Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: Picking Early?

Two news items over the past 24 hours have kicked the veepstakes into high gear.

Item one: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is hosting Govs. Bobby Jindal (La.) and Charlie Crist (Fla.) as well as former governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney (Mass.) at his ranch in Sedona over the Memorial Day weekend. McCain aides argue it is purely a social call; sharp observers beg to differ. This strikes The Fix as an early tryout; a meet and greet session designed to allow McCain to figure out whether he has a rapport with any (or all) of the three men.

Item two: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has initiated the early stages of his vice presidential selection process, tasking Jim Johnson -- the man who handled the veep vetting for Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) in 2004 and Sen. Walter Mondale (Minn.) in 1984 -- to begin a "top secret" (not so secret now!) search for his second in command. Obama has played down but not denied the story.

With the press in full flush over who each man will pick more than three months before the national party conventions get started, it raised the question whether Obama or McCain are considering naming their veep pick early -- a break with tradition that would draw HUGE amounts of press coverage.

We've written before about the potential benefits to McCain of making an early pick -- the most obvious of which is to show the unity of the GOP even as Democrats litigate how to make peace between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). For Obama, an early pick -- depending on who he went with -- could reinforce his core change message or assuage doubts about his ability to reach blue collar voters.

For today's Wag the Blog question, we want to hear from you on the upside (and downside) of McCain and Obama naming their vice president early this summer. Whether you think it's a good idea or not, do you think either man will follow that course? Why or why not?

The most thoughtful/insightful comments will be excerpted in a post of their own this weekend. Sound off in the comments section below.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 22, 2008; 6:25 PM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Campaign Jingles!
Next: Friday House Line: Dems Could Gain 20 Seats

Comments

"Vivaldo," if you had been paying attention, you would know that Hillary is the one who pushed use of her full name, meaning middle name as well. It is unusual in this country for someone's middle name or even middle initial to be referenced, particularly on a continuous basis. Hence, it would make no sense to include 'Hussein' or 'H.' when referring to Obama. This has nothing whatsoever to do with disrespecting Hillary, but when one is grasping for straws, I guess anything will do, eh? ;-)

JoeM

Posted by: JoeMac | May 28, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I am still puzzeled at the American media for conscientiously omitting Sen. Barack Obama's middle name. Isn't it Huseein? So why does the media omit his middle name?
Isn't it bias against Sen. Clinton whose full name always appears in the media?

Can anyboy clarify this for me?

Posted by: Vivaldo Latoche | May 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I am still puzzeled at the American media for conscientiously omitting Sen. Barack Obama's middle name. Isn't it Huseein? So why does the media omit his middle name?
Isn't it bias against Sen. Clinton whose full name always appears in the media?

Can anyboy clarify this for me?

Posted by: Vivaldo Latoche | May 28, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I am still puzzeled at the American media for conscientiously omitting Sen. Barack Obama's middle name. Isn't it Huseein? So why does the media omit his middle name?
Isn't it bias against Sen. Clinton whose full name always appears in the media?

Can anyboy clarify this for me?

Posted by: Vivaldo Latoche | May 28, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I am still puzzeled at the American media for conscientiously omitting Sen. Barack Obama's middle name. Isn't it Huseein? So why does the media omit his middle name?
Isn't it bias against Sen. Clinton whose full name always appears in the media?

Can anyboy clarify this for me?

Posted by: Vivaldo Latoche | May 28, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

In doing so, Clinton and her husband seem to be laying the groundwork -- whether unconsciously or consciously -- to go back to Democratic voters if Barack Obama comes up short in November with a very concise message: "Told you so."

Need evidence? Look no further than comments made by former president Bill Clinton during a campaign stop over the weekend in South Dakota.

"She is winning the general election today and [Obama] is not, according to all the evidence," the former president said, according to CNN. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."

=====================
Well, Mr. Fix, how is that "evidence" she's preparing to say "I told you so"?

That was an accurate observation about how she has been insulted and attacked without an ounce of media self respect as a source of "fair" analysis.

HILLARY WILL NOT NEED TO SAY "I TOLD YOU SO".

IT'S US, THE PUBLIC WHO WILL SAY IT.

Posted by: NOBAMA | May 28, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

I find it important to note that the polls indicating Sen. Clnton would beat John McCian over Sen. Obama, in the so call swing states are predicated on the primary election not being over, thus, having many voters for Clinton still hoping for a win not waying in on the side of Sen Obama. Something that Sen. Clinton promised would happen if and when Obama is declared the nominee with her help. I quote: "I will give him my full support".

Posted by: Bruce Conward | May 28, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

For Obama I like VP choices Clark or Richardson.

For McCain, anyone but Mitt "moneybags" Romney who wants to buy the presidency and sell illegal immigrants out to his racist supporters he bought when he paid off Tom Tancredo's campaign debt. Now THERE'S some good commercials for the Democrats, replaying Mitt's immigrant-bashing and pandering comments...

As for Dick Cheney for McCain, if that was a joke, that a good one.
McCain could then go one further and give Cheney's "friend" and former company Halliburton another multi-billion dollar no-bid contract for that Iraq war he defends so shamefully. Iraq is not Afghanistan. Sadam Hussein did not attack us. Al-Qaida attacked us. Osama Bin-laden attacked us.

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 24, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

So the Primary race is finally accepted as over...
still, here's a new poll
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/05/new-swing-state.html


Today a new Survey USA poll finds Obama would beat McCain by 9 percentage points in Ohio. The company also finds he would beat McCain by 7 points in Virginia. Other new polls show both Democrats with double-digit leads over McCain in California.

Rasmussen Reports also has new polls today; they show Clinton and Obama defeating McCain in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, Clinton by bigger margins. Earlier this week the company found Obama and McCain in a statistical tie in Ohio. Obama would win Colorado but Clinton would lose to McCain there. The results were reversed in Nevada.

Posted by: eljefejesus | May 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


@@@@@@@ OBAMA -- LEAHEY '08 @@@@@@@@@@@@@


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | May 23, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama should consider Jane Harman: mature, experienced, DLC Blue Dog, someone who isn't too obvious, from one of those "big" states, foreign policy/intelligence wonk, mollifies AIPAC, won't upstage the top of the ticket, and would keep the Speaker guessing

Posted by: Linny | May 23, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I would certainly be disappointed if Obama picked that awful, race baiting wretch Hillary. McCain needs to shore up the right...perhaps he'll pick Hillary.

Posted by: gmundenat | May 23, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I also think Wes Clark would be an excellent VP pick. (Disclosure: I supported General Clark for president in '04 and still think he would make a very good president, which should probably be the number one consideration anyway.) Beyond that, while I think there would be all kinds of problems with an Obama-Clinton ticket (and White House), picking a Clinton supporter like Gen. Clark would be a unifying move, and McCain is sure to make foreign policy/national security the focus of his campaign; what better way to counter that than with someone of Gen. Clark's experience? (Biden might also be a good choice.)

Posted by: bsmd | May 23, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

McCain should pick the most experienced person for VP - Dick Cheney

Posted by: Peter L. | May 23, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"An early selection by Obama means that even more people will be alienated because their vote doesn't count. When a primary is won early and decisively it is different, but this time even the last primary plays an important role.
There is no way for him to win in the general election if 50-60% of the democratic voters feel slighted."

Bravo! That is why people call Obama supporters "Obamabots". They cannot see simple logic like the above. Obama may have won on delegates, states won (a dubious honor), and maybe popular vote (depends on how you count it). But all were way too close to say he "kicked butt". Plus he limped into the nomination with a string of high profile defeats (Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky) with a smaller number of wins (Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Guam, Oregon). I would say HRC "kicked butt" the last couple of months.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

McCain's best VP choice is Tom Ridge. His resume is pretty impressive. He has far more government executive experience than both Obama and Clinton. Ridge served as a member of the United States House of Representatives (1983-1995), Governor of Pennsylvania (1995-2001), Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (2001-2003), and the first United States Secretary of Homeland Security (2003-2005).

As first head of the Department of Homeland Security he did the nearly impossible. With the U.S. in danger of more terrorist attacks like 9/11 he brought 22 government agencies and 180,000 federal employees under one roof to protect Americans. There have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since. Try to get one federal agency to work efficiently, well enough 22.

As the popular Republican governor of Pennsylvania Ridge had a reputation for: fiscal conservatism and lowering taxes; balancing budgets; promoting technology businesses in the state; modernizing government services; and advocating children's healthcare programs. He even was considered environment friendly.

Ridge is a decorated war hero with a spotless Christian family man image and is a friend and supporter of McCain. They would work well together. He, like McCain, has a reputation as an independent. He was a law and order governor, against gay marriage, but considered pro choice on abortion. He won his races for Congress and governor with large majorities as a Republican.

Ridge would most likely put Pennsylvania and its 21 electoral votes in the win column for McCain. McCain would hit a HR with Tom Ridge. If McCain were elected I think Republicans, Democrats, and Independents would undoubtedly sleep more soundly knowing Tom Ridge would take over if something happened to McCain.

Posted by: BadgerOne | May 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"No on Webb--dems would be silly to give up such a prized senate seat in Virginia"

Posted by: scrapster | May 23, 2008 3:48 PM
___________________

Virginia has a Democratic governor (Tim Kaine), so the seat would remain in the party. And it's not up until 2012, thus giving Webb's successor a chance to rise or fall on his or her own merits.

Posted by: Vincent | May 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

pardon my earlier dyslexic post (not spell checked - sorry.)
But I just have to say to "I love it!" - quit being against things. Be FOR something. I am a baby boomer and have been a precinct captain for Obama here in CA. for over a year. Thousands of Boomers AND their kids are campaigning for him with all their hearts!

So don't bash the baby boomers! In fact, don't bash anybody! It's time to unite and the only bashing we should be doing is torward John McCain, his crazy right wing preachers, his notorius temper, and his campaign full of lobbyists! With so much flip-flopping in the past 4 years, it seems to me when people start paying attention, he's going to start looking a little less acceptable to those who threaten to vote for him if Hillary doesn't win the nomination - which cannot happen now (in a Democracy.)
The next time you want to start spewing hate, ask yourself - what would Barack do?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Okay.

Can't be Albright--wasn't born in the US
No on Bob Kerrey--he's a Clinton backer who's been really nasty towards Obama
No on Webb--dems would be silly to give up such a prized senate seat in Virginia

Posted by: scrapster | May 23, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

For Obama to come across as the unifier, he needs someone whose policy approach and background differ to provide a balance of representation. That rules out HRC right away. Colin Powell would be a great choice, since people unwilling to vote for a black man are already lost, and he is pro-choice and has about the best foreign policy resume of anyone on the planet. Chuck Hagel would be another good one.

For McCain, Colin Powell would also be a good choice, but McCain needs some youth and energy to balance his ticket. Crist is probably the best regional play. HRC might also be a good choice, since she is already experienced throwing mud at Obama and could bring women over.

Posted by: Wilbur | May 23, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

The question may be: "Can Obama Keep Hillary from the VP slot, even if he wants to?" The Vice Presidency is actually a separate vote at the convention, and Clinton has more than enough delegates to force this issue if she wants to (and we know she has enough hutzpah to do it!).

I can't understand why she wouldn't prefer to be Senate Majority Leader, but she will be in a position to get whatever she wants, if she is willing to push for it.

Posted by: windserf | May 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

If Obama doesn't want to pick Hillary, he needs to pick his VP early. Why? Because in the two or three weeks leading up to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, the media will be rampant in speculation in who they think Obama should pick for the nomination. When this speculation picks up steam, more and more people will beat the drums for Hillary to be on the ticket.

To avoid this (if Obama doesn't want Hillary to be his mate), Barack should make a surprise pick in July to avoid the Hillary drumbeats he is destined to hear in August. The more the drums beat for Hillary in August, the more her supporters will hope and demand he picks her. If he waits for those drums to beat and her supporters are disappointed that Obama didn't hear those drums, then a significant enough of those Hillary supporters may not touch the screen or pull the lever for Obama in November.

