Vice-President: Obama's Criteria and Short List

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 19:05


Via BooMan comes a report on Obama's short list for vice-president:

Obama: "His focus now includes five colleagues in the U.S. Senate - Joseph Biden, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Jack Reed - and two governors, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, according to Democratic operatives, though he could still make a different pick."

No surprises in this list. These seven names are consistent with the semi-short list names we have seen floated for the past month or two. One item of note is that Jack Reed has taken himself out of contention recently, declaring that he would not accept the VP slot if offered. So, that means the six top candidates at this point are Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kaine and Sebelius.

Now, let's look at Obama's criteria for picking a Vice-President, which bruhrabbit pointed us to in quick hits earlier today:

Obama listed the qualities he'll be looking for: "I'm going to want somebody with integrity. I'm going to want somebody with independence - who's willing to tell me where he thinks, or she thinks, I'm wrong. And I'm going to want somebody who shares a vision of the country: where we need to go - that we've got to fundamentally change not only our policies, but how politics work, how business is done in Washington." (...)

"I think the most important thing, from my perspective, is somebody who can help me govern," Obama said. "I want somebody who I'm compatible with, who I can work with, who has a shared vision, who certainly complements me, in the sense that they provide a knowledge base or an area of expertise that can be useful. Because we're going to have a lot of problems and a lot of work to do."

Now, like so much in politics, this could simply be empty rhetoric and, as such, should not be taken seriously. However, if we were to take it at face value, the short list is pretty odd. None of the four Senators on the six-person list would be viewed as agents of change in D.C., and none of them would make Obama appear to be more of an agent of change in D.C.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Vice-President: Obama's Criteria and Short List
Here are the four remaining Senators on the "short list," and why none of them really come close to Obama's stated vice-presidential criteria:

  • Evan Bayh owes his political career to being the son of Birch Bayh, who was a Senator for 18 years. Further, during his 10 years as a Senator, Bayh has done little to make his mark, other than serving as the leader of status-quo institutions like the DLC (2001-2005) and the Senate centrist caucus.
  • Joe Biden has been a Senator for 38 years. Yeah, that's real change.
  • Hillary Clinton has been in D.C. for 16 years, and Obama just spent a year running as the "change" or "reform" alternative to her. Further, no pick would appear more politically motivated than Clinton.
  • Chris Dodd has been in D.C. for 34 years. That really isn't any better than Biden. Granted, of late he has appeared more successful at rankling people in D.C., but his recent involvement with Countrywide Financial won't exactly make him look like change you can believe in, at least right now.

In short, these four Senators just don't even come close to Obama's stated criteria for picking a Vice-President. That leaves us with the two Governors, Tim Kaine and Kathleen Sebelius. Electorally speaking, Kaine can probably bring something to the table, considering that Obama is already narrowly ahead in Virginia. Adding those thirteen electoral votes would seriously complicate the electoral math for John McCain, given that the Kerry states, plus virtual lock Iowa, plus Virginia, would be enough to win the election. However, Kaine is also anti-choice and pro-abstinence education, and could open wide rifts in the party on those grounds, especially after a primary where Obama defeated the first viable woman candidate for president, ever.

And so, once again, we are quickly left with Kathleen Sebelius as the obvious, default, process of elimination choice. She would work well, too. While she describes herself as "personally pro-life," legislatively speaking she is pro-choice and has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood. As a reinforcing choice, she appears to have opposed the Iraq war from the start, has a strong record of being able to flip Republicans both in terms of votes and party registration, and was an early Obama supporters. She also has a strong record on health care, education, and the environment.

The counter-argument for Sebelius is that she is boring, not a compelling speaker (and thus not clearly presidential) and her conception of "change" in Washington, D.C. has been accurately panned and trashed by Todd Beeton and Matt as naïve pro-elites. I guess my response to that is that by being boring, Sebelius will just make Obama look better. Also, Obama's rhetorical arguments about change have been pretty similar to those put forth by Sebelius. So, even the negatives about Sebelius actually help Obama look better / more comfortable with himself.

I'm not saying that Kathleen Sebelius is an ideal pick. I just think that, given the messages Obama has run on to date, she is the least harmful option out there.  

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Vice-President: Obama's Criteria and Short List | 107 comments
Meh.... (4.00 / 3)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
better make sure (0.00 / 0)
there is no "there" there regarding the Enquirer story.

I don't see any total slam-dunk VP choices out there -- they all have faults. As long as Bayh and Clinton aren't picked, I'll be happy.

[ Parent ]
Bayh? (4.00 / 3)
Nnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Meh is right (4.00 / 1)
Besides Edwards or Clark, none of this group really excite me. Biden and Sebelius might be merely acceptable, but I don't think it will change the minds of undecideds or independents.

I might be looking at this very superficially, but it seems like McCain has better group of candidates. Despite running the most incompetent campaign known to man, he is still is within 4-6 points. Just terrible communication skills. With guy like Romney on board, McCain might have someone with decent oratory skills to solidify the base and be a non-crazy attack dog. And I know so many self-described "moderates" that seem to have respect for Romney despite huge discrepancy on key issues.  

I guess I just don't see a VP-bump for Obama with this set of candidates. I think McCain potentially does.    

[ Parent ]
oh and about that impeachment card (4.00 / 2)
One reason impeaching Bush hasn't gone anywhere is because a President Cheney would be even worse. Obama should take a lesson from it and pick a VP the wingers would be scared to death to see as president.

So do we progressives have any Darth Vaders among us?

Yeah. (4.00 / 1)
We do. Let's just say I don't want to get my hopes up.
[ Parent ]
I so support John Edwards! (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Helmet Watch (4.00 / 7)
This is as close as I could find to Dennis looking like Vader.



Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
That rocks (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
He's clearly a Ferengi (0.00 / 0)
That's why it's so hard to take him seriously.


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Hillary Clinton... (4.00 / 1)
just sayin'...
[ Parent ]
Can we fake up a birth-certificate for Subcomandante Marcos? (0.00 / 0)
Failing that, we could always pick Louis Farrakhan? Or an enraged hippopotamus.

