Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Line on Running Mates

As Super Tuesday draws ever closer, the fields for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations have narrowed significantly.

Always fond of basketball metaphors, The Fix has taken to referring to those still standing as the Final Four -- Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) on the Democrats' side, and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney on the GOP side.

With such a narrow field, it seems pointless to continue the presidential Line. All four of these candidates have made the finals and have a shot at winning their party's nomination. For the Democrats, it is a genuine jump ball between Obama and Clinton; McCain holds a clear edge for Republicans, but Romney -- and his wallet -- should not be counted out.

The prospect of stopping the presidential Line was too much for us to bear, however. So, after a bit of thinking, we came up with the next best thing -- the VICE presidential line. Although neither party has settled on a nominee just yet, the speculation about who will be No. 2 on the ticket has already begun in earnest.

Until we have nominees, the vice presidential Line will focus on the likeliest veep picks (in alphabetical order) for the candidates still in the running. Once a nominee for each party is picked, we'll start ranking the VP "candidates" from most likely to least likely to be selected.

Since there is no greater guessing game in Washington than who will wind up as each party's running-mate, consider this Line the start of a conversation. Have a favorite of your own? Or a list of your own? Offer it in the comments section below.

To the Line!

THE REPUBLICANS

>> McCAIN

* Mike Huckabee: McCain and the former Arkansas governor clearly like each other, and Huckabee has served as McCain's wing man in a number of debates. Huckabee is liked and trusted in the social conservative wing of the party -- a continued weakness for McCain.

* Tim Pawlenty: The governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty doesn't get much attention nationally but he could be a nice fit for McCain. Pawlenty has been elected and reelected in a key swing state, was among the earliest supporters of McCain, and stuck by the Arizona senator in the dark days of the campaign.

* Mark Sanford: Sanford is the ultimate maverick -- unafraid to step on toes even within his own party both during his time in Washington and as the Palmetto State's governor. As a member of the House, Sanford endorsed McCain in 2000, but he stayed on the sidelines this year. Still, the two men have similar approaches to government, and Sanford has demonstrated an electoral appeal that any politician would envy.

* John Thune: Young, handsome and socially conservative, Thune, the freshman senator from South Dakota, has the complete package. Two potential problems: He is a senator in a time when people are fed up with Washington, and he hails from a tiny state that won't be in play this year.

>> ROMNEY

* Don Carcieri: The Rhode Island governor doesn't get much publicity, but he has been elected and reelected in a VERY blue state and, before getting involved in politics, was a successful businessman. Sound like someone else you know?

* Mark Sanford: By staying neutral in the South Carolina primary, Sanford preserved his chances of being picked by either Romney or McCain. Kudos to an underrated pol.

* Jim Talent: The former Missouri senator has been the chief surrogate for Romney from the start of the campaign. His decision to pass on the open governor's race in 2008 raised some eyebrows. Could he be hoping for something a little bit higher? Remember: Missouri is a key swing state and bellwether in the general election. It couldn't hurt to have a native son on the ticket.

THE DEMOCRATS

>> CLINTON

* Evan Bayh: If you look up "vice president" in the dictionary, a picture of Bayh is staring back at you. Bayh has been elected five times to statewide offices (once as secretary of state, twice as governor, twice as senator) in a reddish state in the midwest. He's also handsome and the son of a senator (and one-time presidential hopeful). Is he too milquetoast?

* Wes Clark: Clark was widely seen as a stalking horse for the Clintons in the 2004 presidential race and has remained close to the couple. With Clark, a decorated military veteran on the ticket, it would be difficult for Republicans to paint Democrats as soft of national security and foreign policy.

* John Edwards: The Edwards primary is officially on. Edwards has said he will meet with Obama and Clinton before making an endorsement. His "shake-up the status quo" message would seem to fit better with Obama, but Edwards's strongest constituencies (whites, low-income voters) may be more prone to back Clinton than Obama. Edwards has been the vice presidential nominee once already, but don't rule him out again.

* Bill Richardson: Richardson spent years as part of the Clinton administration and will be looking for his next job as he is term-limited out as New Mexico governor in 2010. Richardson is also Hispanic -- perhaps the key voting bloc in the 2008 general election.

* Ted Strickland: The case for Strickland is simple -- he's the popular governor of Ohio. Done.

* Tom Vilsack: Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, would have been in a stronger place if Clinton had won the Iowa caucuses. She finished third. Still, Vilsack has an amazing personal story and spent eight years as the governor of a swing state in the Midwest.

>> OBAMA

* Tom Daschle: Daschle, bounced from office in 2004 by Thune, has been intimately involved in selling Obama both inside the Beltway and in the early primary states. Daschle also deserves credit for providing Obama with experienced senior staff, from chief of staff Pete Rouse to senior campaign adviser Steve Hildebrand to communications director Dan Pfeiffer.

* John Edwards: See the write-up above.

* Tim Kaine: One of the first major elected officials to go with Obama, the governor of Virginia is out of a job at the end of 2009 due to term limits. He hails from an emerging purple state, and his missionary work and comfort with talking about faith would be an intriguing addition to the ticket.

* Claire McCaskill: The freshman senator from Missouri has been one of Obama's key surrogates around the country and is trying to deliver the Show Me State to him on Tuesday. Like Talent, geography is the strongest argument in McCaskill's favor.

* Kathleen Sebelius: Perhaps the early leader for Obama's veep pick is Sebelius, now midway through her second term as governor of Kansas. Sebelius's ability to win in strongly Republican Kansas and Obama's personal ties to the Sunflower State make her a fascinating choice.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 1, 2008; 8:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democratic Debate Wrapup: A Tame Affair
Next: Florida Prediction Winners

Comments

George Clooney.

Posted by: ericzieg | February 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

First of all, voters only look at the top of the ticket. VP may matter marginally in some stats. It's a more important choice symbolically. Despite over blown claims that he is a partisna (he'd only a partisan in the sense that he belongs to the party), he has worked successfully in a divided Senate, particularly with Sens. McCain and Dole.
He's spent decades in Congress. He knows the ropes. He'd be the perfect lobbyist for Obama. He will be 77 in 2016, but as we're learning that doesn't seem to be as much a disqualifaction as it used to be.
Oh, and did I mention he knows how to raise money.

Most importantly, I believe the CW is wrong. Obama should not pick a runningmate with overwhelming foreign policy credentials. It only emphasizes the perceived inexperience he has in such matters. Nobody wants to think that the VP will be in charge of foreign policy and nobody wants to think that the VP will be the chief foreign policy advisor. This is especially the case after VP Cheney's term in office.

Daschle's post-congress lobbying activities might throw a wrench into the whole thing , however.

1) Sebelius 1a) Daschle, but I need to learn more about Sebelius.

Posted by: jpc.murphy | February 9, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand the unhealthy fascination with an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket among some pundits. I am in Omaha, Nebraska and cannot tell you how many people have expressed their intense passionate hatred towards Hillary Clinton. It is irrational. It is insane. It is also quite real. If Clinton wins the nomination, then Obama should bide his time and run against John McCain in 2012. Obama would be well served with Tom Daschle as VP. Daschle would help him get workable compromises in the Senate as LBJ was able to help JFK. No Democrat has won Nebraska since 1964, but an Obama/Daschle ticket would have an even chance of winning Nebraska, South Dakota and Kansas (among many others.)

Posted by: owherald | February 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

O' and shouldn't Colin Powell and Sarah Palin be on McCain's list. Both would seem like obvious picks depending on the outcome of the democratic contest.

Posted by: arsonplus | February 6, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

It was just one step short of crazy-town to leave Mark Warner and Jim Webb off of Obama's list. Webb is by far the likeliest pick, and as Virginia currently has a democrat governor both senate seats are safe. (Warner could stay on the ballot) That said, something about Obama's rally in Kansas said "ticket" to me. Virginia is already trending purple and Warner's run will probably push it over into blue. Which leaves Obama free to pick up Kansas (Sebelius has a 70% approval rating) and reward the women voters he's lured away from Clinton. Also a candidacy who can turn both Kansas and South Carolina blue (he lured enough new African American voters into the process their to have swamped Bush's 2000 margin of victory) makes all other considerations moot.

Posted by: arsonplus | February 4, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Webb

Now THAT'S a dream ticket.

Posted by: jvred386 | February 4, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I am surprised more people didn't comment on Mark Sanford - Governor SC. With 6 years in Congress and in his second term as Governor, Sanford would not only balance McCain, he would be a formidable candidate 4 or 8 years out.

Posted by: pkilgallon | February 4, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Hypocrites for Obama - All this talk about unity, reaching out, and no more divisions.

You seem more than willing to trash the majority of your own party that supports Hillary Clinton.

You may be new to politics, but you seem to be catching on fast.

Posted by: pkilgallon | February 4, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

rightwingprof wrote:
Reddish state? I see you've never been to Indiana."

Along those lines, Indiana has voted for the Democratic nominee for President four times in the last 100 years:
- 1912 (but only because TR split the GOP vote - Taft and TR combined got almost 48% of the vote, Wilson got just over 43%)
- 1932 (but Hoover still got almost 43% of the vote, 4% better than nationally)
- 1936
- 1964 (where Goldwater ran 5% better than nationally)

Further, on only three other occasions did Indiana vote for the Dem nominee since before the Civil War (1876, 1884, 1892). I don't think you could call that 'reddish'.

Posted by: critter69 | February 4, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Check out this video at a town hall meeting in Arizona where 2 attendees challenge McCain on illegal immigration (anchor babies).

McCain refuses to answer the person who asks the question, then his staff ejects a second constituent (sounds like Michelle Dellacroce of Mothers Against Illegal Aliens to me, LOL!) who presses the issue.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1073039/dont_ask_mccain/

Posted by: ladya2004 | February 4, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

In order to win the GE, a democrat must first win the south. The only way to do that is to have a southerner on the ballot. That is one reason why Edwards would be a smart bet for Obama. Of all the dem candidates, the Republicans didn't want to have to face Edwards in the GE. He is a fighter and has a lot of support still out there.

Posted by: JPOWERS2 | February 4, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

An appeal to Democratic Party voters in caucuses and primaries.

I appeal to all my democratic American brothers and sisters who are voting in the caucuses and primaries to select their presidential nominee. This appeal comes from a person from India, the biggest democratic nation.

Destiny awaits you. The greatest day in American history awaits you. The annals of history wait to be rewritten, provided you choose Hillary Clinton as your presidential nominee. Thus, for the first time in your history you won't have to say Americans never had a chance to elect a woman president. It doesn't end here.

I also appeal to Hillary Clinton to request, choose and declare Barack Obama as her vice presidential candidate. And I also appeal to Barack Obama to accept it in good faith, for better and not for worse. Thus, again for the first time in the history of this great nation you won't have to say we never had a black vice president.

KILL TWO BIRDS IN ONE SHOT! I wonder which Republican combination can challenge such a great duo.

Even in India we had woman prime minister and now president. And prior to as a nation, we had Queens like Rani of Janshi and others. Who have said that women are bad leaders or politicians? Why Americans have to shy away from electing a woman president? I know Americans are good people and they will all unitedly rise up to the occasion to elect a woman president and a black vice president, thus creating a new history in the history of this great nation.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

From:

Ivo Oscar Faleiro.
Goa - INDIA.

Contact: ivofaleiro@gmail.com ; ivofaleiro@yahoo.co.in

PS: Please pass this appeal to all your American friends without fail and especially to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. God bless you all.

Posted by: iofaleiro | February 3, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has one choice - Richardson. He's Hispanic, an executive, lots of real experience in lots of areas. He would moderate the centrists dislike for her and, most importantly, bring the Hispanic vote. He is the only one the calculating Clintons can choose.

Obama choice will be Richardson for all the same reasons except for the overt calculation part.

Romney's toast. Republicans realize they can't win with him.
Like someone wrote, conservatives picked the wrong conservative to be the anti-McCain.

McCain has a ton of choices. It will be an executive, i.e., governor. Look for Pawlenty first. MN will likely go with a Dem for governor next. It moved way left in the last 2-4 years. Sanford sounds intriguing, but he's from the south, and, therefore, not providing any geographical advantage. I think that is very important in voters perception. Carcieri sounds like a better fit for McCain than Romney. Right geographically, too. Very tough to pick this one.

A slight aside - the prospect of Edwards as the A.G. will scare a ton of Republicans to vote against either of the Dems. I think the Dms are nuts for salivating about this. Talk about a stark and galvanizing moment for those mad at McCain's nomination. This will smack them upside the head in a hurry. Thanks Dems!

Posted by: jtuckplants | February 3, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

jimoneill50, There has never been a popular move to amend the Constitution on this issue:
------------------------------------
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
------------------------------------
Until Schwarzenegger, there was never a potential candidate who made the issue relevant. Kissinger was momentarily thought of as interim VP after Agnew and rejected on this ground, but otherwise it never has been discussed 'til now.

Were "Ahnold" ten years younger, I have no doubt an "Amendment Movement" would gather steam. It may, anyway.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 3, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Clinton or Obama would name a black or female running mate. There'd be too much historic change on one ticket, sort of a change overload for the voting public. I don't think Clinton or Obama would name another Senator, especially one from a state with a Republican governor, for the simple reason they wouldn't want a possible replacement being a Republican with the party breakdown in the Senate being so close. I think Clinton would name a governor from a state that more often than not votes Republican for president. I think Obama would name someone with foreign policy experience, but I have no idea who that would be given the parameters I've already listed. Perhaps Obama would name Sam Nunn as his running mate? I don't see McCain even considering Romney as a running mate, but I could see Romney naming McCain to shore up his lack of foreign policy experience. Given McCain's apparent unpopularity among the conservative GOP establishment and his long friendship with Fred Thompson, I could definitely see McCain naming Thompson as his running mate. This may be why we have not yet seen Thompson endorse McCain, so as not to give the impression that a deal has been reached between them.

Posted by: irishslider | February 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Is there any reason why a VP (eg. Gore) couldn't be both VP and, say, head of the EPA?

Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 3, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Re the fact that Arnie and Martinez are not eligible:

Now I am not American, and I know that the constitution is very important to Americans, but do none of you think that it's strange, if not silly, that if you are born outside of the US you can be a governor or senator, but not president?

Hell, I even read somewhere that technically McCain is not eligible to be president!

I think it flies in the face of the fact that America is truly a nation of immigrants.

Why can't it be that if you are a US citizen then that's enough?

Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 3, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

I see Obama squeaking out Clinton as the electability question starts to swing in his favor. I can't think of a better running mate for him than Joe Biden. He's steeped in experience and foreign affairs, and... if you recall Joe's little misstep at the outset of the campaign that was blown into a very disproportionate critique of his insensitivity etc, it would show great character and largess of spirit for Obama to pick him. Also, about John Edwards: would anybody make a better Attorney General? Here's a guy straining at the leash to take on Big Money... it'd be sweet.

Posted by: lastgasphornco | February 3, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

I see Obama squeaking out Clinton as the electability question starts to swing in his favor. I can't think of a better running mate for him than Joe Biden. He's steeped in experience and foreign affairs, and... if you recall Joe's little misstep at the outset of the campaign that was blown into a very disproportionate critique of his insensitivity etc, it would show great character and largess of spirit for Obama to pick him. Also, about John Edwards: would anybody make a better Attorney General? Here's a guy straining at the leash to take on Big Money... it'd be sweet.

Posted by: lastgasphornco | February 3, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

I see Obama squeaking out Clinton as the electability question starts to swing in his favor. I can't think of a better running mate for him than Joe Biden. He's steeped in experience and foreign affairs, and... if you recall Joe's little misstep at the outset of the campaign that was blown into a very disproportionate critique of his insensetivity etc, it would show great character and largess of spirit for Obama to pick him. Also, about John Edwards: would anybody make a better Attorney General? Here's a guy straining at the leash to take on Big Money... it'd be sweet.

Posted by: lastgasphornco | February 3, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

I nominate Ben Nighthorse Campbell for either McCain, Clinton, or Obama: Bridge builder for both parties, Native American, conservative Democrat. Imagine, a Native American as V-P....Little Big Man.

Runner-up: McCain/Rice but only against Hillary. A strong female African-American could blunt the democrats and she has conservative appeal in foreign policy, national security, and she is a Bushie. (good and bad, I admit)

Clinton-Obama: Gives BO eight years of experience and maturity to be a formidable candidate for democratic president in 2017.

Posted by: valed | February 2, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris, your picks for Sen. McCain are spot on. Eventually, it'll likely come to Thune or Huckabee. Add Charlie Crist as a darkhorse pick and you've got your shortlist.

The Romney veep possibilities are a bit strange though. Carcieri hails quite close to Romney's Massachusetts base plus he's not conservative enough for the ticket. Talent is impossible since he lost re-election in 06. For Romeny, how about Jim DeMint?

For BHO, Sebelieus and Kaine seem two of the more likely choices though I'd think he'd favor somebody with more national security experience and gravitas like a Biden, General Clark or perhaps even Clinton (though there's no way she'd take it.) I doubt Edwards would be on either ticket. He simply wasn't outstanding in 04 as a veep and he wouldn't be considered now.

Unless HRC gives in to the speculation and energy displayed on Thursday and goes with BHO (believe it or not, it could happen), I think it's between Bayh and Clark with Bayh with an edge because of his relative youth.

Posted by: marcbess | February 2, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

For Clinton - Rendell.
For Obama - Biden or Dodd.
For McCain - Rudy or Sonny Purdue
For Romney - Jeb Bush or Rick Santorum.

Posted by: cnas | February 2, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

For those who bring up our Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer as a veep possibility. Two reasons why not:

1. Schweizter doesn't want the job.

2. He has a Republican lt. governor. Montana's legislature is split with each party holding a one-vote majority in one house. If the next election produces a tie, (we had one the election before last)the party of the governor retains control, assigning committees, setting agenda, etc.

Schweizter is not going to do anything that would allow GOP control in State government.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | February 2, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

An appeal to Democratic Party voters in caucuses and primaries.

I appeal to all my democratic American brothers and sisters who are voting in the caucuses and primaries to select their presidential nominee. This appeal comes from a person from India, the biggest democratic nation.

Destiny awaits you. The greatest day in American history awaits you. The annals of history wait to be rewritten, provided you choose Hillary Clinton as your presidential nominee. Thus, for the first time in your history you won't have to say Americans never had a chance to elect a woman president. It doesn't end here.

I also appeal to Hillary Clinton to request, choose and declare Barack Obama as her vice presidential candidate. And I also appeal to Barack Obama to accept it in good faith, for better and not for worse. Thus, again for the first time in the history of this great nation you won't have to say we never had a black vice president.

KILL TWO BIRDS IN ONE SHOT! I wonder which Republican combination can challenge such a great duo.

Even in India we had woman prime minister and now president. And prior to as a nation, we had Queens like Rani of Janshi and others. Who have said that women are bad leaders or politicians? Why Americans have to shy away from electing a woman president? I know Americans are good people and they will all unitedly rise up to the occasion to elect a woman president and a black vice president, thus creating a new history in the history of this great nation.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

From:

Ivo Oscar Faleiro.
Goa - INDIA.

Contact: ivofaleiro@gmail.com ; ivofaleiro@yahoo.co.in

PS: Please pass this appeal to all your American friends without fail and especially to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. God bless you all.

Posted by: iofaleiro | February 2, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Granholm was born in Canada. Out.

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

I meant Governor Easley of NC not Hunt.

Also, this site lists superdelegates and other major endorsers for each candidate.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

Posted by: hugh7975 | February 2, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Chris

Any reason to dismiss Clinton - Ed Rendell (Gov-PA)?

Just because PA borders NY doesn't necessarily mean it is not possible (Clinton-Gore).

VP candidates cannot outshine the nominee so the general idea is for a "light weight" who has regional not national appeal. Also, domestic issues are coming on so foreign policy will not be a top priority. A governor to balance the ticket is likely to be more important. Richardson becomes the all-star pick because he has both. More likely to go with Clinton (as it would be more difficult to have a hipsanic and african-american on the ticket at the same time).

While Strickland is a first termer- he is immensely popular in Ohio and could help with PA.

Also, Ritter (Gov-CO) and Hunt (Gov-NC) are wild cards on the Dem side.

Sen. Blunt was not exactly popular in MO when he left. Romney could do better.

Sebelius and Kaine were on my list for Obama. On Clinton, I also had Granholm (Gov-MI) and for Obama I had Doyle (Gov-WI) as well though he is not a clean figure but from a key state.

Posted by: hugh7975 | February 2, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

A couple of more things about Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius. Her maiden name is GILLIGAN as in the daughter of former Ohio governor and US Rep. John Gillian. She still has strong ties to monied Ohioans.

And as tempting as Ohio governor Ted Strickland may be--he is more so because he is an ordained minister.

Posted by: sheldonlgreen | February 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris you picked a bunch of lightweights for both. Come on -get in their minds.

Clinton is hard core -she'd pick another pro-war hardass, but one from her corps of donors and one easily put in his place. Of the Benjamin Netinyahoo calibre.

Obama will choose one of great worldly experience and strength, a heavy weight well respected by many -not a Wesley Clark type -more like a Volker.

Look for VP's not 'like' them but attractive opposites.

Posted by: hazmaq | February 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see...For McCain the choice for VICE president is obvious. Larry Craig, who adheres to the military's beloved "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" dictum, as well as having a wide stance on many issues.

For Romney, the choice is equally clear: Condoleeza Rice...nicely balancing the Romney empty head/empty suit sporting nothing but deep pockets with a similarly-challenged empty (air)-headedness, demonstrated incompetence...but great taste in shoes and she accessorizes well.

Clinton's already got a vice president all locked up. Hillary!

And Obama? I don't know...He's an enigma. How about "Dirty Harry" Clint Eastwood to lock up the fascist vote...or David Duke.

Posted by: PETETENNEY | February 2, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Congrats, Chris, on all your great work! :-)

Clinton/Clark sounds ideal to me.

Obama/Webb is a ticket that would give McCain less room on national securirty creds & VA is a state Dems would love to carry. Only prob is having 2 sitting senators on same ticket.

Bill Richardson was such a recent flop. The VP pick should have more charisma.

Posted by: alicesprings | February 2, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm here representing Virginia, and I'm kind of troubled about what people are saying.

1) We need Jim Webb to stay in the Senate: he was a fantastic windfall of a candidate, and he is not replaceable with the current crop of VA Dems vying for office. VA's Dem universe just doesnt have those kinds of potential winners hanging around.

2) We need Mark Warner to stay in the race for the Senate. A post-1994 Democrat leaving office with an 80% approval rating? This Warner could have the respect and longevity of the last Warner. He will be of far more value to us there.

3) Tim Kaine is a good man. I proudly called knocked and mailed for him. But his experience isn't of the kind Obama needs: he's been the mayor of Richmond, the Lt Gov and the Gov. Limited and very domestic. I'd like him to run for Eric Cantor's seat, because if any Dem can win it, Kaine can. But I think he'd thrive in the international arena, where he could develop or demonstrate skills that would make him a better candidate on the Big Card.

Bill Richardson compliments Obama perfectly. He has all the international and domestic experience you could ask for, and all the right kinds too.

Posted by: large23220 | February 2, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Gen. Clark should also be listed among potential VP candidates for Obama. Though they have no previous ties, it's imperative that Obama add someone like Clark to boost his national security credentials.

Posted by: rhussey7500 | February 2, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

yancee said:

"I think General Pace would be a great option for Governor Romney. Obviously strong military background and equally strong moral convictions."

Shalikashvili has better credentials because he properly questioned the force necessary to occupy Iraq. And his morality is based on accepting the golden rule, also controversial, but correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | February 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

All of you have forgotten the fact that anyone who is picked as a running mate must have the potential to be a presidential candidate in 2016. Picking someone who is on the older side like Richard Lugar, Bob Graham or Joe Biden won't work.

The Democrats have to choose someone with more national legislative experience or executive experience. I am inclined to pick Bill Richardson for either candidate. He obviously wants to be president and has a heck of a resume, but is young enough to wait for a turn in 2016.

As for the Republicans, the party elite have decided to reward McCain for his loyalty, even though they personally dislike him. So bring in Romney as VP. He is a religious conservative with executive and business experience. It fills in McCain's holes.

Posted by: corridorg4 | February 2, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

I think General Pace would be a great option for Governor Romney. Obviously strong military background and equally strong moral convictions.

S/F

YMH
Frmr. Sergeant of Marines

Posted by: yancee | February 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Charlie Christ with John McCain. Sam Nunn would be a great pairing with Obama. 24 years in the Senate. Georgia. Enormous credentials in foreign affairs. The aura of 'older, experienced insider' that made Cheney the choice for Bush. Age would be the only drawback, but no health problems and younger than McCain.

Posted by: cat4cc | February 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

What, Republicans can't select a woman like Bay-Hutchinson or Pallin?

