Bob Graham! (4.00 / 5)

seriously

It drives me up the wall every time Nunn gets mentioned, Graham is a reinforcing and balancing choice.

I don't think Clark is out of contention yet, but I agree that Dodd is.

Still doesn't mean he can't be Majority leader though.

---

by: neutron @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:29:51 PM CDT

I agree Clark is probably still in it (4.00 / 5)

Actually Clark's chances were probably enhanced by the faux scandal. If you assume Obama's rhetorical rightward shift needs a bit of counterbalance.
Of course he could get a lot of that by featuring Clark on his European-Middle Eastern trip. (Which would be entirely logical.)  

---

by: Judeling @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:32:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't count out Clark (4.00 / 2)

I agree with you about Clark. I don't think he's off the list and the faux-scandal where he went after McCain's core "strength" has probably helped him (Clark) and Obama both. Clark would make a great addition to the ticket.

---

by: Quinton @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:07:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Web and Clark were my favorites (0.00 / 0)

So I'll stick with Clark too.

(Though I could live with Bayh, even though he's pretty vanilla.)

---

by: Bush Bites @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 22:29:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is why Clark should be taken off the short-list (4.00 / 1)

Soldier of Misfortune

Retired NATO commander Wesley K. Clark left last month as Summit Global Logistics chairman following a one-year stint that saw the East Rutherford, N.J. shipping concern's stock fall 60% as its losses rose 10,000%. An ill-fated corporate buying spree fueled by $163 million of debt and equity financing boosted revenues, but not as much as expenses, prompting a default. Clark, once a presidential candidate, had headed the investment bank arranging the initial financing. In 2006 he resigned as a director of Viaspace after just two weeks amid sharp questions about high-pressure penny-stock promotions on its behalf over the Internet. The Pasadena, Calif. defense contractor denied at the time any involvement in the hard sell.

If McCain nominates Carly Fiorina, we can have two failed business leaders duking it out in vice presidential debates...

---

by: partyhack @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:24:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Georgia could be in play (0.00 / 0)

Georgians like to see a Georgian on the list.

Ditto Indiana, Virginia, and Florida.

---

by: Jay Hazen @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 23:33:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sebelius (4.00 / 3)

is the choice in my mind.

But I like Jack Reed a lot and would be happy with him.

If it's Bayh, Daschle, Nelson, or Nunn, I'll eat my shoe.

I hope it's not Biden, and Kaine is not a choice anyone would be happy with -- he's been a complete letdown as Governor here in VA.

Sebelius is a bit of a risky choice, but might really help blow the doors off this thing as well. Risk/reward. Worth the risk.

---

by: Ron @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:34:17 PM CDT

My pick as well (4.00 / 1)

I first thought that Sebelius would be a good pick for Obama's VP last fall.  She just seems like the strongest choice, largely because she is reinforcing on the theme of getting people to work together as Americans to confront our common challenges.

Lets also take Chris's eliminations a little further.

Bayh: Obama isn't going to pick Bayh unless he really needs to win Indiana.  He doesn't  Bayh was a good pick for Hilary and is a bad one for Obama.  He is a DLCer, centrist* who represents the Clinton faction of the Democratic party.  Old politics.  I don't think he's on a shortlist.

Biden: He doesn't really bring much to the table, maybe as Sec State or A.G.  As V.P. he would make a good attack dog, but little else.  His small state is safe Dem and he is more scrappy than having gravitas that the average voter is aware of.  Oh, and he doesn't want it.  I don't think he's on a shortlist.

Clinton: She certainly has a lot of assets, but a lot of baggage to.  Those include a lot of critiques of our candidate, high negatives, and her husband.  Both her and her husband tend to steal headlines and upstage Obama.  My biggest fear with Clinton as the V.P. candidates is that she is the only one who can mobilize the Right Wing, but that the Left is already mobilized.  I would leave her on the short list but not actually consider her.

Daschle: This would be a somewhat backward looking pick.  It would be an understandable if there was an implied bargain in Daschle giving his support to Obama early on.  I don't think that the public evidence implies that Obama has long considered Daschle his obvious pick.  I think that Daschle on the ticket would diminish Obama in the public eye and thus don't think he is on the list.

Kaine: The Governor of Virginia would be an exciting pick, won in a red state that Obama and Kaine are looking to turn Blue.  Kaine's only problem is that he is to the right of the Democratic party on Choice.  I don't think that this is the year to nominate a male V.P. who is pro-Life even if he is isn't as dogmatic as many on the right about it.  Then again Obama is making a serious play for Virginia, and NC, maybe even South Caroline, I imagine Kaine would make Virginia safe and help significantly in the Carolinas, he is clearly the Southern White Male pick.  Kaine should be on the short list, but it would be hard to pick him at the end.

Kerry: Is he really being floated?  Kerry isn't runny for V.P.  It is backwards looking, he has his own gaffes and scandals, and I don't think he would want to do it.  Besides he is taller than Obama, which is silly but I think it matters a little.

Murray:  Patty is worth considering.  She is likable and well thought of in Washington State.  I don't think she has much of a reputation outside of that region, but would build one quickly.  She would lock of Washington and Oregon, but I have no idea how well she would play in nearby Montana.  Idaho is safe Red.  Murray would be easy to label as a crazy liberal.  She has plusses and minuses, neither are particularly strong in my book.  I would leave her on the short list.

Bill Nelson: Well as usual someone from Florida has to be under consideration.  Nelson is a bit to centrists and old school for Obama and his supports.  I don't think that Nelson is popular enough amongst  Floridians to go with a that strategy.  Obama doesn't need Florida that badly, and might not win it with him.  Not on my shortlist.

Nunn: Sure someone floated Sam Nunn, but this pick makes little sense.  He is too conservative for Obama, and he would seem like a Cheney style pick.  Nunn is already too old to be president at almost 70, there is no way he gets to be president after Obama.  He is retired and probably enjoys being mentioned, but is not under serious consideration.

Reed: Not to much to stay about Reed, he isn't a very exciting choice.  He is fairly progressive which is good, but he is from a small blue state, and would not help Obama's electoral chances.  I am not really sure what a Reed pick would signal to the American people, I guess a shift to the left which would be good.  No real reason to take him off of a short least, but no compelling reason to leave him on.