It's really difficult coming up with sensible suggestions to counter Cheney. We're on the left. Our heroes aren't generally pure unrefined evil. Feingold might be the president the Republicans want least, but we don't have any candidates who would make them want to lock their windows at night like with Cheney.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Yes, but ... (4.00 / 10)
... this all ignores the fact that the Obama camp has been particularly cagy about their vetting process.  This shortlist, despite (or, perhaps, because) it simply reinforces the CW, is probably missing a few critical figures who are actually under consideration.  I'm bracing for a total dark-horse veep.
Those criteria describe Feingold (4.00 / 5)
much more than anyone on the "short list.'



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.
Feingold is the outstanding choice (4.00 / 1)
And has been all along. But what difference does it make? Obama couldn't even bring himself to vote in favor of the Constitution, so I'm not exactly excited about his ability to pick a running mate.
[ Parent ]
Stop... mentioning... that... name! (4.00 / 1)
Heh.
[ Parent ]
they also describe Howard Dean (4.00 / 8)
though picking Dean would be almost too good to be true
[ Parent ]
That would certainly set the cat among the pigeons! (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
I would like to see the alleged PUMAs (4.00 / 2)
Claim that Dean rigged the primary rules in exchange for the veep slot.  They'd be wrong, but they'd be entertaining.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
At Least Sam Nunn Isn't On That List Anymore (4.00 / 8)
Still, why not Brian Schweitzer?

I've given up on the pipe dream that is Obama selecting Sherrod Brown for VP, so why not Schweitzer? He's a much more compelling choice than Kaine or Sebelius, in my opinion.

From a pure ideological stand-point (4.00 / 4)
I'm not sure who is more progressive Schweitzer or Sebelius. Schweitzer is definitely to the right on environmental issues (clean coal and shoot to kill on wolves). But on economic issues I don't know where they stand. Where does Sebelius stand on fair trade? I would think Schweitzer would be pretty good on that (like Tester), but I'm not sure. I don't remember Sebelius ever talking about tax cuts in Kansas. Has anyone else?
It'd be good to know where she stands on a lot of these things.

If it wasn't for Schweitzer's environmental stands and his being a little too close to the libertarian point of view on government (which works well when Bush is president, but it could definitely come back to bite you in the a$$ if a Democrat is president), then I'd say, yes he'd be terrific.  

[ Parent ]
Schweitzer (4.00 / 6)
He is my pick. A libertarian slant, which he does possess, would be good for the ticket IMHO. Keep in mind that is a slant and nothing more. It is more akin to populism than actual libertarian ideology.

As for the environment, he is actually extremely progressive except for his stance on coal. That's what happens when you are governor of one of the biggest coal producing states. We saw the same problem with Obama a while back (whatever happened to that, anyway? Guess that was a primary-only issue).

I posted before that I think Schweitzer is out because he is virtually unknown. Had Obama been floating his name occasionally, there would already be a couple dozen MSM articles about him. His name recognition would be slowly crawling upward. But Obama has not, and Schweitzer remains unknown.

Now I am not so sure. Maybe I am being optimistic, but I think these floated VP lists are absolute crap. Lies. Deception. It could be he plans to use his VP as a shocker to garner media attention. If you say you're going to pick Dodd for 3 months, and then you do, nobody cares. But, if you keep leaking lists with the same 5-10 people for months, and then pick somebody completely out of the blue, the media has one of its little seizures and Obama gets to continue dominating the press coverage.

Or maybe I am just in denial because Obama's list absolutely suck.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Guns (4.00 / 6)
The only issue where Schweitzer is really out of the Democratic mainstream is on guns, and to me that's far less of a deal breaker than Kaine's stance on a woman's right to choose, for example. In fact, I think softening a bit on guns in order to get back a share of the rural vote is not a bad thing for Democrats.

As for coal, as an environmentalist, yes it's not ideal. But, from a pragmatic political standpoint, it would only help Obama in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania to have Schweitzer on the ticket on that issue.

I just think Schweitzer is such a mold breaker culturally for Democrats, and he could help unlock the West for a long time and make inroads in rural areas in the East as well. He's more of a game changer than a generic Democrat like Sebelius, and I'm hard pressed to think of any real political liabilities there are in selecting the guy, other than Paul Rosenberg's "his state only has 3 EV's" argument. I think if you're looking for a change candidate, he is very different from the kind of Democrat that the party has put on the ticket from 1984 on, and I think that's a big plus in terms of building a more diverse and more durable political coalition.

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 4)
maybe. But I'm also looking at the VP slot as our most likely Democratic nominee in 2016 should Obama win. And Schweitzer is just a little to right-ward for me at this point. He's better than a lot of other people on 'the list', but there's still something that just bothers me a little bit about him in terms of his 'get government off our backs' schtick. We've had that for 28 years now and what's that line gotten us? Declining funding for social programs, spiraling health care and education costs, and the total break-down of regulation for corporations for things like pollution and workers rights. So I'd like a little MORE government actually. And I'd like it ON the backs of corporations to keep them in line. Where's the democrat to articulate that vision? (oh right, his name's Sherrod Brown but his name's not on the list). If Schweitzer could give voice to that sort of full-throated unabashed progressive message, then truly would be a mold-breaker for a Democrat.
[ Parent ]
Winning in 2016 (0.00 / 0)
Then I would submit to you that winning in 2016 should also be a consideration, and I think it's fair to say a charismatic guy like Schweitzer might be a better candidate in 8 years than Sebelius.
[ Parent ]
There's also the question of who he'll be in 2016 (0.00 / 0)
The VP has often ended up becoming more and more like his president. Bush I embraced voodoo economics and treason, Gore actually moved further left than his president and the only difference between Bush II and Cheney is that Cheney would shoot the puppy after strangling it, just to make sure it was dead.

Brian Schweitzer in 2016 after eight years as VP could be an entirely different thing from Brian Schweitzer now. He'd certainly have to keep schtum on any conservative social views, if nothing else.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
bayh (0.00 / 0)
i,m in the nra and i vote democratic. evan used to get the nra endorsement when he was a state pol. when he went to washington that all changed. in other words old evan will tell what you want hear then piss on you. kind of like someone else i know.
[ Parent ]
Schweitzer is more conservative for sure (0.00 / 0)
WAY more conservative on the environment ("clean" coal vs ban coal) and pretty conservative on cultural issues ala Jim Webb.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
the cultural issues don't bother me too much (4.00 / 1)
except when it gets in the way of endangered species act. Then it REALLY bothers me (thus my 'shoot to kill' wolf comment). Guns I don't care (except guns in the national park service also REALLY bothers me). But that clean coal crap really sticks in my craw.  
[ Parent ]
Is He Really? (4.00 / 1)
Is he really more conservative on cultural issues, other than guns? I don't believe he is. He seems to be more libertarian on cultural issues, including coming out in favor of a woman's right to choose. Basically, he seems to be the type of Democrat who believes that if a person works hard, pays their taxes, and stays out of trouble with the law, then the government has no right to tell them how to live, who to date, or what God to worship.
[ Parent ]
Because (0.00 / 0)
Governor Schweitzer has repeatedly rejected any talk of the VP as nuts.