Posted by: Haners | February 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee would be a perfect fit for McCain.Hillary could put the South particularly Arkansas in play and this would eliminate that. Huckabee would also excite the evangelical base who put Bush over the top in 2004.But perhaps most importantly it would complete the marginalization of McCain's critics on so called conservative talk radio.
If it isn't obvious to them Limbaugh and Coulter and Hannity have held almost no sway over the Republican party this year.So called "fiscal conservatives" are such a small fraction of the Republican base that it doesn't really matter if McCain snubs them or not.
The media wing of the Republican party has thrown everything they have at McCain and Huckabee in support of Willard and had no success.
Limbaugh recently said that the Republican party would be completely different if McCain or Huckabee won.Why is that a bad thing?
Perhaps Limbaugh,Coulter and Hannity might consider reforming the Whig Party because after this election they will be completely irrelevant.

Posted by: ERASMUS_JR | February 2, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Another note, when either Obama or Clinton lose, I think neither will accept Vp but try for the govenor's mantle in their respective states. I would place a 100% bet on Obama going for the govenor's mansion in Illinois before another Presidential bid rather than the Vp spot.

Posted by: slbk | February 2, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Reddish state? I see you've never been to Indiana.

Posted by: rightwingprof | February 2, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Charlie Crist is an absolute lock as McCain's running mate.

Hillary has been pretty chummy with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida.

Obama will probably go with Richardson or McCaskill although wouldn't it be great if he could talk Al Gore into taking his old job back.

Posted by: chasmack99 | February 2, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

optimyst said:

"...after watching Richardson in the debates and his speeches, I'm shocked he's still being mentioned as a VP candidate."

All of us who watched him fumble through the debates and even his MTP appearance agree. Those of you who are still pushing this definitely are star struck by his resume.

I was for him before I was against him. I was astonished by his lack of TV presence.
But he was impossible as a TV personna.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Richardson for Clinton or Obama, hands down. Clinton wont call attention to the war with the general. Edwards 0% chanced of VP; he screwed up too mauch last time. Dems need the hispanic vote to win.

Richardson hasnt endorsed because he wants to be picked by wither one of them, and he will be.

Edwards hasn't endorsed because he wants a different job, knowing he wont get VP.


Republicans Huckabee, hands down for either. He has legions of volunteers, caters to social conservatives, which neither McCain or Romney has street cred with and is an evangelical.

Both of these candidates have that goofy uncle quality that is good in a VP, non threatening to the Presdiential candidate and a bit of comic relief in the campaign.

Goofy Uncle Govenor, with a pan US following, evans or hispanics, is better than war monger, senator, or continued Presidential candidate a la Edwards 04.

Richardson or Huckabee no matter who wins.

Posted by: slbk | February 2, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

The facts...Not a Washington Insider doing the same thing for years as a politician, Romney has a sophisticated understanding of the challenges we face in both the national and global economies. He is a highly educated and successful leader in business making money by turning around floundering companies such as Staples and helping to produce thousands of jobs, understands the importance of people, organization, research, planning, communication and direction. He was class valedictorian at BYU, MBA and LAW degree from Harvard. While Governor of mostly Democrat Massachusetts, he brought the fractured constituencies together and they became the first state with a universal health care plan that seems to work, official figures indicate that roughly 200,000 previously uninsured residents have gained health coverage, a 45 percent drop in minimum premium costs and a 34 percent reduction in the uninsured. He took no salary at all as Governor because as he said, I have enough. He lowered state taxes, most of what Romney raised was in the form of fees, not taxes, such as court filings and firearm licensing fees. But he also closed loopholes on corporate taxes. Increased funding for education, Massachusetts students ranked #l in the nation in education. Increased penalties on drunk driving. Never supported the release of criminals convicted of serious crimes. Never was first to bring up religion. He turned around MA's economy from deficit to surplus, balancing their budget in less than 4 years. How dare he do his job well and for no pay on top of it!!! When the Salt Lake City Olympics crumbled under corruption/scandal and financial disaster he went to Salt Lake, took over for a one dollar salary, saved the Olympics and made it profitable. He led a massive security mobilization at the Olympics in the wake of the 9/11 attack and, as governor, helped build up Massachusetts' homeland security efforts. He supports a strong military. He is concerned about illegal immigration and what it means to the security of the United States. He wants to retool America and bring the jobs back home. I can certainly understand liberals hating Romney, after all he's been married to the same woman. He's from a close knit family and values family first. Regarding his flip-flopping on big issues? He may have flipped but not flopped! Everyone, and that means everyone in politics makes mistakes, gets to change their mind once after gaining more knowledge, and most politicians seem to change more than once. Stand all of the candidates up next to each other in a direct comparison of what they really have done and then vote for the best person to make good change and run the country in the right direction.

Posted by: dcdinnell | February 2, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

My 9:01A sould have been addressed to

"jon.morgan and seward".

Another interesting idea:

[During their debates]

BHO offers McC SecDef.
McC offers BHO AG.

or

HRC offers McC SecDef.
McC offers HRC HHS.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

seward,

If Arlen Specter wanted to finish his career as AG he could do so for either Party's Admin.

The Ds would be more motivated to appoint him - his vacated Senate seat would be a plum.

Bob Kerrey would be a brilliant choice for VP with BHO, IMHO.

Clarke is an analyst, not an administrator. He could be National Security Adviser in either Admin - his field is counter- terrorism and he is nominally an R who has served both Ds and Rs in the past.
DHLS is an administrative nightmare and may not be workable - but Colin Powell was widely hailed for his management at State.
He might bite the bullet that is DHLS as a duty to his country.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary wins in a close race with Obama, the pressure to make Obama her running mate will be overwhelming. They looked fabulous side by side at the California debate. To not choose Obama could easily be seen as dissing the youth activists he has energized and the African American community. Clinton-Obama is the strongest ticket she could put together--it gives a great number of groups a good reason to vote for it.

If Obama wins after a close race, he can't pick Hillary. It doesn't work in the opposite direction. But it would make great sense for him to pick someone close to the Clintons in the interest of party unity. Wes Clark to give national security heft would be great. Bill Richardson doesn't work--two first-time minorities might alienate lots of white voters. Evan Bayh might work. An off-the-wall choice would be Bob Kerrey (despite his remarks about Obama's Muslim links). He's been a governor, senator, soldier, university president, 9/11 commission stalwart--was always a maverick willing to work across party lines. Obama-Kerrey would really look like the future.

Posted by: sewardj1 | February 2, 2008 3:40 AM | Report abuse

what, you forgot McCain / Lieberman, ?
oy.

Posted by: jeffreyw | February 2, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

I was trying to brainstorm last night who might be good for a Democratic cabinet:

Agriculture- Tom Harkin
Attorney General- Barney Frank/Patrick Leahy (John Edwards never served on Judiciary while too many compelling senators and representatives have)
Commerce-
Defense- Chuck Hagel/Bob Kerrey
Education- George Miller
Energy- Jeff Bingaman? Barbara Boxer? Carl Pope
FCC Commisioner- Amy Goodman (a fixation of mine)
Health and Human Services- Howard Dean?
Homeland Security- Richard Clarke
Housing and Urban Development- Earl Blumenauer/Jack Reed?
Interior- Brian Schweitzer
Labor- Sherrod Brown/Bernie Sanders
State- Joe Biden
Transportation- Earl Blumenauer/Parris Glendening
Treasury- Jon Corzine/Dodd? Robert Rubin
Veterans Affairs- (If you think Kerry would take this job, you're nuts)

John Kasich is totally irrelevant. He's been out of office for 8 years. And those persistent gay rumors...

Bob Graham was one of Bill Clinton's 3 VP finalists, along with Gore and Lee Hamilton.

John Danforth would be one hell of an interesting choice who'd probably fit relatively well with McCain. But I think he's probably too old and unwilling to do it. Given his aggressive advocacy against religion in politics the last couple years though, he'd worsen McCain's problems with the GOP base.

Sam Nunn?? Ugh.

George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton are both left-handed. I believe Ross Perot is too. Most lefties are right-brained, but some are left-brained.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | February 2, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

Chris, very disappointed you missed the obvious Obama VP pick (if he can be convinced)

JIM WEBB

how's that for "change?" (ex republican)
sourtherner, from purple state, wildly popular with white males. (who might otherwise go Mccain) and would absolutely KNEEcap anyone trying to go after Obama on national security/foreign policy.

Biden would be ok, but Webb is the best by a mile.

I believe Obama has already said (wisely) that he'd choose a VP with strong foreign policy credentials.

of course the Edwards sweepstakes might change the equation.

but Edwards should be Attorney General, a PERFECT job for him.

Posted by: bogey666 | February 2, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

Mel Martinez of Florida would be a good choice for McCain (assuming there are no skeletons in Martinez's closet). Martinez
would throw a big wrench into the Dems plans -- he would fracture the Hispanic vote (esp. effective if Obama can grab the
Dem nomination) and put ethnic flare onto the lily-white Rep ticket to balance what will certainly be a ethnically or gender-wise or both novel Dem ticket.

Posted by: bisset | February 2, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

hmmmmm

Well McCain will suffer the boring Bob Dole and lose for the Republicans. The focus is the economy and he is all about foreign policy...so he is out of touch.

Clinton/Obama will win no matter what.

Obama as the nominee needs a strong foreign policy person to take the win.

Romney could balance his lack of foreign policy by getting Dr. Condoleezza Rice as his VP. Think about it the Republicans putting the first Woman and Black on the winning ticket of a Presidential race. She is smarter and tougher than any of the main 4 running for president and would be the key to the republicans winning in November!

peace

wes

Posted by: jhaden65 | February 2, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

I would also add AZ Gov Janet Napolitano to Obama's list. She is a two termer from a purple state that is winnable by the Dems. I am not sure there are too many other choices out there that could provide the valuable electoral votes of a swing state like Arizona.

For McCain or Romney, I also see Kay Bailey Hutchison as a strong choice. The Republicans are not going to want to pick a white male, especially if the Dem ticket consists of some mix of black/woman/Hispanic. Sen. Martinez might be a strong choice for John McCain.

Posted by: mbergdale | February 2, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and for McCain, a great VP would be Huckabee. He's decent and honest, opposed to outsourcing. Best of all, as VP he would stick it in the eye of the hysterical feminists that inflicted Clinton on us to begin with.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 2, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

bokonon13 _ Evidently you don't listen to us "Clinton haters". If she is on the ticket, our votes go somewhere else. Now, I am/was am an Edwards advocate but so far Obama looks like someone I would vote for. I, and about 1/3 of Democratic voters, don't trust the Clinton's as far as we can throw them and don't want either them anywhere near the White House ever again. We will vote and donate and work accordingly. It looks like the Republican's have some common sense and will nominate McCain. Our votes will go to him. He's wrong on Iraq, but right on the environment, health care, illegals, gun control, foreign policy in general, and corporate corruption. Given a choice between another Ronald Reagan and a crook, we'll take Reagan every time.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 2, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

MCCAIN - If Clinton doesn't take Obama, McCain should take former 4-term African American Rep. J. C. Watts. He has always been a favorite of the far right, plus he also shores up the evangelical side (he was previously an associate pastor before becoming a congressman). He's run a successful business, is an eloquent speaker, and rose to the #4 position in the GOP while in Congress. He's a friend of Sen. McCain as well, and at 50, offsets the age issue.

Posted by: bfisher | February 2, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

At this point I would be sorry to see Clinton-Obama, whereas when the race began - so long ago - I would have found that acceptable. Hillary lost whatever chance she once had for my support with her initial assumption that she was entitled to the nomination, followed by her -and her husband's- words and behavior since she lost the Iowa caucus. (the full list would include many smaller events along the way, including but not limited to her choice of a Celine Dion song as her campaign theme.)
If she is the nominee, I might vote for McCain, although he has been pandering a bit much to the far right for me to be totally comfortable with him.
In that case, I will write in Obama, or Bloomberg (assuming he's not already on the ballot) or someone else. I have tried, but I'm not able to respect Hillary enough to vote for her.

Posted by: bokonon13 | February 1, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Re: executive experience:

IMHO, the concept is just downright stupid when it comes to the presidency. Having been a CEO, a VP several times, the idea that being an "executive" in the private sector being a plus is just downright stupid.

Here's why: being an elected official cannot be equated to being a CEO of a corporation or a VP for that matter. The biggest reason is that a corporation is more akin to the military than it is with an elected position. Corporations are NOT democracies -- they're more akin to dictatorships. A CEO does not need the permission of anyone to hire X, unlike a president who has to get Congress' approval to put X in certain positions. And whereas a board can fire a CEO at will, U.S. presidents must go through an impeachment trial. So this "executive experience" argument is bunk. Executive experience in the private sector in no way can be comparable to being president of the U.S. So all of you who use this argument should just throw it out.

And re: the subject of a governor vs. a senator, or a Clinton/Obama or two senators being a stupid ticket -- give me a break. Go back to your history books.

The fact is that JFK and LBJ battled brutally for the nomination, and they ended up on the same ticket. The rest, as they say, is history.

Posted by: femalenick | February 1, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama needs an experienced hand(like Bush did with Cheney), oh...boy that didn't work out well. But either a go getter Governor or someone just out of office. No Senator's. I really think Seblius.
Clinton needs someone who projects honesty, something she and Bill lack. Also a Governor. Richardson for her, if he can stand working with Bill and Hill again.

McCain has a strong need to cover his butt with a known conservative. That eliminates a lot of names mentioned here. Graham(Lindsy) is anathama to conservatives for some reason.
I think Sarah Palin of Alaska is great, she's smart, a corruption and pork barrel fighter and a conservative through and through. Pawlenty is very good. I would like to see Crist, but the rumours would kill him off(especially if Hillary is the nominee).
But if he wants a really totally acceptable conservative....Sen. Tom Coburn(THE most conservative man in the Senate) or Brownbeck. Even Rush Limeballs would sit up and take notice on those 2.

Posted by: joshuahaught | February 1, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

And we forgot Rufus' choice for BHO: Dodd.

Why not?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Laim, Arthur Branch is borderline on the "TOO OLD" issue with McC.

But I think he would be an acceptable choice.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

People dismiss the possibility of an Obama-HRC party unity ticket way too quickly.

Sure, Obama-HRC would be formidable in the general election. More importantly, the VP position isn't the same job that it was 7 years ago. Cheney has transformed the office. It simply has more prestige and influence, i.e., power, then it ever did in the days of Gore, Quayle, Bush Sr, etc (the days most people's calculations seem to draw from). A strong administrator, someone like Hillary Clinton, could use this expanded office to her own advantage . As a post-Cheney VP, and with a pretty laid back executive officer, Hillary could have much, much more influence than she now has as a junior US senator.

Assuming she loses the presidential nomination to Obama, her odds of being the party's VP nominee are high.

On the other hand, because Bill would be the de facto VP in any HRC campaign/administration, Obama would be a fool to run as her nominal second. He'd have more influence as a US Senator, and, after serving 8 years as Bush's, sorry I mean Hillary's, poodle, he'd seem more weak than promising.

Posted by: catuskoti | February 1, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Since the beginning I thought Mark Warner with Obama. He brings executive experience and a great record. Apart from foreign policy he brings to the table a lot of what Obama needs.

Posted by: asteel | February 1, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

I remember Senator Webb hammering McCain minion, Senator Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press. He would clearly hold his own. If McCain is the GOP nominee, Webb must strongly be considered for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: brian.w.ellis | February 1, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

CC... I'd be very interested in your thoughts on Biden.

You obviously didn't just leave him out because you didn't think of him... so I'd like to know what the rationale was... Secretary of Defense or State?

I'd think he would sure up Obama nicely... White, experienced, strong on Defense... it is balance Obama needs.

Posted by: Boutan | February 1, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

For McCain, Fred Thompson would be a natural choice for VP. They were close friends in the Senate. Thompson may not have done great on the campaign trail, but he was respectable and still carries the "conservative" label, and really, a VP doesn't have to do much except be supportive.

Romney would probably pick Jeb Bush, if he could get him. Romney just loves the guy (even if nobody else wants another Bush in the White House).

Posted by: laiming90 | February 1, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

I haven't seen Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida mentioned as a possible VP. I don't think he or Gov. Crist can be counted out. I think either is more likely than Ted Strickland or a GOP governor from the south. The governors of Tennessee and North Carolina are intriguing possibilities for the Dems.

Posted by: ob031204 | February 1, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

How about John Kasich for McCain? He is the former Chair of the Budget committee AND from Ohio. Tom Ridge would be a good choice especially if McCain isn't the nominee. Rice or Steele could be good choices for McCain. Didn't Pawlenty and Richardson both say they would complete their terms?

You also have to think about other factors like age (Sam Nunn,Phil Bredesen)or how their name sounds(Huckabee,Schweitzer).

Posted by: anthonyjbrady | February 1, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

How about John Kasich for McCain? He is the former Chair of the Budget committee AND from Ohio. Tom Ridge would be a good choice especially if McCain isn't the nominee. Rice or Steele could be good choices for McCain. You have to think about other factors like age (Sam Nunn,Phil Bredesen)or how their name sounds(Huckabee,Schweitzer).

Posted by: anthonyjbrady | February 1, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic VP will be Bill Ritter from Colorado

the convention is in his own back yard; the West is trending more blue than any other region

he has executive experience and he is an outsider

Posted by: davidlwickham | February 1, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Strengths:Legislative experience, Foreign Affairs, Appeal to independents
Weaknesses:Domestic/Economic Affairs, Appeal to fiscal conservatives, Appeal to evangelical conservatives
Rob Portman
Charlie Crist
Mike Huckabee
Haley Barbour
Tim Pawlenty
Romney-Strengths:Domestic/Economic Affairs, Appeal to fiscal conservatives, Appeal to faith voters
Weaknesses:Foreign Affairs, Appeal to evangelical voters
David Patreaus
Condi Rice
Mark Sanford
Bob Riley
Newt Gingrich
There is no way McCain and Romney run on the same ticket.
Hillary-Strenghts:Policy wonk, Legislative experience, Domestic Affairs
Weaknesses:High negatives, Polarizing, Seen as too political
Evan Bayh
Bill Richardson
Ed Rendell
Ted Strickland
Tom Vilsak
Obama-Strengths:Change candidate, Judgement, Appeal to independents
Weaknesses-Legislative experience, Foreign Affairs
John Edwards
Jim Webb
Jack Reed
Tom Daschel
Ben Nelson
If the Democratic primary goes much beyond Feb. Hillary may have to pick Obama as her running for party unity, Because of Bill's strong presense Obama will never chose Hillary as his VP


Posted by: romands | February 1, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Ooops -- I meant "right brained." Left-handed people are right-brained and conventional wisdom is that they tend to be very creative.

Posted by: femalenick | February 1, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

First - I have to comment on this left handed thing. I can't believe that Drindl, Mark, and Jim are all left handed. Now if bsimon and the judge are also left handed...hmmm. I am a right handed person married to a lefty who is definitely right-brained. What's puzzling is that you guys don't seem left brained at all!

Now to comment on Mark's post re: LA Times endorsing Obama. SF Chronicle did, too, btw. Funny, but the biggest complaint that moderates and Republicans have in CA is that our major papers are way too liberal!

Denver Post, a more moderate paper, just endorsed Clinton. They endorsed Romney yesterday.

Optymist - good points on the Biden assessment re: Secretary of State. You do know he and Hillary are very good friends?

But I disagree with you on Bill being de facto VP. He will go back to his foundation which has been fighting poverty around the world to help create his own legacy. Will he support her? Sure. But if Hillary is elected, she will overshadow him in the history books so he will want to make sure that he does great things separate from her. He's the one with the ego, remember? So I don't buy it at all.

Zouk, any idea how long it takes before the system thinks it's a time out and renders a post an error? (Why do you and Drindl egg each other on so? Are you guys best friends and the rest of us just don't know it?)

Posted by: femalenick | February 1, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Vice Presidential Picks for

Republican Presidential Nominees:

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Well liked
and fills conservative vacuum for voters)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (wants to run)
Lou Dobbs ( a super smart guy)

Vice Presidential Picks for
Democratic Party Presidential Nominees:

Senator Ben Nelson (Dems need moderates)
Senator Evan Bayh (Proven popularity)
Senator Byron Dorgan (Investigated Enron
case on TV)

Posted by: coffee76126 | February 1, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

mark, 'Fiskars' and closer to Tennessee orange I'm afraid (what can I say--they were a gift). It's nice to have scissors that work...the dexterous just can't understand the thrill.

When I was in charge of a datacenter we kept a daily log in a binder...and I directed the holes be punched on the 'wrong' side so the right-handers had to prop their hands over the rings for once.

Posted by: malis | February 1, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Or is it "fluffer?" I must get this right.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama should pick Sam Nunn, former Senator from Georgia. Nunn is a respected foreign affairs expert. He would provide good balance as an older, white, Southern moderate.

Posted by: tlcshc | February 1, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Good summary, optimyst.

Let me add Spectator to Judge, bsimon, and proud as my cultural reference gurus.

Fluffy. hmm.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Really great thread here today. Lots to chew on.

Several comments:

First, from my perspective as a Floridian who did not vote for Crist. There's been a lot of innuendo here, but I'll give my unqualified praise to his skills as a governor after 8 long, long years of Jeb Bush.

Second, Bill Clinton will be de facto VP in all but the constitutionally reserved functions. It will be ceremonial for the de jure occupant, so expect Hillary to select someone who is not a heavyweight, so scratch Obama or Biden.

Third, after watching Richardson in the debates and his speeches, I'm shocked he's still being mentioned as a VP candidate. His tendency to put his mouth in gear before thinking makes him a potential train wreck, or at the very least a distraction during the fall campaign. He's hispanic, a western governor and all that, but the reality doesn't match the paper resume.

Fourth, for those who think Biden is too important in the Senate, he was ready to leave to be Kerry's SecState in 2004. Delaware's governor is ready to appoint Biden's son to continue the Biden legacy and more importantly, to keep the seat safely blue.

Posted by: optimyst | February 1, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

malis, if you are still checking in, are your scissors burnt orange, or some none Texas color?

I may be with you on MDH as VP - I think the same thoughts you do. But I will work that through if, as, and when, and I will write to McC imploring him not to pick MDH.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Mcain and Romney no matter which one wins should pick Jeb Bush or Pat Robertson as a running mate. Sec. of State Condi Rice would also make for an excellant running mate, she's both black and woman, something the mainstream news media would feast on against both Obama and Hillary no matter which one of them wins on Dems side.

Posted by: rtb4444 | February 1, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Strenghts:Legislative experience, Foreign Affairs, Appeal to independents
Weaknesses:Domestic/Economic Affairs, Appeal to fiscal conservatives, Appeal to evangelical conservatives
Rob Portman
Charlie Crist
Mike Huckabee
Haley Barbour
Tim Pawlenty
Romney-Strengths:Domestic/Economic Affairs, Appeal to fiscal conservatives, Appeal to faith voters
Weaknesses:Foreign Affairs, Appeal to evangelical voters
David Patreaus
Condi Rice
Mark Sanford
Bob Riley
Newt Gingrich
Hillary-Strenghts:Mastery of issues, Legislative experience, Domestic Affairs
Weaknesses:High negatives, Polarizing, Foreign Affairs
Jim Webb
Evan Bayh
Bill Richardson
Ted Strickland
Tom Vilsak
Obama-Strengths:Change candidate, Judgement, Appeal to independents
Weaknesses-Legislative experience, Foreign Affairs
Webb
Bayh
Richardson
Tom Daschel
Ben Nelson
If the Democratic primary goes much beyond Feb. Hillary may have to pick Obama as her running for party unity, Because of Bill's strong presense Obama will never chose Hillary as his VP

Posted by: romands | February 1, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

rpy1, simply that Arizona is turning pink rather than RED because of the influx of Californians these last several years. Even when red, it was always more moderate than the traditional red states.

And yes, Napolitano is in her second term, but I don't see Obama picking her as the veep. It would be too risky for him, esp. having pushed the domestic partnership benefits in her state. The Republican Rumor Mill would have a heyday resurrecting the lesbian charges. However, I could see him appointing her AG. She'd be a shoe-in since she gained her fame as attorney general for Arizona.

Posted by: femalenick | February 1, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

How about Obama-Oprah :)
I like the idea of Obama and Caroline Kennedy but we are talking about what is possible aren´t we?

Posted by: rabja | February 1, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I think Richardson is the most logical VP choice for Obama. He provides foreign policy experience, helps with Hispanics and in the Southwest, and would symbolize something of an olive branch towards the Clintons. Daschle and Kaine make sense, too. Biden is also a possibility, and while that would be my personal dream ticket, Richardson brings similar experience plus other advantages that Biden doesn't have (ethnicity, geography, relationship with the Clinton wing of the party). I'm cool with that, though - Obama/Richardson in '08! Biden for secretary of state.

Posted by: cerretus | February 1, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

McCain - Jack Kemp

Posted by: kat7 | February 1, 2008 06:13 PM

McCain and Colin Powell...

Posted by: kclark2 | February 1, 2008 06:15 PM

Kemp is even older than McCain and Powell is only one year younger. McCain cannot pick an elderly running mate.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

...to make one on-topic post, I agree with the conventional wisdom that very few voters make a decision based on the VP. This election, however, has one exception.

Given his age and despite how robust he may be today, McCain's VP has a higher than typical chance of assuming the Presidency. I've said before that, although I favor Obama, I'm willing to let McCain convince me. Mandatory, however, that his VP be fully qualified and able to serve as president.

Most of the names offered in speculation today are qualified (at least qualified to grow into the job).