Sebelius:  As I have mentioned I think she is a good pick.  She has a proven ability to work with those she disagrees with, is easy to see as President if disaster were to strike or 8 years were to pass.  She represents an interesting heartland geographic pick.  We are down about 10 pts in Kansas, but I think she is popular enough to bring it seriously into play.  Further she would probably help in Missouri, Iowa and Colorado none of them must win but together with they Kerry states they give a majority.  Definitely on my shortlist.

Warner: Warner is strong for all of the reasons that Kaine is and he is pro-Choice.  Also he has business experience which appeals to a lot of people on the other side.  The thing is the Mark Warner is the next Senator from Virginia.  Not on my shortlist.

In summary:

Evan Bayh (Sen-IN) DLC and Clintonite
Joe Biden (Sen-DE) Doesn't want it, does add enough
Hillary Clinton (Sen-NY), but not really
Tom Daschle (Sen-SD) Doesn't flatter Obama
Tim Kaine (Gov-VA)
John Kerry (Sen-MA) Old scandals, and not enough change
Patty Murray (Sen-WA)
Bill Nelson (Sen-FL) too centrists
Sam Nunn (Sen-GA) too old, too past, too conservative
Jack Reed (Sen-RI)
Kathleen Sebelius (Gov-KS)
Mark Warner (Gov-VA) better fit for (Sen-VA)

Of those, who would you pick?  Now who would you pick if you were Obama and trying to win the presidency?

*There is a difference between centrist, moderate, and being willing to work with those whom you don't always agree with.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:59:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

reed's bio (0.00 / 0)

doesn't read like a man of the left...his dad was a janitor, west point grad, he spent 10+ years in the army, he champions hard working families, senior member of the Armed Services Committee, etc......

according to the NYT: one of the Democratic Party's eminent voices on military affairs

http://reed.senate.gov/biograp...

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 19:46:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sat yes to a progressive, working class veteran! (0.00 / 0)

Reed has the bio of a New Englander from the `ethnic` Catholic working class, but is one of the most solid progressives in the Senate, and provides an almost-unique progressive voice on foreign and military affairs. He was one of the few democrats up for re-election in 2002 who voted against the war resolution. He clearly won`t outshine the nominee with his rather muted style, but his experience and liberal ideals will backup and validate Obama from a progressive & military perspective. If you really want a change in our foreign policy, he is the candidate for you. He is the clearest `reinforcing` pick for 2008.

---

by: classicalprogressive @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 23:11:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Biden/Reed (0.00 / 0)

Biden "doesn't want it"??  Biden is the rare bird who actually flat-out said he would take it.

RI's governor is Republican, so Reed would deprive us of a Senator.  Not worth it; we can win with one of many VPs.

Of this list, I think the standouts are Bayh, Biden and Sebelius.  Bayh if you're concentrating on getting the Clintonistas back under the tent, reassuring people freaked out by Obama's "exotic background" (not solely race), and generally playing things pretty safe; Biden if you're concentrating on foreign policy experience and attack dogginess; Sebelius if you're concentrating on the person Obama gets along with and who reinforces his message.  Given his campaign savvy, I figure O. knows which of those is the best path to victory.

---

by: Mean Dean @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:46:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

let me add this for Hillary (0.00 / 0)

http://www.thepersonalispoliti...

---

by: personalpolitical @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 17:45:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well i guess i've been hearing wrong (4.00 / 2)

as i thought webb was the 'obvious' choice. although i'm not sorry he's off the list, even as the rest of it sort of sucks. daschle? oh goddess, nonnononononono.

anyway, i voted for clinton, even as i didn't support her during the primary and don't really think she'd be "that great." why? because i work a lot with local folks in my area who don't read blogs or follow politics as closely as we do. regular, solid dems who just want some relief with their energy and health care bills. without exception, and mostly without prodding, i keep hearing the same thing. "they're both great, i don't care which one is at the top of the ticket, it's the dream combo we've been waiting for, years now."

it's always interesting to speak of politics with "low information" folks, as it helps me better understand just how not-influential and not well known a lot of us are, even the "a-listers" and their work. for millions who are actually going to vote this fall, and not just the ones we see on teevee as 'representative of the average voter,' or at places like facebook, things seem very different and i don't forget that. picking HRC would instantly end the ruffled feathers of a lot of her die hard supporters, and as much as she's a "drag" and "negative" in the opinion of some SCLM political writers, to millions of 'regular' americans, her name represents good times, when jobs were plentiful and gas was still well under 3$/gal.  

---

by: chicago dyke @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:34:52 PM CDT

Sorry off topic and all... (0.00 / 0)

I know its a trend for people of certain groups to use derogatory slurs referring to said group to describe themselves (such as your name used by lesbians to describe lesbians or the N-word, albeit a form of the word, used by AAs to describe AAs) in an "Taking back the word and lessening the impact" kind of way... but a derogatory slur is still a derogatory slur and highly offensive.  Please change your name to something less offensive as that word is just as ugly as the f-word to describe gays (and I have heard it used to describe lesbians as well) or the n-word to describe AAs.  

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 18:27:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we have dyke marches, dykes on bikes, baby (4.00 / 1)

dykes, dyke daddies, and the list goes on and on.  its pretty bad form to ask someone to change their user id, especially when the term you are taking issue with is so clearly an affirmative term within the community on behalf of which you are taking offense.  

---

by: seabrook @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:31:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeesh, Reed... (0.00 / 0)

I was not impressed in the least with Jack Reed's performance on this week's This Week.  He seemed unable to win a debate with Joe Lieberman, which doesn't bode well for a VP prospect.  I mean really.

John McCain: "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

---

by: Karl Blumenthal @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:35:10 PM CDT

Why discuss the leaked "short list" at all? (4.00 / 7)

I'm all in favor of discussing our preferences (and I just encouraged that in a recent diary), but I just don't see any logic to restricting the discussion to those who happened to be on a "leaked short list," since such lists are invariably inaccurate and incomplete.

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:36:05 PM CDT

VP Short List (4.00 / 11)

Schweitzer from Montana would be the best "reinforcing" choice (for the image of change).  Plus he has executive experience and would not threaten to reduce the count of Democratic Senators.  Actually, Obama should stay away from Senators for VP altogether- they tend to be showboats with limited knowledge of real-world governing problems.  