The Gov. is going to roll to a good-sized win for his second term and hopefully with expanded democratic control in at least one state legislative body.

[ Parent ]
While I think taking a politician's words at face value (4.00 / 6)
is very often a bad idea, in this case I would give a lot more weight to Obama's own words than to anonymous "insider" reports of unknowable accuracy from the press. And going by Obama's own words...

I think he's going to pick a Governor.

He's mentioned at least once -- but I think repeatedly -- that he feels foreign policy is one of his strengths and something he doesn't need help on (this he actually proved this week, I hope, to everyone's satisfaction), but that more concretely than someone who can "help him govern", he wants someone with executive experience. Experience governing, not necessarily much experience with foreign policy... that fits the profile of a Governor exactly. (And incidentally, unlike the national security angle, this wouldn't really highlight executive skills as a weakness on Obama's part, because they're not -- he's shown he can run a campaign and manage people extremely well. And with regards to actual experience governing, well, John McCain doesn't have any of that either. So it would be a shrewd choice, I think.)

So, for realistic contenders out of our current Democratic governors, that leaves: Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Brian Schweitzer, Bill Richardson, Tim Kaine

Not a bad group. Sebelius and Schweitzer are two of my favorites, Napolitano (though I know less about her) seems like she would also be great (if not necessarily so much electorally, given the rumors), and while Richardson or Kaine may not be everyone's favorite, Obama could sure do a hell of lot worse than either of them (Nunn, Bayh, ... allow me to not continue). Have any of these people (really, truly) taken themselves out of contention without me hearing about it? And are there any notables among former Democratic governors who belong on the list?

Janet Napolitano (4.00 / 2)
is extremely popular in Arizona....much more popular than McCain....
[ Parent ]
Would she be able to put AZ in play? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
According to the polls.... (4.00 / 4)
Arizona IS in play...
http://www.pollster.com/polls/...

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
And single (0.00 / 0)
which unfortunately would probably be a distraction.
[ Parent ]
Which is why she needs to stay in AZ (4.00 / 1)
and take McCain's seat in 2010.
[ Parent ]
And Bob Kerry could be added to the list. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Would be as bad as Bayh (4.00 / 5)

[ Parent ]
Not as bad (0.00 / 0)
Bayh is twelve years younger.

But yeah, when the best thing you can say about Kerrey comes down to "maybe he'll die soon" we begin to see why he isn't a stellar VP pick.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Martin O'Malley (MD-Gov) (0.00 / 0)
Is he just too new to office, or is there some other reason he's never mentioned?  Granted, Obama doesn't need help to win Maryland, but it's doubtful Sebelius would put Kansas in play, and Montana's only three EVs, so I don't think that's a major criterion based on the governors already under discussion.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee
[ Parent ]
Well my problem with the short list (0.00 / 0)
isn't only as a matter of the change meme and his messaging, but whether or not any of them reflects someone who will challenge him. They all seem pretty much safe choices that aren't going to challeng him in anyway useful to move the country in any direction that hasn't been the case for 15 years now.

I guess challenge could mean equal, and in which case, I guess maybe Clinton, but she challenges him to be more like DC , not less. So, I find the list- well confusing. I m going to go with the article being just rhectoric and not something he means until he shows in actual fact he meant it.  

Dodd challenging him on FISA ? (4.00 / 1)
If we look at very recent history, the only challenge I could think of among Sens. is Dodd's firmness on FISA.

It's hard to know how much behind the scene lobbying goes on in the Senate. Dodd and the FISA filibuster was one of the more visible efforts this campaign seasons.

(FWIW... I prefer a Gov. to a Sen., and among the Sens. view Dodd as the least-worst choice.)

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

[ Parent ]
"Viewed", "Appeared" (4.00 / 9)
However, if we were to take it at face value, the short list is pretty odd. None of the four Senators on the six-person list would be viewed as agents of change in D.C., and none of them would make Obama appear to be more of an agent of change in D.C.

Chris, I don't think you actually took Obama's quote at face value.  Obama said he was interesting in how the VP would help him govern and you go on to discuss how the VP pick will appear and be viewed.  Obama discussed governing and you get back to politics.

And when I think I might be misreading you, you go to bullet points that only verify how you are focussed on appearances.

Now I have no idea of any of these people actually meet Obama's criteria or not, but how they look to voters is mostly besides the point.

Exactly (4.00 / 1)
And I doubt Bayh or Clinton fit his criteria. And Harry Reid will not let Chris Dodd out of the Senate beacuse we'd lose a senator.

I think that makes the short list Biden, Sebelius and Kaine. There is also someone that people are not reporting most likely.

None are fantastic choices, all have personal relationships with Obama and bring stuff to the table. I'd prefer Sebelius, I'd bet Biden.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Not if: (0.00 / 0)
He resigned upon being selected as teh Veep Nominee. Then it would become an open seat, and I think she would just appoint someoneone to fill this out till the special Election in Nov.  
[ Parent ]
Very unlikely (0.00 / 0)
To happen. I doubt Dodd would do it and the balance would be flipped in the Senate until then.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
You are assuming 60 seats? (0.00 / 0)
In the very likely scenario that we do not get 60 seats, any deep-blue-state Senator could be Obama's VP without long-term consequences.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Misinterprets the criteria (4.00 / 4)
I think that the most important for Obama were someone with whom he personally felt comfortable and trusted, someone who would be willing to work hard, not just be a ceremonial figure, and someone whose view of how government ought to work is compatible with his.  Plus someone who could plausibly take over, should anything happen.

When Obama talks about change, he means two different things by it.  In part he means pretty dramatic changes of direction in specific policy areas--global warming, energy, and the general tilt of government and the economy for the few and not the many, such as tax and investment policy, which now are very heavily skewed to the rich and big business, and foreign policy/national security.  