If Obama is 100% sure by June 30 that he doesn't want' to pick Hillary as his mate, then he needs to announce his VP running mate in July before the drums of August beat for her before the convention in Denver.

Posted by: Lance McCaffrey | May 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Romney is clearly McCain's best bet as the Republican vice presidential nominee from an electoral college standpoint. Romney, a Mormon, would help McCain defend the battleground states of Colorado and Nevada. Why? Because those two states have significant Mormon populations, and the Obama campaign have targeted these GOP leaning states as potential pick-ups in November.

Not only does Romney help McCain defend the combined 14 electoral votes of Colorado and Nevada, he could also assist the Arizona senator in picking off three Democratic leaning states: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Michigan. Sure, McCain won the New Hampshire Republican primary in 2000 and 2008 - but putting Romney on the ticket couldn't hurt his chances of winning this state that is heavily against the war in Iraq. Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and many New Hampshire cities are in the Boston television market. Plus, Romney finished a close second in this year's Granite State GOP primary. In what is expected to be a close fall campaign, putting Romney on the ticket will significantly increase McCain's chances of winning New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes - 4 electoral votes that Bush lost to Kerry in 2004.

General election polls show McCain is very competitive and in a statistical dead heat with Obama in Michigan. McCain actually won the Republican GOP primary in 2000, even though it was apparent at that point in the campaign that Bush would be the Republican nominee. Well, guess who won the GOP primary this year? You bet, Mitt Romney. The Romney name is still respected in Michigan, where Mitt's father was governor of the state. It's hard to imagine the Democrats recapturing the White House in a close election without winning Michigan's 17 electoral votes. Romney may be the difference between McCain narrowly losing and winning Michigan, a state that has not voted Republican in a presidential campaign since 1988.

Then, there is Massachusetts. Sure, Massachusetts is considered by many to be the bastion of liberalism. But general election polls throughout this spring show Obama narrowly leading McCain. If Obama does not strengthen his position in that state more consistently, former Massachusetts governor Romney could tip this state to McCain.

Romney could potentially help McCain defend 14 electoral votes (Colorado & Nevada) and assist McCain in picking up 23 electoral votes (Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Hampshire).

Finally, there is the issue of money: McCain doesn't have a lot of it and Romney does. I am not just talking about personal wealth, either. Romney demonstrated an ability during the GOP nomination fight to be a prodigious fundraiser, partly because of his ties to the business community and partly because of relationship with the Mormon Church. If McCain picked Romney, it would significantly improve his fundraising position.

A McCain-Romney ticket would be difficult to beat; and as a loyal Democrat, I don't even like Romney because he comes across to me as a slimy, phony charlatan. But he clearly is the best positioned to help McCain take a trip 1.2 miles down Pennsylvania Avenue from the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill to the residence of the White House.

Posted by: Lance McCaffrey | May 23, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain should go ahead and pick his running mate. This will show people that he's decisive and ready to take on anyone in the general election. Personally, I think he should pick Mike Huckabee b/c he's well-spoken, favored among the religious right, and looks good to take over after McCain.

Senator Obama should wait until every state has voted, hopefully Senator Clinton will have dropped out by then. Obama still needs to campaign by himself in the remaining primary states and then he can pick a running mate. He's got several good choices.

My first pick would probably be Bill Richardson b/c he brings the Hispanic vote, has good executive/foreign policy experience, and he looks good to take over after Obama leaves.

However, Senator Biden also looks pretty good. He may not help much with any one block of voters, aside from working white voters, but he has the much needed foreign policy experience to run a White House. He is also very eloquent which combined with Obama's great oratory, could be a powerful tool in the campaign.

I'd also just like to suggest an interesting pick. Chris Matthews. From his commentary on MSNBC, he seems to really admire Obama as well as he's got great name recognition. Plus, he would bring the "Hardball" to Obama's positive message.

Posted by: Austin Redmon | May 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I see no advantage to picking a VP early. The only press that matters in the summer is bad press. Bad press will partially sink into the voter's mind, but good press is ignored. Voters don't pay attention until after Labor Day so the "grab a week's worth of news cycles while we can" argument is a false argument. The only people listening are junkies who have already made up their mind.

There is a reason you always chose to play defense first in college football overtimes. You know whether you need a touchdown or a field goal to win. Since McCain's convention is last, he has the advantage. The Democrats know who is being considered. But they have to make their pick without being certain how McCain is going to break. Will he sew up FL with Crist, will he try a double play with Jindal, or will he blow it and pick Pawlenty or Romney? By forcing Obama to go first, McCain can counter pick.

Obama's best move right now is to hang out with everyone who could be a plausible running mate. Make the Republicans run around in circles investigating and positioning paper everyone who has ever held the position of town dogcatcher as a Democrat.

If either candidate picks early, it just means their opponent's couple dozen investigators can focus their efforts on one person. Strategies can be formulated, lines of attack focus group tested, ads filmed, and all of it in August when their is more time. There are very good reasons why candidates wait until the convention to announce their running mate.

And what the hell is up with Obama's VP point man??? Granted, there was no one Mondale could have selected in '84 that would have changed the final outcome, but she was a gimmick pick. And he followed that up with Edwards over Graham? Kerry would be President running for reelection if he had selected Graham. If Gore had selected Graham in 2000, FL would have been his: no recount, no hanging chads, no Supreme Court chicanery. So Kerry had a road map of what to do and he still got sidetracked. This is the first thing Obama has done to make me question him as a possible President.

Posted by: muD | May 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama2000 says "Since McCain is ahead, Obama could be doing his homework early IF he's the nominee,"
WHERE EXACTL IS McCAIN ahead?? In todays Real Clear politics polls average - Obama leads by 5 points, Hillary by 2 points. He has flip flopped on every issue he's got and all he can use his is age and life experience - not common sense, not statsmanship, not intelligence or knowledge of world diplomacy. Being a POW doesn't amke you a great military strategist.
Like many leaders in business know, people like...oh, Warrnet Buffett or Bill Gates - they don't cliam expertise in every field. They bring together the best and the brightest. This is what Obama will do to lead us out of the messwe are in.
No one is mentioning Wesley Clark? He is from the Clinton camp, and look at this from wiki:
Wesley Kanne Clark (born December 23, 1944) is a retired four-star general of the United States Army. Clark was valedictorian of his class at West Point, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he obtained a degree in PPE (Philosophy, Politics & Economics), and later graduated from the Command and General Staff College with a master's degree in military science. He spent 34 years in the Army and the Department of Defense, receiving many military decorations, several honorary knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Posted by: sheridan1 | May 23, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden is the strongest ticket since Biden's long experience in foreign relations is unparalleled and he will need this to combat the republican's traditional strong suit.
Hillary would make for a weak ticket because of her high negatives and also with 6 months to go, Obama can bring her people into the fold, I don't believe in big defections from her supporters.

Posted by: KG | May 23, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama may be beginning the proces, but I'll bet he doesnt' end it until eitehr the Clintons face reality or the convention opens -- whichever comes first.
I would love to see his choice be Sen Feingold, butt he odds are against it.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | May 23, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

AJ is right, rednecks will never vote for an Indian. He's not dark enough.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't care who Osama picks, I wouldn't vote for him and I wish folks would stop talking about Clinton being that losers VP. They should be asking if Clinton would accept Osama as her VP, and the answer is NO! She would lose 30% of those who vote for her with Osama as her VP. Yes, Osama is that worrisome to voters.

Posted by: lil | May 23, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Have any of you realized that the nominee for the Democratic party has not been chosen yet? This election will not be over until November, so, who knows what will take place between now an then? I certainly do not and neither do you! So it is not the time to be talking about a VP yet. We have to have a candidate first and so far that has not been accomplished!

Posted by: smaggie | May 23, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

If I were Obama, I go for Diane Fienstein. That would get the oder women, for sure.
Just for the record, I'm 71, white, female, and sick unto death of Hillary. I can't believe I'm the only one!

Posted by: Alice Blair Wesley | May 23, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

re: Christy1947 | May 23, 2008 11:33 AM

Webb would be perfect if he didn't have a history of saying pretty nasty things about women in the military. But he does.

Posted by: aleks | May 23, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

With each passing day that Mrs. Clinton's quixotic cause continues to divide and embitter Democrats, her selection as veep becomes increasingly problematic. A concession should be forthcoming posthaste if her candidacy is to be considered as a net benefit to Obama. As far back as Aesop we have multiple object lessons on how the determined pursuit to have it all leaves the greedy aspirant with nothing.
Is it a good match along purely pragmatic lines? Most definitely.
Does he need her to win? Probably not.
Will it require a lot of mutual forgiving and forgetting? You betcha'.
Is it in the best interest of party unity and national healing? Certainly.
Will he (and Michelle, of course), or won't he? Your call here - I suspect that he ultimately will for the healing/unity considerations involved.

Posted by: Kevin | May 23, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The choices for McCain are limited. His VP must be able to shore up his shaky ties to the conventional Conservative Right base, including the Religious Right, on whom he cannot call on his own. At the same time, he must be one who can independently assure voters that he can step in at once if McCain becomes too ill to serve or dies. All of the choices are bad for that. Huckabee is charming and takes the religious right but has bad Christian militia background and supports Fair Tax and other radical adjustments of the Federal profile. Rudi is just plain toast. Romney has already lost in a way that makes his acceptance by the factions needed by McCain dubious. Being what he is, McCain may pick either Charlie Crist of Florida or Lieberman, but neither would be a strong choice and Lieberman has turncoat issues, which would not please the Conservative Right. There are also gay whispers about Crist which, if true, would blow up the ticket, and would damage it on a whisper level, true or not.

Obama has a different problem. Its name is Hillary. The first characteristic of a VP is one who will watch YOUR back, and support YOUR programs, and then not be a separate source of flak. On those tests she fails. Her attempt to blackmail herself into the post, give me what I want or I will split the party, have helped nothing, and his base loathes her. And Bill is a loose cannon who could never be trusted not to potsy and try to convert the VP into a co presidency triumvirate.

Jim Webb would be a good choice since he is more conservative but still a good Dem, has military and foreign policy background and has direct input to the Appalachian voters seen as Obama's greatest weakness. His problem is a womens' issues weakness. All the women floated would solve the womens' weakness issue but don't supply the military or foreign or Appalachian problems, and none of them is well known outside political junkie circles. Edwards doesn't really have a base even in his own region. Colin Powell would be wonderful but it's too much of a single good thing on a ticket in 'first' position. If there had previously been a black 'first', it might be more doable, but not this year. Personally I would like Webb.

Posted by: Christy1947 | May 23, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse


The reasons for starting the vetting process early are many and obvious. To name two: 1) the more time you have to vett a potential running mate, the more likely you are to find any problems, and 2) the more time you have to pick and name an alternate, if your first pick(s) don't pan out.

Actually naming the running mate before the convention shortens the vetting process. Of course, the press scrutiny of various potential running mates is invaluable as a vetting tool, so a certain amount of intentional leaking or 'trial balloons' by surrogates may be advisable.

A formal announcement of a running mate should be made at the convention, or potentially in the run-up to the convention (weeks, not months).

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 23, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Anyone thought about Bob Kerrey. Has all of the things Sen. Obama might want in a running mate.

Posted by: JB | May 23, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Both candidates must and will pick their running mates early. McCain is in desperate need of a loyal surrogate who can wrestle the media spotlight away from Obama and replenish the campaign coffers with ample funds, not to mention lingering conservative skepticism of their party's standard-bearer's credentials. Additionally, with the economy teetering on the brink of a recession, McCain needs a running mate with strong domestic policy credentials to compliment his own in the realm of foreign policy.

Obama's need to unite the party at this relatively late juncture is even more obvious. In a Democratic primary where demographics became the decisive variable, Obama must overcome the hesitation of white middle and lower class voters to look elsewhere. Moreover, as the campaign rhetoric has shifted once more to foreign policy, Obama needs a trusted hand with credibility on national security issues to buttress his shallow record.

Posted by: Shawn Healy | May 23, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone given thought to Obama chosing Medeline Albright as his VP? She balances out his lack of foreign policy experience and she could help unify the party since she was a member of the Clinton party. The only drawback would be her age.

Just thought I would ask and see what ya'lls opinions are.

Posted by: Longhorn David | May 23, 2008 10:38 AM

Yes! Then I remembered that she's foreign born and can't be President.

Posted by: aleks | May 23, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone given thought to Obama chosing Medeline Albright as his VP? She balances out his lack of foreign policy experience and she could help unify the party since she was a member of the Clinton party. The only drawback would be her age.

Just thought I would ask and see what ya'lls opinions are.

Posted by: Longhorn David | May 23, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

All of this illogical nonsense about Hillary is ludicrous.

She has more experience than Obama. That is a fact. Yet he kicked her butt in total delegates, supers, popular vote, and states won.

Everything else she and her clowns spew is, as David Paterson said yesterday, logical only to those who are out of their minds.

She lost. Get over it.

Plus, and I repeat myself, if Hillary were to be Obama's veep, he'd have to worry about "dying" like Vince Foster, and making sure Bill did not try to leave anything on Michelle.

Posted by: jeffp | May 23, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Donna, With all due respect, comparing Hillary Clinton with Rosa parks is a major league insult to the memory of Ms. Parks.

Rosa had class, and integrity. Rosa stood for principals, and was willing to sacrifice her own life and lifestyle for the good of her fellow men and women. Rosa was a true hero.

Hillary shares none of these qualities.

You owe Rosa an apology.

Posted by: jeffp | May 23, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Oh yes Colin Powell, the man who lied to us at the UN about Iraq is someone he should want to be edorsed by.

Posted by: Lechtman | May 23, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Mitt spoke at a Regent commencement so I guess he sees nothing wrong in Pat Robertson's ridiculous prophesies and warnings, telling us who God is angry with and who God is punishing and who should be "taken out.". I guess Mitt watches the 700 Club pay-for-pray tv show and "touches his tv screen for a miracle" as Pat Robertson often tells his viewers they should do.


I hope this will bring Pat and Gordon Robertson out into the light of day and finally the media will have a reason to expose those two lying, greedy frauds.

Posted by: Cheryl Spencer | May 23, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Why Hillary should not be VP:

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html

Friday, May 23, 2008
Head of State: The Reasons That Hillary Should Not Be Vice President

Regarding Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate.

Originally, this seemed to be a potentially plausible choice--and if presented in the following way, could turn her divisive campaign into a potential coup as a VP candidate. The thinking was the following:

Hillary has run a divisive campaign. Now, just as the nation should mend its divisions in favor a greater unity that would serve the greater needs of our country, so now they would explicitly put these divisions behind them, in the interests of the unity that this nation, after a bitter and divisive Administration, is so in need of. This would serve as a powerful and vibrant example of the very ability to unify that Obama both offers and represents.

However, this would require a candidate that was willing to take such a position of relative shared selflessness in the interests of a greater good--while the Vice Presidency certainly offers its honors (now far beyond the "warm pitcher" of John Vance Garner's famous phrase) and positioning for later Presidential aspirations, such a plan would require the ability to think in terms of a shared effort based on the betterment of the nation, rather than in more grasping, combative and singular terms.

The Clinton camp's behavior over this past week has made such a positive scenario clearly untenable, showcasing the same characteristics that have signified her campaign throughout its long, chaotic, march--its contradictions of previous statements when such changes have a slight possibility of adding a week or two of vitality, its sudden and implausible use of populists guises and specious historical parallels for transparently opportunistic purposes, its near-hallucinogenic transmogrifications of personality and central bases for further continuation,
and the central campaign tendency to place personal attainment over virtually all values that lay in its path.

These characteristics--self over nation, positioning over a consistent presentation of position, values and even self, the willingness to put personal viability over the need to transcend and transform the vast wreckage of state and international relations that remain at this critical time--are as present now, at a moment when wisdom rather than a remorseless, obdurate desperation could fill this gap, as they have been throughout much of the campaign. They would continue to make themselves present during a campaign for vice president, complicating, diminishing and often distracting, in trivial internecine battles, the message of unity and change.

The actions of the past week have made it clear: It's time to clean the slate. Hillary Clinton should not be the Vice Presidential candidate.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | May 23, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Telling Sen. Clinton to withdraw from this race before the Democratic convention is like telling Rosa Parks to step to the rear of the bus.

Posted by: Donna1000 | May 23, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

If McCain wants to win and let's face it he is going to have an uphill battle, he should reach across party lines and select Hillary Clinton. It would be good for the country to see that the parties CAN work together. It is not such a stretch given the fact that they are both moderates and like and respect each other and have worked together before. Granted this would be historic but it would be an absolute brilliant political move on McCain's part. If the GOP wants to win in 08 they have to try a different strategy and show that they care more about the country being united than they have in past 8 years. Obama is going to be tough to defeat and is ahead in the polls right now and McCain needs something really dynamic to overcome that. The really big winners in this scenario would be the country. We need strong and experienced leaders right now and not a rock star unproven novice.

Posted by: Janet | May 23, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

The meeting with Jindal, Crist and Romney is a dog and pony show. It doesn't tell you who will be McCain's veep, it tells you who won't -- those three. But now it can be said they were seriously considered, and McCain solidifies his role as party leader, and "knights" three lieutenants to the cause.

In this media age, these things have to be scripted, with a plot, to drag you along, and attempt to keep you from watching what's on the other channel.

It looks like Portman to me. Sorry to spoil the plot.

Posted by: Optimyst | May 23, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Dan M.: I wouldn't be surprised if Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama. He's made a few comments that seem to lean that way.

Posted by: Karen | May 23, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

The clear choice for McCain is former General Colin Powell. Senator McCain spoke of Powell quite often during his 2000 run for the White House saying he could serve in any part of his administration. Also, McCain has a great deal of respect and admiration for this man and both have extensive military experience. It doesn't matter who Senator Obama picks, Powell is the best and in my opinion the only choice. His other choices may have money, are beloved within the Republican ranks, or are not well known. All are a liability, so get the bumper sticker presses rolling: Strength/Wisdom 2008, Leadership/Service 2008 , Change with Vision 2008, or simply McCain/Powell 2008.

Posted by: Dan M. | May 23, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama can pick him early or late, but either way he needs to pick Joe Biden. He has everything the ticket needs. The two complement each other famously.

Biden is a white catholic male who has enough of an "average Joe" (pardon the pun) air to him, while carrying with him an unmistakeable gravitas and "elder statesman" quality that the younger and less experienced (but eminently inspiring and refreshing) Obama needs next to him. His knowledge and steadiness on foreign policy is respected not just by those of his party (recall the number of times his opponents in the presidential race simply answered "I agree with Joe" in the debates), but independents and Republicans by the legion.

He also authored the Violence Against Women Act, which hopefully will help bring the (understandably disappointed) Clinton voters on board. And he has the appropriate "attack dog" personality for #2 spot on the ticket (witness his response to Bush's recent "appeasement" bull). He is as close to a perfect fit as they come.

Posted by: Mark | May 23, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

two words: jim webb. he is a tough and independent voice of reason, who can help focus obama's attention squarely on working class white democrats and independents who will be vital to victory. he also helps neutralize any foreign policy weaknesses of obama and serves as an effective counter to mccain's military background. if obama can win virginia, he will probably be president.

Posted by: joshi | May 23, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@
@@@@@@@ OBAMA -- LEAHEY '08 @@@@@@@@@
@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | May 23, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

i do believe that both obama and mccain will name their veeps sooner rather than later. each in their own way face challenges in uniting their party and both have issues to deal with in certain constituencies.

mccain needs to reassure voters that he has someone with him, as he campaigns for the general election, that is a viable option in the event that some health issue should arise. no one wishes the senator ill health, however due to his advanced age, i believe that his party and supporters will feel more secure knowing there is an alternative in the event of a crisis. additionally, his associations with pastors hagee and parsley are not ones that help him with a younger, more "maverick" republican voter. having a younger veep will allow him the opportunity to connect with some of those voters.

for obama,(and for full disclosure i am a HUGE supporter of obama despite being a woman and being over 30 years old i continue to contribute to his campaign as well as participate in grassroots campaigning on his behalf:), he is going to need to have someone by his side to help ease the voters who are intimidated or unsure of voting for an african american man for president. additionally, having a running mate will allow him the room, opportunity and time to get into those small and/or larger towns/cities where he is not known so that people can find out who he is and then cast their votes for him. mccain is a known commodity for some if not most of those "swing voters" and "a known evil is better than an unknown evil"..or so it goes. obama and his campaign have run a fabulous primary race and i believe they absolutely understand the challenges before them and therefore understand the need to have a veep named sooner rather than later so as to afford them the opportunity to address the concerns and issues of the democratic voters. the smaller towns and older cities, etc. that is talked about as the places he is having difficulty getting votes are some of the places he will need to rally in..........most of the information those people may be getting about him is just little sound bytes off of the evening news that is digested and then shared at work the next day. if he is allowed the time and freedom that having a running mate will give him, then he can go into those places and hopefully allow those people to see who he is and get answers from him directly. additionally, choosing a running mate early affords him the opportunity to unite the party sooner after this heated and long running primary race.

both john mccain and barack obama seem to know how best to work through the web of politics.......obama i believe shows greater skill in working within while striving to stand apart, however, they are both aware enough as are their campaigns to know the value in choosing a running mate early in this very important general election.

Posted by: alex alexander | May 23, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

gala1:

"Obamabot" is an insult. It's telling that in the same breath, indeed the same SENTENCE, you say Obama supporters have nothing but insults you insult us by implying we are stupid.

As for "jumping the line", well the same statement could be applied to Hillary. She has held elected office for eight years. That is less time than Obama has held elected office.

What accomplishments can Hillary claim? Exclude her husbands accomplishments.

What has she accomplished since becoming a senator? This isn't insulting to ask. I genuinely want to know what you consider to be HER (not her husband's) major accomplishments.

She voted in favor of the Iraq war and.......?

I have met Obama personally. Have you? I can state for a fact that he is gracious and polite and not at all arrogant in person as you claim. In fact, your entire claim to his being arrogant seems to be that he "jumped in line" as you put it. As if the presidency had Hillary's name on it and it is somehow insulting that someone might oppose her for the nomination.

Frankly, it is that mindset that caused Hillary to lose in the first place. She did not take Senator Obama nearly serious enough. She assumed that this nomination would be over after February 5th and had no strategy for what happened afterwards.

When he racked up 11 straight primary contest victories in February, she lost this nomination. To me, that speaks volumes to the respective judgments of Obama and Hillary. Obama had this mapped out the entire way. He knew which states he would need to win and which states he had no shot at.

And now he has won. He will win in November. I hope that you and other Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton will be a part of this. If we truly share values, and you truly value the things that the Democratic party stands for and fights for, then you'll support Senator Obama who has EARNED the right to be the standard bearer of our party by winning the toughest nomination fight in recent memory and defeating an icon of the party in Senator Clinton.

Please come and join us.

Posted by: Jim Crozier | May 23, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary wrests the nomination away from Hillary" should read "Hillary wrests the nomination away from Obama"

Sheesh. That will teach me to proofread. Yuck.

Posted by: Jim Crozier | May 23, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

An early selection by Obama means that even more people will be alienated because their vote doesn't count. When a primary is won early and decisively it is different, but this time even the last primary plays an important role.
There is no way for him to win in the general election if 50-60% of the democratic voters feel slighted.

Posted by: RJB | May 23, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

"face right now" should read "fact right now"

Posted by: Jim Crozier | May 23, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

lylepink:

You don't seriously think that the Democratic race isn't over do you? Really?

Come on now. There is no way that Hillary will be the nominee at this point. I don't say this to be mean. It is just a face right now. He's way too far ahead in delegates for her to catch, way ahead in the popular vote (Even with Florida and probably Michigan too) and even ahead in superdelegates.

She fought a hard fight but she lost. That you're still suggesting Obama take the VP slot for Hillary is nothing short of complete arrogance and hubris.

She starts with every possible advantage from name recognition, to establishment support to money, to organization and he STILL beats her and you suggest he take the VP slot?

Not going to happen and you know it.

I can understand the pain that you and other Hillary supporters must be feeling. Really, I can. She was considered to be utterly inevitable and unbeatable. But think for a moment about what that says about both Obama's and Hillary's strength as a candidate that he won anyway.

If you really care about the Democratic stance on the issues and Democratic values, then you won't advocate some sort of weird scenario where Hillary somehow wrests the nomination away from Hillary via a combination of seating states that all parties agreed would not be considered in this primary calendar, backroom politics, and superdelegate overturning the will of the people.

It would absolutely and completely splinter the party and we both know it.

The gracious thing for Hillary to do at this point...

The correct thing for Hillary to do at this point...

...is to back out graciously and support the new standard bearer for the Democratic party. You may well think that the voters got it wrong. You may well think that it should have turned out differently. Judging by some of the comments in this thread you would not be alone.

But it didn't. Obama is our nominee. Let's help get the presidency for our party.

Posted by: Jim Crozier | May 23, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

There's a reason they call it The Silent Majority.

If they rejected Dean and Kerry as too unacceptable for the all-American mindset, how do you delude yourself about Obama.

I've been writing on the Huffington Post (and being systematically censored off) to keep Obama as Hillary's VP as the only way you'll see him around after November.
Hillary turns out to be the only way to keep Obama on a ticket.
Gotta love that to bits.

As a vice-president Obama can make it a winning ticket.
Bu without Hillary he can't win. With anyone else he probably won't win. He's not even on Google Spellcheck.

If you live in Flyover America, who in the Silent Majority can you actually see voting for him?
It's just delusion to think small-towners will go for this.
Why should they now?
And when have they ever?

Every maverick candidate has had the Common Touch.
Clinton, Reagan and even McCain have that approachable quality.

Obama doesn't.
He is stiff, awkward and remote and gives the distinct impression that he considers, just as Bush does, poverty to be contagious.
Even the bubble of handlers and True believers is too similar.

You are the ones, ironically, throwing away Obama's future.

He could have been in it for a sixteen year stretch, but by January he'll just have been another Icarus.
You want to gamble on this one, knock yourself out.

Someone else on here asked me why I'm voting for Hillary. In short I told her what I witnessed from her being around and accessible as my state senator.

You can't give me, or any one else, any tangible accomplishments for Obama that help anyone much other than himself.

It boils down to a couple of hundred million people asking that same bottom-line question of inexperience.
Obamabots have got nothing but insults as answers.

What no one seems to be asking is why anyone, given McCain as a very traditional alternative, would choose wartime and a time of financial distress to go with Obama, who can only offer rhetoric, ambition and displays fo past bad judgement.
It's like no one has ever heard of the concept of campaign promises.

This vote is sure not going to be from the resigned to voting for McCain, not politically involved, average rural citizens I've been talking to.

Until I moved out of the city into small towns, and realized what Rove had hit on, I was like you.
Thinking that what I wanted ruled instead of the reality of demographics.

Instead of fixing calamities, thanks to you, we''ll have another four years of the GOP.
The surest way to get McCain is to expect Obama.


But you could have had it otherwise.
You needed to jump the line instead.

-gala1

Posted by: gala1 | May 23, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

There's a reason they call it The Silent Majority.

If they rejected Dean and Kerry as too unacceptable for the all-American mindset, how do you delude yourself about Obama.

I've been writing on the Huffington Post (and being systematically censored off) to keep Obama as Hillary's VP as the only way you'll see him around after November.
Hillary turns out to be the only way to keep Obama on a ticket.
Gotta love that to bits.

As a vice-president Obama can make it a winning ticket.
Bu without Hillary he can't win. With anyone else he probably won't win. He's not even on Google Spellcheck.

If you live in Flyover America, who in the Silent Majority can you actually see voting for him?
It's just delusion to think small-towners will go for this.
Why should they now?
And when have they ever?

Every maverick candidate has had the Common Touch.
Clinton, Reagan and even McCain have that approachable quality.

Obama doesn't.
He is stiff, awkward and remote and gives the distinct impression that he considers, just as Bush does, poverty to be contagious.
Even the bubble of handlers and True believers is too similar.

You are the ones, ironically, throwing away Obama's future.

He could have been in it for a sixteen year stretch, but by January he'll just have been another Icarus.
You want to gamble on this one, knock yourself out.

Someone else on here asked me why I'm voting for Hillary. In short I told her what I witnessed from her being around and accessible as my state senator.

You can't give me, or any one else, any tangible accomplishments for Obama that help anyone much other than himself.

It boils down to a couple of hundred million people asking that same bottom-line question of inexperience.
Obamabots have got nothing but insults as answers.

What no one seems to be asking is why anyone, given McCain as a very traditional alternative, would choose wartime and a time of financial distress to go with Obama, who can only offer rhetoric, ambition and displays fo past bad judgement.
It's like no one has ever heard of the concept of campaign promises.

This vote is sure not going to be from the resigned to voting for McCain, not politically involved, average rural citizens I've been talking to.

Until I moved out of the city into small towns, and realized what Rove had hit on, I was like you.
Thinking that what I wanted ruled instead of the reality of demographics.

Instead of fixing calamities, thanks to you, we''ll have another four years of the GOP.
The surest way to get McCain is to expect Obama.


But you could have had it otherwise.
You needed to jump the line instead.

-gala1

Posted by: gala1 | May 23, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

There's a reason they call it The Silent Majority.

If they rejected Dean and Kerry as too unacceptable for the all-American mindset, how do you delude yourself about Obama.

I've been writing on the Huffington Post (and being systematically censored off) to keep Obama as Hillary's VP as the only way you'll see him around after November.
Hillary turns out to be the only way to keep Obama on a ticket.
Gotta love that to bits.

As a vice-president Obama can make it a winning ticket.
Bu without Hillary he can't win. With anyone else he probably won't win. He's not even on Google Spellcheck.

If you live in Flyover America, who in the Silent Majority can you actually see voting for him?
It's just delusion to think small-towners will go for this.
Why should they now?
And when have they ever?

Every maverick candidate has had the Common Touch.
Clinton, Reagan and even McCain have that approachable quality.

Obama doesn't.
He is stiff, awkward and remote and gives the distinct impression that he considers, just as Bush does, poverty to be contagious.
Even the bubble of handlers and True believers is too similar.

You are the ones, ironically, throwing away Obama's future.

He could have been in it for a sixteen year stretch, but by January he'll just have been another Icarus.
You want to gamble on this one, knock yourself out.

Someone else on here asked me why I'm voting for Hillary. In short I told her what I witnessed from her being around and accessible as my state senator.

You can't give me, or any one else, any tangible accomplishments for Obama that help anyone much other than himself.

It boils down to a couple of hundred million people asking that same bottom-line question of inexperience.
Obamabots have got nothing but insults as answers.

What no one seems to be asking is why anyone, given McCain as a very traditional alternative, would choose wartime and a time of financial distress to go with Obama, who can only offer rhetoric, ambition and displays fo past bad judgement.
It's like no one has ever heard of the concept of campaign promises.

This vote is sure not going to be from the resigned to voting for McCain, not politically involved, average rural citizens I've been talking to.

Until I moved out of the city into small towns, and realized what Rove had hit on, I was like you.
Thinking that what I wanted ruled instead of the reality of demographics.

Instead of fixing calamities, thanks to you, we''ll have another four years of the GOP.
The surest way to get McCain is to expect Obama.


But you could have had it otherwise.
You needed to jump the line instead.

-gala1

Posted by: gala1 | May 23, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

There's a reason they call it The Silent Majority.

If they rejected Dean and Kerry as too unacceptable for the all-American mindset, how do you delude yourself about Obama.

I've been writing on the Huffington Post (and being systematically censored off) to keep Obama as Hillary's VP as the only way you'll see him around after November.
Hillary turns out to be the only way to keep Obama on a ticket.
Gotta love that to bits.

As a vice-president Obama can make it a winning ticket.
Bu without Hillary he can't win. With anyone else he probably won't win. He's not even on Google Spellcheck.

If you live in Flyover America, who in the Silent Majority can you actually see voting for him?
It's just delusion to think small-towners will go for this.
Why should they now?
And when have they ever?

Every maverick candidate has had the Common Touch.
Clinton, Reagan and even McCain have that approachable quality.

Obama doesn't.
He is stiff, awkward and remote and gives the distinct impression that he considers, just as Bush does, poverty to be contagious.
Even the bubble of handlers and True believers is too similar.

You are the ones, ironically, throwing away Obama's future.

He could have been in it for a sixteen year stretch, but by January he'll just have been another Icarus.
You want to gamble on this one, knock yourself out.

Someone else on here asked me why I'm voting for Hillary. In short I told her what I witnessed from her being around and accessible as my state senator.

You can't give me, or any one else, any tangible accomplishments for Obama that help anyone much other than himself.

It boils down to a couple of hundred million people asking that same bottom-line question of inexperience.
Obamabots have got nothing but insults as answers.

What no one seems to be asking is why anyone, given McCain as a very traditional alternative, would choose wartime and a time of financial distress to go with Obama, who can only offer rhetoric, ambition and displays fo past bad judgement.
It's like no one has ever heard of the concept of campaign promises.

This vote is sure not going to be from the resigned to voting for McCain, not politically involved, average rural citizens I've been talking to.

Until I moved out of the city into small towns, and realized what Rove had hit on, I was like you.
Thinking that what I wanted ruled instead of the reality of demographics.

Instead of fixing calamities, thanks to you, we''ll have another four years of the GOP.
The surest way to get McCain is to expect Obama.


But you could have had it otherwise.
You needed to jump the line instead.

-gala1

Posted by: gala1 | May 23, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

There's a reason they call it The Silent Majority.

If they rejected Dean and Kerry as too unacceptable for the all-American mindset, how do you delude yourself about Obama.

I've been writing on the Huffington Post (and being systematically censored off) to keep Obama as Hillary's VP as the only way you'll see him around after November.
Hillary turns out to be the only way to keep Obama on a ticket.
Gotta love that to bits.

As a vice-president Obama can make it a winning ticket.
Bu without Hillary he can't win. With anyone else he probably won't win. He's not even on Google Spellcheck.

If you live in Flyover America, who in the Silent Majority can you actually see voting for him?
It's just delusion to think small-towners will go for this.
Why should they now?
And when have they ever?

Every maverick candidate has had the Common Touch.
Clinton, Reagan and even McCain have that approachable quality.

Obama doesn't.
He is stiff, awkward and remote and gives the distinct impression that he considers, just as Bush does, poverty to be contagious.
Even the bubble of handlers and True believers is too similar.

You are the ones, ironically, throwing away Obama's future.

He could have been in it for a sixteen year stretch, but by January he'll just have been another Icarus.
You want to gamble on this one, knock yourself out.

Someone else on here asked me why I'm voting for Hillary. In short I told her what I witnessed from her being around and accessible as my state senator.

You can't give me, or any one else, any tangible accomplishments for Obama that help anyone much other than himself.

It boils down to a couple of hundred million people asking that same bottom-line question of inexperience.
Obamabots have got nothing but insults as answers.

What no one seems to be asking is why anyone, given McCain as a very traditional alternative, would choose wartime and a time of financial distress to go with Obama, who can only offer rhetoric, ambition and displays fo past bad judgement.
It's like no one has ever heard of the concept of campaign promises.

This vote is sure not going to be from the resigned to voting for McCain, not politically involved, average rural citizens I've been talking to.

Until I moved out of the city into small towns, and realized what Rove had hit on, I was like you.
Thinking that what I wanted ruled instead of the reality of demographics.

Instead of fixing calamities, thanks to you, we''ll have another four years of the GOP.
The surest way to get McCain is to expect Obama.


But you could have had it otherwise.
You needed to jump the line instead.

-gala1

Posted by: gala1 | May 23, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Webb's the most sensible choice for Obama, and has the biggest upside. He has the foreign policy background, has roots in the GOP, is an economic populist, and could connect with the white blue-collar base that's eluded Obama. Moreover, the Democrats wouldn't lose a Senate seat, since Gov. Kaine could name a successor and the seat wouldn't be up for election until 2012. His only potential weakness might be among some elements of the female electorate who still recall his former stand on women in the military, but that would be relatively minor. Hagel would be a left-field choice (a Joe Lieberman in reverse), but would he mesh with the Dems on issues other than foreign policy?

Not sure about McCain's choices, but I think Romney and Huckabee are bantered about solely due to name recognition as a former candidate (a la Hillary, Edwards and to a lesser extent Richardson on the Democratic side). I simply can't see who best complements McCain from a political perspective...but as a Democrat, I must concede that I really don't care, anyway.

Posted by: Vincent | May 23, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Why do you care? You've already told us how the media will project these occurrences.

Posted by: SY | May 23, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

This is like negotiating the price of a house or used car. You always want the other person to go first (either naming their price, or naming their VP). Then you have the luxury of counterpunching.

Given their personalities, I'm guessing both candidates would love to get this step over with and have a second person to share the workload and watch their back, plus a major decision out of the way. But each one will want to wait for the other to go first. And before long, we're right back to the normal timeframe.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | May 22, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

For McCain, probably the better candidate to govern with would be Gov. Christ. Christ would solidify Florida as a Republican state in 2008. Bobby Jindal is at the McCain ranch just for a "fake" diversity photo-opportunity. Everything McCain has and will say about Obama's youth and inexperienced will be intensified by a factor of ten by having a 36-year Indian-American with name Piyush Jindal ("Bobby" is not his legal name) as his VP. There will be even more scrutiny on Jindal than Obama and you will see white-working class voters flock to Obama like he was a magnet.

Romney would be the best winning ticket for McCain, but McCain can't stand Romney. Romney no doubt does not think McCain can hold a candle to him in anything except military matters, so this ticket would have a governing problem.

I'll save my picks for Obama's VP slot once he is the "officially" nominee come June 4th!

Posted by: AJ | May 22, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I again remind all of you, nobody is the nominee yet for the Dems. I cannot see Hillary accepting the VP slot, but the other way [Obama as VP] is being talked about since three of the Key states for Dems, Ohio, Pa., and Fla. show Hillary winning all three, and Obama losing them, according to the latest Poll I've seen today. The Dems cannot lose any one of these Key five, which include Ky. and WV and have much hope of winning the GE. Do the math yourself and you will see the point I am making according to current trends and historical voting patterns.

Posted by: lylepink | May 22, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

You baby boomers have a lot to answer for. You've had a great party at your children's and grandchildren's expense. You've been willing to sell out your country and your offspring for a few dollars in tax cuts, as long as you get yours now! But SS is in trouble, so you expect us to bail you out, even though you kept voting in the very people who were raiding it. Buy hey, you got your $250 a year. Now Hilary and McCain invite you to sell out your country for a tank of gas, and you jump at it!
Our dollar is backed by CDO's, the very CDO's that caused Bear Sterns to fail, and you think this is okay, keep voting for the same people that brought us this problem.
Einstein said, you need a different approach to solve a problem than the one used to create it.
Your time is up baby boomers, let your responsible children and grandchildren pay your bills before it gets completely out of control. We're no longer willing to pass on the debt.
Your legacy will not be a favorable one. The first generation to leave this country worse off than when you found it. Ouch!
Let the forward thinking people take over and try to dig the US out of the hole that you created.
The party is over baby boomers, let gen x & y clean it up.

Posted by: I love it! | May 22, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

No matter who he picks as his VP the most Liberal and Inexperienced Senator in the US Senate will lose big to McCain.

His lofty speeches and rhetorics are getting old and monotonous already. Only fools believe in it anymore.

With the problems that we have today, the American people will not go for somebody that needs a babysitter in the White House. It's either you're qualified or you don't get elected at all.

We've seen the devastating results of that bad decision already during the last 7 1/2 years.

As for McCain if he really wants to eliminate any risks of losing he'll be wise to approach Hillary and choose her to become his running mate.

This will send a big message to the country that the end of the partisan divide is at hand especially those who want REAL and MEANINGFUL CHANGE.

With this historic union, we'll have a landslide and the country can move forward and prosper again.

Posted by: The Wiser Voter | May 22, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

No matter who he picks as his VP the most Liberal and Inexperienced Senator in the US Senate will lose big to McCain.

His lofty speeches and rhetorics are getting old and monotonous already. Only fools believe in it anymore.

With the problems that we have today, the American people will not go for somebody that needs a babysitter in the White House. It's either you're qualified or you don't get elected at all.

We've seen the devastating results of that bad decision already during the last 7 1/2 years.

As for McCain if he really wants to eliminate any risks of losing he'll be wise to approach Hillary and choose her to become his running mate.

This will send a big message to the country that the end of the partisan divide is at hand especially those who want REAL and MEANINGFUL CHANGE.

With this historic union, we'll have a landslide and the country can move forward and prosper again.

Posted by: The Wiser Voter | May 22, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Ah, but you have failed to consider another possibility, the benefits and dangers that Hillary might face in declaring her VP choice early.

I have considered her options and have come to (what some might say is) a remarkable conclusion.

See, Hillary is Ready to Declare her VP
http://msa4.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Mitchell in New York | May 22, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

No Nunn. He played a leading role in unleashing the dogs of war on Nicaragua during the Reagan years.

Posted by: newageblues | May 22, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

chris cillizza is a d*ck!!!

Posted by: sickofhermess | May 22, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I doubt either candidate will pick a VP too early. I suspect both will enjoy the free press coverage for thinking about, thinking about selecting a VP, and then announce in mid to late July.

McCain will not gain much from picking early, because he is almost certain to pick someone from below the Mason-Dixon. With such a predictable pick, it will not generate much excitement outside the conservative base, so it's better for McCain to wait.

Independents are still hopeful that McCain will select a VP who will challenge Obama's change theme, but that's highly unlikely with the GOP. So, McCain would be well served to hold-off and pick Gov. Crist after July 4th, because there is no realistic path for McCain without carrying Florida.

Obama might be tempted to end the silly "dream ticket" speculation, but he should wait until women voters (who threaten to leave the party) realize that McCain is a pro-life Republican. Not to mention, Obama still has rock star status among the MSM, so why not wait until that starts to fade? And it will.

If Only Obama goes against conventional wisdom and picks a women or another minority (i.e., Gov. Sebelius or Gen. Powell), would it warrant an early announcement. Sebelius would satisfy women and Powell would assuage fear of an assassination. (Surely rednecks would not trade a pretty good black President, for a really good one?) Jokes aside, Obama will pick a southern white male, with strong defense credentials (Sam Nunn or Jim Webb) or a swing state Clinton supporter (Gov. Strickland or Sen. Bayh).

Press advisors for both campaigns know very well that public interest will fall-off during the summer, so they will use the VP selection to gain attention. If anything, since nominating conventions are held later than normal, it is possible that they will milk this story into the first week of August.

Posted by: Outkast | May 22, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

It's an interesting idea to get the VP choice out in the open early in the general campaign. Both candidates -McCain and Obama- would benefit from a well-rounded ticket that is established early in the season.
There are obvious things to look for and they are all contrasts in order to achieve balance. McCain will need a young running mate, socially conservative but not polarizing; he would benefit from a Washington outsider and possibly even a corporate figure who can promte the GOP tenet of free enterprise -obviously, though, not an oil exec. McCain's choice must absolutely have no tie or received any benefit from the Bush administration in order to be viable.
Sadly, we must recognize the obvious in voter results from primaries like Kentucky and West Virginia, to acknowledge that Obama will require a White running mate. A racial contrast is probably a good idea anyway, although an intellectual equal will be imperative to sustain the energy of the Obama movement. Military credentials would help, though the absence of them, would unlikely be a factor in this particular year when domestic concerns outweigh foreign affairs so heavily in voter preponderance. There is no need to pander to the Clinton supporters by naming a woman since the decision would come across as forced. No Washington politico is going to work since Obam's entire campaign is change: the usual suspects -Bayh, Biden, Edwards- need not apply. It goes without saying that the choice should be young enough to be of the Obama generation.
Specifically, Obama would benefit from naming someone like Paul Hackett, who nearly secured a victory over Jean Schmidt in one of the most conservative districts in america -and would have if the Democratic Party had not bailed on his campaign. An Obama-Casey ticket would be very appealing as well, especially to the rural voters of Pennsylvania. There is, of course, a dream ticket -and not the one people are referring to- that would make Democrats young and old salivate if Obama should simply ask Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to run with him.
McCain's choices are more narrow, though you cannot discount possibilities like Carly Fiorina or Michael Bloomberg. McCain's best pick may be Rob Portman who despite his association in the Bush administration has not permantly soiled his career with that uncomfortable association.

Posted by: joneshn | May 22, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

the post down thread at 10:55 was by me, not McCain. I thought the name box was for an entry title. I'm a democrat and easily confused. Karen in SF

Posted by: Karen | May 22, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

The Dems should let McCain choose a VP early, and then sit on their choice until October. Let the GOP VP sit on his/her hands for the next 5 months. By the time the Dem VP gets around to them, they'll only represent just how irrelevent the GOP has become.
Obama '08.
Hilary just stole all his slogans.

Posted by: White Dave 4 Change | May 22, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a republican, but it seems to me that McCain is on a preventative roll of late: he doesn't want any controversies in his campaign late in the game, hence the "rejection" of Haggee and, I presume, Parsley in a short while. And he's probably getting rid of at least 25% of the lobbyists on his payroll.

McCain will need to shore up the religious right with someone who doesn't offend moderates. I think it's advantageous for the democratic voters if McCain picks early, so I'm hoping he will.

I look for him to make a bold choice right as Obama is acknowledged the Democratic nominee. I don't think it will be Crist (too much of a bachelor), Jindal (looks like he could be McCain's grandchild), or Romney (his religion would be a problem). I think these are courtesy interviews.

I wouldn't be surprised if he picked a woman to capture disaffected Hillary voters. The question is.....who?

Posted by: McCain | May 22, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Suggestions for the Obama campaign:

Kathleen Sebelius for VP.

Bill Richardson for Secretary of State.

John Edwards for Attorney General.

Hillary Clinton for the next Supreme Court vacancy.

These choices match each person up with their strengths, and comprise serious rewards.

Posted by: oldhonky | May 22, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I've heard Sam Nunn, the ex-Senator from Georgia, bandied about in the press. Obama would get nothing but grief for this pick. The lesbian and gay community would send up a howl of protest, since Nunn is (probably more than any other single person) responsible for the hated "don't ask, don't tell" policy of anti-gay discrimination in the military. If he wants to alienate himself from a key Democratic constituency, there could be few better ways of doing it than picking Sam Nunn as a running mate.

Posted by: BZ | May 22, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

McCain would be smart to wait and see who is opponent is. If it is Obama, he should pick a woman. If it is Clinton, pick an African American. That way he can take advantage of the disgrunted democratics.

Posted by: ragindemo | May 22, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

McCain would be smart to wait and see who is opponent is. If it is Obama, he should pick a women. If it is Clinton, pick an African American. That way he can take advantage of the disgrunted democratics.

Posted by: ragindemo | May 22, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Why is there an obvious name left off the Republican VEEP list-the man who has brought rationality and pragmatism to the conduct of the war in Iraq, has served his time in the military and may be the intellectual equal of anyone in either the Democrat or Republican party-Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense. Although he declined the position of director of Homeland Security, he has shown a willingness to serve this country, both between CIA employment and in his current position, and he provides the backup assurance that someone qualified would take over the Presidency if it came to that. Maybe I'm a little too optimistic about McCain's maverick willingness to go against the prevailing opinion, but quality is better than "swing state residency" anytime. As to Obama, I like Webb as many people have suggested-maybe he's learned by now that women can lock and load with the best of them.

Posted by: mesondk | May 22, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse


This is such spin s**t. Such Obama teat baby wipe media fed crap.

Obama is dizzy with ego. We are so going to not vote for this egomaniac.


FIGURE THAT OUT SOON


HE CANNOT WIN WITH 50% OF DEMOCRATS


HIS ONLY NEXT MOVE IS TO USE FEAR TACTICS

THE THINGS HE SPEAKS AGAINST IN HIS SPEECHIES


WE'RE SICK OF LOOKING AT HIM

WE'RE SICK OF HEARING HIM TALK

WE DON'T LISTEN

SO WE AREN'T IN THE DING DONG TRANCE THE OBAMABOTS ARE IN


WE DON'T DO THE DIZZY FOR THE DOLITTLE


THAT SIMPLE.


WE ARE ADULTS. NOT BLACK NECESSARILY. NOT YOUNG AND IMPRESSIONABLE. NOT GULLIBLE OR FIRST TIME VOTERS.


WE ARE THE DEMOCRATS THAT BUILT THIS PARTY


AND WE AREN'T VOTING FOR INCOMPETENT INEXPERIENCE


NOT THIS GUY


OBAMA = JOHN KERRY

TO DEMOCRATS


Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Who is going to be the Vice President in the Democratic and Republican party.

Posted by: Dennis | May 22, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

why is it assumed that getting Hillary out of the race sooner rather than later would help to unite the democratic party? has it ever occurred to anyone that many Democrats feel like the Democratic party has been taken away from them ; either because thier votes dont count (FLA MI) or no one wants to wait and see how the reminaing states vote ? The more Obama is forced on those who are uncertain, or simply havent seen enough tangible evidence to be convinced of his ability to really effect change, the more it serves to alienate a large portion of the Democratic base-it feels like one big F.U. -we have 50.5%-to hell with what the rest of you think. It might be democracy but its absolutely no differnt that the 50/50 split in the country right now-so much for the next great uniter! If Obama and company have already alienated so many Hillary supporters, what on earth do you think will happen when he gets to DC to deal with the Republicans-

Posted by: Nancy | May 22, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse


Obama is SO SMUG

Audacity is MILD

He looks JUST LIKE GW when he sat so cocky and assured that Florida had not gone to Gore.

Mr. Obama makes 50% of Democrats SICK

He's a house of cards

He's hobbling on one leg acting like he's WON

Big Reality Check coming up


watching a show re Andrew Jackson

It seems he went to Congress in the 1790s and was stifled

The Washinton elite were unimpressed with Jackson - the feelings was mutual.

He found it to be a place where people met in committees and did back room deals

Jackson despised back room deals.

It was a place where people traded favors with one another in order to get what they wanted - and Jackson thought that was hideously corrupt


Funny - Mr. Obama went to DC and fit right in - lots of favors and backroom deals.


Mr. Obama is NOTHING DIFFERENT AT ALL.


Mr. Obama is a player.


He's been lying to his "followers" for months on end.


He's so obviously "connected" in every way to the trolls and money. Behonden for eternity. He will get nothing done that isn't approved by the Boys Club.

That's why they don't like Hillary. She says NO to them.

Obama can't. Never will. He NEED THEM COMPLETELY. HE OWES THEM. THEY OWN HIM.

NOVEMBER = NOBAMA

WE THE INVISIBLE 50% DO NOT LIKE HIM OR "BELIEVE" IN ANYTHING ABOUT HIM

When will the Kool Aid wear off for the Obamabots and Obamatots?


Hopefully soon.

God BLESS America

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

After this campaign, no one should seriously entertain the idea that Senator Obama should select Senator Clinton as his running mate. No, No, a thousand times No. This would make the JFK-LBJ relationship look like a honeymoon.

Posted by: Karl Shipps | May 22, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Jim Crozier | May 22, 2008 8:04 PM: Would I have been upset if Obama lost? Hell yes! Would I vote for someone whose stances were the exact opposite of Obama's just to spite the person he lost to? Now that would be just stupid.
===

I completely agree. What comes next? If McCain loses, then they'll move to a country without democracy? (That'll show the b*st*rds.)

Posted by: egc52556 | May 22, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Also, I've got my fingers crossed that McCain doesn't pick Cheney to head up his VP Search Committee.

Posted by: novamatt | May 22, 2008 9:24 PM

-------------------
Unless he takes them hunting.

Posted by: Southern Old White Boy Against the Shrew | May 22, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Also, I've got my fingers crossed that McCain doesn't pick Cheney to head up his VP Search Committee.

Posted by: novamatt | May 22, 2008 9:24 PM

-------------------
Unless he takes them hunting.

Posted by: Southern Old White Boy Against the Shrew | May 22, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

The McCain machine has already begun an attack based on Obama's lack of military service vs McCain's prison camp heroism. To me this cries out for a Webb pick. He is a wounded Marine veteran, and holder of the Silver Star award. He is also smart, having become the originator of the Webb GI Bill, one of the most important pieces of legislation, politically and substantively, before the Congress, while in his rookie session. I also believe that his policy views are compatible with Obama's.

Posted by: John LL | May 22, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

my first thought is this..."why would one use jim johnson?"...given his track record on picking veeps, as well as his track record with fannie mae? having said this...

i'm thinking outside of the box, hagel...he has a grip on the current war...he's a veteran...has foreign policy experience...strong in substance, but wouldn't overwhelm obama...and the choice is thematic of obama's "change" campaign...reaching across party lines and such...

...in a more mainstream groove, webb.
webb, again, understands the problems of the war...he's a veteran...more well known than hagel and is "fluent" in the "hard working white american" mindset, specifically appalachian...he's also not afraid to go toe to toe against others in the political world...the down side, and it is minor, but i can see it being blown up into something everyone validates with ad nauseam attention, is this...an article he wrote way back when, entitled "women can't fight"...whether one agrees with it, or not, i can see it being a big, blustery can of worms...particularly if clinton's ardent female supporters feel that she's been summarily dismissed...and, not that it should matter, but i'd wager that it would come up, he's been married three times, i think...someone out there might feel compelled to pick at this scab...just a thought...

as to picking a woman or richardson, i think it may be too much for the conservative bunch to wrap their heads around...the "safety and familiarity" of a white male is still needed in this climate, unfortunately...

regarding mccain...someone young, vibrant, and steady...but who?

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | May 22, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has no "right" to be offered squat diddly, no more than Huckabee. She ran, she lost. Obama owes her nada. She's a liar, a criminal, Bill's henchman, will say or do anything, and isn't too bright. What a mess she made of her campaign; the only thing that worked was appealing to old women to vote for her because she is an old woman. Who cares?

Posted by: Southern Old White Boy Against the Shrew | May 22, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

You mention the gentleman who is helping vet the vice presidential candidates for Barack Obama. You also mentioned that he helped Senator John Kerry and Senator Walter Mondale. Senator is a job Mondale once held, but his status in 1984 was former Vice President. He left the Senate in 1977, never to return.

Posted by: Jay Adams-Feuer | May 22, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

The Florida and Michigan situations have potential legal tangles which could be reviewed.

To be brief, a political party does have a right to exclude based on political views, however the right to exclude on a basis which has a constitutional protection should fail.


For instance, a party can not exclude based on race or religion.


The contention is that a party can not exclude based on equal protection either - this would fall under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment - the idea is choosing one state over another favors citizens of one state over citizens of another.


Follow?


In addition, there are other parts, such as taxpayer funds are utilized in primaries, subjecting them to constitutional protections.


In addition, if a State were to Cooperate with a private plan of a political party - the states' actions would be bound by the constitution even if the party were not bound.


However, the contention is that the political party is bound as well because citizens of various states must be treated equally, and a party can not favor the citizens of one state over another.


Check out the previous posts.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

The Florida and Michigan situations have potential legal tangles which could be reviewed.

To be brief, a political party does have a right to exclude based on political views, however the right to exclude on a basis which has a constitutional protection should fail.


For instance, a party can not exclude based on race or religion.


The contention is that a party can not exclude based on equal protection either - this would fall under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment - the idea is choosing one state over another favors citizens of one state over citizens of another.


Follow?


In addition, there are other parts, such as taxpayer funds are utilized in primaries, subjecting them to constitutional protections.


In addition, if a State were to Cooperate with a private plan of a political party - the states' actions would be bound by the constitution even if the party were not bound.


However, the contention is that the political party is bound as well because citizens of various states must be treated equally, and a party can not favor the citizens of one state over another.


Check out the previous posts.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

D'oh! Good call, JCM in Berkeley.

Posted by: novamatt | May 22, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Also, I've got my fingers crossed that McCain doesn't pick Cheney to head up his VP Search Committee.

Posted by: novamatt | May 22, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

It takes a long time to vet and pick a VP. Good idea to start now and involve expert political advice. After all, remember how long it took for Dick Cheney to pick... Dick Cheney.

Posted by: JCM in Berkeley | May 22, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Everything about this cycle has been pushing the traditional calendar forward. The actual campaigning started a year ago. Candidates were already dropping out by Halloween. The voting started when people were still picking pine needles out of the living room rug.

Why not pick a veep now? There's not a lot going on in the news. It would signal a certain seriousness about moving on to the next stage. It would be a change from the way things are usually done.

But I think too much is made of vp candidates. They may have been more important back in the day when the parties were more coalitions than parties, but both R's and D's are much more coherent now. (Although the demographic split revealed by the Obama/Clinton fight may complicate that notion, and if there were a recognized leader of the conservative wing of the R's, McCain might be obliged to put him on the ticket to placate the base. So, um, maybe VP selections can still be important.)

Posted by: novamatt | May 22, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

So the race could be two white men - or better yet - two OLD white men versus the democratic ticket. Good old Republican values.

Yea right - so which side do you think will have the 'buzz' of 'change'? Apparently he (McCain) is not a Fix reader and so doesn't know what handicap being a Republican is right now.

Wake me up if McCain picks someone who's neither white nor male. McCain might pick early to raise some cash.

Obama has no reason to pick early and all the reasons to let the chips fall and then pick as his leisure.

Posted by: NoOneImportant | May 22, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

If as Hillary says Senator Obama has a problem courting blue collar and conservative Democrats then he needs to select Senator Casey of Pennsylvania. Casey should help with Pa.'s 21 electoral votes as well as in Ohio and New Jersey. Casey will also blunt McCain among certain conservative Democrats and Casey will give the Obama ticket more of a moderate stance.

Obama needs to skip the folks who ran in the 2008 Democratic Party primaries and cauceses. The voters already rejected those folks and so should he.

Now if Obama feels he needs help in the foreign policy area then Senator Chuck Hagel would be an excellent choice. But I doubt he would leave the GOP to run as a Dem VP nor would the party select him without a lot of arm twisting.

Finally, why Jim Johnson? Remember he was the guy who did such a bad job vetting Geraldine in 1984 that Mondale was blind sided with the corruption charges against her husband and her role in his businesses. I hope he does a better job for Obama than he did for Mondale.

Posted by: New Era | May 22, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Choosing early was a very good idea for McCain. The hype about VP combined with memorial day will overshadow (temporarily) Friday's release of his medical records--which are bound to be damaging to his campaign.

For Obama, on the other hand, should wait. Begging a public VP search only makes him seem cocky. Going so early only antagonizes Hillary supporters. The only thing he could do, VP-wise, that would piss off Clinton-backers would be to pick Sebelius.

Webb and Hagel are the two best picks for Obama. Virginia is a swing state whose electoral votes, when combined with Iowa's, are equal to those of Ohio. If Obama keeps all the states Kerry won in 2004, except New Hampshire, but wins Virginia (where he received three times more primary votes than McCain) and Iowa (where McCain didn't campaign), he only needs one more state to win; perhaps North Dakota or Missouri--Feb. 5 states where Democrats trounced republicans in primary turnout.

If I do recall correctly, democrats lost both the 1984 and 2004 general elections. For that matter, the Democratic VP picks, Ferraro and Edwards lost their home states (New York and North Carolina). Why is Obama going with someone with a less-than-encouraging track record?

Posted by: Mediaptera | May 22, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

McCain would benefit from an early selection if he chose a conservative w/ economic credentials, as this would tighten the party in preparation for the general election race.

Obama would gain less. The longer he strings out the Clintonistas the more time he will have to reunite the party under his banner. Picking now would end the healing process, not complete it.

Posted by: ccarter | May 22, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Someone asked why no media coverage of the Dem lawsuit in Fla:

Simple answer: It is meritless and will likely be summarily dismissed. A lawsuit on the same basic issue was filed last year and dismissed. There are numerous precedents holding that how a party chooses its nominee is NOT a matter of any constitutional rights. There is absolutely no case law to support a court decision either way on Fla. or Mich. delegates. Clinton supporters can forget it. Nothing will come of it.

If someone wants a longer answer, perhaps a little google research will uncover the original suit and its ruling with all the applicable precedents that REQUIRE the courts to let the parties do their own thing.

Posted by: flarrfan | May 22, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

I admired Hagel coming out in agreement. I admired Webb's works with the GI bill and his experience. How about Kansas Gov. Sebelius?

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 22, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a fish dead in the water - -http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Considering McCain is well ahead. We still have votes to get in other states, and supers to decide. Since McCain is ahead, Obama could be doing his homework early IF he's the nominee. You mean Hillary isn't doing the same should she be selected? I think that's a great use of time.

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 22, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

I suspect the Obama announcement is an attempt to put a damper on "pick Hillary" movement. Picking Hillary would be a disaster, since she would expect to be a co-President, not a VP. I can just see the Republican ads now, both Obama and Hillary fighting over the phone at 3 am. Hopefully the Clintons will finally display some humility and not mount a scorched earth campaign to get her on as co-President.

Posted by: RealChoices | May 22, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama should wait until after June 10, the date which the super-ds have been urged to pick a nominee by; I feel confident that Obama's Candidacy will be a fait accompli then with the requisite super-Ds behind him. In this election cycle I think that it behooves Obama to name his VEEP in quick order since he will have a fairly short time to make his case for the Presidency after this long, drawn out primary. Obama's short experience on the National Political scene makes the choice of the right person in the second spot on the ticket crucial.

As for who, I think that Obama would do well to pick someone with Military experience to counter McCain's since he appears ready to make his purported "foreign policy" experience a tent post of his campaign. I personally like the idea of Webb or Hagel since both have the requisite Military experience (and Hagel the Political experience), and the toughness required of a VP, especially as the classic role of the VP on the campaign trail is that of the "attack dog;" I also like the fact that Webb is a blue-dog democrat, & Hagel a Conservative, as a counter-punch to the oft repeated talking point that Obama is "the most Liberal Senator." But beyond toughness, and ideological moderation, Hagel and Webb have the absolute essential for an Obama VP: that is that they have the "Whiteness" to attract those "hard working Americans. White Americans" that have come to represent, whether actually true or not, Hillary Clinton's strength and Senator Obama's weakness in the minds of the Media and some of the electorate.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 22, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama should wait a while to pick a VP. Ideally, he would choose someone like Hagel or Bloomberg, but he can't do that if the party is still too divided. He needs to wait until after Hillary has been out for a while and he can get some sense of how much his VP pick will need to be based on getting blue-collar dems versus reaching across the aisle.

Posted by: Alan | May 22, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

American labor force is so poor in America, Democratic Party had to import candidate from Kenya.

Republican Party is no different. They would also like to import candidate from India if possible.

Posted by: What A Country | May 22, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

After reading the post (downpage) about Florida's lawsuit under the Federal Voting Rights law, all I can say is GOOD FOR YOU, STEVEN GELLER!

Why haven't we seen the details of this lawsuit reported by the media?

Posted by: C.R. | May 22, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

The Crazy John McCain Song.

Listen to The Crazy John McCain Song or download it for FREE at http"//www.johnmccainusa.com/

THE CRAZY JOHN MCCAIN SONG

Lyrics by J.J. Spoons & Willie G. Smith
Music by Doc. "Skippy" McGhee

A Product of the Heartland.
Witten in Beautiful Akron, Ohio USA.
Recorded at Little Shack Studio, Okahumpka, Florida.
Mixed at Tall Tree Productions, Clarion, Pennsylvania.
Remixed at Big River Records, Joplin, Missouri.

Posted by: The Crazy John McCain Song | May 22, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

8:18 p.m. post

"Blah blah more gutless racism blah blah etc.

My capacity for racism is exceeded only by my political ignorance. Time to roll out my standard retort - the Obama campaign is responsible for translating my posts into laugh-out-loud hilarity.

Some times even I have to crack a smile."

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 22, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 22, 2008 8:18 PM


In other words, this is not the season for Dan Quayle clones.
==========================
Senator Dan Quayle had more foreign and national defense experience than Barry Obama.

Obama is so far left that he has left America.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

On Huffington Post and LiberalOasis today, after making the case that Obama should not pick Clinton, I recommended that Obama pick his VP early: "Expectations won't build too much, and any bad feelings will have time to heal."

Further, "There's no need to draw out the suspense. Obama's candidacy is exciting on its own."

Full posts at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/no-nightmare-ticket_b_103034.html
http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/05/no_nightmare_ticket.php

Posted by: Bill Scher | May 22, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris speaks of "...early this summer." Summer literally begins June 21, 2008.

Both nominees must pick VP candidates who are capable, and also seen as capable, of becoming President. In other words, this is not the season for Dan Quayle clones.

Neither is under any pressure whatsoever to name a VP as early as the end of Spring. Each must pick a VP candidate he trusts.

For McC, his age is a factor that will cause more undecided voters to consider his choice as very important. His VP may possibly become a successor in a dramatic or tragic way, so conservatives and moderates alike will feel invested in McC's pick. As soon as McC himself is certain, he should name his VP candidate. As Chris has said, a complete ticket gives McC a running start on the GE. He should pick by July 4, and perhaps have joint introductory appearances with his VP candidate at several locations on Independence Day.

For the Ds, the healing should be well under way by July 4, and BHO's dozens of possibilities will have shaken down to perhaps half a dozen choices. He could choose soon after that.

The caveat here for the Ds is that if the healing has not occurred, BHO will have to choose well in advance of the Convention to lobby for his choice against the disgruntled. In any event, BHO may find it wise to choose before July 15.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 22, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris

From RealClear Today


Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the Democratic National Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a lawsuit filed Thursday claims.
The suit, filed by Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and other prominent Democrats in Fort Lauderdale, claims the federal Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights-era law that requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise black voters, prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates.

''If you're going to change the method of the selection of delegates that requires [Justice Department] preclearance,'' Geller said.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

The best choice for a running mate and dem running for office could have made in the last 2 elections would have been Bill Richardson, and is once again the best choice for Obama, in addition to the Clinton link, he is the most qualified choice because of his political background. Obama/Richardson is a dream ticket for myself and should be for any dem and educated voter.

Posted by: Jeff J | May 22, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Why is The Fix talking about "doubts" about blue collar voters? That is the Clinton/McEntee spin. Do you mean white? Because blue collar workers come in many colors.
Obama has run an incredible campaign despite the chattering classes. He has met every test that mattered.
The Obama people need to look at the whole map of the country, and see who has the judgment to govern.

Posted by: anna | May 22, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Who is Jim Johnson? He is a big time loser who helped Kerry and Mondale. Furthermore, he is one of the biggest corrupted CEO in Washington. Tax payers lost billions because of his Fannie Mae scandal. Read more.

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4217

Whenever Obama is happy to "Ying-Yang" with corrupt people like Jim Johnson, just be careful what you wish for. Is that the type of change message you are waiting from Obama Camp?

You think Obama is different. Think again.


Posted by: Henry | May 22, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama:
Jim Webb - Virginia is a swing state now!

McCain:
If later, Tom Ridge - prior military, (something mentioned recently in his back and forth with Obama over Webb's GI Bill), Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia

If sooner, Mitt Romney - fund-raising, the Republican establishment, "it's the economy", Michigan

Posted by: nytimer | May 22, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

what about McCain? He could unite the entire electorate by picking Hillary.

Her voters are claiming to vote for McCain anyway, they both see eye to eye on the "Gas Tax Holiday", they both supported the Iraq Occupation, they both are against banning assault weapons, and they both appeal to Racist Mountain Dwelling Whites.

Talk about unifying the country!

That would be AWESOME !!!

Posted by: McCain/Clinton 08 ! | May 22, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

I think that both candidates are beginning a lengthy search, and probably won't announce until late July or early August, before their conventions. Both candidates are probably testing out possible choices on focus groups, and testing out their prospects in battleground states.

Obama and McCain's weaknesses against each other are just now being brought out, and I think both candidates are waiting until it's crystal clear what kind of running mate they need. Obama will evaluate how well he stands up against McCain's foreign policy attacks, and McCain will evaluate how he is perceived against Obama, whether he looks too old, is viewed as "McSame," or whether he needs to come out more forcefully on change or economic issues.

The question for Obama is, does he need to counter McCain's foreign policy attacks more affectively, with a Biden/Webb VP, or will it be most important to counter the lingering resentment of Hillary folks and unify the party with a Clinton-approved (or ever her) candidate. Will McCain need to bring youth (Jindall, Crist), or economic experience, or placate his base (Huckabee/Romney). Both candidates know what they'll need by mid July, and announce their VP from there.


Geography will also be a tossup until July, because McCain and Obama are both warping the map, and traditional red/blue states are changing. They won't know where they need help the most until summer.

Posted by: Tom B | May 22, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

what about McCain? He could unite the entire electorate by picking Hillary.

Her voters are claiming to vote for McCain anyway, they both see eye to eye on the "Gas Tax Holiday", they both supported the Iraq Occupation, they both are against banning assault weapons, and they both appeal to Racist Mountain Dwelling Whites.

Talk about unifying the country!

That would be AWESOME !!!

Posted by: McCain/Clinton 08 ! | May 22, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Webb

or

Kathleen Sebelius - Brief Biography

(Suitable for introductions)

Pledging independent leadership to move Kansas forward, Kathleen Sebelius became the 44th Governor of the State of Kansas in 2003. She was reelected to a second term in 2006.

At the heart of Governor Sebelius' administration is a commitment to growing the Kansas economy and creating jobs; ensuring every Kansas child receives a quality education; protecting Kansas families and communities; improving access to quality, affordable health care; and taking advantage of the state's renewable energy assets.

Governor Sebelius serves on the National Governors Association's Executive Committee and is co-chair of the National Governors Association's initiative, Securing a Clean Energy Future. Sebelius chairs the Education Commission of the States and as past chair of the Democratic Governors Association, she currently serves on the DGA Executive Committee.

Married to husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge, for 33 years, they have two sons: Ned and John. Both Sebelius boys are products of the Topeka public school system, pre-kindergarten through high school. Ned is a law student, and John is a graduate of the Rhode Island School of Design. Sebelius is the first daughter of a Governor (John Gilligan, Ohio, 1971-1975) in U.S. history to be elected to that same position.

Anyone by Hillary. Indeed, get her and her creepy husband off the stage NOW

Posted by: binge | May 22, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

"It does not matter who Senator Obama chooses as VP, he can not win the general election. His constituency is too narrow, and too many party members (like me) intend to vote for Senator McCain because of the unfair treatment of Senator Clinton."

Very rational. Rather than vote for someone whose position on most the issues is largely identical to Clinton's you're going to vote for someone who supports the exact opposite positions as Hillary in order to protest how Hillary was treated.

Yeah...that's REALLY smart.

Posted by: Jim Crozier | May 22, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

The upside would certainly be the picture of unity both parties would get. The downside is a shortened vetting process. You don't want any skeletons coming out of the Veep's closet that you didn't know about because you rushed things...

Posted by: Boutan | May 22, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Quote:

"KY exit-poll aftermath / Petition;

If you are a Hillary supporter who is upset and will
stay home or vote McCain over Obama, read and
sign at;

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Nobama"

Translation...if you prefer to vote for someone whose stances on the issues are the polar opposite of everything that Hillary Clinton stands for on the issues then sign here.

Christ I fail to understand the mentality of a lot of Clinton supporters.

Would I have been upset if Obama lost? Hell yes! Would I vote for someone whose stances were the exact opposite of Obama's just to spite the person he lost to? Now that would be just stupid.

Seriously, have you folks ever heard of cutting off your nose in order to spite your face? Grow up.

Posted by: Jim Crozier | May 22, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

McCain should wait to see what side of the three legged stool (economic conservatives, social conservatives, neo-conservatives) needs shoring up as the summer unfolds. He won't pick Crist because Crist is not unambiguously heterosexual (which shouldn't matter, but would for the social cons). He won't pick Huckabee, who supports (see a You-tube clip) a constitutional amendment which would ban the birth control pill (losing the econo-cons and neo-cons). Romney could lose the social cons. He should wait and see how it plays out.

Posted by: mtsher | May 22, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

KY exit-poll aftermath / Petition;

If you are a Hillary supporter who is upset and will
stay home or vote McCain over Obama, read and
sign at;

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Nobama


-

Posted by: RG | May 22, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

It does not matter who Obama will pick as his veep. We will not vote for him. There are many things made us can't trust him.

Posted by: Henry Vu | May 22, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and it has been reported that Hillary already asked Obama to be his VP choice...and he said no.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

This WOULD explain the seemingly bipolar decision to tone down her rhetoric recently, and then go nuclear with the whole Zimbabwe/Slavery comparisons that she did in Florida recently. She got angry that he turned her down.

As an Obama supporter I can only breathe a HUGE sigh of relief. Hillary supporters may not like me saying this, but I don't think Hillary adds anything to the ticket that can't be added by other, less volatile Democrats with less negatives and less ability to unite Republicans against the Democrats.

Frankly, I do not like how Hillary has behaved this entire campaign season. It is my personal opinion and I'm sure a lot of Hillary supporters would disagree, but to me her behavior and that of Bill has been shameless.

Posted by: Jim Crozier | May 22, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

It does not matter who Senator Obama chooses as VP, he can not win the general election. His constituency is too narrow, and too many party members (like me) intend to vote for Senator McCain because of the unfair treatment of Senator Clinton.

Posted by: C.R. | May 22, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I like Portman for McCain


Ted Strickland for Obama, but he may not want it, he might want to concentrate on his state, then Ed Rendell.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 22, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

GOOD THING McCAIN HAS WAITED

The Fix's VP guess of Pawlenty is coming up short.
Two polls in last two weeks showed Pawlenty would hurt McCain more than help him in Minnesota. Same polls (Rassmussen and Star Tribune) now show Obama over McCain in MN by 12 points.
Pawlenty, aka Gov. Gridlock, who just vetoed the bill to fix MN's other bad bridges, has lost a lot of good will in state. Pawlenty brings no quarantee of electoral votes, even his own state.

Crist has already helped McCain win in Florida, could bring along the state with the fourth largest haul of electoral votes.

Posted by: simbix | May 22, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Idaho Democrat here. My personal opinion is that Obama is better off waiting to pick a VP.

I believe this for several reasons:

1. It could be spun as a sign of weakness/uncertainty that he wants to augment his own ticket early.

2. It would kill a lot of free press stories (like this one by Chris) by ending speculation prematurely.

3. It would tick off Hillary supporters right when we're trying to get them to finally see reason that their candidate has lost and it is time for her to make a long overdue exit so the party can unite behind the nominee.

4. Why rush the vetting process?

5. Before you pick a VP, everyone who WANTS to be VP will be bending over backwards doing their best to prove their qualifications to be his choice. This means that they'll all be running around attempting to get in his good graces by doing him favors, defending him, etc.

6. It gives the other side more time to craft their game plan and do opposition research because they know exactly who they need to plan and research FOR.

7. You risk peaking too early. The VP selection is typically a big boost for the ticket. Pull that card out when you really need it.

I could go on, but that's probably enough. As for who I think Obama should choose...

...I think he should choose Bill Richardson. It brings him four good things.

1. Virtually guarantees that New Mexico flips from being a red state in 2004.

2. Helps him out significantly on one of his weakest voter demographics (Hispanics)

3. Balances the ticket by adding experience and a nice, thick resume.

4. Shows other Democrats that Obama knows how to reward folks who take big chances on his behalf. (As Richardson did when he endorsed Obama early.)

Just some thoughts.

Posted by: Jim Crozier | May 22, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

GOOD THING McCAIN HAS WAITED

The Fix's VP guess of Pawlenty is coming up short.
Two polls in last two weeks showed Pawlenty would hurt McCain more than help him in Minnesota. Same polls (Rassmussen and Star Tribune) now show Obama over McCain in MN by 12 points.
Pawlenty, aka Gov. Gridlock, who just vetoed the bill to fix MN's other bad bridges, has lost a lot of good will in state. Pawlenty brings no quarantee of electoral votes, even his own state.

Crist has already helped McCain win in Florida, could bring along the state with the fourth largest haul of electoral votes.

Posted by: simbix | May 22, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama would be an idiot not to choose Hillary. She brings to the table the other side of the democratic party which he has a hard time getting.

Posted by: kissthesky | May 22, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

McCain should pick Huckabee -- pleasant personality, sense of humor, appeals to evangelical base, would help him compete in Arkansas, Iowa, West Virginia, maybe Ohio and PA.

He should not pick the unctuous Romney, who seems to have no core convictions beyond power, though Romney would certainly enjoy playing the role of hatchet man and making craven appeals to the conservative base.

Posted by: Jim Buie | May 22, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I'll wager that McCain will choose Tom Ridge, for three reasons:

-He's a former governor
-He ran Homeland Security
-He's from a large swing state, Pennsylvania

I'm sure McC will be tempted to pick a youthful, energetic face such as TPaw or Crist, or even the bizzare but financially appealing Romney. But his main argument hinges on his experience on national security. If that experience is so important, why would he choose someone with no such experience as his running mate? I suspect he will not want to answer that question.

Ridge would be a safe, political choice that would at least cause no harm.


For Obama, the veep choice is less predictable. It's potentially more harmful or helpful, too, as his task is both to unite the party and to broaden his appeal to the general electorate.

Will Obama choose Hillary or one of her minions, or opt for someone more of his own change-the-conversation ilk? My hunch is the latter. I'll predict Sebelius of KS, whose gender should appeal to many Hillary fans.

Posted by: jxejxe | May 22, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Bad news for Obama. Shows he is not sure of himself.

All along he has been trying to wrap this contest up as if HE is afraid of an October surprise.

The more he does this the more I want Hillary to stay in the contest.

I DON'T TRUST HIM.

Posted by: Hillary Simply the Best | May 22, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I was completely unimpressed by Dodd as a presidential candidate, and I think his poor showing in the early primaries suggest I'm am not alone in this.

I have seen his name floated several times as a potential running mate and I am little curious as to why. What is it I'm not seeing?

Posted by: SonicJones | May 22, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

I think naming a VP would probably be a mistake for Obama. Clinton seems to have called a truce and seems ready to let things run their course through the remaining primaries. Picking a VP early would be like stiring an ant hill, and would probably send Clinton and her supporters right back on the war path.

The nomination process is winding down, and everybody knows Obama will be the nominee. The time for power-plays has passed, and the time for soothing bruised feelings has arrived.

Posted by: SonicJones | May 22, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

There are a number of excellent potential running mates that Barack will be able to consider. I feel that from an experience & foreign policy expertise standpoint, temperment, broad appeal among both Democrats and Independents, and overall chemistry with Barack that Chris Dodd would be an outstanding choice. He could focus on the northeast, allowing Barack to extend the playing field in the west and the south. Senator Dodd is both commanding and articulate without Senator Biden's tendancy to be overbearing. Plus Obama/Dodd 2008 would fit nicely on a bumper sticker...

Posted by: Robert Luciano | May 22, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse


If I were McCain, I would be inclined to wait unless my nominee were going to be from the right wing of the party (in which case it doesn't matter). Given that the nominee gives one a bounce, he will need the bounce later in the campaign season. Right now, he is doing as well as can be expected in the polls given the uphill battle he faces.

I wonder why no one is considering that McCain might break tradition? Suppose he picked a woman? Doing so would be aimed directly at the perceived (and it may just be perceived) race/gender gap of the Democrats. McCain shows every sign of running to the center, and is smart enough to see the impact a mice moderate woman would have (McCain/Snow?).

For Obama, the search must begin, time is running out, and the stakes are high. But an early announcement will only infuriate the Clinton supporters, so he should wait until she withdraws and does the obligatory "trip to the ranch" for an endorsement.

The story is indeed him, and he seems to be doing quite well on his own. He needs to spend more time introducing himself in the important states where he is weak before dealing with a running mate.

So, unless McCain goes with a woman (and he might!), I think both of them are better off waiting a bit.

Posted by: PatrickInBeijing | May 22, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama,
Don't overlook Chris Matthews out there with that tingling going up his leg.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Pro to Obama naming "early" (end of June after required SDs declare for his side) and not waiting until the convention is because Hill(bill) already plan to strong-arm delegates into standing up for her as the choice.

Would give folks time to get used to the idea and perhaps blunt the Hill(bill) effect and an embarrassing confrontation at the convention. (If she's not likely to get one for the presidential nomination slot, I suspect she will very much desire one as to the VP nod.)

If she keeps on in effect campaigning for the republicans and spouting off to Floridians with comments like "If the DNC won't count every one of your votes, I'm sure McCain, et al. will appreciate them", mebbe more folks will be turned off standing up for her.

Posted by: Mary | May 22, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Let's see now...Obama's announcing his Veep choice in advance....

...while Hillary is "all alone by her telephone."

To finish the old song: "She's got a date with the blues."

Somehow this one doesn't fly.

Posted by: ARicker@hotmail.com | May 22, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to get on with picking the veep: Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee, KevW, and McCain has gotten too much free air time already. Besides, Senator Clinton won't leave graciously, so she needs a good swift shove off the stage.

Obama/Webb or Obama/Hagel.

Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | May 22, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain might want to hold off so he doesn't have to burden his campaign with double road expenses. Plus, I dout he'll pick anyone very moderate and an early choice leaves more time for people to take potshots - especially given the actuarial factors affecting his designation of a VP candidate.

Obama also can take his time, but for different reasons. He's the story as long as he moves inexorably toward clinching the nomination.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama should not be picking any VP running mate at this point as he is not the Democratic candidate at this point.

Posted by: KevW | May 22, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

For Obama the Veep choice only makes a difference -- at this point in the race -- if the choice is Hillary or not Hillary... and what Hillary thinks about that choice.

If she wants it, and doesn't get it: BAD
If she wants it, and gets it: GOOD
If she doesn't want it, and doesn't get it: EH
If she doesn't want it, and gets it: HUH?

But the key is not who Obama chooses but what Hillary wanted. Oh, I should mention that it also depends on the voters learning what Hillary wanted.

Posted by: egc52556 | May 22, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I am hoping Obama does pick his VP early, if for no other reason to set Hillary straight on WHO is the nominee! I'm sure two seconds after he does, she'll run out and tell everyone she's picking a VP! I've got my money on Webb or Clark, as in General, as for McCain, he could pick JC himself and I still wouldn't vote for him.
The sooner the better I say, let's get on with the General, so we don't have to hear Hillary anymore!

Posted by: Sue F | May 22, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company