Exception is Gov. Huckabee. He disqualified himself early through his rejection of the scientific method, and reinforced that disqualification with his statements about the need to change the Constitution to be in accordance with his interpretation of God's law.

Huckabee as VP disqualifies McCain as President, at least for this voter.

Posted by: malis | February 1, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

A recent report supposedly said Obama is the most Liberal senator in congress.

Is there a corresponding report that tells us which member of congress is the most conservative.

Poor Barry Goldwater over 40 years ago was a conservative favorite and we all know where he ended up.

Time for a reprise!

Posted by: ita8111 | February 1, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

mark, but here on my desk is a pair of orange-handled, left-handed scissors (orange so they stand out), and they work just fine.

Posted by: malis | February 1, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Listen Chris, can you take a hint?
SENATE LINE SENATE LINE SENATE LINE

Posted by: REClayton | February 1, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

McCain and Colin Powell...

Posted by: kclark2 | February 1, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Clinton - Obama
Clinton - John Lewis (Rep. GA)

McCain - Jack Kemp
McCain - Pawlenty

Posted by: kat7 | February 1, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

If you want real experience you must consider:
Laura Bush
Betty ford
Babs bush
Nancy reagan
Rosslyn Carter


I know, Dem arguments taken to their logical conclusions are always funny.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

above is from Wikipedia.

Posted by: jlmoriarty | February 1, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama just picked up the endorsement of the CA Service Workers Union - they had backed Edwards.

BHO and McC got the LAT endorsements.

Bye for now.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Sam Nunn ~~ in office from 1972 to 1997. Will be 70 years old in September.

Posted by: jlmoriarty | February 1, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

rb42 ~ Webb would appeal to Dems (he is apoplectic in his dislike of GWB and his war) but his name recognition is too narrow nationally and he does bring a bit of old baggage from his Sec. of the Navy days. Jay Rockefeller is an interesting thought. No idea how that would play out either from the standpoint of 'fit' or being from an inconsequential state (WV).

Believe this: Bill Richardson is on the phone right now negotiating with both D camps for a second spot on either ticket. His obvious appeal is both the Latino vote (think CA) and the four state southwest which is regarded as up for grabs on Tuesday.

Any combination of Clinton/Obama is never going to happen. Neither would accept the other and they have too many 'chits' to pay back.

Edwards as VP on either ticket is never going to happen. Damaged goods that couldn't even carry his own state in '04. Cabinet position? Much more likely.

Sam Nunn? Interesting thought but how old is now?

Any combination of McCain/Romney is never going to happen, It is an open secret that McCain personally dislikes Romney.

Posted by: jlmoriarty | February 1, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I long for the day when I can vote for Mamie Eisenhower.

If there is a role for a First Lady as President, isn't Mamie the only choice?

Posted by: mjzahara | February 1, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Southpaws are a disadvantaged minority but not recognized in the Civil Rights Acts. We do not complain. We persevere.

Now if we could just make the freaking scissors work.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

did I see you all down at Flanders store at the springfield mall?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Coburn, nett.

POTUS'08 had Zogby on reporting that today McC and WMR would beat HRC but lose to BHO.

Ds have been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before. We will see.

As an indie, I would prefer McC v. BHO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

No way I see McCain choosing Liberman. While I think McCain has some Truman in him I also think that he knows that whomever he picks would be a cofront runner to Romney for nomination in 2012 if he were happen to lose. McCain is an American more than a party man and I don't think he makes a bow to the far right and nominates someone that is palatble to them. I think he goes for someone that will carry on the crusade after he either loses or doesn't run. My guess would be either Coburn or Sanford. Both don't go-along-to-get-along and would be perfect to carry on when he leaves the scene.

Posted by: netthreat | February 1, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

...and jimD and claudia...think we have ourselves a trend going here...

Posted by: malis | February 1, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

hmmm...haven't been around all day but just caught up on "Left-handed" Discussion.

Somehow doesn't surprise me that BHO and mark_in_austin are both sinistre, as I'm a long-time gauche activist myself. }:->

Posted by: malis | February 1, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

'I am left-handed, as if you couldn't guess from the above.'

me too, jim, as are my husband and child.

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I have only one question for Obambi:

If you are such a uniter, which of your extreme liberal views will you compromise on with the repubs in congress to get some legislation through?

One question for hillary?

how much will pardons be this time around?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone is born right handed, the best among us overcome it."


the same could be said for liberalism.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

plus is there any state more important than Florida in the general election?


Yes there is, FL is a reliably R state now. We are more concerned with OH and PA.

It doesn;t look good for Obambi (AL, CO, GA only):

State Clinton Obama Date Pollster
Alabama 35 40 Jan 30 Capital Survey
Arizona 41 26 Jan 24 Rocky+Arizo
California 47 36 Jan 29 Four polls
Colorado 32 34 Jan 23 Mason-Dixon
Connecticut 40 40 Jan 27 Rasmussen
Georgia 36 52 Jan 30 Insider Advantage
Massachusetts 50 35 Jan 30 Surve+Rasmu
Minnesota 40 33 Jan 27 U. of Minnesota
Missouri 44 28 Jan 24 Rasmu+Resea
New Jersey 49 37 Jan 30 Rasmussen
New York 51 26 Jan 26 Gallu+Zogby+Quinn
Oklahoma 44 19 Jan 27 SurveyUSA
Tennessee 59 26 Jan 30 Insider Advantage

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Presuming Obama wins I think he has a chance to virtually run Electoral table. And to prove that he is not a typical politician I think he should not just choose someone to PERHAPS get the candidates home state (and that hasn't worked well recently). For that reason I think Obama would do well to choose former US Senator Sam Nunn. He is someone who has the gravitas of McCain, strong on national defense and might be able to aid in cracking the GOP-dominated South. If Nunn declines, then perhaps Jim Webb could give you some of the same thing.

If the GOP ends up nominating Romney then the Dems could wipe out GOP. GOP would have every possible disadvantage money, momentum and having to defend twice as many Senate seats as Dems.

Posted by: netthreat | February 1, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chuck Norris thinks McCain is too old.


Posted by: ita8111 | February 1, 2008 04:53 PM

McCain said Schwarzeneger would take care of Norris.

BTW - my mother gave me a refrigerator magnet that says "Everyone is born right handed, the best among us overcome it."

I am left-handed, as if you couldn't guess from the above.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse


First of all, let me say where I am coming from. I am a 65 y/o former Chicago public aid caseworker now living in Albuquerque. I am a Democrat who plans to vote for Obama on Super Tuesday.

The one VP candidate I find totally unacceptable is my governor, Bill Richardson, because of what he did to Wen Ho Lee. Lee was imprisoned incommunicado for 9 months in order to extort a confession to a relatively minor charge in exchange for a sentence of time served. No wonder the North Koreans love him. This is not the man I want trying to tell Americans that the Patriot Act went too far and we need to modify it. He conducted this atrocity before the Patriot Act.

Unfortunately, I think Obama's offering the VP to any woman other than Hillary would be taken as an insult to her. The Oklahoma City group of moderates urged outreach to other parties, and I think McCain may very well do that by running with Lieberman. Were it not for Hillary, Obama's ideal choice would be to reach across party lines and ask Christie Todd Whitman to run with him. But I don't think that is politically possible. I have two other favorites--Sen. Jim Webb of VA is one. He's a DEM now, and hates Bush, which is enough to endear him to Democrats. But he is a former Republican with extensive administrative experience in the Defense Dept, which would help Obama in an area where he is weak. My other choice isJay Rockefeller of WV. The very name exudes solidity and reliability, and Rockefeller is a health care policy wonk, which is an area of prime concern for Democrats this year.

Robert Baker

Posted by: rb42 | February 1, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

drindl, VDH needs a proofreader.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden

Forgive me for being politically incorrect, but Obama needs an older white guy with solid foreign policy cred.

Hillary/Bayh
He looks the part, has multiple election wins in a red state and actually wants the gig despite the prospect of Bill lurking in the West Wing.

McCain/Crist
Mac owes him for last minute endorsement, plus is there any state more important than Florida in the general election?

Mittens/?
I can't even go there. If this phoney wins, I'm moving to another country. In any case, after Super Tuesday, he'll be toast.

Posted by: tool4theman | February 1, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Proud, do like Lou grant did on his spin-off from Mary tyler moore - put rollers on all your furniture.

when I was a kid my family lived in:
Dayton, OH, Bedford Mass, France, Lansing Mich, boston mass, montgomery al, alexandria VA and maybe some I can't remember.

Ahh, the garden spots of the world.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"the tours of duty averaged two years."

That much hasn't changed for field grade officers. In fact, the higher you get, the more frequent the moves as you know. We'll be moving this summer to another undisclosed location as yet TBD. Being a pharmacist does have it's advantages, career mobility being one of them. And then there's the part about getting to know the rufi of the world. :)

God Bless the USA!!!!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"I don't understand why I sometimes get an error message when I submit a post! "

because the post's site doesn't realize you have timed out until you actually submit. If you are a non-drindl and think about your compostions, you should copy them before you press submit, just in case.

If you are a drindl or rufas, no harm done if your "analysis" dissappears.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

femalenick, isn't Napolitano term limited and in her last term? I guess I don't understand where you're going with the comment about her & Arizona being pink instead of red.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 1, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

[I have gotten error messages, so I am sorry if this is a double or triple post!] I love Webb and voted for him, but truly, the last thing Obama needs is a freshman Senator with less elected experience than he has. Obama currently has more years in elected office than Clinton, counting the state level, and he still gets bashed for inexperience. We don't need to broaden the target. (arguing against myself, Webb IS very strong on the support for the working person and anti-poverty themes as well as the military...but still). I think the line ups above with Napolitano as VP and lots of others in the Cabinet seem more fruitful. Plus, Napolitano would counter McCain in his home segment of the country

Posted by: egengle | February 1, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

the latest intelligence tests and findings have totally discredited that whole right brain/left brain idea. both halves of the brain cooperate on almost all tasks.
Sternberg (2004)

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe Romney will win; and if he does win the GOP nomination; I don't see the electoral math in 2008 working out for the GOP; McCain is there only shot. Romney, if the acrimony died down, could select McCain as his only shot; his (I hate to say it) "Dick Cheney". McCain would shore up his national security credentials and perhaps as VP help gain some independents that McCain would win at the top of the ticket to Romney's ticket. Romney's other choices for VP would need to be a moderate like Charlie Crist of FL (but hard to imagine that one after Crist's endorsement of McCain cost Romney FL's primary). I don't think Romney will win the nomination or the general election if nominated, so I'm done with him for this topic.

Obama has a real shot to overtake Hillary; I think he would be wise to pick a moderate southerner as his running mate. I agree that Kathleen Sebelius would be a decent choice as it would smooth over ruffled female feathers, pick up a governor with executive experience on his ticket, and would place a southern more moderate person on the ticket to balance his claim to the title of MOST LIBERAL senator in the US. But Obama could get hammered on national security in the fall without a strong national security man on his ticket; especially if he is against McCain and terror/war become the biggest issues again, which they certainly could in the months between now and November. Obama could do well with Jim Webb or Joe Biden as his VP candidates on that score; both are considered foreign policy and national security strong. Wesley Clark would be ok, but he is so far up Hillary's skirt that I can't see him being able to extricate himself to another ticket at this point.

Posted by: fredgrad2000 | February 1, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why I sometimes get an error message when I submit a post! Just disappears into the ether! Does anyone know why? So another attempt:

proud, how great that you can continue your career despite being married to a man in uniform! I was an Air Force brat, and it was extremely rare for a spouse to be able to hold down a career because the tours of duty averaged two years. I'm happy to hear that it's changed.

bsimon, you have me convinced re: Pawlenty. So now I'm predicting:

Clinton/Obama, Obama/Richardson, McCain/Pawlenty.

I'm less sure about Romney, but foreign policy creds will be critical for him. To balance his "ultra-white," picture-perfect Osmond-like family (not a criticism - I was an Osmond fan during childhood), he'd do well to pick a woman or a minority. Condoleeza Rice would be perfect for him; Mark, I do not rule her out at all.

Hillary will not accept an Obama veep offer, but Obama has everything to gain as VP, so if offered (which I think will happen), he'd be a fool not to accept it. She has no fear of being overshadowed -- hell, look who she married! For all the reasons I previously stated, Obama will be her veep if she gets the nomination.

And for all those wishing for an Obama/Napolitano ticket - no way. Arizona is a pink rather than a red state. For purely experience and geographic reasons, Richardson makes much more sense.

Also important to factor in who needs jobs: Richardson (can't run for another term) and Edwards. Edwards may earn a cabinet position, but Obama choosing him would negate the concept of freshness and looking forward, not backwards.

Posted by: femalenick | February 1, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

rpy - I will shake the images for the drive.

BHO: Not Sebelius, even though I love "Finlandia".
Dah-dah-dah-dah, dah-dah-de-dah-de-dah-dah...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"...until they could not take Sen. Clinton no more..."

Surely, Victor Hansen did not write that.'

he did--it was on NRO today, among the garment rendings, teeth gnashings and general lamentations of the damned.

yup, southpaws are indeed 'right-brained'. the right brain controls the entire left half of the body.

here's a test tp see of you are right or left brained-- handedness is only one aspect.

http://www.web-us.com/brain/braindominance.htm

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I can follow up on mark's post about lefties. We are called southpaws because, way back in the day, when baseball games were played in the daytime, ballparks were built so the afternoon sun would not be in the batters' eyes. The sun setting in the west would always be behind home plate. Players' left arms were therefore on the south side of the park.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I said this 2 weeks ago; Clinton, if she doesn't select Obama himself, will select Strickland; given for two reasons: 1) She will need Ohio and as well-noted above, he is the popular governor thereof; if she gets Ohio, no Republican has won the White House without winning Ohio in nearly a century; 2) She will have won the nomination by stepping on the hopes of the Black community (embodied by Obama); picking Strickland to be the first black VP could do a lost to shore up the hurt feelings there.

McCain could select Huckabee; Huckabee does more than just shore up McCain's social conservative "street cred", but also lends a consistent "populist" voice to the GOP ticket; to counter the us vs the rich mantra of the Dem candidates. Two other solid choices for McCain would be Governor Crist of Florida; this would virtually assure FL to the GOP as Crist is extremely popular across the board there; allowing McCain to focus expected lesser resources than the Dems on other swing states like Ohio, PA, Missouri, VA, etc. Another pick for McCain could be Tom Ridge, former PA governor and homeland sec'y secretary; he has endorsed McCain; is strong with most of the right-wing of the GOP, and is still popular in the state of PA; he could, along with McCain's popularity with independents bring PA to the GOP column; which along with a FL (Crist will be integral there as VP or not; he has higher hopes in the future so wants to help win his state for his party) win would make the electoral math difficult for the Dems in November.

Posted by: fredgrad2000 | February 1, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

or something includes "TOO OLD".
or something includes "believes earth created 6000 years ago in 7 days".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

McC:

So its Pawlenty or Thune; the others are either single, or foreign born, or associated with GWB, or something. Nobody mentioned Jindal, and nobody will.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Mark, *please* be careful driving home.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 1, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

darwinek, Thanks for still another picture to remember.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Why no speculation on whether Barack or Hillary would choose each other? It would be simply unbeatable. Hillary is the center, Barack the left - both intelligent and able to rip McCain to pieces.

Posted by: 2229 | February 1, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Are not southpaws right brained?

I used to pitch. I am lefthanded. Southpaw is a lefthanded pitcher for those to young to remember the quaint sport we called hardball, before ther was that talking head on tv.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"Trouble is, you had "Clinton-Obama" in the next sentence, Spectator"

Interesting. A fluffer getting the talent ready for the show.

Some say the (brief) nastiness of the primary is good practice for the general.

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton: "Slow Down Economy To Save The Planet" Bill Clinton: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

so the plan is exposed. kill the economy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

mark: my pleasure. I always look for opportunities to show how well-rounded I am.

Knows the duties of the Maryland lieut gov: geek

Knows what a fluffer is: red-blooded male

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Barack should avoid any discussion of VP's. The new Gallup shows huge momentum to Obama , even before Edwards exit.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/how-do-you-spell-momentum/

Posted by: Trumbull | February 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

to Mark in Austin: I'm wearing premium John Edwards 2008 pants.

Posted by: darwinek | February 1, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Trouble is, you had "Clinton-Obama" in the next sentence, Spectator.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Anybody else notice that Obama is left-handed? Maybe that is affecting his left-leaning brain."

Aren't lefties over-represented among Presidnets vs. their frequency in the general populatioN?

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Sen McCain: a)Sen Olympia Snowe (ME)-- she is a NE Moderate, her husband is a popular former gov and congressman; b)Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT)(if he agreed to immed. change parties); c)Richard Burr (NC)

Gov. Romney: a)Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX); b) Rep. Peter Hoekstra (MI); Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO)

Sen. Clinton: a)Sen. Barack Obama (IL); b)Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (KS); c)Sen Mark Pryor (AR)

Sen. Obama: a)Sen Clinton (NY); b) Sen. Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR); c) Sen. Ben Nelson (NE)

Posted by: vcragin | February 1, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I love Webb and voted for him, but truly, the last thing Obama needs is a freshman Senator with less elected experience than he has. Obama currently has more years in elected office than Clinton, counting the state level, and he still gets bashed for inexperience. We don't need to broaden the target. (arguing against myself, Webb IS very strong on the support for the working person and anti-poverty themes as well as the military...but still). I think the line ups above with Napolitano as VP and lots of others in the Cabinet seem more fruitful. Plus, Napolitano would counter McCain in his home segment of the country

Posted by: egengle | February 1, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Spectator, Your education is a wonderment. Thanks. I will go home repeating "fluffer" with the image you provide, as a mnemonic device.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Re: Lieberman is too old.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 03:44 PM
unquote:

Hey Chuck Norris thinks McCain is too old.

I personally think Chuck Norris should stick to beating red-necks on TV.

Look we are voting for president here, not a Karate or take-one-down master (deliberate error).

Posted by: ita8111 | February 1, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Does nobody else think Sara Palin is cool?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

darwinek, just exactly what are you wearing?


Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Mark asks about fluffers. I'm not touching that one! :)

Anybody else notice that Obama is left-handed? Maybe that is affecting his left-leaning brain.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Was skimming through the VP names, more for curiosity's sake, finding the analysis very interesting, and had actually clicked away when suddenly it occurred to me that with no great fanfare women were listed as possibilities. And even I, as a woman, had taken their placement on the list for granted. How far we have come and how proud I am right now to be a Democrat.

Posted by: hholtz | February 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid? Well, maybe the Ds could get a real Senate leader.

But do you not want your VP to be capable of becoming Prez in the sense of abilities, not mere physical proximity?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Dems: Obama/Edwards 2008 - clear as my pants
Reps: McCain/Huckabee 2008 - even more clearer, winning duo

Posted by: darwinek | February 1, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

mark: A fluffer is a young lady who uses her oral talents to make sure the male actors are ready for their big on-camera moments.

I could see Clinton-Obama but not Obama-Clinton.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Proud, don't get caught Staring at The Sun.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

America's Most Miserable Cities The Motor City grabs the top spot on Forbes' inaugural list of America's Most Miserable Cities.
Detroit, Flint, NY, LA

correlates perfectly to america's most liberal/union cities.

coincidence or cause/effect?

http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2008/01/29/detroit-stockton-flint-biz-cz_kb_0130miserable.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Democrats-Edwards would make a strong VP as would Richardson. There is also Harry Reid-I could see him more with Hillary though.

Republicans-McCain and Arnold would be fun, but he is ineligible. Huckabee would make McCain less appealing.

Romney-Condi Rice would be a great pick and would represent well. Jeb Bush seems to be a fan, but that might not go down well.

Posted by: poliscistudent | February 1, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama has much to gain as Clinton's running mate. It sets him up as the front-runner in the 2016 contest, and gives him 8 years of national experience. The "quailified to lead" question will be gone.

But Clinton has little to gain as Obama's running mate. If she does not get the nomination this time, she probably gets farther by building her Senate seniority. She would be a good candidate for majority leader after Reid. She certainly would be far more dynamic than the Nevada senator.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | February 1, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman, Powell, Nunn, Danforth, B. Graham: TOO OLD.

What is a "fluffer"? If it is the greatest post ever, I must know.

"...until they could not take Sen. Clinton no more..."

Surely, Victor Hansen did not write that.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

As another of the few Virginians on here, I will add that while Jim Webb has not made much of a mark yet in the Senate, and is definitely a loose cannon (and proud of it), he was one of the few Dems who could have taken advantage of the Macacawitz Meltdown -- and as it was he barely won.

He won't be tapped for veep, and neither will Warner. The thought of both VA senators being Dems is too delicious for the party to pass up.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama Ranks As 'Most Liberal Senator' Of 2007 Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007, shifting even further to the left after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

that'll work

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"Greatest.... Post.... Ever"

Thanks JD, I'll be here all week. 8>D

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Some have speculated that Clinton would be upstaged by Obama if he were VP. On the contrary--Obama is very charismatic and has some great ideas, but the shiny glow of novelty will wear off at some point. Remember that ten years ago he was a newbie in the Illinois State Senate. Ten years ago, Richardson was ambassador to the U.N. Clark was in command of all NATO forces in Europe. Hillary Clinton was, well, being Hillary Clinton.

I think Rendell definitely deserves to be given some consideration. Richardson, of course, is a very strong candidate. I would bet that Clark is Clinton's #1 pick at this point.

This talk about Jim Webb, on the other hand, is just plain silly--he's far too valuable where he's at now. Come back in four years and see how things stand.

The only thing sillier than Webb for VP is the fact that someone mentioned Richard Daley. As a native of Illinois, trust me: Daley is not about to leave his Kingdom.

Posted by: dirt_hill | February 1, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Agree with JD that Mark Warner has much more pull here in VA than Webb. Warner, however, would cost D's a likely Senate pickup.

Posted by: CJMiva | February 1, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is the nominee, I don't think it'll be Edwards as the VP, but I could certainly see him as getting the AG nod.

Its kind of interesting to see more comments about the Dem side as opposed to the GOP side.

I still think Mitt Romney with Dr. Condi Rice as his choice for VP would be very effective, and an alternative might be Collin Powell.

Posted by: drgrafix | February 1, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

For Obama to have a first term, people need assurance that there is experience behind him. Solid, government, executive experience. Someone who has mixed with people at all levels. Who is strong in a red state. Who has foreign policy credibility and was against the Iraq war from the beginning. (Because he bothered to investigate.) Sure, maybe Bob Graham could only help deliver Florida, but that would be prize enough. (Don't count him out, though.) And with Graham as first-term VP, Obama would have his choice of Veeps for a second term.

Posted by: bjohnson1 | February 1, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

VDH always knows:

The Non-Debate [Victor Davis Hanson]


If one studies carefully the Clintama answers on the war on terror, illegal immigration, and Iraq then the magnitude of Republican infighting seems surreal. The gulf between Hillary and McCain is Grand-Canyon like. This debate came down to Obama, talking in vague generalities about change, still without offering any specifics on anything that might be construed as hurtful and thus force him down from Olympus to the messy smelly world of mere mortals, and Hillary's Bill-like 'I did so much and suffered so much for all of you' sanctimoniousness, coupled with 'George Bush did it' -- and always that disturbing cackle. To the extent that there is any plan detectable in the generalities, it is get out of Iraq regardless of the conditions, expect that Syria and Iran will be in bad trouble if we leave (go figure), and keep illegal immigration mostly at the status quo of 700,000 a year coming across and another 11-16 million already here. When you have so many identity pressure groups who are single-minded in what they want-La Raza, the anti-war zealots, the Black Caucus, feminist pro-abortion zealots, unionized teachers and government workers-you have to say everything and thus nothing.

If McCain gets the nomination, I would have to believe that the Republican sit-out would only last midsummer until they could not take Sen. Clinton no more, and thus like Lancelot at Camlan belatedly enter the fray.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"few presidential candidates choose VP's who might be perceived as smarter then they."

Clinton-Gore

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013101868.html?hpid=topnews

thought you might have seen it since it was on the front page of the WaPo, o arbiter of credibility.

Agree with you about Zinni, proud. He's one of our best military minds.

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Let me add to JD's discussion on why Webb would not be a good VP choice, especially for Obama.

First and foremost he is a loose cannon sort and not likely to stay on message.

Secondly, he was, until fairly recently, a Republican. He has made a number of statements, some quite colorful, that are at odds with Democratic dogma. Some of those statements will find their way into attack ads. At the least, Webb would be constantly plagued by reporters asking him disavow the old statements or to explain how he can reconcile these statements with the Democratic platform. Some of his most incendiary statements were made in opposition to women in the military. That will not do much to appease women who had supported Hillary and will certainly annoy the most active feminists supporting Hillary.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Proud: By your "wink, wink", I think you have the same idea about the Fla. Governor as I suspect. Seems like a lot of the Repub guys like other guys.

Posted by: lylepink | February 1, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Ok think about this: Clinton/Obama.

How will Obama supporters react if Hillary chooses someone else? Or vice-versa.

If it's publically offered and pulically turned down - that's different.

Backlash against Bill bad mouthing Obamam. Could the Dem's adopt a variant of Reagan's Law: 'Do not speak ill of those in your own party.' If they can keep it civil by the convention - the winner offering the VP to the loser becomes hard _not_ to do.