---

by: alameda @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:40:07 PM CDT

Thank you (4.00 / 2)

But Governor Schweitzer has denied any interest in the VP-ship. Besides his dog Jag hates DC.

---

by: Ed in Montana @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:45:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He can telecommute ;) /nt (4.00 / 4)

---

by: Klaus Walter @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:49:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Brian Schweitzer would be an excellent choice. Shocking that he is not on the list.

---

by: partyhack @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:27:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who are the progressives on this list? (4.00 / 2)

Looking over this short list, and assuming it's for real (and I'm sorry, even if it's real, at least some of the items on this list are posturing or decoys. I don't see how anyone can seriously believe Sam Nunn is actually being considered; they just want people to think, once someone else is picked, that Sam Nunn was considered first), Kathleen Sebelius seems to be the only example of a progressive or "new blood" Democrat on here that I can tell. Everyone else seems to fall into one of the following two categories:

1. Establishment/DLC democrat

2. Person I've never heard of

Are there any people in category (2) that I really ought to be aware of as someone who's actually a good progressive choice?

Randomly picking Patty Murray off this list and looking her up on wikipedia, for example, she seems at first glance like actually someone progressives could be very proud of. Anything  we should know about her? Are there other people on this list I ought to know about, but don't?

---

by: mcc @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:43:06 PM CDT

Reed and Murray are very progressive. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: askew @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:54:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Eric Reed Boucher for VP (0.00 / 0)

Only half in jest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:43:57 PM CDT

And half in...farce? nt (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Jay Hazen @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 00:27:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not precisely (0.00 / 0)

15% Farce
25% Serious
10% Demand

50% in jest

There are worse choices, but few have such an interesting bio on wikipedia.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:57:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mark Warner pulled his name off the list (4.00 / 4)

June 14.

---

by: Adam B. @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:49:48 PM CDT

Edwards? (4.00 / 2)

Are you sure Edwards is off this list? In last month's post, you said Edwards had ruled himself out, but I was under the impression he had backtracked from that position.

---

by: bobkopp @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:49:58 PM CDT

Edwards backtracked from the backtrack yesterday: (0.00 / 0)

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...

---

by: sb @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:56:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's from June 6, not July. (4.00 / 1)

---

by: illissius @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:42:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And I believe (0.00 / 0)

it was the week after that came out that he said he'd think about it if it were offered, but he's not actively angling to be VP again.  I could be mistaken.

---

by: Klaus Walter @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:47:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your statement... (4.00 / 1)

That is the most current statement from Edwards.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 18:29:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama is not a Progressive (2.67 / 6)

Obama will pick Daeschle.

Given the massive quantities of BULLSHIT flying at us from the Obama campaign, Daeschle is a perfect fit.

"What we need is acceptance" Daeschle.

Biden is doing a good job on FISA but he would be a lousy President.

I thought Sam Nunn was dead, but he would be the perfect TOOL of the military industrial complex Obama needs to round out his campaign.

Sebelius is my pick.  

But the wishes of his supporters is the LAST thing on Obama's mind right now.  

---

by: marko @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:50:26 PM CDT

Daschle won't be VP (4.00 / 5)

Maybe chief of staff, although that more likely would be Daschle's former chief of staff.  Daschle said he'd like HHS.

I voted reluctantly for Sibelius because that's who he seems to be leaning toward.  I wish there were someone else like a younger Bill Moyers or even Gore.  But for people who think Obama isn't "one of us"  Sibelius might be reassuring.  Clinton is too polarlzing and energizing for the Right, and takes the focus off Obama.  I think it is very, very unlikely.  Where's our bench when we need them?  We've got to do better on Governors in 2008 and 2010.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:34:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sam Nunn has been dead (4.00 / 1)

Since I knew him as a Senator in Georgia in the 1970s. I have never known what people see in this guy.

---

by: Ed in Montana @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:47:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama is a progressive (0.00 / 0)

You need to educate yourself and quit buying the overreaction from some on the left to everything he says or doesn't say or does or doesn't do. He isn't filling anyone full of bullshit.

---

by: personalpolitical @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 17:43:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If this list is accurate.... (4.00 / 5)

...it's Sebelius.

Bayh is as exciting as wet cardboard.  The only thing he does OK is attract corporate money, and Obama does that fine by himself.

Biden won't throw away his Senate seniority.

Clinton has to always be considered, but bottom line is whether the two....actually three...can mesh well, and I think Obama just doesn't want Kennedy-Johnson, Part Deux.

The darkest cynical side of me says Daschle - it's so...Cheney-esque.

Kaine leaving his present office allows for the creation of a Republican governor in Virginia.

Kerry....no.  Just not gonna happen.

Murray....very lightweight on the national scale.  (Though she always pulls rabbits out of her hat in her/my own home state.)  If Obama wants someone tough that would make the non-progressives happy, I'd sooner recommend Senator Cantwell.

Nelson, Nunn, Reed?  Nah, God no, just not likely, especially after his most recent public performance.

Of course, as I've said before, we need Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio.  

(snark)
All the more now, since we need a true progressive to balance the ticket.  
(/snark)

OK, back to work getting Obama elected...

---

by: palamedes @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:02:59 PM CDT

He'll Go Off the Reservation (4.00 / 5)

I don't think the person Obama will choose is on this list. The real short list probably has Schweitzer, Edwards, and McCaskill on it.

I still think Sherrod Brown is the best choice, but the more I think about Obama's strategy in recent weeks the more Schweitzer makes sense. He might put Montana in the Obama column and I think he helps innoculate Obama on the gun issue, and with a lot of the faith outreach events Obama has been doing it occurs to me he's trying to diffuse some of the typical cultural wedge issues the GOP falls back on to fire up their base.

If God and guns are off the table, McCain's got problems getting the rank and file to the polls in November, and Obama might be able to rack up just enough in the rural parts of states like Montana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina etc to pick off some of those states and score the landslide. That's especially true considering how well Schweitzer is likely to play in those areas.

It's not the way I would like to see Obama run (I'd like to see him bludgeoning McCain on trade in the Midwest right now) but it's the direction he appears to be going in this campaign.

---

by: ecotect @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:17:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

McCaskill's career is ending!! (0.00 / 0)

She is on the wrong side of FISA, and it will cost her big.