But he also, and equally importantly, means a change in how DC procedurally works, for want of a better term.  Too much money in politics, too special interest driven, too much posturing for points, too little real interest (especially in the last 8 years) in policy and in actual  solutions to real problems, as opposed to kabuki around set themes (as outlined in EJ Dionne's "Why Americans Hate Politics").  I don't think Obama is at all hostile to real politics, that is, the back and forth bargaining and negotiation over policy.  

What he doesn't like is what has taken the place of that, which is shallowness, soundbites, rigid ideological positions that preclude real discussion and using the legislative process to score points and amass power and money.  I think he wants, as he says, to bring experts and groups together and try to find workable solutions to the many problems that face this country, like Democrats used to do.  So someone like Ted Kennedy who is a consummate legislator would qualify.  Someone like Biden, even though he has been in DC forever, would qualify on foreign policy at least because he is reality-based, relatively non-ideological, and flexible--a big change from how things are done right now under Bush/Cheney.

I think he'd personally like to pick Sibelius, because he feels comfortable with her,  But I don't think she's plausible enough on the national stage.  I think Biden or Dodd are much more likely.  Yes, they've been in DC, but they are both pretty knowledgeable and interested in dealing with problems.  Or someone outside the box, with economic expertise.  But I think it will be a "safe" pick because he understands he's already seen as a "risky" choice by 55% of the population, and the VP has to bespeak change you can be confident will not go off the rails somehow.  

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

I think you ae projecting a lot that's not there (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
I agree Chris misread the criteria (4.00 / 4)
When he used the word change it was not the way Chirs thinks he meant it...

He wants someone he feels good about. I think he going to pick someone he likes. Someone he trusts to do the hard work.  Someone who coud govern.  That he says is the most important criteria....The way he spoke about change in no way precludes the other Senators....Biden and Dodd also fit the other cirteria.  and I think he personally likes Biden...look how he came to Joe's rescue a couple of times in the debates.

Sibelius is too big of a jump, it will only really aggravate the Clinton people and they are still not fully on board, in particular the fundraisers; and Matt is right that she makes his message look milquetoast...She is certainly not a great speaker...not even a good speaker.

Now at this point there may be enough distance from the primary that he is confident enough to look strong by choosing Hillary rather than weak. That she is a considered rather than a pressured choice.  The message could be that he was confident enough to go with a strong compelling figure. However I really don't expect that...I think it's Biden.    

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

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 3)
Chris seemed to boil a full paragraph, full of somewhat vaguely worded details, but details nonetheless into one word: change. As such, it's closer to a strawman stereotype than a useful distinction.

By my reading, he's looking for post-partisanship, straight-talk, completed action items on the resume, ideological similarity, AND someone who can fill in the gaps. All these things are mentioned.

Every one of these Senators has at least one of these qualities. Biden's got the accomplishments and the straight talk. Hillary's got the accomplishments, the ideological similarity, the gap filling.  Bayh has the post-partisanship and not much else. Dodd has the straight talk, the ideology, and the accomplishments.

Regardless of what most of us in here think, Sebelius has everything, Kaine has most of these in lesser amounts than Sebelius.

I still think it's Sebelius.

[ Parent ]
We see eye to eye again (4.00 / 1)
:-)

I think that Obama means what he says here - he's said it repeatedly.  Trust, someone who will talk straight to him, someone he can put to work on weighty issues.  He's said it again and again, and I think we ought to believe him on this, because Obama has proven himself not to be ideological, but he is highly philosophical, if I can make that distinction.  Or, maybe I can say it like this - he's not issues ideological, but he is process ideological, and if he's talking about process -  you probably can take it to the bank.  Even his "flip flop" on public funding can be understood in that light - the "issue" of public financing wasn't something he felt overly loyal to, when another way of public financing emerged.

I wrote herehttp://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7147 about being really disheartened about the number of people outright disqualifying themselves to be his number 2, but Claire McCaskill has another opinion on the whole thing: http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), thought to be a possible contender for Barack Obama's No. 2 spot, was asked on Fox News Sunday, "I'm going to do something that people don't do around Washington very often. I think you're not supposed to do this. I think anybody in Washington would be thrilled to be asked."

Would she take the job, if offered? She said, "I would like to meet somebody who wouldn't. If they're saying they wouldn't, I don't think that they are being as candid or as up front with the American people as probably they should be."

If she's right, then all those who took themselves out of contention can be safely put back.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Biden (0.00 / 0)
The rumor in the Delaware newspapers is that Biden is angling for Secretary of State and specifically has given up hope for the VP slot.  I think that would be a very bad trade down for Biden (unless he can get his son Beau named to the Senate slot).
[ Parent ]
He wanted it in 2004 (0.00 / 0)
The consensus was that if Kerry won Biden would be SoS. Given that he's had the job for years, he might be ready to move on from senatoring. And Minner could appoint Beau in his place (although I think it'd be a shame, as the last thing politics needs is more dynasties.)

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Someone outside the box, with economic expertise (0.00 / 0)
Which brings me back to Martin O'Malley.  He was a hell of a mayor for Baltimore, modernizing city services for greater efficiency.  From his Wikipedia page:
"In O'Malley's first year in office, he adopted a statistics-based tracking system first modeled after Compstat, which was employed by former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to assist the New York City Police Department. O'Malley broadened this results driven government model across all government services. The program shifted Baltimore's way of "doing government" from an antiquated patronage-based system to a contemporary, high-tech, performance-based system that zeroes in on areas of under-performance, using computerized databases to track targets and results. There is a weekly meeting in which city department managers meet with the Mayor's office and are brought to task for their results. The power of information technology has been harnessed to manage the complexities of modern urban systems and procedures. CitiStat has saved Baltimore residents more than $350 million.  In 2004, O'Malley's CitiStat accountability tool won Harvard University's prestigious Innovations in American Government award.

Upon leaving office, "the City... had a $38 million budget surplus - the largest in Baltimore's history - and a 5 year, $75 million tax cut which has reduced property taxes to a 30 year low."