If they return to mud - well half of the party is going to be POed at the other half, because the winner is going to win by only a slim margin. Hillary shouldn't throw mud as it'll cement her image as a polarizing figure.

Get real with "Brining XYZ experience to the ticket?" This co-presidency of W's making is not exactly a formula for success.

The next VP will do what W's father did: support POTUS, mouth shut, foreign travel to attend funerals. Any hint of a co-presidency will make people nauseous.

Posted by: DonJasper | February 1, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Being lieutenant governor in Maryland is like being the fluffer for an all-girl porn video.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 04:18 PM


Greatest.... Post.... Ever

Posted by: JD | February 1, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

JD - since we are tied with OH as the state of the presidents now, maybe a virginian would be the right move.

It is all fun and games though. we all know the evil clinton corruption machine is going to steamroller Obambi. then lose to the R in Nov.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is the nominee his best pick would be former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia.

Posted by: jdurod | February 1, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

First, any discussion of a Republican VP candidate is purely academic. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to be the next President of the United States.

Posted by: Igorfetch | February 1, 2008 04:12 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

ahem. Igor, we accept your apology in advance.

Posted by: JD | February 1, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

A Democrat's perspective.

Joe Biden is potentially the best VP choice for Obama. His foreign policy gravitas is undisputed, even by his detractors. Trouble is: they are both really smart--I mean, REALLY smart.

In academia, that's, at best, a 50-50 proposition for a successful long-term partnership. In the political arena, few presidential candidates choose VP's who might be perceived as smarter then they. (The ever confident Ronald Reagan is, of course, an eternal exception. Wags will say he had no choice.)

Hillary Clinton is in a different situation. She has few intellectual weaknesses on foreign or domestic expertise (whatever one thinks of her proposed policies). In that limited sense, she may be the strongest candidate since(gasp) Richard Nixon!

Her choice for VP should be entirely political: who will bring in the most votes. How about a managerial choice: Michael Blumenthal?

Come home, Mike! Take that, Rudy!

Posted by: wgmadden | February 1, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"Has anyone heard anymore about the "pledge" that both Obama and McCain took last year? They both pledged to accept public financing if they were to face each other."

Was that Obama or Biden?

If it were Obama & if its Obama v McCain & if they hold one another to the pledge, it would make for an interesting case study. Frankly, I think it would be a good thing. What would be difficult, for both sides, is to get the 527s to shut up.

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Being lieutenant governor in Maryland is like being the fluffer for an all-girl porn video.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

And for all of you pitching Jim Webb as vice:

Being one of the few on this site actually *from* Virginia, he's not exactly beloved here. He's not hated either: he's just there. He won by the slimmest of margins against a guy that had high negatives and who ran an awful campaign (macaca was just a small subset of his mistakes).

Webb has done very very little to make a name for himself in the OD. Picking him as vice would be akin to Bush's dad picking Quayle. Not going to hurt you, but what does he bring (and don't say Virgina - Obama would win or lose this state on his own merits).

Yes, I know he was SecNav or some such. He was a Marine. Whatever.

Warner makes more sense; if he would take the job. I actually saw a speech he gave in Vegas a couple weeks ago, and he sure sounded like he was looking forward to serving in the Senate. Plus Warner actually *could* move the needle here, to make Va blue.

Posted by: JD | February 1, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

mark, no offense intended. It's a Beautiful Day!

Zinni is right about Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, that they relied on inflated intelligence information about WMD from pukes like Ahmed Chalabi, whose credibility was, or at leasst should have been, in doubt. And he's right that there was no viable plan or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq. He's certainly be a great advisor in any administration, imo.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

McCain & Lieberman

Posted by: reneesundaywellman | February 1, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Claudia, must I remind you again?

If you want to be taken seriously here, post the link please.

Posted by: JD | February 1, 2008 04:10 PM

that would be something different.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

First of all, let's make two stipulations right up front.

First, any discussion of a Republican VP candidate is purely academic. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to be the next President of the United States. Period. George W. Bush has already dug a hole so deep that even if he stopped digging today -- which is highly unlikely -- it will take the Party at least the next eight years to pull itself out. I suggest that Mitt Romney save his money, and that my fellow Republicans line up behind John McCain as our standardbearer. What better way to honor a true national hero for his long and extraordinary service to our country.

Second, let's put aside the notion that a Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket is anything but pure fantasy. The former is DOA because Hillary would never pick a Number Two who would surely, whether intentionally or unintentionally, upstage her at every turn. The latter is likewise because Hillary's ego would simply never let her BE Number Two.

Those stipulations made, is there really any conceivable reason why Bill Richardson wouldn't be at the top of either candidate's short list? Consider that:

-- Richardson not only has an impressive resume, he's actually accomplished something in the many positions that he has held. As ambassador to the United Nations, he distinguished himself as an accomplished diplomat and would bring to either administration the foreign policy ability and experience that neither has. As Secretary of Energy, he has had Cabinet-level responsibility for an area that will have pivotal influence on national security and the national economy during the next eight years. As governor of New Mexico, he has actually run a government unlike either Barack or Hillary (sorry, being First Lady doesn't count).

-- from a cultural diversity standpoint, Richardson is Hispanic enough to appeal to Latinos without being too ethnic for all but the least-enlightened white voters. For Hillary, this would make ease the disappointment of Obama supporters, for Obama it would lessen the misgivings that these less-enlightened white voters might have about a person-of-color occupying the Oval Office. For either candidate, Richardson would likely help bring new, predominantly Latino voters to the polls.

-- for either candidate, but particularly so for Hillary, the very diplomatic Richardson would bring with him a clear understanding of his place as Number Two and could be counted on to do nothing intentional to draw attention or take credit away from Number One. He would, of course, expect in return for such fealty that either President Clinton(s) or President Obama would put their full support and influence behind Richardson's own -- this time realistic -- presidential bid in 2016.

-- geographically, Richardson would give representation to the western part of the country, countering any appearance of an election once again dominated by the Northeast.

-- personally, Richardson speaks well, is easy-going without it appearing contrived, and has an even temperment that would counter-balance (especially in Hillary's case) the occasional presidential blow-up.

Who else among the likely VP candidates brings all this to the table?

When NBC lost its contract to televise NFL football games, someone asked commentator John Madden what he was going to do. His reply was, "Wait for Fox to call" -- which they did four days later. I have to believe that Richardson is sitting in the same catbird seat, simply waiting for the phone to ring so that he can further his own presidential ambitions.

Posted by: Igorfetch | February 1, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"The researchers' computer models showed that climate change is clearly the explanation that best fits the data.'


with no underlying theory. As usual a model built to satisfy data is a poor substutute for real science.

I can build a model that fits the data that says elves are to blame. I am still working on the theory. but this is just as scientifically valid.

Science is designed to advance by proving current theories wrong. you need a hypothesis which can be shown to be wrong.

when you can explain everything that happens in the world with climate change, you are not a scientist, you are an advocate. fine, but don't pretend.

It's cold - global warming, it's hot - global warming, it's wet, global warming, it's dry - global warming. See what I mean? more hurricanes - global warming, fewer hurricanse - global warming.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Claudia, must I remind you again?

If you want to be taken seriously here, post the link please.

Posted by: JD | February 1, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc: please. As I pointed out, Steele's failed bar exam is just one line-item on a resume of failure and do-nothing jobs.

Guess what? I knew Mike Steele in college. He seems like a good enough guy. But a heartbeat away? Nuh-uh.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I don't think your list is well thought out. The first criterion for a VP nominee is to get the ticket elected. Usually, one seeks a VP nominee who will help unite the party and "balance" the ticket. Also, you look for someone already nationally known. I think this later factor eliminates some of the poorly known governors you mention.

Because of his age and recurring cancer, I suspect that voters will look particularly hard at McCain's choice. Huckabee might seem to be a good choice in shoring up the social conservatives, but any Republican is going to need independent votes, perhaps more than the social conservatives. Huckabee will scare off those independents as well as the fiscal conservatives. He would be an almost fatally bad choice. From this perspective, Romney would be a good choice for McCain, but he won't help with independents and I don't think McCain can stomach him. What about Senator Hutchinson? The is a real chance that whomever McCain chooses will become president within the next 9 years, so I hope he chooses carefully.

If Obama is the nominee he'll need to shore up his base with whites, Hispanics, and females and it won't hurt to reach out to the Clinton party establishment. He is also short on Washington and foreign policy experience. Despite, or perhaps because of, their ties to the Clintons, both Richardson and Clark would make excellent choices, and I'm sure they do it if asked. Richardson is slightly better because he is Hispanic, a westerner, and has held elected office. Both Dodd and Biden would help with the experience deficit (both would be good running partners for Clinton too). Some one like McCaskill or Sebelius might bring sexual balance, but wouldn't help on the experience thing. Daschle would make a good VP if elected, but won't help the ticket much because he is perceived as highly partisan and a looser. Edwards would work on either an Obama or Clinton ticket, but probably doesn't help any than he did in '04 (which wasn't enough).

Posted by: wmw4 | February 1, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm really amazed at some of the bizarre choices people are coming up with. Harold Ford and Michael Steele? Aren't both of them best-known for losing Senate races in 2006? I don't know why anyone would want a VP whose previous highest office was Lt. Governor or US Representative.

And Joe Lieberman would be a colossally bad choice for McCain. First, he was a terrible VP candidate in 2000 and an even worse presidential candidate in 2004. He's got no charisma or style. Second, Republicans consider Lieberman to be a Democrat. Conservatives still don't like the guy, and would be even more inclined to stay home if he were on the ticket. He's also not very popular among Democrats. Maybe he'd bring in some independent votes, but not as many votes as he'd drive away. Just an awful choice all around.

Posted by: Blarg | February 1, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The most logical VP selection For Barack Obama is Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. That is a ticket that would compliment each other well and put into play a number of red states for a November victory.

Posted by: brian.w.ellis | February 1, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We must run and tell the king of zouk!

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Question: Has anyone heard anymore about the "pledge" that both Obama and McCain took last year? They both pledged to accept public financing if they were to face each other. I am worried that if Obama is fortunate enough to get the nomination that this will hurt him terribly. Chris, have you commented on this?

Posted by: jcw7v3 | February 1, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Clear as day to me.

Posted by: kgunn1 | February 1, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

here zouky, zouky..a little bait for you to rise to...

"The persistent and dramatic decline in the snowpack of many mountains in the West is caused primarily by human-induced global warming and is not the result of natural variability in weather patterns, researchers reported yesterday.

Using data collected over the past 50 years, the scientists confirmed that the mountains are getting more rain and less snow, that the snowpack is breaking up faster and that more rivers are running dry by summer.

The study, published online yesterday by the journal Science, looked at possible causes of the changes -- including natural variability in temperatures and precipitation, volcanic activity around the globe and climate change driven by the release of greenhouse gases. The researchers' computer models showed that climate change is clearly the explanation that best fits the data.

"We've known for decades that the hydrology of the West is changing, but for much of that time people said it was because of Mother Nature and that she would return to the old patterns in the future," said lead author Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California at San Diego. "But we have found very clearly that global warming has done it, that it is the mechanism that explains the change and that things will be getting worse."

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

We are holding a similar discussion at the Asian American Action Fund Blog: http://www.aaa-fund.com/?p=156. My personal picks: Webb for the D's and Huckabee for the R's.

Posted by: gautam13 | February 1, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

For Obama, MD Gov Martin O'Malley. Two young guys to emphasize the change issue. Plus the best-sounding ticket ever: Obama-O'Malley. Oh my!

Posted by: abbott_scott | February 1, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

'I guess maybe his stint as veep would be pro-Bono?'

Whatta they puttin in the water at the base up there, proud? You're a hoot today.

Dana Milbanks today:

'Of course, Romney could do much more now. And the fact that he isn't making a major purchase of television ads before Republicans in more than 20 states vote on Tuesday suggests that Romney -- an investor by training -- doesn't like his chances of wresting the nomination from McCain'

and he calls the piece 'Toast is Served' -- ouch.

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

proud, I actually know who Bono is, but was struck silent by the very thought of an Irish rocker activist in colored sunglasses and semi-Hawaiian shirt.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Picking a Cabinet for strong smart advice, management skill, and the ability to sell the Admin position to Congress is different than
naming popular politicians.

Did you know who Bob Rubin was in 1994?

There are many "Bob Rubins" out there and we want our Prez to pick them.

Zinni strikes me as a no BS guy either Admin could use somewhere. JimD, what do you think of him? Proud?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Steele failed his bar exam, yes.

So did Hillary. Your point?

Seriously, someone like Steele -- a relatively moderate Republican who can appeal to black voters disenchanted with how the Dem nominee took their votes for granted -- would be a smart choice for John McCain. It wouldn't be Steele per se -- he lost his home county to the electrifying Ben Cardin -- but Colin Powell? Oh yeah.

I don't like Harold Ford with HRC -- he lost his statewide race, doesn't have a lot of juice with blacks. Jesse Jackson Jr. would be a unifying choice, but the name is polarizing. Richie Daley, perhaps; as a key Obama backer, you get Obama sincerely working for the ticket (as opposed to Ted Kennedy in 80, who decided to pay Carter back by chilling on the sidelines).

Obama needs a white old head. Not Richardson or Biden; they were test-marketed and found wanting. Not Wes Clark, not enough of a name. Probably not Jim Webb, since the Dems need that seat. Not John Edwards. I've got it: Bill Clinton! Unifies the party, well-known name. He's not at the top of the ticket, so his personal flaws don't matter near as much.

I won't waste time over Romney, he is not going to win. Period, end of story.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 1, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

For Clinton:
Obama, Richardson, Rendel (gov PA)

For Obama:
Richardson, Rendel (gov PA)

For McCain:
Jodi Rell (gov CT) or the Gov from Rhode Island

all candidates would do well to put a governor on the tkt. Dems should pick Richardson.

Posted by: MassamachusettsWoman | February 1, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is too old.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

mark, Bono(BAH'-noh) , you know -rock star, U2, human rights/United Nations champion/activist.

I guess maybe his stint as veep would be pro-Bono?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

RG is a wealthy man with a fast burn rate. I did not see how he would "maintain" as Prez.

He cannot afford to be in public life.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

WHISTLING brings up a great point. I was at the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum and Rudy was easily the favorite. Now look who he's backing - Mccain. BUT, Romney was the second most liked, not Mccain. Republican Jewish voters are going to flock to Mccain, and I can really see him putting Lieberman on the ticket. Republicans will vote for whoever their nominee is, but of course it would be a loosing ticket becasue it would be a total continuation of Bush in Iraq.

Posted by: LoudKidB | February 1, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani actually lost more cases than he won as an assistant attorney general (and I say this as someone who used to work for him). He may be AG under McCain, which is terrifying, but I wouldn't call him qualified, not unless you want all First Amendment protections removed. Though Mukasey is one of his closest friends. I still don't understand how his leadership after 9/11 as mayor of a city gives him insight into foreign rooting out of terrorist. Press releases for it, yes, but actually doing it -- zero experience there.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | February 1, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

webb is out. why would they give up a Senate seat they would lose? they barely won it a year ago.

it would be nice to see that speck of dust Herry Reid finally drift away into oblivion. Would we miss him? how would you know he's gone?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"undisclosed location near or on the secret air base"

bean-spiller.

(Bono is an Irish musician, ergo ineligible. Well known for his work advocating for the poor, though in a John-Edwards kind of way, in that Bono probably has 10 times the net worth of John Edwards.)

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Rudy wouldn't be a bad Sec of DHS. Or AG, a job for which he's supremely qualified.

Posted by: JD | February 1, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I like the thoughts that have been advanced for Jim Webb. He would shore up Obama's bonafides on defense and put Virginia in play as a Democratic state as well as strengthen potential runs in the South.

One other thought - what if neither Obama or Clinton come to the convention with a lock on delegates. After two or three ballots, the adults look for a compromise candidate and turn to Gore who in a Shermanesque turn agrees that he will do it, but for only one term, taking on Obama as his running mate to prepare him for a run in 2012 as a sitting VP. Dreaming I guess.

bermudatom

Posted by: bermudatom | February 1, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Bono?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani is clearly not going to be running for any office. an appointment perhaps.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Nick, proud is a female pharmacist at an undisclosed location near or on the secret air base in the far north where her husband serves our country in uniform.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure it's going to be an Obama-Bono ticket.

If not Obama-Bono, I agree with all who say Obama-Biden. Good foreign policy, and will reassure many who still have a strong need for old white guy around.

I also think the likely GOP nominee will help determine who's best VP for the dems - if McCain, with all his centrist appeal, is the nominee, I'd look for Obama to nominate a republican VP.

Posted by: fourhourelection | February 1, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I have a hard time picturing Bill Richardson playing third fiddle to Hillary and Bill Clinton. The jovial and rather mild persona he projected on the primary trail was quite different from the Gov. Bill that New Mexicans have grown to appreciate.

Anyway, here are my (not entirely tongue in cheek) suggestions:
President - Barack Obama
Vice President - Janet Napolitano

National Security Advisor - Joe Biden

Agriculture - Tom Vilsack
Commerce - Mitt Romney
Defense - John McCain
Education - Bill Clinton
Energy - Duncan Hunter
Health and Human Services - Hillary Clinton
Homeland Security - Rudy Giuliani
Housing and Urban Development - Jesse Jackson
Interior - Mike Gravel
Labor - Tom Tancredo
State - Bill Richardson
Transportation - Martin Chavez
Treasury - Ron Paul
Veterans Affairs - John Kerry
Attorney General - John Edwards

Environmental Protection - Al Gore
Office of Management and Budget - Patricia Solis Doyle
National Drug Control Policy - Alan Keyes
U.S. Trade Representative - Warren Buffett
U.N. Ambassador - Chris Dodd

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | February 1, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

If McCain picks Giuiliani, then he is an idiot and will deserve to lose. Giuliani is too like McCain in all of the ways that make McCain vulnerable. A McCain/Giuliani ticket will encourage many GOP faithful to stay home and give enough for the Democrats to oppose and sail into the White House.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | February 1, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Lindsay Graham, of whom I think well, suffers from the "singleness" or "singularity" that you mention for Crist and Napolitano.

But if he wants to leave the Senate, he would be a fine AG.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary: Choose Harold Ford. Bright as hell, progressive, Black, Southerner. Need more be said?

McCain: The Scrooge. Sylvester Stallone. Rush Limbaugh's maid (is she a citizen?). A retired Catholic priest--any retired Catholic priest. His mother.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | February 1, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Oh my gosh, for once I agree with proud and feel he makes a great point.

"I just don't see him as a plus on anybody's ticket; seems to me that Clark is too much a symbol of the past."

I COMPLETELY agree with the first half but not the second half of the statement as the reason. It's less an issue of him being a symbol of the past than him being a non-viable successor for many reasons, including his age. He'll be too old in 8 years. Age is going to be a factor in the nominees' choices. Of this, I'm absolutely certain for reasons I stated in an earlier post.

Posted by: femalenick | February 1, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Proud - no matter what ever happens in this country, the clinton legacy will be interns and impeachment. It will be in children's history books. Peanut's will be hostage day 444, gas lines, landslide to get rid of him.

do we really want another clinton or another peanut, this one with ears?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

femalenick writes
"Someone also pointed out the idea that McCain, if elected, is not likely to run for re-election. I hadn't thought of this, but I think it's the case. Someone going in as a 1-term president would take us for one hell of a ride. Hello, Maverick! Hello Unpredictability! Goodbye Ideologues!"

This could be another hint at Pawlenty as a pick. He's young, he's well-received by both the club-for-growth types and the theocrats, and he's been dutifully working for McCain for many months. 4 years as 2nd banana under McCain would position Pawlenty perfectly for a bump up to top dog. Which, of course, would be stopped short by Obama.

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"You are quick to jump on the liberals here for criticizing generals."

jimd, point well taken. I just don't see him as a plus on anybody's ticket; seems to me that Clark is too much a symbol of the past. I noticed Hillary stopped having him stand behind her after being criticized in the press.

If she really means it about running her own campaign and being her own president, then she'll have to pick someone with no affiliation to Clinton I, imo. But, then again, when has Hilalry ever meant anything she said?

Her headstone will one day be engraved with "If I knew then what I know now".

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

McCain's best choice will be a lot clearer after Tuesday, and it will depend on who he needs more: the South or the conservative Republican establishment. If he does well on his own in the South, then there's really no need for Huckabee--Pawlenty's the guy, because he can paint himself as a guy who will play nicely with the others.

If, on the other hand, McCain struggles in the South, Huckabee's charms may be called for--even though a McCain-Huckabee ticket would really make the GOP establishment sweat.

I'm not sure about Sanford. He's a Southerner, obviously, but he almost seems like McCain-lite. That might turn out to be a good thing, but it's hard to see what he would bring to the table that wouldn't already be there.

The notion of a Romney-Talent ticket is really quite humorous. You don't pick an *unpopular* candidate from a swing state--or maybe you do, if you're Romney. Their motto could be "Destined to Fail."

Posted by: dirt_hill | February 1, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Good heavens -- of all the people being listed as a Hillary or Obama veep, Clark makes the least sense! Where's the logic?

And JimD is right - no way would two old guys be on the same ticket.

Posted by: femalenick | February 1, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Fix,
Don't like being that guy, but you are very much misguided in your Veep assessments.

1.Daschel is done nationally, he does not fit in with Obama's message of change.

2. Joe Lieberman is very much a possible pick for Mccain.

2. Rudy is very much a possible pick for Huckabee, less so for Mccain.

3. McCaskill is not a pick for anyone.

4. Bill Richardson is very much a possible pick for Obama.

5. Jim Webb is very much a possible choice for Obama.

All of that being said, I see Obama going more in the way of an executive on his ticket. The Governor of Kansas would probably be an excellent choice. Truth be told it could theoretically be Obama and a woman veep, vs. Mccain and Liberman. WACKY. ..

Posted by: LoudKidB | February 1, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

ryanstai writes
"And I say all of this as a DFLer..."

For those who aren't in the know, Ryan uses an acronym for the MN flavor of the Dem party, which retains its initials from an ancient allegience of the Democratic, Farm and Labor parties.

I suspect he's correct about Gov Pawlenty's political future.

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

McCain/John Danforth

Posted by: soonerthought | February 1, 2008 03:12 PM

Danforth is the same age as McCain. No way we have two septuagenarians on the same ticket.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary/Clark

Obama/Biden

Republicans...does it matter?

Okay, just in case:

McCain/John Danforth

Posted by: soonerthought | February 1, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Ok, now that's enough of this Wes Clark ranting. I can't take it anymore. The guy's not a war hero, for crying out loud. He got fired from his job as Superdeeduper Allied commander...the perfumed prince. give me a break...talk about fairy tales.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 02:49

You are quick to jump on the liberals here for criticizing generals. Clark was a hero in Vietnam. He was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for actions in combat in Vietnam.

He left the NATO Commander job a few months early in order to make room for a pal of SecDef William Cohen. Clark did have a testy relationship with Cohen and General Shelton who was Chairman of the JCS at the time.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

After Mrs. Clinton gracefully bows to Obama
(who wants President Clinton and President Clinton - both traditional titles - sharing the private quarters and public events on a daily basis for possibly the next eight years?) I think there might be a very unique opening for Senator Obama to speak with Mayor Bloomberg and offer him a great historical opportunity. That would truly be a post partisan ticket, and great for the country...

Posted by: thanksforfish | February 1, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain picks Pawlenty, hands down. Pawlenty is everything McCain is not: young, a governor, from a swing state, fiscally and socially conservative, tapped in to the Evangelical base, and beloved by the conservative insiders. Pawlenty will be a much better hatchet man than Huckabee. McCain and Pawlenty have been hanging out together for years. Do not underestimate the fact that when McCain was written off, Pawlenty never once abandoned him. Pawlenty is THE up-and-comer for Republicans, and his raw political skills and connectability with people are unrivaled. And I say all of this as a DFLer...

Posted by: ryanstai | February 1, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain will clearly pick Giulliani.

Obama should pick either Richardson or Edwards.

As for Clinton----well, she would really have to pick someone fantastic for me to even consider voting for her.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 1, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain, Clinton and Obama need anyone but a senator. Clinton also needs someone not too connected with Clinton I and Obama could use a resume.

McCain: Huckabee if he faces Obama, Pawlenty if he faces Clinton or Tommy Thompson as the long shot. WI was decided by a tiny number of votes in both 2000 & 2004.

Romney: As a former Gov, he can choose just about anyone.

Clinton: Strickland (to avoid the Graham mistake of both Gore & Kerry) or Clark if she is worried about foreign policy and faces McCain.

Obama: Richardson or Strickland. I believe Obama would be easier to elect than Clinton against McCain (either should romp Romney), but a black man and a white woman governor of Kansas or Arizona? I like to use the example of Ford in TN as a reason why Obama can make a run in some of the Southern states, but this isn't what I mean.

Posted by: caribis | February 1, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I will be that the nominees will choose someone who will be no older than 62 eight years from now. Neither party will want a repeat of this chaos for a very long time. Each side will pick someone who can be the successor eight years from now, which is another reason a Clinton/Obama ticket is likely, whereas an Obama/Clinton ticket won't be.