---

by: marko @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:26:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh (4.00 / 2)

Well, if it has TWO exclamation points...

---

by: Jay Hazen @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 00:33:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised that Cantwell isn't ever mentioned (4.00 / 2)

I don't buy into these "leaked" lists, and his pick might well not be on any of them. They could be, and are I suspect, intentional attempts at misdirection. And Cantwell strikes me as in some ways a perfect pick for him, not in a progressive sense (although her energy policies are pretty progressive from what I've seen, and she's my senator too), but because being a woman and former Clinton supporter she'd help reel in most of those Clinton supporters, would be acceptable to his corporate base (and anyone who's not just just not going to get picked by him), is strong on energy and environmental issues, is fairly young and attractive, and won't overshadow him in stature, or look like an obvious attempt to shore up his perceived weaknesses on military and foreign policy issues.

I'm not saying that she would be my pick (but she's not my last, either), but from Obama's point of view, which is clearly a corporatist centrist swing voter one, I think she might be ideal. Not too right, not too left, not too prominent, young, attractive, corporate, etc.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:56:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He won't pick Daschle or any other well-known, establishment Democrat (4.00 / 1)

Selecting someone like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, etc. would just undercut his message. Barack Obama is campaigning on a theme of "change."

How can you do that when you pick:

Joe Biden, champion of the infamous bankruptcy bill and senator since forever.

Hillary Clinton (and by extension, Bill Clinton), the epitome of the old guard of Democratic politics. Funny thing -- I liked Bill way more than Hillary before the campaign started. Now I like Hillary a tad more. She was incredibly gracious and even funny in Unity, New Hampshire, but the Clintons represent the Democratic Party of the past and a political dynasty that did nothing for the Party in the 1990s.

Evan Bayh is just plain boring. I mean, just look at his campaign poster from 2004. They had to put an exclamation point to try to add a little excitement.

Tom Daschle is the epitome of the Roll Over Democrat. We could use much, much less of those.

---

by: partyhack @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:37:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

nightmare ticket (0.00 / 0)

Hillary is the worst possible choice, there are so many reasons that automatically disqualify her, I don't think she should ever make the "potentials" list:

http://www.thepersonalispoliti...

---

by: personalpolitical @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 17:41:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clark is magically "out" because of a mini-scandal? (4.00 / 7)

I don't think it's that clear-cut.  Obviously, when Obama completely failed to back Clark up after Clark's initial (and awesome) comments about McCain, it made sense to suspect that Wes' Obama Veepstakes prospects weren't the greatest.  

But I've heard no word from Clark that he doesn't want it, and I've heard nothing from Obama that he wouldn't take him, so I don't think it's appropriate to cross him off the list.  

Besides, the second round of the "scandal" was much blurrier, with Obama (arguably) sticking up for Clark.  

Ironically, after the scandal broke, Wes Clark won CQ Politics' Veepstakes Madness contest.

Too early to count him out!  

---

by: Syrith @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:13:20 PM CDT

"Recent" (4.00 / 2)

Isn't the VP likely to get picked sometime in August? Maybe we need to think about what constitutes a "recent" mini-scandal.

(Dodd's mini-scandal unfortunately may be large enough to still be a problem by then, though-- given that it reminds voters of the Washington Post's shocking revelation that Senator Obama has a mortgage.)

---

by: mcc @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:19:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Daschle (0.00 / 0)

After seeing how deeply Daschle has entwined himself in the Obama campaign, having him be picked wouldn't be much of a surprise. Post-FISA, always assume Obama will pick the most cynical, obviously centrist, and least progressive option.  

---

by: MBoz @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:19:54 PM CDT

McCain's VP (4.00 / 1)

The problem is, as I understand it, that McCain has said he was going to pick second, which he could do, theoretically during the DNC...

...but if there was any way to control it, I'd wait and see what McCain does.  But since that isn't going to happen, I'd just pick whoever helps him win.

I know Nunn bugs us liberals, but he was against the Iraq war. If there's any evidence he helps in Georgia, I think he's probably a good choice, as long as he doesn't get any policy influence.

I just don't see Edwards or Kerry, either.  Not "changey." Also, both voted for the AUMF.  Sibelius needs to get her butt out there if she's going to do anything. I haven't seen her in the news and the last time I did, I said "feh."

My pick would be Al Gore.  Of course he would have been my pick for President.  But my pick doesn't matter. Just win, baby.

---

by: attorney at arms @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:29:23 PM CDT

Nunn (4.00 / 3)

should not be a heart beat away from the presidency. Democrats can do a lot better.

---

by: Quinton @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:04:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Its nice to play fantasy politics... (4.00 / 1)

But Al Gore being VP would be a big step down for him at this point.  he is an elder statesman, who pretty much transcends the party.   Funny enough, Jimmy Carter is kind of at this level now too... His post presidency has been one of the most amazing of all time.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 18:32:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I want Obama to pick Edwards but the logic of Gore is compelling (4.00 / 1)

As is the power of his presence on the ticket. As to a 'step down' this isn't about 'stature' or bragging rights  -what is it a step down from?

Gore wants to serve America, he has said he will serve in Obama's administration, and he will do as his President asks, as would any American. Using the Cheney powers of the vice presidency, Gore could be given the responsibility for energy and green transformation. James Carville, no friend of the left, says this is exactly what Obama should do.

Alo because Obama is, to some, a giddy risk of reform, having the sureness of Gore on the ticket, the comfort of man vetted in 3 PoTUS/VPOTUS elections is undeniable.

Gore is my and many others second choice, and many peoples first choice. I would not surprised by Gore being picked.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:41:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This (0.00 / 0)

has been nagging at me ever since he mentioned it.

"I think if I was Senator Obama I would say the biggest economic problem we face is the biggest national security problem and the biggest environmental problem. And if I were him, I would ask Al Gore to serve as his vice president, his energy czar, in his administration to reduce our consumption and reliance on foreign energy sources."
--James Carville

Initially, my reaction was only to the first sentence in there - what a completely excellent way to frame it. But over time I've been coming around to the idea of Gore as VP more and more as well to the point where he's now my #2 choice, behind only Feingold. Especially if McCain continues his campaign shakeup, brings back Mike Murphy who masterminded his 2000 primary run (and also worked with people like Ahnold and Jeb), and goes back in the direction of reformer McCain rather than panderer McCain, he could be a much more formidable opponent -- and doing exactly as Carville says, and hammering McCain on energy and the environment day and night, and making them the rationale for Obama's run on the same level as Change and Hope (now with Substance!), would be an excellent strategic move.

