posted by: Read the Constitution | May 9, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

I don't think whether Rendell and Casey like each other is very important. Just my humble opinion.

Posted by: THS | May 9, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

No to Clinton too. It is simply not in her nature to take a role second to Obama, whom she obviously does not respect. The political advantage of having her on the ticket is not sufficient to justify the pain of dealing w/ her for the next four years.

Posted by: THS | May 9, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Rendell and Casey hate each other, and Casey was Obama's right hand man while Obama campaigned in PA. Plus, as you mention the Farrakhan flap.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

No to Richardson. He simply does not seem impressive to me. He's an engaging and, apparently, reasonably capable guy, but he seems undisciplined and unfocused. Just not an A-list player.

Someone who might be added is Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania. He would bring essentially the same attributes as Strickland. I'm not familiar w/ Strickland as a public persona, so I don't know whether he would bring the same energy and fun to the ticket that Rendell would bring, but those qualities would be valuable as a counterpoint to the cerebral Obama.

Also, he's Jewish, so that might be helpful. A potential disqualifier is the video of him lavishly praising Louis Farrakhan that surfaced recently, but I wouldn't rule him out on that basis myself.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 7:07 AM | Report abuse

Instant post this time. Only difference is the first time I used the preview feature, then clicked on submit. Looks like a technical glitch.

Posted by: NMAIF | May 9, 2008 6:59 AM | Report abuse

I find the this story amusing. There is all this talk about Obama's foreign policy experience or inexperience, yet articles fail to mention that foreign policy ranks low on the list of priorities of the voters. It is clear from the primaries that Obama's foreign policy has not hurt hiim and people don't really care. It is amazing how the press creates or in some cases buys into problems/issues that are not there.

Posted by: Chris | May 9, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

Also, while I am a big fan of Sebelius, I think an Obama-Sebelius ticket is worrisome insofar as it has a combined 1 year of foreign policy experience tops (that year being the year Obama served in the Senate before campaigning for president).

Though I hate to admit it, I think Hillary has earned the right to be asked.

Posted by: FPO | May 9, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

Well, after waiting 10 minutes to see if my comment posted, I am reposting... 7:02am in DC.

Governor Sebelius is a classy-looking lady with gray hair, definitely a good photo fit with Senator Obama. Plus Obama desperately needs a woman governor as running mate: woman to ease the pain of feminist Clinton supporters (me included), governor to balance his lack of executive experience. My first choice, however, would be Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a firm Clinton supporter. Same reasoning applies. Photo I have seen indicates she is almost as tall as Obama.

For Senator Clinton, I think Wesley Clarke would be the best choice. I used to favor Richardson, but since he has now (twice) betrayed her, he is out.

Posted by: NMAIF | May 9, 2008 6:56 AM | Report abuse

There is no chance anyone actually "turns down" a VP offer assuming a real ask is made. Someone can let it be known that they do not wish to be considered at the front end, but just realistically, no way Obama picks up the phone and gets rejected.

Posted by: FPO | May 9, 2008 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Instead of VP, former Sen. Sam Nunn would be better suited as a Secretary of Defense. Gov. Bill Richardson (not mentioned in this list) would be my pick as Secretary of State given his diplomatic experience. As for VP, I would say Gov. Strickland, rather than Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, since Ohio is a battleground state in the industrial Midwest, not to mention that Gov. Strickland can also help with campaigning in the Northeast industrial states.

Definitely NO to VP for Sen. Clinton; she does not bring anything to the ticket. Besides, with the way she ran her campaign against Sen. Obama and the message on which Sen. Obama bases his campaign, the mix is incompatible.

Posted by: ldsw | May 9, 2008 6:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm surprised Richardson isn't being considered.

1. He is well liked. He alienated nobody in the primaries and gained some positive national attention.

2. He is Hispanic. Hispanics may be a swing bloc in this election. The rift between blacks and Hispanics is undeniable.

3. He has extensive experience both in foreign and domestic policy, and has executive experience.

Posted by: cstarr | May 9, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Instead of VP, former Sen. Sam Nunn would be better suited as a Secretary of Defense. Gov. Bill Richardson (not mentioned in this list) would be my pick as Secretary of State given his diplomatic experience. As for VP, I would say Gov. Strickland, rather than Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, since Ohio is a battleground state in the industrial Midwest, not to mention that Gov. Strickland can also help with campaigning in the Northeast industrial states.

Definitely NO to VP for Sen. Clinton; she does not bring anything to the ticket. Besides, with the way she ran her campaign against Sen. Obama and the message on which Sen. Obama bases his campaign, the mix is incompatible.

Posted by: ldsw | May 9, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

What about Bill Richardson? Come on now - two-term governor of a swing state, broad and deep foreign policy experience, an expert in energy policy, and a Latino to boot that could help win Nevada and Colorado!!! Richardson should be up there with Sebelius.

Please God, NOT Sam Nunn!!

Posted by: reispace | May 9, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

I am surprised that Bill Richardson doesn't get a nod (or at least a rank) for Obama. He is extremely well regarded in the foregin policy realm, he represents a swing state and would appeal to the enormous hispanic demographic across the country, he has extensive executive experience and, if nothing else, showed incredible tenacity to endorse Obama over Clinton given his prior relationship and role in their administration.

On the negative side, he might scare the bejeezus out of white dems in the midwest who blame NAFTA and mexican immigration for their economic woes. Also, given the Republican torpedo of immigration reform, regardless of McCains stance on the issue, the Repubs may have lost the Hispanic vote for a generation and therefore it may be a non-issue for democrats strategy. Finally, many people probably don't remember this, but he badly mishandled a spy scandel at Los Alamos Nat'l labs a few years back, and I am sure the republicans haven't forgetten. Either way...I would put odds that he is in the top 5 contenders.

Posted by: AdamB | May 9, 2008 6:45 AM | Report abuse

I think you're right on the money about the Democrats. Excluding Nunn and Clinton--Ha!--the others are seriously contenders. The problem is that Strictland is too old. You're choosing a possible successor, aren't you? And he'll be in his mid-70's 8 years from now. My guess is that it will be Kaine or Sebelius.

McCain probably needs a woman or a minority. Choosing another white man (conservative or moderately so) just doesn't make sense this time around.

Posted by: politicsman | May 9, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

I'm surprised the name Tim Roemer has not surfaced - he's centrist, red state (indiana) served on the 9/11 commission (shoring up some of the natl. security credentials obama lacks) and young, but not "bobby jindal" young. I'd think Tony Zinni would be a dark horse candidate as well.

Posted by: joe | May 9, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

I've been saying Sebelius would be the Democratic VP for four months now. But I could also see Sebelius turning it down. Why?

Because she's got a shot at the top of the ticket one day. If she accepts a vice presidential nomination, she is basically saying that she will forego any opportunity at a future Presidential run on her own in return for a guaranteed Presidential nomination if Obama wins two terms. If she doesn't think Obama can do that, she may decide not to accept the job.

I also like Tim Kaine. I loves him.

Posted by: mrk | May 9, 2008 6:17 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company