Someone also pointed out the idea that McCain, if elected, is not likely to run for re-election. I hadn't thought of this, but I think it's the case. Someone going in as a 1-term president would take us for one hell of a ride. Hello, Maverick! Hello Unpredictability! Goodbye Ideologues!

Perhaps this is why the conservative base is freaking out, and assuming it's true, it would explain Coulter vowing to campaign for Hillary should McCain get the nomination.

Posted by: femalenick | February 1, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Right, zouk. Just like Giuliani was going to be our next president after he rolled to a win in Florida.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | February 1, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

koz, I thought Krauthammer really outdid himself in that op-ed today. He even managed to sound more objective tha usual. The "Clinton legacy", what an oxymoron.

Although, Bill was featured recently in a foreign documentary. I believe it is called 'Crouching Intern, Stolen Sofa.'

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

*****
Obama's fundamental flaw is a lack of foreign policy experience
*****

otto, you asked about any disagreements, so I'll chime in here -- I think that the CW that Obama is flawed in foreign policy is off. In the D primary, I think he was better than Clinton on the Iraq question, and after watching the R debate Thursday, I don't think McCain can beat him in a GE election on foreign policy.

Mark, I know that McCain wasn't talking about full scale war in Iraq for 100 years, but even a South Korea type situation isn't really a great idea, is it? Isn't that a Cold-War solution to a (really) not-Cold-War problem?

Posted by: rpy1 | February 1, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Re: proud, why not Condi as a possible for McC?

unquote:

Then we'd all suffer from 4 years of extended birth pangs!

Posted by: ita8111 | February 1, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and Richardson.

McCain and Huckabee.

Let the games begin.

M

Posted by: meddguy | February 1, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't know Chris, I think your Clinton list is good but you're faily short-sighted on Obama. First of all, Claire McCaskill? Can you really see Obama picking a female Senator who has been in the Senate for a shorter period of time than him and has even less foreign policy experience than he does?

It seems pretty clear to me that Obama is going to need a Wes Clarkesque VP... white, male, with unparalled foreign policy credentials. I think Joe Biden would be great if he were a few years younger. Richardson might be good but can you really see a Presidential ticket breaking two major barriers at once? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I think it's a factor.

The only one on your list I can see being good for Obama is Daschle, and I just can't see that happening.

Posted by: llowe | February 1, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

BTW--Is anyone else surprised that we haven't heard a lot about how that McCain is OLDER than Reagen when he first ran--and he set the record as oldest Pres ever?

Even if McCain wins--he surely will be done in 2012--all the more reason to be worried about his VP. Charlie Crist is a rising star and I have watched him continuously reinvent himself to get to the next wrung of the ladder.

He did a whole "I'm Mr Education, and promised teachers 100K salaries as Sec of Ed--the all of a sudden he was "Chain Gang Charlie" and won Fl AG in a landslide. Next thing he's running for Gov and he's a moderate (he even snubbed Bush--remember--as a Gov candidate, he snubbed the leader of his party) Crist has even had a African-american Dem state legislator declare him as "Florida's First Black Governor"--scheck out teh sun-sentinel from '06. Charlie Crist is a smart politician and I think he can become whoever he needs to become--he'd be an asset to McCain.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's decade, that holiday from history, was certainly a time of peace and prosperity -- but a soporific Golden Age that made no great demands on leadership. What, after all, was his greatest crisis? A farcical sexual dalliance.


It was to save this one chance, his last chance, to be historically consequential, that Bill Clinton blithely jeopardized principle, friendships, racial harmony in his own party and his own popularity in South Carolina.

Why not? Clinton knows that popularity is cheap, easily lost, easily regained. (See Lewinsky scandal.) But historical legacies are forever. He wants one, desperately. But to get it he must return to the White House. And for that he must elect his wife. At any cost.

Why was he out of control in South Carolina? He wasn't. He was clawing for a second chance.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=286670919371370


Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

RE: Colin Powell is a moderate Republican that Democrats love, he has strong national security interest, and he left the Bush administration in disagreement with their policies.

UNQUOTE:

Revisionist historians will balk at writing what this person wrote about a totally discredited and despicable man.

The "world community" has not forgotten his "message in a bottle" speech at the UN.

Posted by: ita8111 | February 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"both crist and napolitano are single and i can't think of a presidential or vice presidential candidate in the last fifty years that has been single."

single, (wink, wink) riiiight.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

For either Clinton or Obama, Jim Webb as V.P. would probably pull Virginia into the Democratic column and ensure a Dem White House electoral win. You got that right with Strickland, who could probably carry Ohio for the Dems. Both of them are potential "make or break" state carriers.

Mark Karlin
Editor
BuzzFlash.com

Posted by: markkarlin | February 1, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Ok, now that's enough of this Wes Clark ranting. I can't take it anymore. The guy's not a war hero, for crying out loud. He got fired from his job as Superdeeduper Allied commander...the perfumed prince. give me a break...talk about fairy tales.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

wow, some cool ideas here.

a few that have some issues that i don't think they can overcome have been listed.

both crist and napolitano are single and i can't think of a presidential or vice presidential candidate in the last fifty years that has been single. mark warner is in the middle of a senate campaign.

the ideal candidate addresses the presidential candidate's weaknesses (in both democratic cases foreign policy and executive experience), drives home their strengths (al gore with bill clinton in 92), and can help win a state or two in particular.

bill richardson would be ideal if it weren't for his weak performance on the campaign this year - having both exec experience, foreign policy experience, and being able to get a swing state.

colin powell is a great idea for both democrats. he has foreign policy experience, exec experience, drives home the historical nature of the election, AND is a moderate.

jim webb is intriguing as he addresses the same issues.

those would be my top 3 for both dems. clark's pretty good, too, but completely unknown to most americans and with no ability to bring a particular state.

the problem for so many of these candidates is that they are senators. one senator is bad enough in some ways, two seems even worse.

Posted by: stpaulsage | February 1, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

all you idealistic Libs who were pineing for Obama should enjoy your last weekend of unreality. On tuesday, billary is going to put a stake in the heart of that dream.

then we get down to a candidate you don't want vs a candidate we don't want. how shakespearean. or more likley Kafka.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama-Anything will lose in the Fall when Republicans paint him as a "cut and run liberal" with no foreign policy experience or feel. He lacks gravitas next to McCain and the Republican field in general, but democrats can continue fooling themselves.

Posted by: eeave | February 1, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans should respond by appointing a Black running mate (Condoleeza Rice?)

If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans should respond by appointing a Female running mate

If McCain wins the Republican nomination, Democrats should respond by appointing a War Hero as a running mate (Wesley Clark, Jim Webb)

Any Democrat from Ohio, Missouri, Florida or Virginia should be given preference since those are big purple states that Dems might be able to take.


Posted by: saqib | February 1, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Lieberman. now that's the winning ticket.

Posted by: ckf1129 | February 1, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Let's forget specific names for now and create an ideal VP for Obama. Those of you who are more politically inclined than I can provide names if my description rings any bells.

Obama's fundamental flaw is a lack of foreign policy experience; he must also overcome the typical stereotype that a Democrat cannot be an effective Commander-in-Chief. Wes Clark would answer these concerns nicely, but he's too close to the Clintons, so he's out.

Obama's ideal VP would be someone with some sort of military or national security experience, preferably not too far removed from uniform. He would be from a state in the Mountain West, a pragmatic centrist in the mold of many successful Democrats from that region. He would be white (and, obviously, male) to help damper any innate biases amongst significant swaths of the electorate. Finally, he would have some substantive accomplishments to tout, which would nicely compliment Obama's high-minded rhetoric.

So ... anyone come to mind? Anyone disagree with my assessment?

Posted by: otto92 | February 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Coulter also said she is prepared to campaign on Clinton's behalf should McCain win the party's nomination.


how do you like her now?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 1, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

mccullough_net - You missed the fascinating exchange amongg proud, JiimD, and me.

Bill would have to claim AK residency to run as HRC's VP. They cannot both be from the same state. You may recall that Cheney, who appeared to reside in Dallas, had to prove he was a WY resident to serve with GWB, although he somehow met that burden while his wife remained a Dallas resident. Thus another CLinton-Bush parallel would be drawn!

That sorta schoolgirl cute but popular Gov. of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is a female R star.
PRobably does not add to an R ticket, in the political sense. But she is popular p there.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Some people need to read the Constitution:

"the Constitution requires that the president and vice-president be from different states"

Not true. The Constitution only says that electors can't vote for both Pres. and VP from their state. So New York's electors couldn't vote for Clinton and Bloomberg. They could vote for Clinton and someone else, however, and if Bloomberg then didn't get 270 electoral votes, the Senate would decide the VP. Since the Senate will be Democratic, they would select Bloomberg.

Posted by: mtsher | February 1, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

proud

I must be getting old - at first I couldn't understand why you referred to Charlie Crist being on the Disabled List (baseball term if you're not a fan).

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

mccullough_net | February 1, 2008 02:25 PM

Mc, History-making does not get more incestuous than this!

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 1, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

For McCain, you need to include Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a long time McCain advocate that could help sure-up his conservative bonafides.

For Clinton or Obama, I think Biden is a top choice, and Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) would also be a wise running mate.

Posted by: ryan.crowley | February 1, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

'(I didn't know he was on the DL, but that makes sense, as good looking as he is.) '

aren't they always?

when i first met a guy back in the day--i'd think, is he really really good looking? uhhuh. does he dress really sharp? uhhuh. uh oh.

'That's a whole new untapped demographic!'

untapped, indeed, funny girl.

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Anybody chosen as v.p. by the Clintons would have to expect to spend a lot of time explaining/defending the Clintons' indiscretions. Not a good place to be if you have any presidential ambitions of your own. Ask Al Gore.

Posted by: Lilly1 | February 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: "You're reaching around with that one."

you're right. Crist is probably more into pressing the flesh.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Of all the dream match ups Obama/C. Kennedy is indeed the most imaginative and amazing. If it ever happens the Democrats are guaranteed the White House

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but what about a Clinton-Clinton ticket? Not likely, but apparently perfectly constitutional.

http://www.slate.com/id/1006013/

Posted by: mccullough_net | February 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I meant to add I totally agree. I think Romney is done. Huckabee staying in the race has guaranteed McCain's victories by splitting off conservative votes from Romney. The longer he stays in, the better for McCain (and a better application for veep, which is why I think he remains).

And really I am just delighted to not have to see Giuliani's name anymore. At least not in this context.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | February 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I think if McCain wants any snowball's chance in hell in the GOP establishment's mind, then Huckabee is a lock. But on the flip side I think that will kill his chances at winning. I think Huckabee is a foregone conclusion as his running mate.

If Clinton gets the nomination, she would be a fool not to name Obama, and last night's debate just shows how the so-called "dream ticket" would be brilliant for her. No one could beat them.

If Obama wins, however, no chance will he or should he go to Hillary. My hope is for a Biden or Richardson or Wes Clark mate.

However you spin it, I think McCain is toast. If his demeanor at the debate this week is any indication of how he will behave in the general, then he will bring the anti-vote in droves.

Posted by: esmerelda123 | February 1, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

IF I am correct and MDH runs second to McC Tuesday night, I expect WMR to drop out.

What will MDH do at that point?

Honestly, I do not see how WMR can beat MDH Tuesday. Will some WMR fan count the states and tell me differently?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Clark. Obama needs a "dominant white male". Clark's leanings towards Clinton will only help.

Posted by: converse | February 1, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

For McCain, Huckabee is a likely Veep. I don't think McCain could return the favor, since the only way he won't win is if he has a public meltdown, in which case he loses his Veepability. In a head to head with Romney - Huck wins.

For Huckabee, Patreaus.

For Clinton, Clark.

For Obama, Sebelius.

Posted by: michaelbindner | February 1, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

lylepink | February 1, 2008 01:20 PM

Lyle, this African American is not driving Ms. Hillary.

HISTORY WILL BE MADE ON HIS TERMS, NOT THE BILLARY TIMETABLE!

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 1, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I can't tell if anyone mentioned this, but if Jim Webb were picked as Obama's running mate (my choice) Tim Kaine would pick a successor (Dem) to serve out the other four years. The seat is safe.

Posted by: was2001 | February 1, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

spec, Yeah it's important, but remember...the guy's mother is 93 and has more life in her little finger than Fred Thompson does in his whole body (as evidenced by his campaign. Can anybody say "lifeless irony"?)

Big tent...LOL !!!!!!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Spectator2 writes
"Great opportunities for "gladhanding" constitutents if you know what I mean and I think you do."

You're reaching around with that one.

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

the way presidents age while in office McCain could easily not even be alive to run for reelection. His veep choice is very important.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I'll re-post for ya...

I'm starting to think that Crist would be a great pick. Really throw the dems off their game. (I didn't know he was on the DL, but that makes sense, as good looking as he is.) That's a whole new untapped demographic!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Cut the AG garbage for Edwards. There will NEVER be another Democratic presidency again because the voters are like sheep and believe every bit of garbage the media spews.

They made Edwards unviable and the party hacks didn't want him because it's Hillary's "turn." Guess what? With 46-percent negatives she can't win.

The hacks are as bad as the media, and Democratic voters are utterly stupid to fallen for the loser duo.

Posted by: snunes | February 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

and he's young enough that he could run in 2016 after 8 years of McCain.

Posted by: ericp331 | February 1, 2008 01:48 PM

I cannot see McCain running for re-election if he wins - he'll be 76

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

'Seriously though. where's drindl? The guy is smokin hot, nome sayin'?'

hey proud - what'd I miss? which guy?

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Realistically, both Clinton and Obama would be looking for an experienced red state governor. This is to balance out the fact that they are both senators with no executive experience and hail from really blue states.

Also, neither of them are likely to pick up losers, people who have been defeated for re-election.

If Obama wins, perhaps he would want a woman to appease the large amount of people who voted for Clinton as the Woman Candidate. Clinton wouldn't have the same problem, because Obama is not the black candidate.

For Obama, Sebelius and Napolitano both jump out. Popular, female, experienced, red state, they both scream out vp.

Clinton would not choose a woman, for fear of overbalance. Look for an experienced Governor of a redstate or swing state. Richardson seems like a great choice for that. Maybe former governor bayh, but he is just so boring. Perhaps the Dem governor of NC?

Any other ideas?

Posted by: countgeebear | February 1, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Who cares who Obama or Clinton picks? They're GE losers now that the party hacks forced John Edwards out.

Aren't you media flacks happy now? You've got your man McCain, and the country is going to be screwed over again.

Posted by: snunes | February 1, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 1, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I think you are off on Obama veep candidates. Think he needs a foreign or economic policy heavyweight- forget about geography. Biden is a little old school and I think a Republican would show he is a real unifier...maybe William Cohen?

Posted by: cjroses | February 1, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

For Clinton, I could see Richardson as the VP pick but not Edwards. Too many reasons why it's a good fit.

Edwards might be Attorney General for either Clinton or Obama, though.

For Obama, I think that Napolitano would be a better choice than Sebelius. Both are in their 2nd terms, but the Southwest is more of a swing region than America's Breadbasket. Plus, Napolitano is more than 10 years younger than Sebelius (who is 60 years old). That means that, if Obama wins 2 terms, Napolitano would be in her mid-to-late 50s in 2016, while Sebelius would be nearing 70. Kaine is intriguing, but with Mark Warner running for Senate, isn't Kaine helping that effort? And the Lt. Gov. is a Republican (the weird way that VA works). So I don't see Kaine on the list.

For McCain, hasn't Huckabee been, for all intensive purposes, auditioning for the VP slot since Iowa? He siphons off conservative votes from Romney, which will enable McCain to roll to the nomination on Super Duper Tuesday. He'll not only shore up the conservative base, but he's good on economic issues (even if he's more of a populist) and he's young enough that he could run in 2016 after 8 years of McCain.

No need to cover Romney. He's done. Super Duper Tuesday will just make it official.

Posted by: ericp331 | February 1, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

For either Dem I think Joe Biden would be an ideal veep...adds experience to Obama's resume and personality to Clinton's.

Posted by: mannystones | February 1, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

We witnessed history tonight; the first time in history when a black man and a woman debated for the possibility of actually representing the Democratic Party; the first time in history when the Democratic Party will not be represented by a white man in the general elections.

Change is already in the air. What ticket do you want to see emerging from the democratic party?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1672


.

Posted by: PollM | February 1, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I would urge Barack Obama to consider Chuck Hagel as his running mate. It would show Obama's commitment to bipartisanship. Chuck Hagel has enormous integrity, has been staunchly against the war, and has a military background.

Posted by: bensonbark | February 1, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

There will not be an Obama/Clinton ticket of vise-versa.

HRC= Bill Richardson or Bill Nelson. She loves the name Bill and both bring their states in...Richardson, more so than Nelson...she could subliminally say it is a Hill-Bill ticket without ever saying it.

Barack will choose Joe Biden--he needs an old bull with strong military and foreign policy credentials. Daschle has too much baggage....dark horse here--Bryan Dorgan

Posted by: mjzahara | February 1, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Since Crist is a Florida DL-er, I suspect he's been tapped quite frequently. Lot of rest areas on Florida interstates.

Great opportunities for "gladhanding" constitutents if you know what I mean and I think you do.

Would certainly show the GOP indeed has a Big Tent (pun intended of course) but it won't happen.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama-Jim Webb would be unbeatable.
Especially against McCain.

Posted by: Anis_Shivani | February 1, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

While there's a good chance they'd end up with a cabinet position, no way will Hillary pick Edwards or any of the others CC listed. The only possible person might be Richardson, but he was such a poor campaigner that I think she'd nix him for that. She's more likely to make him Secretary of State.

If nominated, I am betting she will put Obama on the ticket. Doing so will accomplish several things:

1) Unite and galvanize the Dems like no ticket has ever done in recent memory.
2) Prove that she'll fight tooth and nail but isn't bull-headed, a hint of how she'll run her administration.
3) Attract the highest percentage of women while galvanizing the Black vote.
4) Take the first step in creating a legacy - that she set up a Black man to be the president of the United States. Hillary knows that, if elected, she will be scrutinized like no other before her, and that her legacy building will start from day one and will reverberate for generations to come, esp. for women here and around the world. She will take this very seriously, which I think will ensure that she will end up being one of the best presidents we've ever had.

Obama's pick is trickier. If nominated, I think he'll extend his hand to Hillary, which she'll refuse. Sebelius would make sense, but I think he'll pick a male over a female (his advisors will tell him it's too risky, but it won't be Edwards. I think he'll go after Richardson to rally the Hispanics while adding gravitas and experience.

So on the Dem side, I predict Clinton/Obama or Obama/Richardson.

Tougher for me to predict on the R side - but the case for McCain/Pawlenty is strong.

This is going to be a knock-down/dragout battle of the stars. I predict that the nominee on each side will choose someone who's already well known nationally rather than just within political circles & junkies. This will be particularly true for the Rs as they will continue to lag in fundraising.

Posted by: femalenick | February 1, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

For all the people suggesting Obama bring HRC along (and yes, I know I suggested this 6 months ago...):

what state is HRC going to help Obama carry that he wasn't going to get anyway? Then ask yourself, what we she do, even at the bottom of the ticket, to motivate the GOP to vote against that team?

in my mind, it would be all downside with no upside, an Obama-HRC ticket.

Posted by: JD | February 1, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Also, his persona is a good match with Obama - he's earnest and has a distinctly non-political vibe about him. He even kept a campaign promise (not to run for a second term), imagine that!

Posted by: doug | February 1, 2008 12:50 PM


Um... Doug? You know that Mark was barred by Virginia law from running for that second term...right? Pretty easy promise to keep I suppose.

Tell you what, if elected, I'll promise never to transmutate lead into gold.

Posted by: JD | February 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

The Obama propectives were stunning, and pretty unrealistic. How can you mention Claire McCaskill for example but not Ben Nelson? I think it's also hard to see how Richardson wouldn't be enticed to accept the VP position.

Also, if you do believe that a President needs vision more than a VP, Obama-Clinton would be unbelivable, pairing diligent policy toughness with inspiration and bipartisanship.

Posted by: stewartr | February 1, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

McCain could make it official and just name Dick Cheney as VP.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I know you might think this is a bit out there, but how about an Obama - Colin Powell ticket? You mentioned a Clinton - Clark ticket, but I think Obama - Powell would be even stronger. Colin Powell is a moderate Republican that Democrats love, he has strong national security interest, and he left the Bush administration in disagreement with their policies. The move would show Obama really means it when he says he wants to bring Democrats and Republicans together. If people will not vote for Obama because he's black it makes no difference what the race of the running mate is, right? Would love to hear what people think on this.

Posted by: hnelias | February 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

What about James Webb for Obama? He won election in a red/purplish state, has impeccable national security credentials, and is a strong and vocal opponent to the Iraq war? Plus, with Tim Kaine as governor, his senate seat would go to a democrat anyway.

Posted by: brigety | February 1, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

mikeb, Lieberman's too old. Sorry to sound ageist, but that's the reality on a McCain ticket.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised that I haven't seen a McCain/Romney ticket mentioned. Romney is young, has executive experience, and appeals to conservative voters who might otherwise dislike McCain. Of course, the candidates' supporters seem to really hate each other right now, so maybe it's not likely.

Posted by: Blarg | February 1, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Seriously though. where's drindl? The guy is smokin hot, nome sayin'?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

LET ME HELP YOU.

If it's McCain there the veep will be JEWISH. Where you you think the sudden Lieberman/NYT endorsements and all that money came from?

It happened only after Bloomberg decideed via polls, that he couldn't win or even buy enough delegates, super or otherwise.

God KNOWS what McCain promised regarding Israel, bombing Iran, and what else? As Bush promised Sharon.

If it's Hillary, it'll also be a Jewish vp,
she was bought and paid for when given her carpetbagger NY senate seat.

Scream and yell. But wait and see.

Posted by: whistling | February 1, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

yup :)

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

proudtobeGOP writes
"That's a whole new untapped demographic!"

Is that an intentional pun?

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination it will be interesting to see who she chooses because there will be a lot of pressure on her to choose Obama. And it would make sense for her to choose him because of how he has been able to bring more people into the voting process and his high favorables especially with independents.

If Obama wins the nomination, there is no way Hillary would accept a VP slot. I think he is best served by going with Evan Bayh, Gov. Sebelius, or the Governor from Arizona. Although due to the failures of the Bush Administration more states may be in play for the democrats than normal, it is very unlikely that the democrats will see any true gains in the south with the possible exceptions of South Carolina and Florida. The real fight is in the midwest and the west, which can be won by a democrat. Bayh, Sebelius, and Janet Napolitano (if McCain is not the RNC candidate) are best positioned to turn the presidential election into an easy victory. Richardson would be a good Secretary of State, and Edwards could be the AG.

If McCain gets the nomination his best bet is Huckabee because he is conservative and not a washington insider. Thompson could be an option as well. However, no one has mentioned that Rudy could be his AG which is scary!!!

If Romney gets the nomination then Jim Talent might make a better VP then the RI governor because even though he is popular, the war and economy could be a tall hurdle to jump for any republican come November.

Posted by: avgbrother | February 1, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

In terms of running mates, Obama reminds me of vanilla ice cream - he blends well with almost anything but delivers a distinctly different experience depending on the topping.

McCaskill and Sebelius - Chocolate Syrup, shoring up vanilla against otherwise strong competition from chocolate ice cream.

Daschle - Vanilla Bean pieces, deepening the texture and vibrancy of the vanilla flavor, but not creating many contrasts.

But perhaps we need to consider a few other toppings:

Bill Richardson - English Toffee. An experienced flavor with a solid resume. He's somewhat foreign to Washington too, given his last post as governor. With the public disliking for Washington, that foreignness might melt in voters' mouth.

Joe Bidden - Peanut Brittle. Bidden's got some nice, sharp foreign policy experience that can cut into the tongue of Republicans trying to "lick" Obama on inexperience. His wisdom will also demonstrate the "nuttiness" of current foreign policies.

Posted by: hjackson05 | February 1, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

More evidence of the Obama-Webb wave. VA Gov. Tim Kaine touts the idea!

http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2481&Itemid=33

Posted by: mjames2 | February 1, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama's best choice would be John Edwards, if Edwards would take it. That, and some solid positions opposing outsourcing and guest workers and gun control laws, would win him the Blue Dog Democratic voters. Edwards is appealing to moderates (I know, he is liberal, but for some reason he is *perceived* as a moderate) and Southern voters. McCain would do well to pick Lieberman. That would, likewise, draw Blue Dog Democrats and moderates.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 1, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Well, spec, you're arguments against Steele are pretty good. The Mike Tyson connection is really bad...that definitely rules him out of the vetting process.

I'm starting to think that Crist would be a great pick. Really throw the dems off their game. (I didn't know he was on the DL, but that makes sense, as good looking as he is.) That's a whole new untapped demographic!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

***
Regardless of who wins the nomination for the Dems, it's going to have to be a southern white guy.
***

No, it doesn't.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 1, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Someone mentioned a Hillary/Barack ticket early on. This was discussed by me on this or another Blog a few days ago, and went something like this--The History making of such a ticket would, more than likely, almost assure another History making event, namely the first Black Prez in 2016. We would have these two major History making events in the span of eight or nine years, depending on how we count the time. Just thinking of the first woman and the first black as POTUS does my heart good.