He could run a better version of Gore's "reinventing government" initiative -- streamlining, rather than shrinking -- and he'd be a more credible standard-bearer for 2016 than anyone I've seen mentioned in the Obama veepstakes.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

[ Parent ]
I like Sebelius for it (4.00 / 3)
Although I wonder about all the people who say that if he doesn't pick Hillary but picks another woman, it'll piss off Clintonites.  Is that really true?  It seems very bullshit to me, but after the past several years, I've learned that my opinions aren't always the same as the rest of our country.
I'm with you (4.00 / 3)
I've said it before never got any comment - the most militant Clinton people during (and after) the primary were feminists so are we supposed to believe they will reject the first plausible chance of electing a woman on a national ticket? I think not.
[ Parent ]
I get that some of them might be pissed that Obama won (4.00 / 1)
And might still be upset even if Obama picked a woman, but how many are such deadenders for Hillary that they would support him if he picked a male veep but not support him if he picked a different woman?
[ Parent ]
And wasn't the consensus that many were (and are) so militant... (4.00 / 2)
...because they saw Hillary as the only realistic chance of a woman being president in their lifetime?
[ Parent ]
Once they get to know Sebelius (4.00 / 1)
I think they would get over their initial anger and resentment. Soon the thought of a woman VP would start to seem very cool.
[ Parent ]
My (probably very unpopular) theory is (4.00 / 3)
that Clinton's such an important symbol to the dead-enders because she's seen very much as a wife, and specifically a wife who compromised for her husband and had a chance to be paid back in later years.  It makes a lot more sense for her to be a vehicle for a low-grade, pervasive resentment of constant relationship compromises and sacrifices (things she actually did do) than for anger at workplace mistreatment (which she got a bit of in the primaries wrt media analysis, but didn't really encounter in either her legal career or Senate term).

Like I said, it's probably not a popular take, but IMO it makes more sense than a so-called feminism argument against another perfectly well-qualified woman.

[okay, re-lurking now]

[ Parent ]
It's a possibility (0.00 / 0)
If it feels like tokenism, they'll be alienated. So if Sebelius is picked, the roll-out needs to emphasise her own qualities and accomplishments, and downplay her gender (and her dynastic connections, at least in the short term).

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Then again they may hate Obama as much as they are feminists or (0.00 / 0)
Hillary supporters. The Obamabats are batshit crazy with Obama hate. The trick is figuring out how big of a slice they are.
[ Parent ]
if you were 'post-ideological', running on 'change', and being attacked for not being feminist enough (4.00 / 1)
wouldn't you pick a woman but not the woman that's actually a rival to you?  That divides the opposition into people who support women and women's issues vs. people who are loyal to your main opposition within the party, which then makes it easier for you to consolidate control over the party.

That said, I don't think he'll use that reasoning, because he's shown no indication that he's trying to consolidate ideological control over the party - he's not running in the primary anymore, as is abundantly clear from the policy positions he's taken and the statements he's made in the last month.  

His ticket would fit too easily into the Democrats as minority party critique unless he picked the right person - male, women, transgender, or other.

[ Parent ]
Obama/(Edwards or Brown) (4.00 / 4)
Everyday, I become increasingly skeptical of Obama's conception of change, from his hostility towards speaking in class-based terms to his discussion of foreign policy in non-economic based terms (his failure to critique the privatization of our national security/defense/diplomacy as a primary motivator in US foreign policy).  

In light of this, I'm adamant that he pick someone who will concurrently reinforce his purported image of change but also pressure him to adopt rhetoric and policy stances that he currently neglects and/or to which he is hostile.  John Edwards and Sherrod Brown seem to best fulfill these criteria.  

I'm very disappointed with the list provided in this diary.  Dodd???  A banker's "Democrat"?  Now that Reed is out, Biden and Clinton (at least the version who seems to be charting a course that differs from her husband's corporate capitulation) are the only ones remotely acceptable.  If Obama's going to pick a good 'ol boy, he might as well pick one from a state that improves Democratic electoral prospects, such as Bob Graham or Bill Nelson.  

Edwards and Brown would be phenomenal at speaking to what this election is really about--trade, taxation, health care, corporate privilege, media consolidation, privatized war, etc.  They would assist in creating, not only a partisan realignment, but crystallize what is a leftist ideological realignment, of which the partisan realignment is merely a symptom.  Americans have espoused leftist views on most issues even throughout the Reagan era, from pluralities to super-majorities.  However, the shift in public opinion since about 2005 has been more to the left than it was before 1994.  This, indeed, is an important development, but whether or not Obama realizes this, including in his selection of VP, will determine the durability of a functional leftist-progressive Democratic majority.

-10.00E

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain....


how lefty do you want him to sound (0.00 / 0)
You really think he'd get elected with Kucinich writing his speeches? Come on, the guy is the first black candidate for a major party, do you really want him to scare off folks by sounding super-liberal?

The guy is a pragmatic liberal-progressive. Go read his books or look at his Illinois voting record and you'll see that. But just like Bush wouldn't have been elected in 2000 by talking about how right wing he would be, Obama can't get elected in 2008 by talking about how left wing he'll be.

I don't care who he picks for VP, really, as long as it isn't a Republican, a Clinton, or a Bayh. But even with Clinton or Bayh I'd still be excited about Obama in the driver's seat. He's gonna be a great progressive president, even if we'll have to hold him accountable after the election.

[ Parent ]
I agree that VP isn't the be-all-end-all, but... (4.00 / 3)
Wouldn't it be nice to have someone who introduces an economic critique into American politics that goes beyond the feeble "middle-class tax cuts"/"balance the budget" that we've used time and again with little electoral success?  Edwards was one of the few prominent politicians who didn't feed us the tripe that balancing the federal budget is more important than reversing Grover Norquist's vision of American government.  Brown demonstrated this sort of tenacity as well on trade.  He doesn't have to talk about "how left he'll be," but rather, how he'll govern pragmatically and effectively.  Who said that those two things were antithetical to leftist-progressive governance and to American public opinion?  He can effectively argue that conservative economic philosophy is directly related to our occupation of Iraq (i.e., that Republican politicians will use foreign policy to aggrandize the wealth of elite interests, regardless of whether it is in the interests of our country, our troops, and civilians around the world0.  That's mainstream to me and more effective than arguing that Iraq is hurting our deficit.  Obama's treatment of tax policy, borrowed by Edwards, I believe is a great example of how a leftist policy (progressive taxation) can be conveyed pragmatically and effectively ("tax wealth, not work").

I also wouldn't mind seeing him address the corporate media and their "news."  I think this sort of appeal would be both wide (from conservatives who decry "liberal media" and deep with everyone who sees the tripe that counts as "news" today).  Edwards should have done that, and in my opinion, it helped cost him the nomination.