---

by: illissius @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:22:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

old white guy (4.00 / 1)

The VP must be attack dog, be qualified, fill in missing gaps in resume like nat'l security and working blue collars, and not upstage nominee.

Old is good and respectable.
White is necessary.
Guy because there in no gal who can provide nat'l security credentials (and black guy and white woman is probably too too much change for one election. Ruled out HRC due to WJC. Sebeilus' white hair is a plus...)

Nunn would shock me but he fits the bill.
Reed seems more likely.

Another thing by picking a new name like Reed (who has ever heard of Reed?) they get added press opportunity to spend some time introducing the new VP to nation. An old name doesn't get to be re-introduced and fades away quickly until debate.

Reed's bio: A leader on defense, education, and health care issues, Reed is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and a former Army Ranger. In 2006, Time magazine noted: "Reed is a serious, intellectually honest veteran and an expert on defense issues in the Senate.

He is definitely old and white and a guy with defense credentials and Rhode Island is all blue collar....my money is on Reed.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:36:39 PM CDT

but (0.00 / 0)

RI has a Republican governor.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 23:28:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

good point nt (0.00 / 0)

---

by: aiko @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:39:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Out of these, (4.00 / 4)

it's Sebelius by a mile. Or more like a couple thousand.

Two bigger picture thoughts about the VP pick:

First, if Obama has one weakness, it's that he is too cautious. As such, it might be a good idea to back a candidate who can stiffen his spine, push him out of his comfort zone, and get him to be more aggressive.

Second, there's a sort of fascination everyone has with Democrats who do well in solidly red states -- Sebelius in Kansas, Schweitzer in Montana, Napolitano in Arizona, and so on -- and choosing someone with these credentials does make sense in an unfavorable political environment and a Congress dominated by Republicans, which is what we've had for much of recent history. But that's (very likely) not what we're going to have come Election Day and after: the nation overall is likely to be a light shade of blue, and Congress is likely to have large Democratic majorities. Therefore, it would make a lot of sense to back someone from a light blue state who is capable of parlaying that small advantage into a very large amount of progressiveness.

Finally, my current top picks (informed by many factors beyond those mentioned above):

1. Russ Feingold
2. Al Gore
3. Kathleen Sebelius
4. John Edwards
5. Brian Schweitzer

---

by: illissius @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:39:13 PM CDT

Richardson (0.00 / 0)

I think Richardson should at least be 3 on that list, but certainly better than Schweitzer, I mean c'mon, the guy brings very little.

---

by: personalpolitical @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 17:38:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I voted for Sebelius (4.00 / 1)

by default; I'd prefer Sherrod Brown or Edwards.

Sebelius has shown some courage and combativeness, and I think that unmoored from Kansas, she could be pretty damn good.

She vetoed a bill that would have required voters to show photo identification before voting, citing disenfranchisement concerns. She issued an executive order making it illegal to discriminate against state employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Three times in four years, she opposed legislation that would have restricted abortion access even though one of those bills passed the Kansas legislature by a two to one margin. Most recently, Sebelius offered a third veto to a bill that would have paved the way for the construction of two new coal-fired units in western Kansas, and she did it primarily on environmental grounds, a stance that a decade ago would have amounted to political suicide.

"Elected leaders are supposed to look at the big picture, at issues that may not affect citizens immediately but are extremely beneficial to the long-term condition of our society. Moving toward renewable energy provides opportunities for better-paying jobs, while helping to address concerns caused by global warming," she said of her decision.

Her position was held up by one vote in the statehouse.

"The coal industry thought that if there was one state it could buy off, it would be Kansas," said one legislator close to Sebelius. "She obviously made an incredibly risky decision to deny the permits. And never before in history had coal plant been rejected on environmental grounds."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

For his part, McCain, if he has half a brain, will pick Sarah Palin.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:42:18 PM CDT

Palin is (0.00 / 0)

politically a bit of a nightmare for our side.  No substantial dirt, a record of good governance (a friend of mine in AK, a Dem, loves her).  A conservative anti-abortion woman would help McCain.  And we don't demonize our opponents, so that too is off the table.  More's the pity.

I hope he picks Romney.

---

by: Klaus Walter @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:52:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

edit... (0.00 / 0)

I mean a conservative anti-abortion woman who is young, attractive, and apparently not completely crazy.  Shallow, but presidential politics are.

---

by: Klaus Walter @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:56:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the plus side, (0.00 / 0)

McCain is going to pick someone he trusts, and from what I've read he basically doesn't know Palin at all.

---

by: illissius @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:56:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Palin (0.00 / 0)

just had a baby that has autism, I don't think she'd consider running for VP now.

---

by: Quinton @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:01:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually Down's Syndrone... (0.00 / 0)

I think.  Not that either one isn't a huge challenge.

---

by: the lurking ecologist @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 19:51:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How many years 'experience' does she have? (0.00 / 0)

And how old is McCain?

That might weaken the 'inexperienced' attack on Obama.

Okay, I Googled. She's a two-term mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. She's been governor for less than two years. Assumed office December 2006. She's two years younger than Obama, who we're to understand is way too inexperienced to be President.

They're not gonna undermine their own attack machine like that. Look for a reinforcing pick on the R side, too. A retired General would be perfect for them. The bio doesn't even matter much, that can be puffed by the stenographers, just the stars and the strong chin.

---

by: Joel @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 19:41:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Palin (4.00 / 2)

is basically the Dan Quayle of 2008

The only reason why he'd pick her is because she's female and young and makes the ticket less manly and less old.

Other than that, she's not qualified whatsoever.

---

by: bobestes @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:13:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You forget (0.00 / 0)

Five years ago she was a suburban mayor. That's executive experience.

---

by: Jay Hazen @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 00:37:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

And I ran a popsicle stand when I was a kid. So I should at least be a mid-level political appointee.

---

by: bobestes @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 21:25:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards, Obama wants a huge victory, Edwards wants to (3.56 / 9)

make his agenda mainstream, and have a place of power to act from.