Posted by: lylepink | February 1, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

LET ME HELP YOU.

McCain would chooose a JEWISH veep. Where do you think the sudden Lieberman/NYT endoresements came from? And all that money suddenly.

God KNOWS, what he promised regarding Isrel. Bombing Iran, undoubtdly. As Bush promised Sharon.

Hillary, same thing, she was bought and paid for when given her carpetbagger senate seat.

Scream and yell, but wait and see.

Posted by: whistling | February 1, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"the rule did not stop Cheney, who said he was from WY although his wife was voting in Dallas. So you have offered another Bush-Clinton parallel"

That was a much easier thing to finesse - some states have very easy residency requirements. But Bloomberg and Clinton are both New York office holders, I don't see either one resigning and moving, which they would have to do put together a legal ticket.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

GOP for McCain or Romney, ..Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Smart, tough, skilled policymaker and campaigner. Frankly, she is smarter than anyone in either party and more qualified as well

Posted by: paul_needham | February 1, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I basically agree that for Obama, whom I strongly support and believe has the most broad based support, including bringing in so many first time and esp. young voter, that his best VP choice would be governor Sibelius or, perhaps, better, gov. Napolitano -- excpet for the need to have someone with national security creditentials, and thus I would argue for
Jim Webb with the caveat that I do not yet know enough about him as to whether he'd be a good VP, i.e. willing to be on board with Obama's policy ideas, especially if it's true that he doesn't change his mind easily. If Obama would be comfortable with him after getting to know him well, the fact that he's a Senator from Virginia is a big plus.

Richardson,however qualified, just does not have much personality or voter appeal. If he endorses Obama sufficiently soon, then he most likely would have a place in an Obama adminstrtion where he really would be best suited. Plus, I think there may be a problem for the general election, unfortunately, with having two non-white males on the ticket.

BB

Posted by: bbrudno | February 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

For Obama I like Bob Graham, Mark Warner, or Kathleen Sebelius. Ed Rendell, even though he's endorsed Clinton, would help pick up PA. And Obama could certainly add him to the ticket "in the interest of party unity".

Posted by: slysly77 | February 1, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Schwarzenegger was born in Austria. Ergo, he can't be Vice President.

Posted by: legan00 | February 1, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Steelwheel,

Schwarzenegger is not constitutionally eligible to be VP because he is not a native born citizen.

Posted by: theseventen | February 1, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Kathleen Sebelius has been a great governor for Kansas (I live here, so I really do know). And she is a fantastic campaigner. I'd be shocked if she was chosen by Obama, however, because (a) KS doesn't have that many electoral college votes; and (b) Obama has a disproportionate amount of the youth vote--the folks who watch John Stewart on Comedy Central. His comments on her response to the State of the Union were deadly. Ouch.

Posted by: libone | February 1, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

For Clinton don't rule out Jim Webb. He compliments her on national security - he's anti-war and can put it to the GOP. He's also something of a maverick and could balance out Clinton's overly scripted personality.

For Obama, he's got to bring in an old sure Washington hand without making it seem as if he's giving in to the Washington establishment. How can choosing an old war horse be a "change" event - choose a Republican. Hagel or Bill Cohen. That would shake things up, be direct evidence that he's for real on bridging the red/blue divide and give the electorate comfort that there will be a wise elder in the White House.

Posted by: townofmamaroneck | February 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steele? His resume includes failing the bar exam, a failed business, one term as lieutenant governor of Maryland (a job with ZERO official duties), and a failed campaign for Senate.

Yeah, that stacks up against the other people named on the GOP side.

Oh and his sister was married to Mike Tyson!

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Others haven't said this loud enough for the Obama camp to hear so I will shout it:

JIM WEBB!!! JIM WEBB!!! JIM WEBB!!!

Can you hear us now?

Posted by: DCFem | February 1, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"why not Condi as a possible for McC?"

Condi is one of three potential VPs for McCain that would cause me to rethink voting for him. The others are Lieberman & Huckabee.

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

BTW, the idea that McCain is going to have to pick a VP to pander to the Republican base is just silly, especially if HRC is the Democratic nominee.

Nowadays, it's also silly to pick a VP just to pander to a swing state. If you're going to pander, do it right. Pander to a demographic.

Posted by: anon99 | February 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

McCain - Schwarzenegger

Clinton - Wes Clark

Obama - Biden

Romney - Dan Quayle :-)

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | February 1, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Huckabee would be a good choice for McCain. Too many Dems and independents (like myself) might vote for McCain if Hilary is the Dem candidate. But if Huckabee with his religious agenda is a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, many of those voters will choke down a glass of Billary Kool-Aid.

Posted by: sethg58 | February 1, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I think that Chris' picks for Obama reflect the fact that Chris desperately wants Hillary to win. So Chris throws up a bunch of freshman senators and the former senate minority leader from North Dakota. He's implicitly reinforcing the fact that Obama is new to the Senate. Folks, Barack Obama chaired the Harvard Law Review. I find it ridiculous that the former chair of the Harvard Law Review is somehow inexperienced. Yeah, Obama probably needs 15 more years in D.C., just enough time for cynicism and lobbyists to waterdown this otherwise eminently qualified candidate. You're probably right. The people that say he's inexperienced are really just reminding you that he's black. That's all it is, folks. George W. Bush had never even left the country before being elected President. So Republicans don't get to make this argument for another 10-15 years. And the centrist wing of the Democratic party still can't understand how progressives can think the Clinton administration was not the greatest thing that ever happened. As that prickly columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out today in the WaPo's op-ed section, Clinton truly served to valilidate, and "consolidate" Reaganism: the end of welfare as we know it; the end of big government; further deregulation; NAFTA. Yeah, I wonder why a lot of us progressives aren't too keen on Clinton? Mind you, I'd welcome a Hillary presidency over any of the Republicans. She is my senator and she's very intelligent. (And clearly to Bill's left.) John McCain? Come on, guys. He's really not that smart. He's just nice. If you are leaning Democratic and later to decide to vote for McCain. Don't ever come back to the party. You're a Republican who doesn't like being called a Republican. Message to Republican voters: Please start reading more books. Oh, and by the way, look up empathy. I believe it's somewhere in the Bible, too. If people get to charge Obama with inexperience, then we get to charge John McCain with being so incredibly average overall, and admittedly misguided on the economy.

-Biden makes sense for Obama, but he's too important in the Senate.
-Ted Strickland makes lots of sense.

-Obama must neutralize the accusations by naming a "more experienced"(English translation: whiter) running-mate. He should look to the rust-belt or Virginia.


New Yorkers for Obama.


Posted by: legan00 | February 1, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Don't count out Warner and Biden on the Democrat side. Both would add something interesting/helpful to the candidates. Biden might be a natural target for SOS, but with everything going on internationally, a strong foreign relations presence would be killer for Dems. Your thoughts, Chris?

Posted by: Kaye21 | February 1, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of who wins the nomination for the Dems, it's going to have to be a southern white guy. Why not Max Clealand of GA? Obama-Clinton/Clinton-Obama is not feasible as it will not appeal to the center.

Posted by: kalon28 | February 1, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"the rule did not stop Cheney, who said he was from WY although his wife was voting in Dallas. So you have offered another Bush-Clinton parallel"

GAAAAHHHH!!!!!!

in re: Condi, I agree w/anon99...Michael Steele would be a better "diversity" pick. Condi is too GWB and I don't think her tenure at the State dept hasn't been all that notable. Maybe if she was seen as instrumental in political reconciliation in Iraq, but thus far I have to say I'm dissapointed.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama's best choice is Jim Webb. Second, Joe Biden.

Posted by: whittrl | February 1, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised you left out former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, particularly for Obama.

He's immensely popular not just in his home state but in the entire Mid-Atlantic region of the country.

Also, his persona is a good match with Obama - he's earnest and has a distinctly non-political vibe about him. He even kept a campaign promise (not to run for a second term), imagine that!

Posted by: doug | February 1, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

bevens had a good read (see above)...

my .02....

HRC
jim webb;
--> w/ kaine as VA gov, wd he nominate a replacement (dem) replacement?

--> bayh...
so many good reasons, yet duller than duller than dull. plus, it's enough that HRC has to deal w/ the Bush/Clinton/Bush.. line, but to add son-of to the ticket might be much.

--> NO to Wes Clark (didnt he almost start WWIII by ordering British/NATO troops to engage russian troops in (then) yugoslavia?
also, i think clark has his eyes set on DoD so he can even scores (shd any adversaries still be around)

OBAMA
biden wd be solid

daschle? oh, god, no. wasnt he capt obstructionist during his stint as senate leader? how wd a Pres Obama get ANY legislation through?

no to richardson (for either); nice, collegial fellow w/ terrific resume -- still, NOT ready for prime time...even on cable.

i know many say sibelius (not too familiar), but what about napolitano?

cheers one/all...

Posted by: gordonm33 | February 1, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

As a native of the Show-Me state, I was pleased to see CC metion Talent and McCaskill for a Veep slot. However, realtiy set in and could not see either being picked. First, I like McCaskill very much but she is in her first year in the Senate. If Obama picks Claire, then the inexperienced factor would kick in, plus "One-Term" Matt Blunt could pick her successor. Talent is a good,decent man who can blame his defeat in November squarely on the unpopularity of George W. Bush. Talent's problem is that he has lost two statewide races in his career in Missouri for governor and senator. If Obama is the Democratic candidate why not consider Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas, who has a Democratic governor. Could anyone dream of a better sounding ticket than Obama/Lincoln? Hillary needs someone willing to go to a pre-Cheney mode of the Vice Precidency. I would believe that Bill Richardson would be her best pick. On the Republican side, McCain would to think outside of the box for a pick. I think Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas would bring a woman, plus conservative record to the ticket. Romney could pick Huckabee. That would get the religion issue out of the way.

Posted by: rogden71 | February 1, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Rick Perry CANNOT be a heartbeat from the presidency. GWB, who was a decent Gov/TX, looks absolutely great in retrospect after Perry. Sort of how WJC looks better after GWB.

Sen. Hutchison is a possible, though.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

jimd, does that preclude Bill from being the VP also? He could say he's from Arkansas and she's from NY.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 12:36 PM

That would present an interesting constitutional question. The 22nd Amendment term limits the president to two terms. However, the language refers to being elected and does not contemplate someone succeeding to the office after having served two terms. It would be a dicey proposition.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

If it's McCain vs. Obama, two words:

Michael Steele

Posted by: anon99 | February 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Powell and Lugar are too old for McCain - they are older than he, I think. I admire them both. I think they could both serve ably in a D or R Admin.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Glad to see Bill Richardson is there. I always believe he would be the ideal running mate for both Obama and Clinton for these reasons:

http://toopolitical.blogspot.com/2008/01/ideal-running-mate.html

Posted by: diplomat111 | February 1, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Any serious consideration given to Michael Steele on the Republican side?

Posted by: Krazijoe | February 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

proud, why not Condi as a possible for McC?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

None of the senators can pick another senator, both because it is too "Washington" and, for the Dems, because they don't want to tamper with their majority. Forget Webb, Mark Warner, Ben Nelson, Bayh, Lindsey Graham, etc.

So I think it really has to be either a governor or -- the category that's hard to predict but therefore more exciting -- someone not currently (if ever) in office. A former military figure, Clark or otherwise, would be great for the Dems.

Posted by: billmcg | February 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

If the nomination comes down to the convention floor then it will be a brokered nomination, like when Kennedy was nominated. Kennedy didn't want LBJ, but was forced to accept him to get the nomination. In this scenario, John Edwards with his delegates may be the deciding factor. If he wants to be VP or brokers a deal for a high level cabinet appointment - whatever candidate offers him the best deal is where he will throw his votes.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | February 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

For further support of the idea of an Obama-Webb ticket, see the following. Notice the use of the "change" motif.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092002248.html

Also, even if Webb is a loose cannon, he is clearly AUTHENTIC, which is one of Obama's selling points.

Mark in Austin makes a good point about Condi Rice as VP for McCain. In general, McCain will feel a lot of pressure to pick a woman VP. (Lots more women than Blacks in the Republican Party. Thus, after Condi, the bench get very thin very quickly, unless he chooses Clarence Thomas.)

Posted by: mjames2 | February 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

proud, the rule did not stop Cheney, who said he was from WY although his wife was voting in Dallas. So you have offered another Bush-Clinton parallel.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Asin wrote:

"just thinking outside the box here, but what if Obama were to create a Cabinet-level position for poverty elimination and put John Edwards in it??"

We already have HUD and HHS with overlap. A third "poverty" department? That's not outside a box. Thats making boxes.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

An Obama-Caroline Kennedy ticket would sweep the election?

Your comments.

Posted by: ita8111 | February 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama's Dream VP : Gen. Colin Powell - Powell provides gravitas, automatic national security/military support, and a reach across the aisle to cement Obama's post partisan message.

Many make the argument that two African Americans on the ticket is a mistake, and it may be, but I doubt that someone who wouldn't vote for Obama/Powell would have voted for Obama anyway. In addition, if there were a person on the national stage prior to Obama who transcended race, it was probably Gen. Powell.

The question is whether Gen. Powell would ever run -- I'm sure he'd say "no" if asked in a hypothetical. But great soldiers step-up when called to duty, and I doubt he could turn down a chance to help elect the first African American president in a country who needs them.

After Pres. Clinton's attacks and the results in SC, I think Sen. Clinton needs to at least offer the job to Sen. Obama to make sure his youth and African American supporters come out again in November.

Posted by: jtra7706 | February 1, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"the Constitution requires that the president and vice-president be from different states"

jimd, does that preclude Bill from being the VP also? He could say he's from Arkansas and she's from NY.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Mann Coulter is a feminist? There's a new one.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Sir you disappointed me.

No VP list will ever be complete be it Republican or Democrat (you'll see why shortly) without Joe Leiberman's name being added to it.

Now you've left out that very good man from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee who would make a very good President.

How about Senator Richard Lugar?

Or Sen. Orrin Hatch?

Or Sen. Norm Coleman?

Or Caroline Kennedy?

Posted by: ita8111 | February 1, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I want to be bullish on Gov. Napolitano of Arizona, but I think that might be a little too much change for the nation to digest at once. But then again, maybe Obama could pull it off.

I'm personally rooting for an Obama-Biden ticket.

Posted by: theseventen | February 1, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Chris. For Clinton, how about Ann Coulter? She just endorsed Clinton today! That would corner the market on toxic feminists.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 1, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary should get the nomination (and obviously she's not my first choice), then I think Obama should become her running mate. It would be a very difficult choice for him, because surely Bill will be the dominant power-broker and svengali in that administration--HRC's Cheney and Rove rolled into one. Any HRC VP will be expected to play spear-carrier and cheerleader (as Gore was forced to be in WJC's administration). But Obama should make that sacrifice as a public service; otherwise the Clintons will go before the country as the dashers of all the hope that Obama's run for the presidency has inspired. And also, against McCain, HRC (without Obama) simply cannot win--McCain will siphon off the independents, too many progressives will sullenly stay home, and (saddest of all) the Clintons will have prevailed in the Democratic Party by pitting race against race, gender against gender, and generation against generation.
If we Democrats are saddled with Hillary as the presidential nominee, the only way to heal the breach is for Obama to join her ticket (and wait for his chance to run as her successor).

Posted by: jm917 | February 1, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

How about Bloomberg for either Democratic candidate?

Posted by: slbaskerville | February 1, 2008 10:49 AM

He could not be Clinton's VP - the Constitution requires that the president and vice-president be from different states.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris:
I'm surprised at you. I have it on direct authority from my ouija board that there will be a deadlocked convention After the 14th ballot, John Edwards will be asked to speak, and in a dramatic appeal, will nominate Al Gore. He will be nominated by acclimation, and in a gesture of reconciliation, ask Hillary to be his V.P.
I'm so happy I could cry.

Posted by: melpremium | February 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris:
I'm surprised at you. I have it on direct authority from my ouija board that there will be a deadlocked convention After the 14th ballot, John Edwards will be asked to speak, and in a dramatic appeal, will nominate Al Gore. He will be nominated by acclimation, and in a gesture of reconciliation, ask Hillary to be his V.P.
I'm so happy I could cry.

Posted by: melpremium | February 1, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

A couple of practical considerations. How will Hilllary attract a capable vp candidate when it is clear that the vp will be the Bill/Hill referee? Who would have the stomach for it, and who would want their name associated with the inevitable scandals? Unfortunately, Charlie Christ is out of the running at least on the repub side; it is an open secret that he is gay and that would be the icing on the cake for McCain with the evangelical jihad.

Posted by: genepool | February 1, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

And to comment on something that was mentioned really early on, I think John Edwards would much rather be VP than attorney general because it would allow him to work on poverty issues, which he says (and I believe) is the cause of his life.

Posted by: mk368 | February 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"GOP - No Arnold?"

Arnold, as an import, is not eligible.

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Al Gore...

Over at the Stumped blog, the author addresses Al Gore, the 'Gore-acle' in Fix-speak. Last week Chris posted winners & losers following the Dem SC primary. I proposed Al Gore, as the last remaining elder statesman for the Dem party. Stumped seems to agree:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/stumped/2008/02/in_the_democratic_primary_wwagd.html

Is Gore's lack of an endorsement for Clinton a de-facto endorsement for Obama? Is Al smarter to stay out of the endorsement game & thus retain 'elder statesman' status in his party?

Yes and yes. Does it matter?

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton gets the nomination Obama will be the natural choice. He'll most likely choose considering the historic nature and their successful electoral histories. People keep saying Clinton needs Bill Richardson for the Latino vote but as seen in Florida and other states the Latino vote is on her side.
In addition she has women and Barack has African-Americans who have both turned out in higher numbers than Republicans to vote for either candidate. Clinton-Obama is a guaranteed win considering based on their past support. They would get Ohio and Florida automatically and all the Kerry-Gore states and in they have a good chance of picking up Southern states as well as some of the Mid-West states.
As much as people keep talking about Two "Firsts" being too much the electoral history during the primaries and the kinds of constiuencies they have won in their past elections (Barack and Clinton have won over Independents and Republicans in their past Senate elections) signals that their combined forced could lead to a Reagan-Sweep or more appropiate titled a Clintonian-Barackian sweep of epic proportions.
People mention egos and candidates hating each other in private and Barack not taking a deal. But their past history before the Campaign suggest otherwise a positive and at times collaborative relationship. They both have egos but they want to win or be close to winning and Barack would get so much more in being the first African-American Vice-President in terms of influence, support then just being a Senator. Both candidates emphasize different abilities that may be useful in either role. They would be a winning team based on their past history and performance and I doubt they throwaway a chance and ability to change history forever.

Posted by: Cord1 | February 1, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Dems - What about Jim Webb? Mark Warner?
GOP - No Arnold?

Posted by: ryangilbert4 | February 1, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

If Obama picked Tim Kaine or John Edwards I would change my life plan and go work for them.

Posted by: mk368 | February 1, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Curious: If Thune runs for VP, would Daschle run for that Senate seat?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Richardson looks like Obama's best choice for VP. He brings a wealth of real experience/gravitas (and he SHOULD loose some more weight!) in foreign policy and energy/environmental policy, plus of course he reassures Latinos and helps turn blue the purple states of New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada--none of which Kerry carried last time. He would be Obama's ideal coalition-solidifying team mate. And serving as Obama's VP sets him up for an eventual presidential run.

Obama will need to build a "ministry of all the talents," and not just have a cabinet of technocrats or corporate whim-whams.

Biden would probably like becoming Secretary of State, and he surely has the experience and ideas necessary for the job.

Edwards we need as AG--someone aggressive enough to clean up the horrible legacy of Bush-Cheney-Rove-Gonzo illegalities, and a man with the social conscience needed to take on corporate malfeasance.

What about Dodd for Secretary of the Treasury? He'll have his work cut out repairing the damage done by the subprime scandal and reorienting fiscal policy. And, by the way, that will clear a Senate seat for Lamont.

Clark might well be on the short list for Secretary of Defense--but here, Obama might also be tempted to go bipartisan by bringing in Chuck Hagel. (Wouldn't it be great to have a former enlisted man run the Pentagon?)

This list is top-heavy with males. Sebellius and Napolitano deserve to be considered for other significant cabinet positions. (Napolitano, for example, would be a good point person for dealing with immigration issues.) Secretary of Education must be a vital job in the next administration, leading the way for necessary changes in NCLB and in rebuilding American K-12 education; would Sebellius be a good fit here?

Obama might consider bringing back Chistie Todd Whitman at the EPA--another bipartisan touch, and a fitting rebuke to the shabby way Bush treated her.

There will have to be a major figure in the administration who's most visible in implimenting national climate-change policies; this is the job for whoever becomes Obama's Secretary of Energy. But that's not the job for Gore; he needs to be unleashed on the world as the voice-of-conscience saying that the United States is back in the leadership position from which it has abdicated for the last eight years.

Jim Webb is badly needed in the Senate. So will be Mark Warner. Tim Kaine deserves a significant place in the Obama administration when his single term as governor of Virginia is over (beginning of 2010).

Hillary should find her destiny as New York's senior senator.

Posted by: jm917 | February 1, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

sjl writes
"Newt Gingrich?"

Very interesting.

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Also, I agree with the person who said that if McCain picked Huckabee as his running mate, it would seriously (if not fatally) damage his chances with Independents come November, for the reasons mentioned. No, I'm not an elitist, I just believe in the separation of church and state. Kind of like the Founding Fathers.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 1, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Everyone already knows it will be Clinton/Clinton

Posted by: sniezgod1 | February 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Clinton-Richardson, my idea of a dream team. He's already dealt with the problems of illegal immigration and might give us some credibility with an issue Republicans will play hard ball with in November.

Posted by: txajohnson | February 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

For Obama, why not Bob Graham? Extensive foreign policy experience, against Iraq war from the start, popular former Governor and Senator from Florida, perennially on Veep short lists. Yes, he's getting up there in years, but he's a few months younger than McCain.

Posted by: LACinDC1 | February 1, 2008 11:05 AM


Graham has had some cardiac problems and is not a very good campaigner. He would not be much of a help outside of Florida.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

for Obama, either Webb or one of the rising women hotshots

Posted by: Bill1992 | February 1, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"But picture this--January 20, 2009.

Obama and (Sebelius or Napolitano) stand together and announce Richardson for State, Biden for Nat'l Sec, Edwards for AG and Colin Powell for DOD.
I know I am dreaming, but how awesome would that be for our country--Black, Hispanic, Anglo, Women, Poverty advocates and a Republican (we can forgive Powell's pro-Iraqi war flaw--it is Bush, Cheney and Rummy we're really mad at) I think the day after the nomination in Denver, Obama should announce his team (see above) and run them all. Who can argue with that? "

chadibuins-have you been reading my mind??

I think this is a fantastic line-up you've got here. I think Napolitano would be the best VP pick for Obama, because I understand there's a Senate seat in Kansas that will be opening up that Sebelius could make a run for. How 'bout that idea? A Democratic Senator from Kansas!

And I'm just thinking outside the box here, but what if Obama were to create a Cabinet-level position for poverty elimination and put John Edwards in it?? That would show serious dedication to the cause (and serious cojones).

I think you're exactly right (because I've said the same thing :) that Obama should line up his Cabinet post-haste if he gets the nomination and campaign not just on his own, but also on the strength of that Cabinet. Clearly the Cabinet people would be subject to Congressional approval, but it would be pretty hard to argue against any of those.

Dare to dream! YES WE CAN!

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 1, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Richardson would be great with Obama (Black/Brown) etc. He provides Obama with the foreign policy experience that will be needed. As to HRC who would want to be her VP unless they want obscurity (behind Bill Clinton, Wes Clark and Holbrook)? Alternatively, if the US is ready for a single female as VP, Obama could pick Gov. Napolitano, one of the best and brightest pols in the country.

Posted by: fcostanzo | February 1, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Explain to me why Bill Richardson is not on Obama's list? He comes from a southern state and is a VERY popular latino, the ethnic where Obama's support is weakest. He also has a resume as long as my johnson to balance out the perception that Obama has a less impressive resume than some other candidates. To me he seems like a fairly natural choice.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 1, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the "Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) - popular Southern governor" idea. He's TERM LIMITED too...so you don't lose his spot like you would with most of the others. Bredesen is also widely respected among Dem governors -- AND he's got a health care background. Obama needs someone to head that up.

You can't outsource your foreign policy work to your VP (see Cheney), but you can outsource the top domestic issue.

Posted by: jim | February 1, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

dunnhaupt: Why would that be a "dirty deal"? LBJ loathed JFK, and the feeling was probably mutual, but this is politics.

The whole point of this is "to get elected." Your comment was quite silly.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

After last night's debate, some commentators actually suggested that Obama and Clinton should become each other's running mate. This idea is totally idiotic and quite out of the question. I suppose Clinton would do anything to get elected, but Obama certainly has integrity and would never lower himself to such a dirty deal. Obama should select Daschle who has proven himself a true friend and supporter.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 1, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

As a native RI'er, I was amused to see Gov Don Carcieri mentioned as a possible running mate for Willard Mittens Romney.