But it's just a matter of what we stand for as a party:  Winning for winning's sake, or giving a voice to the (true) leftist Silent Majority.  VP doesn't count for everything in this regard, but it's demonstrative.

-10.00E

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain....


[ Parent ]
two constituencies (0.00 / 0)
I think when it comes to the voters, you are absolutely right. But there is a powerful ruling elite in this country that owns the media and has strong influence in other ways as well. It seems like every candidate has to suck up to both constituencies - voters and ruling elites. He has to convince the elites that he's not going to rock the hegemonic boat. This is the only reason I can see that candidates don't run further to the left to where the public is on the issues.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Why a Senator? Pick a Governor! (0.00 / 0)
I like Kaine (even though he's anti-choice!) and Napolitano and Sebelius.

Dodd and Biden are basically equivalent, though I would give Biden the edge between them, but there's no way either represents change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Mad Professah Lectures

I'm not an expert on Senators either, (4.00 / 2)
but calling Dodd and Biden equivalent I think does them an injustice. Off the top of my head, Dodd deserves a hell of a lot of credit for standing up against FISA, while Biden's strength is foreign policy. (He's also pretty good at coming up with one liners -- "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" is only the most famous.)
[ Parent ]
Dodd and Biden (4.00 / 1)
Both seem to be effective Senators and effective campaigners/speakers. They held their own in the debates. And no one can say they are inexperienced. In other words, they are both above par politicians. And I sincerely hope Obama can do better than that. I mean, he might as well pick Kerry if he is going that route.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Why does it have to be somebody in office now? (4.00 / 1)
Why not somebody retired?

like Bob Graham.

Don't count out Wesley Clark either, that tempest in a teapot didn't erase him from chances I don't think.

-C.

I agree. (4.00 / 3)
If anything, that "tempest in a teapot" showed how fierce and totally un-spineless Clark would be in standing up for things he says and does.  All fine qualities in a VP.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I still like Clark's chances (4.00 / 1)
My guesses, in no particular order are Edwards (assuming he gets through this mess), Clark, Hagel, Webb, Reed, Clinton and Biden, Schweitzer, and Dodd.

Of these, and I'll ask everyone to spare me the rotten tomatos, I like Clark, Hagel and Biden.  I still don't know enough about Schweitzer to like or dislike him.

OH!  And Kaine!  How about Terry McAuliffe endorsing Kaine for VP?  I think that's significant.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Hagel? (4.00 / 5)
I have a certain amount of respect for Hagel, but would you really want someone who is so conservative that he voted to abolish the federal minimum wage altogether? That's pretty extreme.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
I know this sounds odd to people on OL but (0.00 / 0)
I've chosen all my candidates on personality and character.  I would have always supported Obama, but if Huckabee had pulled off a nod, I would have been torn, and that's even with Huck being a creationist (not many issues that get an absolute nay from me, but that's one).  Hagel has character, and I respect him.  And, I'm not convinced that minimum wage is a good thing - and eliminating minimum wage while expanding/strengthening the social net doesn't actually sound like a bad idea.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
minimum wage (4.00 / 1)
I can understand ambivalence about a minimum wage based on abstract philosophical pondering. But in practical terms a minimum wage is a no-brainer. As technology advances, the difference between the value of capital versus labor continues to widen. Without a minimum wage, collective bargaining, and other policies to increase the bargaining power of labor versus capitol, all of the increased wealth from increasing productivity will be siphoned up to the tiny group of super-wealthy while the rest of us tread water or lose ground. This is in fact exactly what has occurred while the minimum wage has stagnated under Republican rule.

Minimum wage laws do not cost jobs. That is a conservative myth that is disproven by actual economic statistics. Minimum wage laws increase wages for all workers, spreading out society's wealth more evenly, creating more jobs.

If you know the facts, then the only pragmatic reason to oppose a minimum wage would be because you want the rich to get richer while the poor and middle class get poorer. That would make you a conservative. So are you a conservative? If not, you may want to rethink your position on the minimum wage as well as your support for conservatives like Chuck Hagel who support economic policies that would increase the misfortune of millions of people.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I'm probably more conservative than not (4.00 / 1)
and I reject the frame that suggests that conservativism means wanting rich to get richer and poor to get poorer. It's a nice soundbyte though.

I never said anything about the job issue, and I think you'd note my disinclination to put the idea of minimum wage elimination in a vacuum.  What I said was - with an expanded or strengthened social net, there might be something to it.  Universal health care, accessible workfare and childcare, well-regulated safety standards, and in some cases, a unionized workforce all provide an environment where wages are only part of the overall well-being of a wage worker.  In such a construct - I'm not entirely clear what the need for a minimum wage is.  Government subsidizing the standard of living for those who need it also allows government to fully tax corporations - because of the savings they realize in lowered wages - and of course some people taking minimum wage jobs don't need government subsidies (students living at home for instance, don't need subsidies for living - their parents are subsidizing them.  Conversely, a single mom working a traditional minimum wage job likely DOES need subsidizing, even with minimum wage - so why not subsidize whatever is needed, instead of subsidizing over and above an imposed minimum wage?

Keeping in mind that that's just me thinking off the top of my head with no research whatsoever - I'm saying all of that to clarify why I don't have an automatic rejection of the idea of eliminating minimum wage.

Finally - because I choose candidates not based on issues, it stands to reason that I do believe that a wide range of issues can work if properly implemented, and if implemented by someone with sense enough to stop implementing them in face of proven failure.  So - again - there are very few issues which get an automatic "no" from me.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
time for a little Kaine mythbusting (4.00 / 4)
First off, I think that Obama will choose Kaine. I think he'd be a good pick, although I'd prefer Edwards.


However, Kaine is also anti-choice and pro-abstinence education, and could open wide rifts in the party on those grounds, especially after a primary where Obama defeated the first viable woman candidate for president, ever.

Chris, you know better than to cite a Wikipedia entry, especially one that isn't backed up with its own citations. Here's the truth:



The truth about Saxby Chambliss
one more thing (4.00 / 2)

And so, once again, we are quickly left with Kathleen Sebelius as the obvious, default, process of elimination choice. She would work well, too. While she describes herself as "personally pro-life," legislatively speaking she is pro-choice and has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood.