Taking nothing away fr4om Mr. Bowers notable skills as a prognosticator, "I don't want to run" is not a swan song on this subject.

"I will not serve" is the right phrase to use, as we know.

80,000 people at the Milke high stadium with a running mate that needs to also be introduced to America? When America is already taking a risk with Obama? Not likely, and not smart, and Obama, when he is unlikely, is very very smart.

Watch this space for smart.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:54:28 PM CDT

I agree with you (0.00 / 0)

Besides, Paul's series on this totally sold me.  

---

by: Blue November @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 23:14:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sleepers (0.00 / 0)

I have a couple of sleepers....Gov Ritter of Colorado and Lt. Gen. Gration

---

by: sndeak @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 16:58:17 PM CDT

Obama VP Short List (0.00 / 0)

While a discussion of this nature is a wonderful exercise, I truly hope that the Obama Campaign is not engaging in anything like this. I can not think of anything worse for a new Democratic President to do, than give up an incumbents seat in the Senate, when the margin is so narrow. No matter who wins the General Election, one Party is going to lose a Senate seat. If Obama picks a sitting Senator, and wins the Presidency, we would lose two seats. ( can you imagine the leverage that would give a rooster lollipop like Lieberman?)
No quicker way to geld the new President than to voluntarily reduce your majority.

---

by: VideoHammer @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:12:59 PM CDT

Gov. of IL (0.00 / 0)

gets to appoint Obama's replacement if he wins, not sure what the process is in AZ if it came to a McCain win.

---

by: Quinton @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:22:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amazing, "Someone else" basically tied with Sebelius.. (4.00 / 1)

This probably means what I've been expecting ever since he sealed the nomination: we're not going to be happy with who he picks.

I'm still hoping for Edwards, honestly, but I do think that the chances of that are pretty low.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:21:58 PM CDT

Not necessarily (4.00 / 1)

I really don't think he'll pick from this list.

I really hope it's not Sebelius.  She's so boring.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

---

by: ArkansasLiberal @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:27:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sebelius, I guess, might be the best on this list... (4.00 / 1)

I don't think he'll pick someone really objectionable, just not all that inspiring.  That's what this list screams to me: uninspiring.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:49:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

People: Use head not heart (0.00 / 0)

This is Obama. He is not going to pick the progressive darling. He is going to make 'smart political' pick. The VP is a vehicle to win the white house. Nothing more, nothing less. He won't pick a monster but he will stay on course in the center.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:24:47 PM CDT

Monster? (3.00 / 4)

He wants to win, the evidence that Edwards brings an overwhelming advantage to his ticket cannot be ignored.

OVERWHELMING

6% add, 8% and even 12% add in some states. Since we have massive amounts of data, wont someone please show us what an average 7% add does to the electoral college? Does McCain win Texas? or even ol' Alabam?  

This is not something that can be ignored.

But I'm intrigued who is a monster?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:37:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah ... (0.00 / 0)

but .. with that said .. some centrists are better than others .. Evan Bayh?  No thanks!!  Sam Nunn?  The only ones that like him are Versailles  .. wouldn't Edwards be considered a centrist?  Daschle?  He's awful(And how bad was it that he lost his Senate seat considering he was a Majority/Minority Leader?)

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:42:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

some centrists are better than others (0.00 / 0)

and some centrists policies are better than others....

I think he has to pick up some national security credentials with the VP pick. Edwards, Daschle, and Bayh don't provide that. Unfortunately Nunn does but so does Reed and Biden. My money is on Reed for now.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:51:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't Bayh on Armed Services? ... (0.00 / 0)

If I absolutely had to pick someone from the above list .. it would be Sebelius or Reed ..  but while you don't need an inspiring figure .. Nunn is a dead in the water pick .. do you really want someone that is closer to Jesse Helms than he is Obama?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 19:29:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hagel? (0.00 / 0)

Intrade likes Hagel....and Bayh.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/int...

Let's deep six Nunn. He is loser.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 20:31:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why does everyone always look .. (4.00 / 4)

at Intrade? ... 9 months ago ..Intrade was saying Hillary and Rudy would be duking it out .. so they aren't much of a predictor  

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:18:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

doesn't predict the future (4.00 / 1)

its an indicator of common wisdom on this day. it says if the election was held today, or if Obama were to pick his VP today, this is who the common wisdom suggests would win. it is an indicator of who the cw thinks is more or less likely.

simple really.

btw a long shot $100 bet on Reed would bring a $10,000 reward....

---

by: aiko @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:46:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah so why even mention it? (0.00 / 1)

Hagel is absolutely worthless. Probably reflective of the people that use intratrade.

---

by: adamterando @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:50:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How come Bill Richardson is not mentioned. (4.00 / 1)

Governor of a Southwestern State
Former Cabinet Official,Diplomat,and Congressman
Hispanic Descendt.
Clinton Appointee.

---

by: nkpolitics @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 17:57:25 PM CDT

ok (4.00 / 1)

but it would have to be Richardson with a beard.  Because Richardson without a beard is kind of a lunkhead.

---

by: tremayne @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 18:48:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And serial whisper campaign subject (0.00 / 0)

Too many bad stories about his behavior towards women.

---

by: adamterando @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:51:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

he should be (0.00 / 0)

he is a top tier choice, much better than many of the others mentioned.

---

by: personalpolitical @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 17:35:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reflections on the bench (4.00 / 1)

It's telling that it's this difficult to find any option that doesn't come with serious reservations. Says something about the state of the party as a whole.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 18:59:15 PM CDT

Party as a whole? .. (0.00 / 0)

or just choices that are presumed for a VP.  There are plenty of good choices out there .. they just don't seem to be mentioned .. Schweitzer?  Feingold?  Sherrod Brown? .. I am sure there are more ... it's just a matter of who wants to go through the BS that is silly season

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 19:32:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quite frankly (0.00 / 0)

It seems hard for me to believe if people (including folks within the party apparatus) were mostly united and clamoring for one of these people they would become more interested.