That might be the only way RI's four EC votes would ever be put into play. Unfortunately, Carcieri's appeal would probably end at the Connecticut state line.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Checking in, this has been an interesting discussion this morning. I posted my first thoughts at 8:46A and on the D side, were quite like many.

Obviously, none of you think Condi is a gooe McC VP fit, but I do not know why.

The quals for VP in the Constitution are the same as for Prez - Martinez is OUT.

Some of you mentioned Bloomberg on the D ticket. He would not consider HRC -
in fact, the word was he would finance his own campaign if it were HRC against not- McC. He does not want to be VP, anyway.
Like Iococca 24 years ago, he is Chairman or nothing.

Most of you picked up on how "unnecessary" a VP will feel in an HRC run.

No strong leader will run with her unless his role is defined. I suppose if JB were promised the dual role of VP and National Security Adviser - but really, why would JB take anything but SOS from HRC?
We all see how he helps BHO on that ticket, however.

And good friend that he is, Wes Clark is a strong guy and might take SecDef from HRC, but would only consider VP with BHO, IMHO.

I think MDH will finish ahead of WMR on Tuesday and I am not joining the WMR speculation.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

SEVENTY FIVE YEARS OF MEDIA EXPERIENCE AND PR WORK SMELL A SMOKE SCREEN BY OBAMA. HE NEEDS ANOTHER AVENUE TO CHANNEL FUNDS THAT WONT COME UNDER ELECTION RULES! AND WHY DID A SIMPLE ENDORSEMENT PUT TED ON THE ROAD AND LOADS OF MASSACHUSETTS MONEY IN OBAMA'S CAMP! THE SCREEN IS A SUPPOSED FAMILY JFK SCRAP BUT THAT IS A FRONT. TED WAS/IS PROMISED THE VP SLOT IN SETUP SIMILAR TO BUSH/CHENEY! THE INEXPERIENCED IN THE PRESIDENCY WHILE AN OLD PRO RUNS THINGS FROM THE VP OFFICE. SEE FOR YOURSELF AT CONVENTION TIME!

Posted by: olerb1 | February 1, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA
I think Richardson could be an Obama pick as well. He provides experience as an executive and in the foreign policy arena BUT as a governor he fits with the change message Obama is selling. I think this ticket would motivate blacks and hispanics to vote in general (and could really help stop any fight between ethnic groups over control of the party). He'd also provide strength in the West/Southwest to counter McCain.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). He's got the natl. security experience to balance out the ticket.

Sen. Biden - while he may be more of a SoS candidate - he'd bring experience and gravitas.

A few other Dem names to throw around include:

Houston Mayor Bill White (D-TX) - White is a competent, thoughtful, moderate, and popular executive from Texas. His wonkiness would balance Obama's poetry. He was a fmr Undersec. of Energy. He provided a steady hand post-Katrina when a good chunk of NOLA relocated to Houston.

Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) - popular Southern governor

Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT)western governor - good on energy/environmental issues

Gov. Brad Henry (D-OK)
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX)
fmr. Rep Harold Ford (D-TN)
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA)

Would Bloomberg accept a Dem veep slot?

On the GOP Side
Rick Perry could help McCain with the red state republicans. While not the most popular fellow in TX nowadays, he's physically a good foil for McCain.

However, especially if HRC is the nominee, Republicans may look for a female veep. This is where someone like Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) would fit nicely. She's popular, likable, and can help McCain connect with red state GOPers.

Newt Gingrich?

I'm surpised Sen. Lindsey Graham hasn't been mentioned.

Posted by: sjl | February 1, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

so I lied--not a lastpost
Todd Whitman will be Bloomberg's running mate on a possible 3rd party ticket if McCain acquiesces (spellng grace)too much to the evangelical base.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 1, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Where is Sen. Webb?

Posted by: StanKaplan3 | February 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Clearly, the match that is most natural and not present in your hypothesizing is Bill Richardson as running mate to Barack Obama. This is the day that Mr. Richardson claimed he would or would not decide on endorsement. Time is running out. It would be nearly criminal for Mr. Richardson to let his country down at this juncture and his silence is in fact an endorsement for Mrs. Clinton. I lament that Senator Kennedy has not been able to convince Mr. Richardson to write a new chapter of Profiles in Courage.

Posted by: rarignac | February 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

The VP pick for Hillary has got me to rethink Byah, and that would mean giving up a safe Senate seat, which is not a good idea. I have thought Richardson at State or the UN, but am leaning more to a VP slot at the present time. The Repubs have the Huckster and the Gov. of Fla. as good choices, for they would shore up the base for whoever they pick as their nominee.

Posted by: lylepink | February 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

last post:

If a Huckabee nomination were possible;

I only see 3 choices:

Pataki from NY
Perdue from Ga
or Hutchinson from Tx

Posted by: chadibuins | February 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Pawlenty was elected twice in Minnesota, but he failed to get 50% of the vote in either election. He won with 44% of the vote in 2002 and 47% in 2006 due to strong 3rd party candidates siphoning off Democratic votes. But if McCain would get Pawlenty out of Minnesota, I'd be thankful. He's a worse governor than even Jesse Ventura was.

Posted by: oswoodm | February 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

What about TN Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) for either Clinton or Obama? He's a re-elected Red State Governor that's made strides on education and budget issues. I can't figure out why he's not in any VP discussions. Is he considered a DINO? Is he corrupt? I don't think he is on either, so can someone tell me why he's off the short, highly speculative, list?

Posted by: thingsthatshine | February 1, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Everyone always thinks about the experience or demographic balance a VP can bring to a ticket, which is important.

But I think how the candidates get along is also very important, not only for working together in the White House, but on the trail.

It seemed like Clinton and Gore were a good team and liked each other in 1992. As you'll remember it wasn't a very balanced ticket in some respects. Both southerners, both centrist Democratic Leadership Council types--Gore would later abandon this personal history of course in 2000.

But, their relationship created energy on the trail.

Kerry and Edwards never seemed to get along. The image I remember (fully accurate or not) was that when it got out that Edwards was selected as Kerry's VP he made some brief comments apart from Kerry. They weren't even together from the beginning. They were in different parts of the country. They didn't appear together until the next day, if I recall.

It seemed like they never campaigned together. Edwards seemed to disappear for months--maybe because Kerry didn't like him or trust him.

The chemistry shouldn't be overlooked.

That said, here are my picks:

CLINTON
I've said on previous posts I'll never vote for Clinton. The one person that could get me to reconsider is

- Wesley Clark. I wanted him to run for president again. Clark would bring the foreign policy/military experience Obama lacks


OBAMA
- Joe Biden--In addition to his foreign policy experience, they both seem to value reaching out to folks in the other party. They seemed to have at least some chemistry in the Des Moines debate, as mentioned by previous posts.

- Wes Clark--similar foreign policy type credentials as Biden. More of an outsider. Also opposed Iraq from the start.

- Richardson--I don't know how they would get along. I also don't have high respect for Richardson after seeing his campaign. On paper, it would look good. Foreign policy exp., Latino appeal (currently a weakness for Obama), and from a swing state albeit small. But, it sounds a bit like Richardson's campaign--looks good on paper, but going nowhere.

- Jim Webb--interesting. Not sure if they would resonate personally. Webb seems to get redfaced a lot. Obama is cool. Webb would seem to contradict the tone Obama is trying to set, but maybe Webb could take the low road for him. I think ultimately voters would see through that however, as they did recently when Bill took the low road for Hillary.

Posted by: MNobserver | February 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Seven white men... against a guaranteed-to-be-groundbreaking Dem nominee?

Admittedly, the list of Republican women and minorities who would make good VPs is limited, but surely McCain and Romney at least have to *float* the idea that they're considering a little diversity on the ticket.

Joe Lieberman, Jodi Rell, Christine Todd Whitman, Kay Bailey Hutchison, maybe Heather Wilson if she loses her primary

Posted by: jennifer | February 1, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Napolitano has to be on any short list for Obama.

Posted by: mikemattoon | February 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Mo-lama wrote, "..who wants a guy who refuses to acknowledge evolution a heartbeat away from a septugenarian president?"

That's nothing but a typical elitist attiutude. That's no way I would even consider voting for that RINO McCain unless he took Huckabee as his running mate. If he selects another moderate/elitist, I'll stay home on election day or vote for a third party candidate in protest. There are plenty of other real conservatives who feel the same way I do.

Posted by: terrymitchell | February 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

The Dream running mate for Hillary is of course General Colin Powell...He would bring everything she needs to her campaign and be a huge asset to the country as Vice-President...

I for one fervently hope and pray that the Clinton's will do everyhing in their power to bring General Powell aboard-It would not only be a historic opportunity, but also, perhaps go a long ways to restore our status in world opinion, as well as, and more importantly be the best thing for the future of this great country in terms of positioning us to take advantage of our natural strengths as a nation........

Posted by: Birddog08 | February 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama-Dodd

Clinton-Obama

The rupuplicans? What differance does it back?

Also in trying to stop I hope it is recipracated by the other side. And what I have done here does not reflect poorly on my candidate.

It was all for the good. Hopefully we can stop this. I doubt it. The gop are fascists and cowards.

I'm sure something crazy will happen and I'll be back next week. Let's cross our fingers. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Sort of a random thought, but no one has mentioned it.

If Hillary wins the nomination, is there any way McCain goes for a VP who is a minority? Someone like Michael Steele from MD comes to mind as a solid conservative and great campaigner.

Republicans have a recent trend of appointing minority canidates to powerful government positions (Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez are some that come to mind.) That would allow a McCain/Steele ticket to at least have some historic nature to it as well.

Posted by: HokiePaul | February 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

An Obama-Sebelius or an Obama-Kaine ticket would be thrilling and would turn our common-sense understanding of the electoral map upside-down.

Posted by: fox_qajgev | February 1, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

For Obama, why not Bob Graham? Extensive foreign policy experience, against Iraq war from the start, popular former Governor and Senator from Florida, perennially on Veep short lists. Yes, he's getting up there in years, but he's a few months younger than McCain.

Posted by: LACinDC1 | February 1, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"Sorry, Mr. Bush. The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat, the thwarting of which could hinge on an e-mail or a phone call going through room 641-A at AT&T in San Francisco next week or next month.

Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping, and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason... but you would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

"

kEITH oLBERMAN

I'm going to try and stop what I do now. I am now finaly represented in media, in politics and on the web. I just did this for balance. The right was out of control. The fascists almost won.

America looks pretty good now. The republcains have turned on the fascists. The propogandists are marginalized and shown for what they are. Whether they get off the air is nto important. The fact that people now know and cannot claim ignorance is enough.

Olberman is right. What bush and his cult have done is treason. WE CANNOT BE AFRAID TO CALL IT. Many should be in jail on the right over what they have done. do we pity theives? Do we pity murders for sending them to jail? No. They made their choices, they must face the consequneces.

We lost this country for a short spell. We have to get it back. No if's and or but's about it. We need to restore america. For us, but for our children.

Good luck ladies and gentlemen. To anyone i offeneded, take it with a grain of salt. Think about the big picture.


Good luck and God bless.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 1, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

OK--just realized Martinez was born in Cuba-I forgot.

But picture this--January 20, 2009.

Obama and (Sebelius or Napolitano) stand together and announce Richardson for State, Biden for Nat'l Sec, Edwards for AG and Colin Powell for DOD.
I know I am dreaming, but how awesome would that be for our country--Black, Hispanic, Anglo, Women, Poverty advocates and a Republican (we can forgive Powell's pro-Iraqi war flaw--it is Bush, Cheney and Rummy we're really mad at) I think the day after the nomination in Denver, Obama should announce his team (see above) and run them all. Who can argue with that?

Posted by: chadibuins | February 1, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

A couple corrections:
1. A lot of independents will be turned off McCain if he chooses Huckabee as his veep -- who wants a guy who refuses to acknowledge evolution a heartbeat away from a septugenarian president?
2. Wes Clarke has the same problem as Hilary -- a polarizing figure in his own constituency, the military.
3. Hilary needs a black veep if she's going to make amends for South Carolina. Colin Powell, anyone?
4. Why wouldn't Bill Richardson be on Obama's list -- especially if he stays on the sidelines during endorsements?
5. I'd put Jim Webb as the strongest candidate on Obama's list. He's got the military background, he's from Virginia and he opposes the war.

Posted by: mo-lama | February 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

For Obama, I could see Sibelius, Napolitano...
*Gore would overbalance the ticket, seems to me... a VP who knew much more about the show than the president OR almost anyone else in the government. Intellectually and policy-wise, however, I think Obama/Gore would be strong. *
Jim Webb is good on paper - but I don't know enough about him to indicate whether he'd be a good VP, i.e. willing to be on board with Obama's policy ideas. Something tells me he doesn't change his mind easily. Of course, I don't know him really, and would be happy to hear from any Virginia people...
*I still like Bob Graham of Florida, but I remember Mark saying that he was 70+ years old and probably would not want to go there.
*Daschle would be good in some position, maybe not VP although I don't know. Is he still popular in the West?
*I have to reluctantly agree with what someone else said about Richardson... he didn't ever make a splash in the primary. I have enormous respect for his resume and experience, but he does not seem able to connect as a candidate, and that is what he would have to do.
*Almost the same comment for Wes Clark, with the additional problem that he is a committed Clintonite and might not want the nod.
*Joe Biden would be ideal, but I'm not sure the Democrats would want to lose him in the Senate... although if he isn't up for re-election this year (is he?) worst case scenario, he's an unsuccessful VP candidate and goes back to the Senate, and if elected, an influential (like Cheney, but not evil, as someone else said a while ago) foreign policy VP.

For McCain, I have less of an idea. Tactically, he should probably pick a fundamentalist, but if he does, he will lose a lot of the indy vote. Colin Powell would be great if Obama is the Democratic nominee, but I don't honestly know if he (Powell) would do it, plus it might further depress the cracker vote. If Schwarzenegger were eligible, he would be ideal. I don't think Bloomberg would be interested - McCain has gotten more and more partisan since 2000, potentially a turn-off for Bloomberg.

Romney should run with a big, red, and furry talking dog named "Goliath."

Finally, Hillary will have to pick a cipher, because Bill is going to take up all the VP air available. I have no suggestions for Hillary.

Posted by: bokonon13 | February 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Wesley Clark would be a perfect fit for either, especially Obama.

What about the slight possibility of a brokered convention? Mass chaos ensues. A statesman rides in to save the party--and the country. Dream ticket of Gore-Obama?

By the way, Chris, keep up the sports metaphors! Politics and sports have a lot of similarities, but even moreso, that's your other passion. So keep it real.

Posted by: ewb727 | February 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I agree blarg...Clinton and Obama wouldn't run together and it's not viable to have two "firsts" on the same ticket. One maybe, but not two.

I think Bayh is the perfect fit for a Clinton VP; afterall, milquetoast is the perfect characteristic to be in a Clinton-Clinton co-administration.

I agree with bryant_flier that Pawlenty or hucakbee would be great for McCain. I think Huckabee would draw more female votes; women really seem to like him, he's affable and funny. Pawlenty's youth is a BIG plus, though, and something that is really important this time more than any other perhaps, in wooing voters.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 1, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Here are some of Mike Huckabee's possible running mates:

John McCain (maybe)

Mitt Romney (nah)

Duncan Hunter (a good possibility)

Fred Thompson (don't laugh)

Posted by: terrymitchell | February 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I have to disagree about Jim Webb as a potential VP candidate for Obama. If Obama wins the nomination he needs to balance the ticket with an experienced candidate. Webb doesn't have enough experience he is a first term Senator, much like Obama.

To me it would come down to either Former VA Gov. Mark Warner or Current VA Gov. Tim Kaine. IMO Warner would be the best choice for Obama. He has "executive level" experience and transformed a "red" state. Kaine would also be a nice choice, but make no mistake Warner is the big fish in VA politics.

Posted by: jnoel002 | February 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I think Huckabee's strength on a McCain ticket may well be in keeping the social conservatives from coalescing around a third party bid, which would virtually guarantee a democratic victory in November. McCain needs this to be a two party contest to have any hope.

Posted by: optimyst | February 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

and:

mccain/anyone from his fighter squadron
romney/himsself

Posted by: tilson | February 1, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

how can so many of you be missing the boat?

obama/byrd
clinton/gingrich

hey, you're welcome!

Posted by: tilson | February 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Obama and Clinton will never run together. That's a terrible ticket. First, I doubt that either would accept being the other's VP. Second, they don't add anything to the ticket; they're both lightly-experienced senators from Democratic strongholds. Third, there's plenty of evidence that they personally dislike each other. People need to stop suggesting this ticket; it's never going to happen.

Posted by: Blarg | February 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

'Coulter: If McCain's the nominee, I'll campaign for Hillary'

umm, no thanks, Mann.

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Daschle on the list is only a sign of beltway bias. He does nothing for the ticket.

Since voters (and pundits) most frequently cite Obama's relative inexperience, Joe Biden is the perfect choice, number 1 on my list.

Posted by: optimyst | February 1, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

CC, you almost re-posted the same case I made for Tim Pawlenty on this very blog earlier this week. Thank you! If McCain wins the R nomination, I think the VP slot is between Pawlenty & Huckabee. I think Pawlenty gets the nod over Huck. Why? He has balanced budges & is popular in a purple state while still being very popular with the Republican base...all things McCain needs.

If Romney wins the nomination (doubtful), his #1 pick obviously is Condi Rice. He has the backing of the Bush folks seemingly and an unlimited pocket book, but it's unlikely she will run in my view. She's going to Stanford & will likely write a few books on the Iraq war, making some true money! Can't blame her, after 8 years of faithful & honorable service to this nation she deserves it (my opinion). I think Romney may pick Don Carceri, as he is the reason I said Romney will win RI in an earlier post. He may also look at Duncan Hunter, as he has the foreign relations experience which Romney lacks. He's also popular with the Christian base, which is still weary of Romney. Kay Hutchinson of TX would also be a great pick, if she were interested. It's fun to think about this and all, but honestly, Romney ain't winning the nomination...McCain will.

It's more fun to think about Obama &
Clinton for the VP's, b/c they are both legite candidates with a real shot.

Obama has a great many candidates. The best one for him is definately Tim Kaine. A popular governor in a fairly conservative state of Virginia. Plus, he's a white moderate that appeals to both sides of the isle in some ways. Also, Arizona Gov. Naptoli (however you spell it) or Kansas gov. Kathleen Sebelius. That helps him win back the woman vote for the general after the Clinton primary.

For Clinton, Bill Richardson is the obvious choice. While Edwards & Obama were taking swings @ Clinton in debates, Richardson defended Clinton for nothing in return. She wins the nomination, the VP spot could be his return. In return, Clinton will need Richardson to help battle for hispanic votes vs. McCain, which will be a legitimate battle.

The Democratic primary will be fun & will likely go beyond Feb. 5, as McCain likely wraps things up on Feb. 5.

Man, I love the thought of McCain/Pawlenty running this nation...it would be so good for this nation! Sucks for Minn. to lose such a great governor, but I'd love to see McCain run our defense while Pawlenty helps to balance the books. I urge everyone, Republican, Democrats & Independents to look at these 2 men, what they stand for & what they have done in their lives & judge that for yourselves. No, they aren't as partisan and may sling a few less zingers against the other parties leaders...but they will likely bring people together to take on the tough issues for all Americans & the future of this great nation.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | February 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

How about Bloomberg for either Democratic candidate? He appeals to moderates, progressives on certain issues, and the business community. He could provide some balance for the independents who might consider both candidates more dismissive of the interests of big business. And the business community could become more comfortable with the prospect of these candidates with Bloomberg engaged. A Bloomberg VP could make these candidates hard to beat.

Posted by: slbaskerville | February 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Gore's going to head the EPA in either the Obama or the Clinton administration. Maybe even in a McCain administration (if McCain is actually serious about global warming).

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 1, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Jim Webb.

I can't believe you actually left Jim Webb off of that list. Either Obama or Clinton would need someone on the ticket to lend it credibility on defense and national security issues. Especially against John McCain.

Chris, it's kind of ridiculous how you have completely ignored this reality in developing your lists for both Democrats. Not a single one of these names you've come up with has a shred of defense, foreign policy or security experience, except Clark. Just like Clinton and Obama. That gaping hole in their resumes will be the first priority in picking a VP.

The list of potential running mates who get you that is pretty short.

Jim Webb
Wes Clark
Joe Biden

Of those 3, Webb's star is ascendant while Clark has been invisible these last few years. Biden did really, really badly in his race for President and looks a bit like a loser as a result.

Webb's brand of populism would fully engage former Edwards supporters and help bring the base together. His experience as Secretary of the Navy, Undersecretary of Defense, a decorated combat veteran and the party's leading voice on policy in Iraq makes him a natural choice for lending credibility to the ticket on defense issues.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 1, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I assumed Charlie Crist would be frontfunner (along with Huckabee) should McCain win. Crist is very popular in the great swing state of Florida.

Did I miss something?

Posted by: HokiePaul | February 1, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Excellent job--except I think a few additions (while we're not ranking yet) woudl be appropriate.

1st--the Dream Team--I think this is more applicable to a Clinton nomination than a Obama nomination. But Obama as a running mate should be a possibility--at least in theory.

2nd--McCain/Crist--I am from Florida--Crist is an amazing politician (even though I didn't vote for him) He is able to evolve and solidify--and he endorsed McCain and was able to get a tax cut passed on a night when Democratic turn out was record high.

3rd--Clinton/Nelson--again, I am a Floridian, but Nelson has been very popular in a state that is increasingly red. He has a great record of fighting insurance companies (to counter her corporate leanings on health care) and he helps bring Florida.

4th John McCain/Mel Martinez--why let the Democrats have all the fun making historical nominations.

5th Either Dem and Jim Webb--Virginia, Reagan ties, military record--any other arguments?

6th (and final)--Hillary Clinton/Harold Ford--he is a "blue dog" Democrat, he has conservative credentials--he's pro-life; and he's African-American. I think it is an understatement of the Clinton's political savvyness that he wasn't mentioned earlier.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 1, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

SD is "...a tiny state?" RI is a tiny state. SD is huge; just ask anyone who's had the pleasure of driving across it. Tiny in the electoral sense, of course.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

It feels like Clinton *has to* pick Obama to heal the divide in the party caused by her surrogates playing so many race cards. Of course, I suspect she has promised the job to everyone else on your list as well.

As for Pawlenty, isn't he tainted by the bridge colapse in his state and his horrible reaction to (not) fixing the problem? Or are we still playing by the Bush rules where every miserable failure fails upwards?

Posted by: havok26 | February 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Clinton-Schweitzer seems like it could have a lot of synergy. The governor of Montana is beloved by the netroots, from a red state, and the west, which is an area the Dems can make a lot of inroads in this year.

Regardless of personal favors, I don't see what Daschle brings to the ticket that a Joe Biden doesn't bring more of. Biden is rock solid on foreign affairs, and makes a much better attack dog, which Obama will desperately need (he's pretty awful at the negative stuff).

Posted by: howlless | February 1, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Chris, thanks for something different, but you STILL haven't addressed Congressional races in quite a while, despite developments in that arena.

Posted by: rlalumiere | February 1, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

What, no Fred Thompson for the McCain ticket? Poor Eeyore.

Posted by: tim.vickery | February 1, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Ditto on Jim Webb. He's young and fits the "change" idea well, he got military experience, he's from an "emerging purple state" (as you described VA above), and he could appeal to some Southern conservatives with his gun-toting history.

Posted by: yusef78 | February 1, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"Obama should be on the pick list for Clinton. In fact, on this morning's Good Morning America, George Stephanopolous made a wager with Diane Sawyer that, if nominated, Clinton would select Obama as her running mate."

Were I Obama, I would decline the offer. Firstly, I have doubts about Clinton's ability to win in Nov. Secondly I have doubts about Clinton's ability to win in 2012, if she were to win in 2008.

Independent of those opinions, I suspect Clinton would not select Obama, because Obama has the potential to overshadow her. That is not an attractive trait in a running mate - particularly if you're already overshadowed by your spouse. She is more inclined, I think, to select someone who would happily play second fiddle.

Posted by: bsimon | February 1, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

No, no, please don't suggest Tim Kaine. The lieutenant governor of Virginia is far, far right-wing, and he could then run as an incumbent in 2009.

Posted by: mtsher | February 1, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama should go outside the box: Gov. Janet Napolitano, D-AZ. She is a woman, outside the beltway, wildly popular and successful in a red state, and she gives the ticket growth in the most important area of the country: THE WEST. I like Gov. Strickland too, but Gov. Janet is the ticket!

Posted by: kain_andrew | February 1, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer on Bill:

"Why was he out of control in South Carolina? He wasn't. He was clawing for a second chance."

Well, yes. One of the least consequential presidents in history will will you, little people, to obey and commit to the opera buffa by the title "BILLARY, (the good news is we're back)".

Chris, the Billary Dynamic Duo do not need a running mate. Only banana republics worry about details of such little import.

Let January '09 begin! I can't wait!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013102627.html

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 1, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I think OBama could be a good pick for Clinton, but I don't think he'd accept it. It would diminish him. He's still really young and could have a bright future without her. Plus, any Clinton VP is going to be overshadowed by Bill, and he knows it. I think if faced with that choice, Obama would call Gore up, get his opinion, and probably hear a big NO.

Then again, it may be better than nothing.

Posted by: freedom41 | February 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama/Bloomberg 2008

Posted by: BigB1 | February 1, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

For Obama, Webb or Biden would be good VP picks. Maybe Hagel or Biden at State, and Hagel or Clark at DoD.

Posted by: eric_a_witte | February 1, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Big oversight: Obama should be on the pick list for Clinton. In fact, on this morning's Good Morning America, George Stephanopolous made a wager with Diane Sawyer that, if nominated, Clinton would select Obama as her running mate. (I'm not kidding!)

Posted by: d7s0 | February 1, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Here's the real short-list:

MCCAIN

John Thune

Since McCain is old, the VP choice will be a very important pick for Republicans since they will see that person as a true heartbeat away from the presidency. Conservatives would not like someone like Huckabee, whom they distrust on economic issues. HE won't be able to chose any other mavericks. Plus, McCain himself will be able to bring the whole message of change because of his maverick status. Thus, Thune would be a good bet to satisfy conservatives, which is what Mac really needs for the election.

ROMNEY

Gen. Petreaus

Solves Romney's lack of national security gravitas, would definitely carry forward the message of change in DC. Besides, Romney's already suggested him publicly.

CLINTON

Harold Ford Jr.

A conservative Dem like Clinton, from a potential swing state (Tennessee - which Bill won), could excite blacks without having to deal with Obama.

Note: Bayh is too boring, and if he steps down from his senate seat it'd be very tough to have another Dem win in such a red state. Clark I don't think brings much in an election where many Dems are already disenchanted with Billary and Reps will hate her.

OBAMA

Kathleen Sebelius

He would get the womens' vote, possibly put Kansas and other mid-western states into play, add an economic and management heavyweight to the ticket, and continue the message of change.

Joe Biden

A foreign policy heavyweight would help. Obama himself will carry the change message, BIden would be the reassurance to older voters.

Al Gore

If he's interested, could bring a lot of experience to the ticket, strong on foreign policy (right on both Iraq wars), can discuss global warming which is a big issue, held in very high regard after the Nobel. Besides, I get the feeling he loves Obama-style politics.'

Note: Edwards is damaged goods. He can't carry any states or key constituencies. Plus, the been there, done that factor is too high from 2004. Richardson hasn't proven to be a good debater or speaker, so I'm not sure if he'd be a good choice. I also fear that there are still to many racists who would fear a hispanic on the ticket. On the other hand, since McCain blunts the hispanic abandonment of Republicans over immigration, maybe Richardson can consolidate the group without alienating too many whites (his last name sounds anglo enough!)

Posted by: freedom41 | February 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

If only Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) were born in the U.S. and not Cuba, he would be a perfect choice for the GOP VP slot. Experience in the Cabinet, FL GOP Leadership and Congress. He would likely help McCain pick up Florida possibly tip the balance in NV and NM. Technically he could be a VP, but upon the death of the President he would never be able to assume office. The next-best choice might be Charlie Crist, the Governor of FL.

Posted by: Luiz.Bravim | February 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama would need a running mate with national security experience. As I recall, Wes Clark spoke out against the Iraq war from the beginning. That is a powerful combination - 4 star general, Rhodes scholar, fluent in several languages, diplomatic experience (Dayton accords, NATO Commander is almost as much diplomatic as military post). I also think Clark would be a good running mate for Clinton.

I think Jim Webb is too much of a loose cannon to be a number 2. Also he has taken some positions over the years that are diametrically opposed to Democratic platform and the candidates would repeatedly be called on to state their agreement or disagreement with his past statements.

I agree that no Democratic candidate would put a Senate seat in jeopardy by selecting a Senator whose replacement would be appointed by a Republican governor. I do not see too many other Democrats being able to hold a Virginia Senate seat besides Webb and Warner.

I also think that Clinton and Obama would probably not pick another Senator. The noly time a ticket consisting of two sitting senators won the election was in 1960.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

If it ends up being a Clinton-Obama ticket wouldn't that contradict everything Obama has stood for throughout this campaign? I kind of think it would be hard to get those first time voters when running for president in 2012 if he runs with Hillary (especially if the Hillary presidency is the same old stuff)

http://www.obamaworldwide.com/SupporterMap.aspx

Posted by: ObamaForPrez | February 1, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Ok, the calculus is quite simple, each of the remaining 3 candidates (Mitt is done) has a weakness that must be shored up.

On the Democratic side, I think it is safe to say that one "first" is enough... but Clinton may have done enough damage to herself with the black community that she might be forced to consider Harold Ford, a choice that in shoring up the black vote would probably do the rest of the damage in making her unelectable. Because of her torching the black community, she can't add Richardson as VP. For her, there are really only three choices available: Clark, Edwards and Bayh. Clark would probably be the smartest choice, he's well liked in general, and bolsters her security arguments, and it is no secret that both Clinton and Obama have been circulating Edwards as AG, which the unions view as a gift from heaven.

For Obama, if he wins the nomination, he has to do something bold. But he's limited in being a black man, so he can't really choose a woman (bye bye McCaskill and Sebellius). If he picks Daschle he's toast, so that won't happen. My two home state Senators (Conrad and Dorgan) are out of play because we have a GOP Governor who covets a Senate seat, but also because there is a VERY shallow bench on the Democratic side. If he is thinking strategically, Richardson would be his best choice, in that he's a westerner, and Obama has to put the west in play. If he's thinking audaciously, Edwards would be his best choice. The fact of the matter is that if Obama is at the top of the ticket, all of the electoral maps have to be thrown out and he has to come up with a strategy that vastly expands the voting pool to make up for innate racism. The best way to do that is to take Edwards, make it a straight up change election, and look to bring in voters who have never voted before or are disinclined to vote. Focus on the black, white and hispanic working and underclass, trot out some straight up populist programs like a meaningful national health care proposal, and rely on the demographics.

For McCain, to ward off a third party challenge from social conservatives, he does not really have much choice, he's got to take on someone who has drunk the supply side, evangelical Kool-Aide. Huckabee is viewed with suspicion by the economic conservatives. Pawlenty barely won reelection last year, and if he was on the ballot next year, he'd get torched, so he's of no use, and doesn't have the evangelical chops. Thune is a VERY appealing guy, I am a Democrat and I like him a lot despite his social views, I've met him a number of times and he's a genuinely decent guy. Despite what people above have said, he's got the whole package, and particularly against Obama, who would have to make a real play for the plains states, he might be McCain's best choice, add in that he has an attractive young family, and would balance McCain's age, and he might be the ideal choice for McCain. Plus he's owed by the party for making two Senate runs when what he really wanted was to be Governor.

Posted by: leuchtman | February 1, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing to me how the Clintons have injected race into this process to such a degree that the commentators (like Chris) are now saying that Edwards supporters would be more likely to go with Clinton because they are white. The Clinton behavior in that regard is totally despicable although not surprising. If the country truly wants to get beyond the racial divide, we need to reject this type of race baiting politics. We also need to reject the old hacks like the Clintons - who speak of change while trotting out madeleine albright and slick willy as prime surrogates and insult our intelligence by suggesting that electing them would represent a new breed of politicians in Washington. We are smarter than that aren't we?

Posted by: justj | February 1, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I think Jim Webb should be on Obama's short list. He's a fresh face with national security credentials, service in the Reagan administration and netroots cred. That's too interesting a package not to consider.

Posted by: spike3905 | February 1, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Fix, I commend you on your vp on democrats for two reasons.
One, you did not buy into the fantasy of a Obama and Clinton teaming. If she was the nominee and with Bill in tow, she would need a Bayh. someone who is milquetoast.
No democrat with a personality or future would ever be just window dressing in this role, which is what vp would be under Clinton as Bill would totally take over and push the vp aside and into the corner.
I never concidered Daschle for Obama. interesting pick.
I know he has been a huge help and friend to Obama and vital to this campaign. But, I always thought someone like Jim Webb would be someone for him.
Daschle would be a great choice and you present a whole new line of thought there.

Posted by: vwcat | February 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Martinez was born in Cuba. Ineligible for the Presidency ...

Posted by: eemr | February 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Minnesota is NOT a swing state this year, though the fact that the GOP was dumb enough to schedule their convention in St Paul means that we'll hear this line repeated for the next seven months. On the other hand, many Minnesotans would be happy to have Senator McCain take Tim Pawlenty off our hands - if not as a running mate, then as his advisor on bridges and roads.

Posted by: gmcduluth | February 1, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Why on earth would you list Mark Sanford?? He's not from a swing state, he didn't trounce his last opponent in that non-swing state, and by all accounts he's been one of worst governors in the U.S.

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1129509,00.html

Posted by: Martin4 | February 1, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Assuming that Senators McCain and Clinton are the ultimate nominees for President, what would be the reaction if McCain publicly offered the Vice Presidency to Senator Obama as a way to heal the polarization of the political process?
Does Senator McCain "win" even if Senator Obama spurns the offer?

Posted by: mousytongue | February 1, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Is Al Gore any chance at all to be Obama's running mate??

Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 1, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

On the Republican side, how about Mel Martinez? Hispanic, Senator from Florida - the ultimate of swing states.

Posted by: tjs_dc | February 1, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Jim Webb should be on that list.

Posted by: unitedeed | February 1, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure if Biden would make a good Obama running mate when it comes to carrying a state (since a governer might be better for Obama),but Biden seems like a great choice. Anyone remember when Obama and Biden were praising each other at a debate (I think it was the Des Moines Register one?), it looked like a great ticket.
http://www.obamaworldwide.com/SupporterMap.aspx

Posted by: ObamaForPrez | February 1, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

No Daschle for Obama, he should just shoot himself in the foot. Edwards was known to be a horrible runningmate for Kerry, Edwards acted like he was running for president always on his own message. Edwards would be a fine AG. McCaskill would be Okay, she has been in the Senate even less time then Obama. Kaine is a maybe, Virginia is a swing state this time around, but Kaine is kinda funny looking, that may get more press then it should.
No Wes Clark, I have only heard bad things about his leadership and management styles.

I do like Sebelius, she is a woman, and a governor, from a Conservative state, she could play well in her neighboring states Missouri and Colorado, and it would bring the change people look for beyond the typical white guys.


Posted by: sjxylib | February 1, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

'The WSJ and WP note that Bush's budget for 2009 will break the $3 trillion mark for the first time. The budget, which will be released Monday, also projects that federal budget deficits will increase to about $400 billion. In order to get the budget balanced by 2012, it will call for "a virtual freeze" on domestic spending as well as huge cuts in entitlement programs, particularly Medicare.'

All going according to plan. Borrow and spend like drunken sailors [especially on huge no-bid contracts to cronies] privatize and outsource everything, then declare poverty and steal the retirements of the whole Baby Boom generation. Biggest robbery in history. Sweet.

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I see we have confirmation of what we suspected all along, McCain was in serious discussion to switch parties in 2001. In light of this, if Obama loses the nomination, McCain should pick either Jim Jeffords or Tom Dashle.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 1, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Obama will pick Mark Warner. Best balance of executive and business experience to complement Obama's background. Also, Warner's business experience is part of the new info/technology economy. It's the right match for what Obama would offer voters as the first true 21st century leader.

There is no reason why Warner couldn't keep his name on the ballot for Senate at the same time. Lieberman did it in 2000 without trouble. It would be different if Warner were facing real competition, but he's not. The governor of VA can then pick another Democrat to replace Warner if they win.

The most important reason to pick Warner is that it makes victory in VA very likely. That alone could hand them victory.

Posted by: dpoliner | February 1, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, I'm a bit confused about something. You guys in the mainstream media keep saying the GOP race is now a two-man race. So, it' Mike Huckabee and who else? I mean, between McCain and Romney, who are you guys leaving out?

Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com

Posted by: terrymitchell | February 1, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee won't add much to McCain -- he's got the same problems with the non evangelical base -- they think he's a 'liberal.'

Daschle is considered a wimp by many dems. Bayh is boring. Edwards would be good for either HRC or BHO.

Don Carcieri? Isn't he the Mayor of Baltimore on The Wire?

Somebody please hire Biden or Lugar to do sometinng important..

Posted by: drindl | February 1, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Tom Daschle for Obama's VP? Give me a break. He would, however, make a nice Interior Secretary.

To me, Jim Webb is the most attractive choice for the following reasons:
1. Change: Here is a new guy who just beat an incumbent Senator in Purple State Virginia.
2. Iraq: Webb was strongly against the Iraq war right from the start. As Obama put it, it's important to be RIGHT from the start.
3. Military Vet: With McCain as the Republican nominee, Obama needs to shore up his national security and military flank. Webb is a military vet against the Iraq war; this allows Obama that being against the Iraq debacle was not just morally or economically wrong, it was, as Webb emphasized, strategically wrong.
4. Electoral Dynamics: See point 1 above - Virginia is a purple State.

Posted by: mjames2 | February 1, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I haven't seen anything for Janet Napolitano yet. She is an extremely popular governor of Arizona (she actually polls higher there than McCain). This would also score points with the Latino community, as she must have their backing to be as popular as she is.

Posted by: mmpahl | February 1, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

It's obvious that The Fix is peppered with sports metaphors--and sports lingo. Why not open the little clubby group around the water cooler to include those who have no interest or passion for male team sports--by dropping the metaphors altogether?

Is that too much to ask? Once I read those metaphors and mentions in your column/blog, I'm tempted to go elsewhere--say another blogger or another East Coast newspaper of record--pronto.

Is it possible that you can keep politics and sports separate, you know, like the separation of church and state? *w*

Posted by: laloomis | February 1, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Also Richardson showed on the campaign trail that he is NOT ready for the primetime of a national campaign so drop it folks. IMO, Richardson is an empty resume. In addition there is no way that Obama picks another minority as a running mate.
Hillary is more likely to choose Obama as a running mate then Richardson, but if she did I don't think he would take it. He would be better served to stay in the senate. By the way Clinton has already promised it to Bayh. Bayh dropped out after raising some considerable money and looked good in the early chattering class, but then he went on a trip to Iraq with Hillary and came back and dropped out. Now tell me a deal wasn't brokered.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 1, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Whoever is nominated as the Demicratic presidential candidate should make sure NOT to nominate a senator from a state with a Republican governor as his Veep.

This effectively rules out the following senators:

Daniel Akaka (HI)
Evan Bayh (IN)
Barbara Boxer (CA)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Chris Dodd (CT)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Diane Feinstein (CA)
Daniel Inouye (HI)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Jack Reed (RI)
Harry Reid (NV)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

We don't have to give the GOP a senate seat giftwrapped as a consolation present should the Dem nominee win.

Posted by: fdewaele | February 1, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Ohhh Chris! What cowardice reigning here! Right now when the suspense is arguably at its zenith, and, with 22 states up for grabs, you see a PERFECT TIE between Hillary and Obama! How are we supposed to have any sort of edge in office pools without your sage guidance? We don't tune in to the Fix to see indecisive waffling--pick a winner, please!

Posted by: rob.hirtz | February 1, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

With McCain as a solid frontrunner now the Obama and Clinton picks have to be taken in light of him being the nominee. By the way McCain will pick Huckabee. He NEEDS to at least try and placate the evangelical voters, and he will pick someone with a positive message and who is strong on domestic issues.

For Obama I think the Clark pick would be good for National security, Bloomberg would be a good pick for the economy, and I also like the Sebelius pick to try and pull women to his campaign. Daschle is too partisan, IMO.
However, he needs experience AND independence so how about Bill Bradley? He is smart and has tons of experience and has been out of DC for 8 years now.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 1, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

How about Obama-Richardson, or Obama-Biden. Adding the knowledge and experience of either in foreign affairs would attest to strong talent picking abilities (see Clinton-Gore), and firm up his bonafides. He needs an experienced talent as VP.

Hillary needs a male governor or Senatorfrom a conservative state. How about Ben Nelson of Nebraska?

McCain should go with Lindsay Graham of SC. Another choice, Charlie Crist in Florida. Choosing Huckabee could help with the conservative wing of the Republican party, but Huckabee has more and more become identified with kooky out of the mainstream proposals that would turn off the moderates McCain appeals to and will need to win the election, since the Republican base may sit on their couches.
Romney would need someone highly respected for their work in Washington. Considering his shifting stands on issues, many choices would do.

Posted by: jaybrams | February 1, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Those are some fairly sound names, but I would be incredibly shocked if Edwards made it onto the Democratic ticket. The populace is going to want a fresh face, and his rhetoric against Clinton was very strong and his looser cannon this time around has alienated a lot of people. I think Kaine is an astute observation for Obama, after coming out for him so early, but Kaine hasn't had any real rough and tumble political battles just yet, and has a hell of a budget situation to confront this year. If I had to guess for each candidate:
McCain- Senator Graham (better-liked by conservatives, ally in Iraq and many other areas, charismatic and up and coming)
Romney- Senator Talent (more consistent social conservative who keeps Missouri out of play)
Clinton- Obama (Ugly fireworks have flown, and I'm much less confident about this than I was several months ago, but I still think she makes the move for purposes of party reconciliation, and he'd be a fool to turn down a chance to be next in line.)
Obama- Sebelius (Would it be better to have someone with extensive federal experience? Not really, the vice president is one of a bevy of advisers and people who will be at Obama's disposal to fill the experience gap. The person on the actual ticket should also be a Washington outsider and Governor Kaine just has too many other priorities at the moment.)

Posted by: steimelkb | February 1, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Two Words: JIM WEBB. He is the outsider appeal that is important in this election, while also having intense foreign policy and military affiars experience. To accompany his resume as Navy Secretary and author, he also comes from an increasingly purple (and populous) state: Virginia. Obama-Webb '08 even sounds good.

Posted by: bevens | February 1, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Mark, you stealing my ideas? I already posted that link in the last CC blog entry!

I guess you really are a Biden fan....

Posted by: JD | February 1, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Also a real long shot for Obama, is there a woman with national security experience? Jane Harman comes to mind, but she's not well known outside her So. Ca. district.

Also how about Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, or Jodi Rell for McCain, they balance geographically and gender-wise, but won't do anything to placate the Conservatives McCain needs to convince to come out in November.

Posted by: eemr | February 1, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

If Obama gets the nomination he will chose Wes Clark as his running mate. The fact that he Clarck is tied to the Clinton campaign, I beleive, makes him a more likely VP for Obama. It would be a show of party unity.

Posted by: charley.c.johnson | February 1, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama could pick Wes Clark as well as Clinton. I also think Biden and Jim Webb are possibilities for Obama - I think he has to go for someone with indisputable military/foreign policy experience and gravitas - any of those three would provide that.

Posted by: markstephenbell | February 1, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

I think you do need to ask yourself, if Hillary gets the nomination (and she would do so without my vote), who would be willing to insert themselves into a position with Bill Clinton being the First Gentle(?)man. It would have to be a pretty bland personality that's there for symbolic purposes only. He or she would not have a say in policy, nor even a job to do ...

Posted by: eemr | February 1, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Obama won't pick Mark Warner, Jim Webb or Claire McCaskill because they need the Senate seats that they either occupy or are running for. Richardson is not running for the New Mexico Senate seat this year-- Rep. Udall will be the Democratic candidate for that seat.

It's the economy, stupid.

Don't be surprised if Obama goes out and makes an unconventional pick (not picking a white southerner to balance the ticket).

Bloomberg won't run if McCain and Obama are the nominees because the centrists will be sucked up already and as much as the far right isn't happy with McCain, Bloomberg is even more liberal and New York cityish.

I would not be surprised if Obama chose Bloomberg, a progressive Independent with the most executive/business experience of any remaining candidate. This would help Obama with his lack of executive/economic experience and fit into the post-partisan concilliatory image he's going for.

He can always fit Edwards and Richardson into cabinet spots like Attorney General and Secretary of State.

Posted by: IndiePendants | February 1, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Interesting speculation. I feel that Hillary has a greater selection problem than Obama. Strickland's too new in office and won't bring much support in Ohio. Bayh's record or not, Clinton has a "Hoosier" problem, this one included. Also, he's dull, duller, dullest. WC, forget it. Richardson maybe, but his "change" mantra's closer to Obama. Edwards would make a great AG for either.

For Obama, a bit more choices. Don't think geographics are as important here, so Edwards is out and what other Southerner would be close. Richardson would be a great help with Hispanic vote. Like Mc Caskell, but Siebelius would make a strong statement to those "feminists" who bought into the "woman President" idea. She's articulate, grew up in Ohio, has mastered across the aisle politics in Dole's home state. Great asset and great future ahead of her.

Perceived "experience" issue on Obama might really dictate a Biden or Dodd, but I doubt if they'd want that. Biden's a slightly better bet here. As for Vilsack all I can say is "Who?"

Posted by: NoMugwump | February 1, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

On topic:

If HRC is the D nominee, McC would do well with Christie Whitman, who admittedly does not appeal to the base. There are other qualified women Rs too. Snowe and Rice come to mind.

If BHO is the D nominee, your list is as good as any for McC, but plus Rice and Crist, the one person who might turn a critical state in the election, as far as I can tell, rumors be damned.

If BHO is the D, he could use Wes Clark even more than HRC. It would be a token to the HRC folks, and Wes Clark was a vocal critic of the Iraq resolution at the time, because he said the DOD had no plan beyond the initial strike [speech in Oct. 2002].

And while Daschle is very competent and well liked in DC, that adds more to HRC's ticket than to BHO's. HRC will need a bridge to the Senate, but not much more, b/c WJC takes up all the availabble room. So Daschle, as VP, can really serve the role LBJ served for JFK.

Notice that I have not talked electability b/c I do not think that is important in a VP today.

BHO's strongest VP choice would be JB - adds gravitas, could have a foreign policy brief, and can bridge to the Senate.
BHO served on the SFRC under Biden and Lugar, and if he named Biden as VP and Lugar as SOS, it would not actually surprise me.

Off topic, Dionne made bhoomes' point today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013102547.html

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

The best choice for McCain is not on your list, Charlie Crist, Gov of Fl., who did more than anybody to help McCain, and who is popular in a state both sides need.

As an Ohioan,I can tell you Strickland is quickly losing his popularity, He's been in office for over a year and the state economy still stinks. No more excuses, Ted. Plus putting an intern in charge of sensitive information is not very smart management.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 1, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

On the McCain list one must consider the "Independent" Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Governor Charlie Crist of Florida.

When considering the choices an Obama campaign on that list one would have to include Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (although with these two Webb as Sec. Def. and Richardson as Sec. State are rather obvious as is former Senator Edwards as Attorney General), dark horses include Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee & (because of her primary support for Clinton) would be Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington.

For Clinton there is only one choice, weather in practice or reality and that is Bill Clinton.

The choices listed in the piece are otherwise thoughtful at this juncture.

The one observation I would make is any talk of a Obama/Clinton ticket or vis a vie simply is not in the cards.
You could find better odds of a McCain/Romney ticket.
Anyone who knows these folks will see the obvious humor here.

Posted by: paul94611 | February 1, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama: Jim Webb. He's going to want to sure up on national security, and Wes Clark is taken.

Posted by: poopmanchu | February 1, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

It's silly to include frosh McCaskill on Obama's list. No matter what he says, he needs experience on the ticket. Edwards has the best chance.

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

Posted by: parkerfl | February 1, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Who won the CNN Democratic Debate in California?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1669


.

Posted by: PollM | February 1, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

I hope Hillary picks Richardson! If the Clinton/Obama ticket was a reality, it would get a ton of votes, but wouldn't really be a wise fit.

Also, as an Ohio resident who voted for Ted Strickland -- he's also a good choice!

Posted by: trisha2 | February 1, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Chris, why not analyze an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket?

Posted by: nat22784 | February 1, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

If Obama were to pick Tom Daschel, I may puke.

The absence of Hillary from Obama's list is notable, but certainly warranted.

The perfect running mate for Obama is Wes Clark, but as Chris said, he's too closely tied to the Clintons.

Posted by: marcogori001 | February 1, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Mark Warner is a virtual shoe-in for a Dem pick-up in the Senate - this is very important.

Why wouldn't Richardson be a natural VP choice for Obama? He would bring the foreign policy experience that Obama is missing to the table. The problem with Richardson is that he would be good in so many roles in an Obama administration. To me, this seems to be an unbeatable team.

On the other hand, isn't it still possible for Richardson to run for the open Senate set in New Mexico? It would be another really great shot at a Dem pick-up. . .I am betting, though, that he won't and will hope to be picked up as VP. . .

John Edwards is NOT a good choice for either candidate - he cannot deliver North or South Carolina and, anyway, he will be fabulous as Attorney General for whoever is in the White House.

Posted by: goodwater1 | February 1, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

No Mark Warner?

Also, wouldn't Obama need someone with more foreign policy experience, like perhaps Biden?

Posted by: th | February 1, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

The question that should have been asked of Hillary last night is this ...

"Ma'am, your husband's presidency was marked by scandals running from the salacious to national security, you've run a campaign based on race coding, and both you and your husband have scant regard for the truth.

"What could you possibly say to young people, what could you possibly bring to the table, for those who need to hear a message of honesty and integrity, as personal responsibility is the cornerstone of government accountability?"

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 1, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company