Kaine takes the same position on abortion as Sebelius.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
I can't find a transcript but... (4.00 / 2)
In one of the 2005 gubernatorial debates, Kaine was asked about choice. He basically said that he supported the restrictions in place in VA at the time (parental notification, no third-trimester abortions except to save the mother, mandatory waiting period are the main ones), but that if a bill came before him to outlaw abortion, even with life and health of the mother exceptions, he would veto it.

His position is not going to win him any prizes from NARAL, but it's also not likely to fracture the party - it's a reasonably mainstream position, and he articulates it well.

[ Parent ]
It's the economy, stupid! (0.00 / 0)
The ideal candidate should be someone who has government, economic and business experience (investment, banking, industry)... He's not necessarily a professional politician (to tie in with the Change message), and he needs to be perceived as a moderate by the Street and the barbeque press.

I see two interesting people attending tomorrow's economic gathering where Obama wll meet with luminaries from the world of investment, banking and economics. Both have serious drawbacks, but I'm not sure they're disqualifying mistakesm given the circumstances:

  1. Robert Rubin might have been a good candidate, but his age (69) involvement with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and his charmanship of Citigroup might disqualify him.
  2. Summers, who became Sec Treas. after the resignation of Rubin in 1999 is pretty young (53). He brings first rate economic cred but he had a tough tenure as Harvard president, including controversial statements on differences between the sexes in 2005 and a rocky relationship with some faculty members.

Have I missed other dark horses?

big brown (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Gaggggggggggggh! (0.00 / 0)
Not Bob Rubin, Mr Uberglobal capitalist who was at Citigroup during the subprime/CDO meltdown or Larry "women don't do well in science because they aren't as smart as men" Summers.  I'd take Warren Buffet over either of them.  

I agree that he may want someone good on the economy, which is why Dodd comes to mind (chair of Senate Banking Committee in addition to good FISA stands) but please, please not either of these.  It would make me have to completely reassess my support for Obama.

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

[ Parent ]
Glad Reed's out. (4.00 / 1)
He doesn't appear very commanding.

Otherwise, I think it would be a mistake for Obama to pick a newcomer.

He doesn't necessarily need anybody who has their own change agenda.

He needs somebody who knows how to work the levers of power to help Obama institute his own changes.


I still think it is going to be Reed (0.00 / 0)
no matter what he says.

Yeah, like this (0.00 / 0)
Obama: "Hey Jack, wanna be my veep?"

Reed: "How many times can I say No! Barack?"

Obama: "But you've got to"

Reed: "Oh FINE! Whatever you say"


John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Obama's list is a poor one (0.00 / 0)
As someone who had advocated for Edwards before because of his "brand", it pains to me say that gossip has tarnished him. Of course, politics are full of comebacks and less talented people than Edwards have resurrected their images, but it does take some time. The one person who can save Edwards image is his wife, Elizabeth, and I think we can safely assume she will do her part. He should be okay in the public's eye by the time Obama appoints him to the likely position of Attorney General.

The rest of the list, excepting Biden and Clinton, lack anyone with their own brand. Clinton has positives and negatives. And Bill Clinton might invite too much tabloid attention. Biden might be appealing but he also risks alienating people with his brusque manner.

Just based on the idea of "brand", I would think Colin Powell is actually a smart choice. I don't agree with his politics, of course, but I suspect he would seal the deal for Obama, especially if Powell apologizes for Iraq and comes out as pro-choice. I know this is not at all realistic -- I'm just offering a marketers perspective.

I am disappointed that Wes Clark is not on the list. He may be a little awkward at times but he has the fire Obama needs and the progressive platform this country needs.  

Powell's on the McCain VP list n/t (0.00 / 0)


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Obama' s short list for veep (0.00 / 0)
Obama is likely to carry it with any on the list as it stands now. But I think Wes Clark, if he gets some hot fire in his belly, could make mincemeat out of McCain's so-called military experience. A strong governor would also be an asset to the ticket of economic and social issues. Too bad Obama can't have
two vice presidential candidates.
Holding out hope... (4.00 / 1)
I'm holding out hope for Wes Clark.  Otherwise, if he is looking for an advisor, Dodd, Clinton or Biden.
[ Parent ]
Sure he can! (0.00 / 0)
He can have the Clintons!  Two for one!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Actually he can (0.00 / 0)
Just only one per state. Somebody (maybe Debs) once had 18 VPs split between the different states.

The downside is that the Senate would then have to choose from the top three vote getters for VP. So it's only really practicable if you're aiming for a 500-38 victory.

But it's theoretically possible.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
"Obama's list" -- sure (4.00 / 4)
Frankly, I don't see anything in the Wall Street Journal article that we didn't already know.  Basically this reporter is putting the same rumors and opinions down that we already have gone over.  Unnamed Democratic operatives are not much of a source, and there are an awful lot of weasel words like "include," "still," and "sometimes."  I could write the same article based on previously published materials.

Note especially that the senators are the four senators who ran for President and the guy who was with Obama last week.  I bet it took some "operative" a long time to think of them.

Now, the Obama statement is interesting, but it doesn't really point to anyone in particular.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

His list does point to someone in particular: (0.00 / 0)
Al Gore.

In fact it is close to the list I used to first propose Al Gore.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Forget about Gore. (0.00 / 0)
How many times does he have to say he wouldn't accept. Let it go.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
It's going to be interesting (0.00 / 0)
to see how far Obama gets with his change thing-y in Washington, D.C. Whether he realizes it or not, he needs somebody who knows their way around in D.C.

First point: this fantastical nonsense about changing the way D.C. works, blah, blah, blah, is just that: nonsense. Anybody who has spent any time there knows how things get done and it ain't a rookie senator posing as an outsider who wants to "change" Washington. So, this whole "change" mantra thing-y as it's applied to D.C. and the rules of the road is ludicrously funny, except maybe for computer junkies, pie-in-the-sky idealists, those inhaling excess amounts of weed, and/or the incredibly naive.

Second point: Sebelius is also way too inexperienced for VP. She may be a two-term guv, but Kansas is a SMALL RED state that isn't going to change colors anytime soon. In addition, I don't think Sebelius is progressive and from what I've read, she'll sell out principles (choice, etc.) in exchange for something else. Sorry. This IS a game-changer for me, as a feminist who is sick and tired of giving on feminist/womanist issues. She's also deadly boring.