Regardless, the point I was after is more that there's nobody who's both available and attractive in a way that clearly puts them 1) ahead of the pack and 2) is able to provide anything resembling both unity and excitement.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 19:53:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Duh!! ... (0.00 / 0)

Because there are two different factions of the party .. there is the DLC types .. and there are the DFH's .. I imagine a lot of the DFH's(like myself) could get re-energized real quick .. if Obama were to chose Feingold as his VP .. I am sure the DLC types would go bonkers over Evan Bayh .. name me one person that could jazz up the whole(both factions) party

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:21:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's the hurry? (0.00 / 1)

Obama himself is a weak candidate--he doesn't really bring anything substantive to the table. For that reason, he should probably try to get Hillary.  When the media asks, "Why her?" the answer is simple: party unity. End of discussion.  

In any case, Obama should wait till he figures out what HE believes first.

I'm surprised at the support here for Sebelius.  Isn't she basically a Republican?

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 20:08:02 PM CDT

in answer to your final question: (0.00 / 0)

no.

http://www.boomantribune.com/s...

---

by: seabrook @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:45:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A weak candidate???? (0.00 / 0)

Is that why Obama beat both of the Clintons at the same time? Is that why Obama is crushing McCain in national polls and in the electoral college?? Is that why he is kicking McCain's ass on all of the issues?? Give me a break, just because your candidate lost doesn't mean he is a weak candidate just because you say so, that isn't how reality works. As for unity, pssst, I don't know if you haven't been paying attention or what, but the party is already unified behind Obama.

And say what you want about Sebelius, but last time I checked she hadn't endorsed McCain over Obama, Hillary did, multiple times. That sounds basically Republican to me.

In short, Hillary cannot be VP, it is the worst choice, and frankly anyone pushing that is a complete idiot. See this for a detailed analysis:

http://www.thepersonalispoliti...

---

by: personalpolitical @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 17:33:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It won't be Sibelius (4.00 / 3)

1) She stunk in her response to the SOTU;
2) She can't deliver her own state;
3) Hillary supporters will revolt against any woman other than HRC.

And, you can take Sam Nunn off the list - only Jimmy Carter thinks he would be a good idea.

"I'm not the member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat." Will Rodgers

---

by: GaDem @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 20:15:49 PM CDT

Your 3 points... (0.00 / 0)

1) She's done far better in front of the DNC at large. Most candidates are better on one format than another.  Perhaps her best format is not, "First national address, to an audience of tens of millions, rebutting a President I very much want to discredit."
2) Who says Kansas can't be won and she couldn't help?
3) I think you're presuming monolithic motivation on the part of Hillary supporters. Some loved her experience.  Some trusted the Clinton family. Some wanted to see "a woman" advance.  Some specifically were in love with Hillary as a candidate and might be angry if another woman is picked.  But that doesn't mean that distinct people in those other groups would follow.

I think she'd be good, but my guess is MT Gov. Schweitzer.

---

by: Jay Hazen @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:05:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Somebody not a politician might be just right... (0.00 / 0)

...how about Bill Moyers, Caroline Kennedy, or Jim Lehrer.

...All would be terrific surprises.

...And I must have missed why Bill Richardson and John Edwards are no longer in contention.  Both looked like naturals when they endorsed Obama.

---

by: Deep Blue @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 20:23:31 PM CDT

I agree (0.00 / 0)

Richardson should definitely be on there, and even Edwards is more likely than many of those on that list.

At least he didn't put Schweitzer on the list, I don't know why some people think that would be a good idea...

---

by: personalpolitical @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 17:29:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No senators from states... (0.00 / 0)

... with Republican governors. God, with Republicans filibustering everything under the sun and Democrats on the verge of meeting the 60-seat threshold in either 2008 or 2010, losing Bayh, Nelson, or Reed's seats to Republicans would be a kick in the face. Especially Reed's, considering he's pretty progressive on most issues.

---

by: Zephyr @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 20:44:18 PM CDT

Clearly Sebelius (4.00 / 1)

The choice is too obvious; Sebelius is too perfect a match, both policy-wise (she is a progressive and has a good record of bringing progressive change) and politics-wise (it benefits Obama electorally). If not Sebelius, maybe Napolitano or Schweitzer would be a good pick, to show that the Dems are looking West, not the South... I'm all for 50 states strategy, but I think too much emphasis is still placed on the South, compared to the West.

I like the idea of Patty Murray too; a solid liberal feminist with a citizen activist background... I don't know how electorally beneficial she will be, but I admire her a lot.  

---

by: liberallatte @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:17:00 PM CDT

Left Field (0.00 / 0)

I kind of think it will be someone out of left field like Chuck Hagel, which will be borderline insane.

Obama just comes across like he thinks he's got liberal votes in the bag, regardless of what he does.

---

by: bobestes @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:17:27 PM CDT

That being said (0.00 / 0)

I have no idea why Hagel would take it. He might as well pick his nose for 4-8 years if he's going to serve as VP under a Democratic president. And the Cheney/Gore precedent is that VP should get to do something beyond banging gavels and cutting ribbons.

---

by: bobestes @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:20:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Somebody's going to have the fix the military (4.00 / 1)

It would take all of Obama's time if he tried to do it with a Sec Def.

---

by: Bush Bites @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 22:45:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think Hagel plays in RIGHT field (0.00 / 0)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:23:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So the flap over Clark got him eliminated (0.00 / 0)

just what they wanted.  

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:19:20 PM CDT

Do we know .. (0.00 / 0)

if Clark was ever seriously considered? .. there are plenty here that would like to see him as VP .. but that doesn't mean Obama had him in mind at all .. besides .. as someone said elsewhere .. I really don't think Obama would go with someone who has never held elected office before .. it is a pretty big risk to take for a cautious guy

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:24:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

he was being strongly considered... (0.00 / 0)

waaaay at the beginning of the campaign and before the threw his support behind Clinton (and also decided not to run himself)

---

by: neutron @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 22:12:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama picks another US Senator (4.00 / 1)

It must be from a state that has a Democratic Governor and a battleground state.
How about Russ Feingold.

---

by: nkpolitics @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:37:57 PM CDT

Kaine (0.00 / 0)

Governor Kaine from Virginia seems like the hands-down best choice, and I'm surprised how little consideration he is getting from the media and bloggers. A southern, white male who is a popular governor of a swing state = winning ticket.

By picking Kaine, he'd really force McCain to campaign hard there. Moreover, if Obama were to win Virginia, then we can afford to lose Ohio & Florida.

---

by: boomersun @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:42:53 PM CDT

Kathleen Sibelius is a moderate not a progressive Democrat (0.00 / 0)

Sure she vetoed an anti abortion bill...and as pro choice activist I am grateful.

She's liberal in the context of kansas, not the US or any political tradtion.

And at this point I don't think Barack Obama needs to reenforce his bipartisan, post partisan, let's all get along personae.  He's doing that himself...and he's doing too much of it....he doesn't need anyone else to do it more

There are 3 progressives on that list

Wes Clark  ---he has been treated shabbily

Patty Murray---- she rarely has to be pushed to do the right thing....she knows what it is without being told. Most of her non progressive votes have to do with free trde issues which are very Washington State oriented.

Hillary Clinton is a progressive, she is partisan...which at this point he needs and her voting record is just about the most progressive in the Senate.  She helps him with places, states and people he has trouble with.  She brings foreign policy chops.....

The chart showing everyone's voting record for the 109th and 110th congress

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...

Note the 4 most left ward Senators.....Boxer, Clinton, Lautenberg, Kennedy.  Biden is in the middle...even Lieberman (domestically) is to the left of Biden.  Remember Biden is form Delaware...the US capital of incorporation of entities like all those banks who pushed the bankruptcy bill.

Obama is a little to the left of Biden...almost exactly the same as Joe Lieberman...there are 12-15 more progressive Senators than Barack Obama.

He needs a progressive.  We need him to pick a progressive.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 21:56:44 PM CDT

I don'y believe those scores .. (4.00 / 1)

How can Boxer, Clinton, Lautenberg and Kennedy be to the left of Sanders and Feingold?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 22:59:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well remember Russ voted for Ashcroft (4.00 / 1)

Russ gives the Bush amdinistration they people they want with little protest.  And he's not exactly a champion on women's issues.

Bernie Sanders is an economic progressive...I don't know about other issues...maybe that's the matter.

But I certainly do think it makes sense that lautenberg, Boxer and kennedy are in the most left group.  Clinton too...except for the flag burning vote ...which was designed to be a safety valve for the flag burning amendment to the constititution. That amendment only lost with one vote..it would have passed without the bill...by the way you may not know it but Obama voted for that bill too.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 00:39:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know Obama isn't that great ... (0.00 / 0)

I just find it humorous when people try to say that Obama and Hillary are socialist effete latte sipping lefties .. because that is not true .. both are centrists

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 08:10:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I stopped laughing a long time ago... (0.00 / 0)

I think it is damaging to have Clinton and Obama associated with 'progressive'.  If they are 'progressive' then the word means 'centrist' and why bother using it?  Can't we at least get the branding right on this site?  'Progressive' is still rather under the radar with the media and CW types, why are we letting people destroy it before it has a chance to mean something different and promising to the masses?

---

by: Ricky @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:20:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is Rendell declared out? (0.00 / 0)

'Cos he might be a dark horse now.

---

by: Bush Bites @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 22:47:36 PM CDT

I guess that logic would be to lock down the Rust Belt (0.00 / 0)

But I haven't seen polling that Gov. Rendell would do that.

---

by: Jay Hazen @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:11:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like Edwards or Clark (4.00 / 1)

Paul's great series on Edwards explains why he's a great pick better than I could.  I also like Clark.  And they're both economic progressives, so that's cool.

In one of my earlier posts, I said that "brand" was key in picking a VP.  Now with Obama struggling a bit to define himself in the face of Republican attacks, a VP with a strong "brand" seems even more important than ever.

---

by: Blue November @ Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 23:20:21 PM CDT

... (0.00 / 0)

You're right in the sense that she is not a necessarily dynamic public speaker or campaigner and is largely unknown. But that's the very reason why she's a good choice. She reassures people that Obama isn't a threat. In other words, it allows people who are really left-leaning, who don't define themselves as left-leaning, to vote for Obama. It gets rid of some of the fear that cultural conservatives often have when voting for politicians.

Too, ummoored from Kansas, Sebelius would be a stronger Progressive. She's got the integrity that would push her in that direction.

---

by: Risiko @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 13:49:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oops (0.00 / 0)

I meant the above reply to be in response to the post below this one.

---

by: Risiko @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 13:49:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thing is (0.00 / 0)

that the politics of the VP really don't matter much in the short term, unless the president cedes that person a lot of power, which Obama doesn't seem like the type to do.  The VP should be picked mostly for electoral considerations and to put someone in the on deck circle for presidential consideration eight years later (here politics can matter in the long term).

Because of all of this, I can't see why so many people are behind Sebelius.  She is simply not a good choice from an electoral perspective this cycle.  She's not a dynamic public speaker or campaigner, she has low name recognition that won't ring bells with the voters being fought over now, and she doesn't help Obama with his biggest weaknesses or in any important states.  The only aspect of her that really reinforces Obama is that she is unknown (her work with republicans is irrelevant because the voters at stake now are never going to hear that message loud enough to matter).  

In terms of building our bench, anybody young enough who becomes vice president will inevitably be a presidential contender eventually.  But I'm not convinced that Sebelius is a particularly good choice in this respect.  She doesn't seem like a particularly strong presidential candidate, nor does she seem particularly progressive, despite a couple stances that I do really like.  If you want to use the slot to groom a prospect, you might as well pick somebody with more political talent or with more progressive politics.

I just don't get the love for her in the blogosphere.  It seems like a really bad choice to me.


John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:10:34 AM CDT

Warner also took himself out (0.00 / 0)

it was reported o/a june 14th that Mark Warner said he wasn't a candidate for vp.

---

by: dwight @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:04:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

conspicuous by his absence on the list (0.00 / 0)

whatever happened to Bill Richardson????

---

by: dwight @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:08:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where's Richardson (4.00 / 1)

Richardson is a far better choice than a lot of the people on that list, including those already disqualified. Am I missing something? It is fairly obvious that he should be one of the top choices. I think omissions like that can explain why so many people want "someone else".

And Hillary? Horrible horrible option, she shouldn't even be on there its so bad:

http://www.thepersonalispoliti...

---

by: personalpolitical @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 17:27:05 PM CDT

I agree (0.00 / 0)

No Hillary. People fantasize about her becoming pres and get scared. I do.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 22:35:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clark just fills all the holes (0.00 / 0)

Obama needs filled.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 22:34:20 PM CDT