Third point: If Obama wants to ensure a win in November and have the goodwill of many, many very angry Clinton supporters (a whole lot of whom have $$ and clout), Obama will choose Clinton as his VP. Whether she will accept is another matter, though. I think she's already decided she has more clout and independence in the U.S. Senate. 18 million voters isn't anything to toss out the window and Obama has trouble with a good chunk of those voters right now. Clinton as VP would go a tremendous distance in getting a real foothold with these voters.

OTOH, I'm not sure Obama knows how to handle strong women feminists with a voice. His wife, talented and smart as she is, is NOT a feminist.  

Where are the (4.00 / 2)
many, many very angry Clinton supporters?  Or is it just a few people who thought they had ambassador positions or sweetheart contracts wrapped up only to realize they now have to kiss up to someone else.  I didn't realize that those 18 million voters were Hillary's forever.  Many of those I talked to here in California wished they had voted otherwise long before the primaries were over.  So, good luck with your campaign to keep your candidate relevant.
[ Parent ]
I'm not a great Sebelius fan (0.00 / 0)
But you're just flat out wrong on her. She's milquetoast, but she has demonstrated a lot of political nous in Kansas and she doesn't seem especially ready to sell-out her principles (see her veto of new coal power-plants recently).

The problem is that she describes herself as "personally pro-choice". There's your angle, not that she's weak and inexperienced.

And for the record, let's admit what everyone knows: the vast majority of those Clinton voters are going to vote for Obama no matter who his VP candidate is. He's made the sale and he's not getting and more defections of Democrats than previous candidates have got (and we have more Democrats this time around). There are arguments for picking Clinton, but they speak more to her competence (campaign finances aside) and her character than to Obama's electoral needs.

Also, how is Michelle Obama not a feminist? You've piqued my curiousity.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Nobody likes Bayh (0.00 / 0)
but - along with his negatives (conservative national security record and DLC background) - he brings a lot of things to the table.  He was a two-term governor (and an exceedingly popular one).  He puts Indiana is play big time.  He has a telegenic family (yeah, it shouldn't count but it does).  He supported Clinton, so tabbing him could be seen as part of the healing process.  He has a good labor record.  He voted against Roberts and Alito. The Bayh-Kennedy connection doesn't hurt. That said, I think Obama is more likely to go with Kaine or Biden because of the comfort level.  Having either Kaine or Bayh on the ticket adds executive experience to the mix and makes it more likely that a fairly large state that has traditionally gone Rebublican in presidential elections goes for Obama.  Having Biden on will ramp up the foreign policy/entertainment factor.  I'd go with a governor or former governor, but what do I know?  Early on I thought Hillary was going to win the nomination.  I think Mr. Obama and Mr. Axelrod know what they are doing.
Bayh-Kennedy connection? (0.00 / 0)
What is this? Is it just the dynasty connection? Because Dodd, Clinton and Sebelius also comes from political dynasties.

Still, I think you're right that Bayh has a lot of things going for him on paper. I just think that he'd be an unstoppably terribly pick and a lot of left-leaning activists would miss the rest of the convention due to a sudden need to vomit.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
"I think the most important thing, from my perspective, is somebody who can help me govern" (4.00 / 3)
If we take these paragraphs at face value, I think he's leaning Dodd.

Granted, I may be engaging in a combination of projection and wishful thinking.  But:

1) independent enough to have own distinct opinions
2) has the background required to actually help govern
3) has special (and useful) areas of expertise
4) is a plausible president

screams Dodd to me.  In particular, I think he won't choose Sebelius, because really all she is is a symbol of a certain type of post-partisan "change".  That's cute, but in the end not very useful.  Sebelius is a talented and capable person, but her experience with DC politics is zero, and if the biggest criterion is "can actually help me govern," I don't think she's it.  I think Sebelius is an obvious choice politically, but Obama is going to have to share all his cabinet meetings with whomever he chooses, and I think he's going to go more Cheney00 than Gore92, meaning more towards the "useful in the Oval Office" side, and less towards the "useful on the campaign trail" side.

Dodd endorsed Obama before slighting Hillary was popular.  His expertise is in the economy, and his relations with Wall Street are very very good (maybe too good).  He knows DC, and he'd be a damn useful guy to have around.  He's also a very "serious" pick for Obama to make; the fact that he has no campaign-trail upside means that Obama was big enough to pick someone with no upside, which itself earns him some brownie points.

Obviously I also really hope it's Dodd, but for the first time in a very long time, I think it actually might be him.  Sebelius and Kaine are just not helpful anytime after November 4th.  Biden's interesting, but his expertise is in the wrong field, and you can still have him as SecState anyway.

Boy, it'll be a really great day if Obama chooses Dodd.  It would put so many doubts to rest.

depends on what (0.00 / 0)
Obama means by "help me govern." If he means "help me govern under the traditional DC rules" then Dodd or Biden fit. If he means "help me govern in a non-traditional way and change the old political rules" then Sebelius would be a better fit.
[ Parent ]
OTOH, to make things change (0.00 / 0)
You also need someone who really understands how it works to understand where the pressure points are and where one could use aikido to turn people's strengths against them, not someone who is going to come in as a hard charger ideologue and get everyone's hackles up.  In fact, that's the exact opposite of what Obama wants, to the consternation of many here.  Obama understands that to get change, you have to meet the opposition where they are and move them towards you.  

I see still Biden or Dodd as likely choices.

For off the wall names, how about Gary Hart?  

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

[ Parent ]
Sebelius might still fit (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps better than Dodd. Sebelius has talked around half the Republican moderates in Kansas. Whereas Dodd has just started fighting against the congressional establishment in a real bridge-burning way.

Dodd knows where the levers of power are, but so do a lot of other people. The risk is that they'll use this knowledge to block the way. The potential upside to Sebelius is that those people won't be watching as closely. She certainly knows how systems works, if not the DC system itself.

That said, I still prefer Dodd, but I think there's an argument for Sebelius - unthreatening but effective. Especially since Obama doesn't seem to go for open political combat.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Libertarian paternalism is the new phrase that (0.00 / 0)
Sunstein and Thayer (the Miltie moral midgets) are trying to get in the political meme.  It's just repackaged Friedman libertarian flim flam.  You are right to  be bothered by the Democratic Party being taken over by business people.  But since it already has, expect that someone like Schweitzer will get the nod. Obama was in Montana for July 4th in order to audition Schweitzer, I would imagine.  
[ Parent ]
Vice-President: Obama's Criteria and Short List | 107 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox