Vice-President Poll: Acceptable / Unacceptable For The Semi-Short List

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 18:56


Chuck Todd purports to have a list of the names the Obama Vice-Presidential team discussed with Democratic leaders in D.C.:

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, Ted Strickland, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, and Sam Nunn.

Now, Kent Conrad and Marc Ambiner indicate that other former military leaders were discussed, including Wes Clark and James Jones. Also, I have been told that Patty Murray has also talked with members of Obama's staff. Additionally, both John Edwards and Ted Strickland has said that they won't accept the VP slot if offered.

So, if all of these sources are correct, and there is no guarantee they are, that leaves us with the following, semi-short list of sixteen names (in alphabetical order):

Evan Bayh (Sen-IN)
Joe Biden (Sen-DE)
Wes Clark (Gen-AR)
Hillary Clinton (Sen-NY)
Tom Daschle (Sen-SD)
Chris Dodd (Sen-CT)
James Jones (Gen-MO)
Tim Kaine (Gov-VA)
John Kerry (Sen-MA)
Patty Murray (Sen-WA)
Bill Nelson (Sen-FL)
Sam Nunn (Sen-GA)
Jack Reed (Sen-RI)
Kathleen Sebelius (Gov-KS)
Mark Warner (Gov-VA)
Jim Webb (Sen-VA)

A quick perusal of this list and I immediately arrive at some favorites: Wes Clark, Chris Dodd, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, and Kathleen Sebelius. Reed is one of the more progressive Senators out there, even though he is very quiet. Chris Dodd doesn't meet the reinforcement criteria, but he has become the sort of progressive fighter that we need. Then again, both the progressive Reed and the fighting Dodd also have Republican Governors, and so we would lose someone very good in the Senate for someone who would probably be pretty bad. Jim Webb meets the reinforcement criteria, but Natasha and Matt have both made strong cases against his selection..

So, if this is the actual semi-short list, then I think Sebelius, Clark and Murray are the top three options. I wonder if it would be possible to create a sort of group draft campaign, supporting a group we liked from the short list and opposing a group we didn't like. To start testing the waters for such an effort, in the extended entry I have created a poll that allows you to check all of the names from the above list that you find acceptable.

So, look in the extended entry, and take the poll. Remember to check all of the names that you think would be fine. If that means all sixteen, then check all sixteen names. If that only means two names, then only check two names. If that means eleven names, then check the eleven ones you like. As the VP picture begins to shake out, it is important that we start to express our opinions on the matter, too.  
Chris Bowers :: Vice-President Poll: Acceptable / Unacceptable For The Semi-Short List
Poll
Check all of the following possibilities who you think would be acceptable VP choices for Obama
Evan Bayh (Sen-IN)
Joe Biden (Sen-DE)
Wes Clark (Gen-AR)
Hillary Clinton (Sen-NY)
Tom Daschle (Sen-SD)
Chris Dodd (Sen-CT)
James Jones (Gen-MO)
Tim Kaine (Gov-VA)
John Kerry (Sen-MA)
Patty Murray (Sen-WA)
Bill Nelson (Sen-FL)
Sam Nunn (Sen-GA)
Jack Reed (Sen-RI)
Kathleen Sebelius (Gov-KS)
Mark Warner (Gov-VA)
Jim Webb (Sen-VA)

Results


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Vice-President Poll: Acceptable / Unacceptable For The Semi-Short List | 187 comments
Bill Nelson? (4.00 / 2)
Really? Isn't he a little, uh, dense?
All hail the great Florida electoral votes! (0.00 / 0)
really, is there any other reason to select him?

John McCain <3 lobbyists
[ Parent ]
If we're going to aim at Florida (4.00 / 6)
Bob Graham would make a great VP. Looks and talks different but has, I think, the same perspective as Obama--both filling in and reinforcing.  
[ Parent ]
Would an old running mate (like Bob Graham) (0.00 / 0)
neutralize the John McCain age critique, if the RNC is able to raise the specter of assassination for political gain in the GE?
[ Parent ]
Better idea the last two times.... (4.00 / 2)
Gore-Graham or Kerry-Graham would almost certainly have won in 2000 or 2004, but he might be too old now to be an asset, and it's far from clear that Obama-Graham could neutralize a possible McCain-Crist ticket; Florida's more Repug than it was.  I think the electoral map Obama needs to be shooting for as a baseline is "Kerry + Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Colorado," perhaps adding Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, Montana, and/or Indiana if he wins a blowout victory.  If we win Florida, it'll probably only be because we won just about everything and held McCain down to just the dark red states on the current Presidential forecast.  That's a good stretch goal, but it doesn't mean we should focus on Florida at the expense of Ohio, Virginia, or Colorado.

"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 ]
Kind of (0.00 / 0)
At least that is the word. He also isn't very progressive.

Then again, he is also an astronaut, so I like that about him.  

[ Parent ]
Seriously (0.00 / 0)
I think there are too many senators on the list, especially if we are going down to the undistinguished level as with Nelson and some of the others. Last time a senator-senator ticket won was 1960.

Don't we want someone who's run something -- a state, say, or a successful war for liberation in which the U.S. didn't lose a single servicemember?

[ Parent ]
1960 comparisons not too meaningful (0.00 / 0)
History is not a rulebook for the future.  
[ Parent ]
especially since sample sizes are tiny for Presidential Elections (4.00 / 1)
the only data we have at the Pres. level is anectotal
[ Parent ]
Quick question (0.00 / 0)
When was the last time a senator-senator ticket lost?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
that would be (4.00 / 3)
Kerry-Edwards. Is this a trick question?
[ Parent ]
er, um, yeah (0.00 / 0)
That'll teach me to use an ancient almanac as a quick reference.  OK, um, when was the last time before that?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Who'd McGovern have as his running mate? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Seargeant Shriver (4.00 / 2)
after the Eagleton mess sorted out
[ Parent ]
Re: Seriously (0.00 / 0)
I think there are too many senators on the list

Dude. Only one of them, if that, will be on the ticket. Who cares how many are on the list?

[ Parent ]
@WI Dem re: senator-senator (0.00 / 0)
1960 wasn't just the last time a Senator-Senator ticket won. It's the last time a sitting Senator was elected President, and we know we'll break that record this year

...Unless Ron Paul shocks the world.  ("I STILL BELIEVE!!")

[ Parent ]
Too many Senators and too few progressives.... (0.00 / 0)
My reservations about Obama keep surfacing.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Beacuse... (4.00 / 4)
Chuck Todd posted a list of possible VP picks that no one thinks is official or comes from the Obama campaign?

C'mon. There are a lot of reasons to have reservations about someone but fake reports by beltway hacks are not one.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
You're right, and I am watching and waiting.... (0.00 / 0)
It's just that I'm such a cynic.  I don't do hope very well, and I almost never allow myself to believe.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
OT: FL-24 (0.00 / 0)
You should do some extra reporting on FL-24 later this race. It's the district with the Kennedy Space Center and Feeney vs. (likely) Kosmas will be a big race with DCCC and NRCC money. Maybe do some on the ground reporting on FL-24, Florida presidential race, and...the Oct. 8th Shuttle launch.  

John McCain
[ Parent ]
nelson's a blue-dog, innit (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
This stuff on underground (4.00 / 1)
Is completely wrong about Bill Nelson.  You can say he is uninspiring, whatever but he has done nothing to earn this kind of scorn.  He is a 100% rating from NARAL, from the League of Conservation voters,  89% from HRC and he was voted with the Dems 91% of the time.  He has a great record on gun control and is really excellent on women's issues.   He may be boring and he may have some votes that are  a problem, but he is not a person who should be trashed in this way.  This is a perfect example of the uninformed spouting off a bunch of stupid nonsense.  
[ Parent ]
Sounds like a float to help in Florida (0.00 / 0)
Having Bill Nelson in the VP short list gets Obama free press in Florida and helps heal some of the divisions left over from Florida screwing up their primary date. My guess is Paula Abdul has as much chance of being VP Obama's VP as Bill Nelson.

John McCain
[ Parent ]
A tip of the hat to FL (0.00 / 0)
I hope that's the primary reason why he's on the short list.  He's a nice guy but he's not a leader. The only issue that he has taken a leadership position is protecting the FL Gulf coast from oil drilling.  He has done a fine job on that issue.

Otherwise, he's predictably one of those Democratic Senators who vote against their own party on national issues. Yet, he's the leading Democratic politician in Florida.  What's wrong with that picture?

[ Parent ]
Not true (0.00 / 0)
Actually this is not true.  I think you might be confusing Bill Nelson with Ben Nelson.  Bill Nelson votes with the party most of the time, and his voting record can be found here.   http://projects.washingtonpost...
[ Parent ]
Bill Nelson (4.00 / 1)
Actually, there are some things going for him.  No, he is definitely not a progressive, however he is a man of great integrity.  He did some good things when he was insurance commissioner here in Florida, including one of the first in the country efforts to stop insurance discrimination against victims of domestic violence.  He is centrist, no doubt, but a fine man and very beloved in Florida.  He does have a  good record on gun issues, if I recall, (which is not easy to do when you are from Florida) and a few other issues you might be surprised about.  He would bring along some Clinton supporters, and would be very credible on foreign policy, although again not progressive.  The real problem with Obama picking Nelson is that you can't pluck a Democratic Senator out of Florida right now.  I don't think he is dense- just a bit, well, Southern.
[ Parent ]
Bill Nelson (0.00 / 0)
One more thing- here is his record on choice, which is excellent.
http://www.ontheissues.org/soc...
[ Parent ]
Is he really beloved? (0.00 / 0)
I'm in Florida and like Nelson. He is highly ethical and well-liked but he had the good luck to run against Katherine Harris last go 'round. If Charlie Crist ran for Senate I'm guessing Nelson would have been in big trouble.

John McCain
[ Parent ]
Maybe, but (0.00 / 0)
The astronaut thing does go a long way!
[ Parent ]
One more thing (4.00 / 1)
Nelson was a big help in trying to bring attention to the issue of sexual assault in the military.  He has quite a good record on women's issues and its a sincere commitment.
[ Parent ]
And is very good on most environmental issues (0.00 / 0)
Not advocating for him, just saying there are a lot worse senators out there.
[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
To be honest, I have thought about Bill Nelson for a long time as a potential VP.  His record is actually quite good on a number of issues, and the integrity piece is very important.  He is without question highly ethical, which is not the case for some of the others on the list.  
[ Parent ]
According to Marc Ambinder... (4.00 / 2)
"In general, I shouldn't, and you shouldn't, read too much into this early Galivanting-Sans-Caroline Kennedy. If history is any guide, most of the names floated are courtesies, and a large number of short-listers don't show up in the first round."

And I'm still sceptical that we can have an effect here. VP pick is important, but it also seems to me like one of the areas where Obama and his campaign are the very least open to outside input and/or pressure.

Agreed. It's fun to discuss though n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Republicans (4.00 / 2)
Chris, you should do a VP post on the Republicans. Chuck Todd made an interesting observation with Romney. He could push Michigan and Massachusetts into play, while driving Mormons to the polls in western states that Obama hopes to win like Colorado. I hadn't thought about that before, and it makes me fear Romney as VP more than I have in the past. Anyway, it might be interesting to vet the strengths and weaknesses of the other Republican VP prospects as we continue to strategize about the General election.
probably not Massachusetts (0.00 / 0)
From what I hear, Romney is very unpopular in Massachusetts these days.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
have no fear (0.00 / 0)
Romney is even more mistrusted by Republicans than McCain. That would offset any Mormon gain (about 1.4% of population according to 2001 data but they do multiply quickly I think).
[ Parent ]
How much more reliable could the LDS get? (0.00 / 0)
My understanding is that Mormons generally have high turnout and vote well over 80% Republican already, Jim Matheson aside; I doubt that moving them will do much for the Republicans.

"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 ]
There's actually been some polling on this (4.00 / 2)
Can't find it right now, but McCain / Romney polls horrifically, much worse than generic McCain.  Like, 12 points down.
[ Parent ]
Romney and evangelicals (4.00 / 1)
Oh, how I hope he chooses Romney.

After decades of evangelical churches demonizing Mormons--and I mean that literally--a McCain/Romney ticket will put even more states firmly into play for Obama. For example, here in W.Va. McCain will have even more trouble energizing the base if Romney is on the ticket.

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

[ Parent ]
I voted for everyone EXCEPT Clinton, Bayh and Nunn ... (4.00 / 2)
Hillary Clinton -- would undercut Obama's message of change, and seriously ... do you want Bill Clinton on the campaign trail again??

Evan Bayh -- DLC'er who has fought every progressive positive move that the netroots have pushed for in the past five years.

Sam Nunn -- an anti-gay bigot who fired one of his Senate staffers when he learned that he was gay.  Said that his Georgia constituents would not approve.

I do believe that Obama should pick a woman -- he owes the Clinton supporters that much.  Just as long as it's not Hillary herself.

Ugh (4.00 / 8)
Clinton supporters aren't owed "a woman", because they didn't support "a woman". They supported Hillary Clinton. If you know any women, or any Clinton supporters, you should ask them about that. They'll likely tell you the same.

If Clinton had won, and she'd picked Deval Patrick as her running mate, would that have unified the party? Would you have suddenly forgiven her?

I have no problem with him considering a woman as VP, but the most qualified one out there happens to be Senator Clinton. If he picks someone else, he better have a damn good explanation for why she's more qualified than Clinton is.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
well, not to listen to my mother (0.00 / 0)
She wants "a woman" for president. (Hmm. The GOP could get McSame some of Rudy's drag outfits---)
[ Parent ]
Well, to listen to my mother, (4.00 / 1)
"If he picks a woman, it'd better be Hillary."  :)

She wasn't even exactly a Clinton supporter, but she has never liked Obama much, and was I think really angered by the way Clinton got treated in the press. When I suggested to her that Obama might pick someone like Murray she was pretty adamant about it being a terrible idea.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
well, my mother (4.00 / 3)
Mine was a lifelong Republican who changed her registration to vote for Clinton in the primary and kept trying to drag me to Hillary rallies. Women have been oppressed ever since the Book of Genesis, and it's time for a woman president, goes her pitch.

Congrats on having VP discussions with your mother. I'm definitely afraid to bring up the subject.

[ Parent ]
In my neck of the woods... (4.00 / 7)
Sebelius would be a very popular pick, in large part because she is a progressive woman.

I'm not going to pretend to speak for "Clinton supporters" as a group, though.  Talking about 'what Clinton supporters want' is a mistaken way to frame the conversation, regardless of what point is being made (i.e. regardless of whether one is advocating for or against Obama picking Clinton as veep).    

[ Parent ]
On that list: Wesley Clark (4.00 / 4)
Who I'm just slightly more than luke warm towards.

Names conspicuous by their absence: Richardson and Schweitzer.

I still think Edwards is on that list, and I still think he'd take the position if he was offered it.

Yes (4.00 / 1)
Wondered about Richardson especially.
[ Parent ]
Maybe... (0.00 / 0)
they found out the same stuff that Gore did when they vetted him.
[ Parent ]
Richardson (4.00 / 2)
Is basically a more charismatic Homer Simpson with foreign policy experience. And he's like Bill Clinton in certain unfortunate ways.
[ Parent ]
I'd say more Krusty the Klown (0.00 / 0)
Homer is more of a family man.
[ Parent ]
Richardson is a gamble (4.00 / 1)
He has more experience than the entire initial Democratic primary field put together, so that would add weight to the ticket, and at the end of the day I think Obama's lack of experience will be his biggest detraction.  However, everyone I know that has worked with Richardson hates him and he is entirely lacking in charisma.  

He is Latino, thus winning over a key Clinton constituency and putting NM solidly in the Dem column while making CO and NV extremely competitive.  He may even help in FL enough to pull off an upset there.  

So, would his baggage (he was rejected as VP for both Gore and Kerry for a reason) negate his positives?  Cheney has changed the VP office forever, and I see Richardson as the Democratic Cheney.

I think we need a mean and nasty fighter with tons of experience in the VP slot, so IMHO Richardson should at least be considered.


www.progressivemovement.net, talking about how progressives can improve their messaging.

[ Parent ]
He would have been veep (4.00 / 2)
but he has some SERIOUS baggage. His own female Lt. Governor complained about him touching her all the time.

That is not a good way to win over women.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Richardson (4.00 / 1)
would add weight to the ticket

:)  ?

[ Parent ]
Sam Nunn (4.00 / 10)
Every time I hear one of the talking heads mention Sam Nunn as a possible VP, I throw up a little bit in my mouth.

While I think we should allow the Obama campaign to make their own decision, we should make sure that the MSM is talking about the right choices, not the ridiculous ones.

Awful (4.00 / 4)
That's a pretty dismal list. It's not good when not one of the top five names I would want to see on this list (Brown, Schweitzer, McCaskill, Edwards, and Richardson) are on there.

Warner would be 6th on my list. If these are the choices he's the only one I'd be excited by, and not because of his politics but rather for purely strategic reasons in trying to grab hold of Virginia in November.  

If we're gonna draft, let's do it right! (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you.  The list you provided is the list I'd like to see.

I don't know why we should feel limited by the names provided by Chuck Todd.  Those lists are never accurate.

[ Parent ]
I'm Dreading (4.00 / 6)
Where there's smoke there's fire and it seems like he is leaning towards picking someone to fill his "national security hole." Stupid. He's playing right into McCain and the media's hands.

If Obama plays this right, he should absolutely destroy McCain in November. McCain is such a bad, terrible, awful candidate. He's a total tomato can, and if Obama can just stick to the script on the economy and trade with occassional pivot to smack the taste out of McCain's mouth over his complete and utter lack of foreign policy judgement it'll be a cake walk. See you in 2012 for the (admittedly much tougher) re-election campaign. But, if he does pick someone like Clark or Webb or general-no-one-has-ever-heard-of, then he's going to make this harder than it needs to be, because he's reinforcing McCain's framing that he's an inexperienced little child who needs someone to hold his hand while he deals with the world's bad guys.

To say nothing of the fact Clark, Webb, or general-no-one-has-ever-heard-of are political noobs who you know are going to make unforced errors. And unforced errors are poison for any campaign.

Someone in that campaign has to be smarter than this.

[ Parent ]
Didn't (4.00 / 1)
Jim Johnson head up Kerry's VP effort too (I honestly don't remember, just asking)? And if he did, doesn't that indicate that he has a habit of trying to "fill holes" rather than trying to reinforce a candidates strengths (of which Kerry admittedly had few)? I.e. he picked Edwards to "add balance" rather than to reinforce some narrative around Kerry.

Sounds like a military man will be the new VP. Sigh....Although Clark wouldn't be bad, it does suck because it's a stupid pick for the reasons you lay out.  

[ Parent ]
he was reinforcing the "John" part of Kerry (4.00 / 7)

[ Parent ]
Zing!!!! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Well done sir (0.00 / 0)
(or mam)
[ Parent ]
Kerry made the pick (4.00 / 1)
not Johnson.

Johnson had been on the record saying that Kerry should pick someone he trusted. That was Bob Graham but Kerry followed his pollsters advice and picked Edwards.

Johnson will have even less of a role this year. Obama will pick who he wants and he has said he wants someone with executive and domestic policy experience. Namely, Obama is going to pick a governor.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
So is Vilsack the sleeper candidate? (4.00 / 2)
Who else?
WA - Gregoire - running for re-election in a close race. Kind of doubtful
OR -  Kulongolski - not sure what he adds to the ticket. Also was a little too chummy with McCain
MT - Schweitzer
CO - Ritter - only 2 years on the job. Would seal the deal on CO though.
NM - Richardson
KS - Sebelius
AR - Beebe - also only 2 years on the job. And probably doesn't get you AR either, or any other state
IA - Culver - why pick Culver when Vilsack is sitting right there?
WI - Jim Doyle....hmm...
TN - Bredesen - funny his name hasn't been floated. I doubt he'd do much to carry TN (if Gore himself couldn't carry it, he probably couldn't either as VP)
WV - Manchin - he's pretty conservative (like Bredesen). He did endorse Obama though.
VA - Kaine - again....his lt. gov is a republican
OH - Strickland - ruled it out and is not pro-choice
PA - Rendell - I don't think he'd want it. And I don't want him to want it.
MD - O'Malley - Similar to Ritter in CO in that he's new to the job. But I can see him on the ticket actually. He's a really progressive guy. More-so than Kaine. Don't know if he helps electorally though, but he definiately would be a reinforcing pick.
NJ - Corzine - he's got enough problems right now in NJ. Did he vote for the war?
NH - John Lynch - I don't know anything about him other than 70% approval ratings and he's a centrist (won't push for the income tax in NH). He'd probably put NH over the edge for Obama, which could be helpful depending on how close the election turns out. Also has not been discussed
ME - Baldacci - don't know much about him. Also from a small state that's going Democratic anyway.  
[ Parent ]
O'Malley (0.00 / 0)
is my governor. He routinely irks me by moving to the right of the Democratic assembly on random little issues. But he's a good guy and the previous probably just means he'd be interested. Still, while he is some what reinforcing I don't really think he does anything special for the ticket. And we'd have to deal with getting hammered on the experience issue.
[ Parent ]
He does have an Irish name though! (0.00 / 0)
No I don't think he does anything really special. But given all the people that have ruled out VP and given the problems of a Hillary VP, nothing special is starting to look pretty good at this point. I'd take a nothing special and get a solid progressive in the VP slot over crap shoot like Webb or Sebelius who are not as progressive or an even worse option like Nunn, or god-forbid, Evan Bayh.
[ Parent ]
NC - Easley (4.00 / 1)
NC primed for going blue, Easley endorsed Clinton and he's a Roman Catholic.

Not who I want as a VP but I wouldn't be shocked.

What has John McCain done for veterans?

[ Parent ]
I"m from NC (4.00 / 1)
And I'll tell you there's no way Easley will be on the ticket. He doesn't want it and he's made that abundantly clear. If he didn't take a run at senate (where he most likely would have won), then that just adds to the fact that he won't take VP.

Easley, while popular, is also something of a loner when it comes to politics. He never was one to really work on building the party and he never really developed a power base in the capitol, which got sucked up by Basnight in the senate and now Hackney in the house.

I think he really just wants to retire and have some public policy type of cushy job in NC.  

[ Parent ]
Disagree (4.00 / 2)
As long as he picks someone who was against the war from the beginning the VP will primarily be reinforcing.  Get someone like Clark who keeps hitting hard about all the problems with the Bush/McCain foreign policy and the result is strong reinforcement of everything Obama says.
[ Parent ]
Fear Not (4.00 / 4)
According to Obama himself:

"I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he replied. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

[ Parent ]
He's Right (0.00 / 0)
Hopefully he sticks to those convictions, because his instincts are right.
[ Parent ]
Re: I'm Dreading (0.00 / 0)
I kinda agree with the theory of not picking a VP to highlight your weakness, and I think picking a military guy for the sake of shoring up the national security angle would be a mistake. However, I believe Clark should be the VP.

Obama was against the Iraq war, and Clark would reinforce that. Clark basically echoes Obama's foreign policy stance, but his incredible military creds makes Obama's stance that much stronger.  Clark's unique because I believe he reinforces, as well as complements Obama here.

Plus, Clark was a viable presidential candidate in '04, and he did have his stumbles, but that would help him be prepared for '08. He's also been very politically active since then with WesPAC, and was a surrogate for Clinton.  Clark certainly won't be able to bring all the Clinton supporters, but it could help appease them a little. (I actually don't think even Hillary herself can fully bring her supporters).

[ Parent ]
Viable For All of 24 Hours, If That (0.00 / 0)
Lets not forget that Clark gave his campaign a fatal gunshot wound to the foot by day two of his campaign after he finally quit dragging it out and announced by saying he might've voted yes on the Senate authorization of force in Iraq. He spent pretty much the entire campaign from that point on trying to retract that. Like I said, political noobs make unforced errors, and Obama can't afford unforced errors.

Now, I will say, of the three military choices, I do like Clark the best because he does have some economics in his background so he's not completely a one trick pony. The media will say he is, though.

[ Parent ]
he also has campaign experience (0.00 / 0)
so he wouldn't make those errors the way the other two would,
[ Parent ]
Jack Reed has a posse (4.00 / 6)
Sen. Jack Reed would be an excellent choice. He's a former Captain in the Army Rangers, voted against the Iraq War, helps with some demographic groups (Catholics, white men). As goes Cranston, RI so goes America!

John McCain
And he had one of my favorite Iraq War quotes (4.00 / 3)
Some journalist was giving him the 'damned if we do, damned if we don't' line about the war and Reed responded something like, "That's the textbook definition of a failed foreign policy -- one that leaves you with no good options."

[ Parent ]
I like him (0.00 / 0)
but I don't think a senator from a state with about 1.2 million people is going to help with roughly 50 million white men. It's one thing to pick someone to help with a particular demographic if that person either is nationally known (e.g. John Edwards) or very strong in a particular swing state or region (e.g. Sherrod Brown or Mark Warner). But it's quite another to pick someone that is neither nationally known nor strong in a swing state or region (RI and New England ain't goin' GOP, save for maybe NH).

But I do like him, and he would be a reinforcing pick. But do we want to lose him in the senate because of Carcieri?

[ Parent ]
Maybe he would appoint Chaffee (0.00 / 0)
I don't know RI appointment law but it seems Gov. Carcieri would do himself a lot of good politically to appoint Lincoln Chafee back to the Senate as an Independent. That's the kind of thing I'm guessing could be sounded out before any VP pick.

John McCain
[ Parent ]
Reed is up for re-election this year (4.00 / 1)
So the RI Democratic Party would pick the replacement and it's unlikely they would pick Chaffee

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Like everyone else (4.00 / 2)
I had forgotten about him. But he'd be a great pick. He's like all the good parts of John Kerry without the bad parts.
[ Parent ]
Huh (0.00 / 0)
Well most of those names are acceptable but a couple that are acceptable are still foolish. Biden and Kaine I could live with but they aren't inspired choices. Sebelius is looking more and more like the obvious choice. Clark is solid too. Who in God's name brought up Kerry?

I have two reservations about Sebelius. One is the weak SOTU response but I think that is pretty easy to forgive. The other is her son's effed up board game. I can't help questioning the values of someone's whose son published a prison-themed game called "Don't Drop the Soap". (And it so happens the best thing about Webb is the work he's don't a prison reform!).

Her son did what?! n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Uh yeah (4.00 / 1)
Her son published this: http://www.gilliusinc.com/drop...

See here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22...

And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

...prison rape sure is HILARIOUS.

[ Parent ]
Oy (0.00 / 0)
That's the reason it sucks so much that Edwards won't accept. He's already been vetted and you don't have these little "surprises" with an unknown like Sebelius that may not matter much at the state level, but just become distractions on the national level.

I would say I could live with Kaine (if he's pro-choice), but what about the Lt. Guv? He's a republican and he'd have 2 years left to run the state.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, (4.00 / 1)
There is nothing offensive about Tim Kaine there's just not really any reason to pick him. Maybe he helps you in VA but he couldn't even carry the Lt. Gov seat with him. Plus you'd have a Republican governor afterward. On the other hand you could probably get Warner to drop the senate bid and run for VEEP. That'd give you a much better candidate, a much better shot at  VA and we'd still probably pick up that senate seat. Plus can you see Kaine running for president in eight years?

Sigh, and Edwards is looking so good with the economy becoming more important. I wonder if he could help in North Carolina since we'll actually be contesting it this time around.  

[ Parent ]
Rejected because of her son's poor choice of board game topics? (4.00 / 1)
That's a pretty cheesy argument.  Right along the lines of blaming congress critters that their kids don't enlist in the military.  Since when are parents expected to direct their children's lives to such an extent?

Did/do your parents control your life choices to that extent?  Did/do you control your children to such an extent?


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

[ Parent ]
The War (4.00 / 3)
The only candidate on that list I might support who voted for the war is Dodd. Everyone else who voted for the war is unacceptable.

(Reed and Murray voted against the war).

Other than the Senators, Warner, Kaine, Clark, Sebelius are good choices.  

Patty Murray? (4.00 / 2)
C'mon, you've got to be kidding about Murray. I love her as a Senator, but she's as timid as a field mouse. She's not presidential in any way.  
Murray (4.00 / 5)
Murray has also been ranked several times by Washington insiders of both parties as not being the brightest crayon in the box. No matter what you say about Hillary, she is one of the most intelligent Senators, of either sex, in Washington. To bypass her for another female Senator who is known as an intellectual lightweight would not be the smartest thing to do (pun intended).

Demockracy.com

[ Parent ]
Do you have a link for that? (0.00 / 0)
Those are pretty bad personal attacks. So it'd be nice to see some evidence to back that up where people (even anonymously) have been quoted as such.
[ Parent ]
Where can I find (4.00 / 3)
Where can I find the Washington Insiders' Brightness of Crayons in the Box Rankings?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
The link (0.00 / 0)
is here.

Bill Frist gets 'brainiest.'

[ Parent ]
I think that shows (4.00 / 1)
that there were a few dim crayons in the people they surveyed as well.  
[ Parent ]
Frist is the Brightest? (4.00 / 3)
Well, then, I don't respect the ratings. Murray is vindicated.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, that was my point. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
I know I keep harping on this (4.00 / 4)
But she's a horrible public speaker, totally boring, and has no national signature.  She's good on her issues - women's right, veterans, Boeing - but I am very resistant to this idea.
[ Parent ]
It would be a mistake.... (4.00 / 1)
not to choose a woman. My gut tells me that McCain is thinking about choosing a woman in an attempt to pick off as many "Hillary voters" as he can get. Elizabeth Dole comes to mind. I don't see what Patty Murray would bring to a Democratic ticket, as Obama is in all probability going to carry Washington state, no matter who he has as VP. Murray is not a well known politician nationally, either. There are better women choices that could help bring a swing state into the Democratic column.
[ Parent ]
or Kay Bailey Hutchinson perhaps n/t (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Freudenthal? (0.00 / 0)
One name I haven't seen mentioned anywhere, another highly popular Democratic governor in a deep red state (along with Sebelius and Schweitzer), is Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal. Anyone know anything about him? His Wikipedia page is pretty sparse, approximately the sum of useful info is (a) he's very popular, (b) NRA endorsed him, (c) he endorsed Obama.
he's also really really conservative (4.00 / 1)
He'd be worse than Schweitzer.  
[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
That's basically what I was curious about.
[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
He represents his state very well. Just not so much the Democratic Party.
[ Parent ]
Patty Murray (4.00 / 1)
Chris... Patty Murray?  Besides being thought of as a "Dim Bulb" the Bin Laden builds roads statement...given all the Wright and flag pin BS... would make her a non-starter...  It could be true, but its a STUPID statement.  I fear she'd get Dan Quayled... along with Nelson.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...

you overestimate (4.00 / 1)
Dan Quayle.
[ Parent ]
Fair enough... (0.00 / 0)
My point is the media will tear her apart as a bubble head.
[ Parent ]
Voted for CAFTA and other awful trade deals (0.00 / 0)
CAFTA = automatic disqualification. Patty Murray is an enthusiastic supporter of the worst trade deals, against the will and best interest of vast supermajorities of voters.

Believe it or not, most voters hate the Iraq War and globalization. Why is it so fucking hard to get a candidate in line with the views of most voters?

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

[ Parent ]
If they're talking to retired military (0.00 / 0)
then Zinni very well could be one of them.

That would make a helluva bumper sticker.

Re: Short list (4.00 / 2)
I voted for  Clark, Clinton, Jones, Sebelius and Webb. I think Obama would be best-served by a running mate with strong progressive record and a history of vote-getting or by a strong progressive with a non-political background. With that in mind, Clark has long been one of my two favorites for some time. (The other, Sherrod Brown, is missing from this list for reasons unknown.)

Clinton is a very tough call for me. I understand that she brings serious liabilities to the ticket, and I am reluctant to support her because of it. Still, I think that he presence on the ticket would be a net plus, as it would all but guarentee the unification of the Clinton and Obama primary coalitions.

I know relatively little about Jones, but I greatly like what I do know.

I am still a great fan of Sebelius, despite her abysmal SOTU response.

I am also still a great fan of Webb, and I think his "sexist" remarks have been blown out of the water by progressives upset with his FISA vote, which is the only black mark on his record, so far as I'm concerned.

While I would otherwise support three other candidates -- Dodd, Reed and Warner -- I cannot fathom losing a single Senate seat when a filibuster-proof majority is so close.

The rest of the list I don't care for, and I am disappointed to see that progressives like Brown and Feingold are not included.

His remarks were sexist, not "sexist." nt. (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
Given (0.00 / 0)
Ok, but they are still being blown up. We've all said, done and believed things that we later realized were stupid or simply wrong. They shouldn't be a disqualifier for office.
[ Parent ]
I believe (4.00 / 1)
There was a bit more to it than some stupid remarks.  I think Webb is terrible choice if you are interested in women's votes.  
[ Parent ]
Actually, stupid things said and done seems like a pretty (0.00 / 0)
good way to disqualify people, given the importance of the position.
[ Parent ]
I dunno about Jones. (4.00 / 1)
I read somewhere that he worked for years with the Chamber of Commerce, or some affiliate? Isn't the Chamber a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party?

And he undermines the 'change' message, I think. And being a General, highlights how scared Obama is of national security matters.

Better to pick Reed, who was an Army Ranger--but that's just a  footnote in his bio, not his defining attribute, like General Jones. (Of course, Reed married a woman 16 years his junior, which is kinda too McCainesque for comfort, but I try not to judge.)

[ Parent ]
Yep (4.00 / 4)
He ran the Institute for 21st Century Energy, a affiliate of the CoC and front group for their opposition to serious green energy reform. He also serves on the board of Chevron and Condi aggressively tried to get him to be her deputy. Is there any proof that he is at all progressive or even a Democrat? If we are picking a general Wes Clark would be a far better choice.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
thanks (4.00 / 2)
I was wondering about General Jones, the only name I didn't recognize. I'm not too keen about general in general, but a general on the ticket could bash the networks for their military-analyst generals approved by the White House and with gross financial conflicts of interest. I have never understood what so many see in Clark; then again, in retrospect Eisenhower keeps looking better. So I was of two or three minds on the topic.
[ Parent ]
I'm with you on Graham, (4.00 / 1)
by the way (if that's you!). In 2004, I was dying for Kerry to pick Graham. This time around, I'm much more pro-Edwards.

On the other hand: Feingold!  

[ Parent ]
2004 (0.00 / 0)
Graham ran for president himself but had that heart attack before he got started. I wonder how his health is now. Of course, now that the country's accustomed to the official vice-presidential ambulance, I guess that doesn't matter much, as long as he's energetic and feels up to it.

I was a Deanie, my first political excitement. I didn't much care for Kerry or for Edwards, but they weren't Bush, and I did a lot of work for the ticket. I am more enthusiastic about Elizabeth than about John.  

[ Parent ]
If we want a general who will do that (4.00 / 2)
Clark's the one.

Jones is a oil company board member who runs a Chamber of Commerce front group.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Something new... (0.00 / 0)
I didn't know that, thanks for the heads-up.

Still can't support Reed. We cannot lose his seat.

[ Parent ]
No, you're right. Losing a Senate seat is completely disqualifying. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Except we're apparently both wrong, (0.00 / 0)
per Englishlefty's comment, below.
[ Parent ]
I think he's up for reelection in 08 anyway. (0.00 / 0)
So there's not really a problem. It's RI, after all.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Patty Murray? NO NO NO!! (4.00 / 3)
She's my senator and an ongoing disappointment.  As I've written here before, she's totally absent on the critical issues of late, spending here capital (and accessing the airwaves) shilling for Boeing and the tanker debacle.  (At least yesterday Cantwell - of whom I'm no fan, esp post-Alito  - was on the local radio intelligently discussing unregulated markets and oil commodity manipulation and how to impose some oversight)

I'm not at all surprised that some poll of staffers repeated referenced here tagged her as a "dim bulb" - that's precisely the way she comes across.

I think the VP needs to be smart and engaged, as Gore and Cheney have remade the office, and needs to be the attack dog when the Prez needs to keep his hands clean - I just cannot see her in this role.  She has the delivery of soggy Wonder bread and oratory fireworks that rival McCain.  UGH.

As noted above, Sherrod Brown, Feingold, Edwards all need to be considered (though I know the poll was derived from a Chuck Todd rumor).

no, No, NO To Sebelius!!! (0.00 / 0)
Absolutely not; no way; not appealing, not a winner, and not any other woman I could support running with Obama.

For crying out loud, she is from a dinky state that is RUBY RED, that we will never win. I don't care how popular she is in Kansas. It's KANSAS. She hasn't earned it, either.

Enough of this "Ms/Mr Popularity", American Idol contestant moose muffins.

Sebelius isn't even a comparable "replacement" for Hillary Clinton. This is like sticking a knife in already-deep wounds among women. If this is your idea of a consolation prize to the millions of women who support Hillary Clinton it isn't funny and we won't buy it.

Choose a solid white male before an inexperienced WOMAN. I am NOT going to go through this again. She is simply unacceptable as a VP candidate. Period.

Patty Murray, absolutely. She's been around; she's smart; feminist; progressive; opposed the war, but NOT Sebelius!

I'm not sure by what measures (4.00 / 8)
Clinton and Murray (or Obama, for that matter) are more experienced or accomplished than Sebelius.  
[ Parent ]
How much experience do you need? (4.00 / 10)
Sebelius has spent over 20 years in elected office, including over a dozen in state-wide office.  Does this mean that you think John Edwards is horrible because he only spent only six years in elected office and comes from red state North Carolina?  Sebelius impressed enough people to be considered a long-shot VP pick in 2004.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
inexperienced? (4.00 / 14)
Um...

Served in the Kansas House from 86-94. In a GOP wave year she won the office of insurance commissioner where she served until 2002 when in another Republican wave year she became Governor of the ruby red state of Kansas.

Sebelius has held elected office for longer then Murray and Clinton. She's also smart, progressive, feminist, anti-war. She is in no way a replacement for Clinton. She just so happens to be the most progressive candidate for VP who has the best background to be VP.

What's do you have against her? She's been in public office for 22 freaking years and has done so much she has become the most popular politician in a state filled with people from the opposite party of her. What does Patty Murray bring that Sebelius doesn't? Why do you think she is a "consolation prize". This is politics not a game.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
How about Napolitano? (0.00 / 0)
Is Gov. Napolitano no longer considered in the running?  I've thought she would be a good choice - Governor of a potentially swing state and a good bit younger than either Sen. Murray or Gov. Sebelius
She's single (0.00 / 0)
so unfortunately the rumors would be a distraction. She's also more conservative on issues like immigration than Sebelius or Murray. And she does a little too much schtick about "both parties need to come together to get things done" crap. I'd like a little partisanship when my party selects a Democrat to represent that party please.  
[ Parent ]
"I'd like a little partisanship when my party selects a Democrat to represent that party please." (0.00 / 0)
Too much of that schtick was exactly my complaint, early in the primary, about Obama.  It's also why, after Edwards dropped out, I initially supported (and much to my embarassment in retrospect, on Feb 5th, voted for) Clinton over Obama.

But a good point on the immigration issue - although how much sway is the VP going to have over the platform, and how is she on other issues?

I don't know how realistic it is, but what I'd LIKE to see Obama is pick a VP who is around his age, or perhaps a bit younger.

[ Parent ]
Travel in time back to 1992... (0.00 / 0)
and bring back Bill Clinton to be VP.
[ Parent ]
Webb Has Women problems (4.00 / 2)
Webb with his previous attitude towards women in the military would be a slap in the face to Clinton voters.

Plus he'd hog a lot of spotlight.

and (4.00 / 2)
he's almost as likely as Cheney to shoot someone in the face.
[ Parent ]
On national parkland to boot! (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
And (4.00 / 1)
I don't think he's the best campaigner. Let's look elsewhere.
[ Parent ]
It's becoming sort of hard (4.00 / 3)
to think of anyone that WOULDN'T be a slap in the face to Clinton voters.

Webb- Sexist
Edwards- Bad memories of the tag team debate.
Sebelius or any woman- apparently this would be a smack in the face because Hilary Clinton is, I guess, the de facto representative of all women.

I suppose we're ok with Wes Clark or one of the old conservative white men that endorsed her.  

[ Parent ]
I think the tag team debate (0.00 / 0)
is a stretch. Especially since Edwards was effusive of his praise for Hillary after he dropped out right through his endorsement of Obama. Also, you'd have Elisabeth Edwards right there. But it's all a moot point most likely since he's taken himself out of the running like 30 dozen times now.
[ Parent ]
It's funny (4.00 / 2)
I keep reading people saying that, and then not looking up the quotes. I'm like one of the those Gore supporters who used to disregard or misread his many statements of denial. I'd rather just pretend he'll parachute in to save us.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
SNARK ;-) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Out of order (0.00 / 0)
Re Edwards: The idea anyone is going to remember a primary debate and vote for John McCain over it is crazy.

Re Women: Women shouldn't be ruled out as VP picks, but the argument that we need them to throw a bone to women or throw a bone to Hillary Clinton supporters is misguided and offensive. If a woman other than Clinton can stand up as a candidate on her own (and I think maybe Sebelius or someone like Boxer with a national profile probably can) that's fine, but if it is a pander, it will be seen as exactly that.

Re Webb: I would hope that, primaries aside, there would be a consensus that we wouldn't pick someone who has a history of retrograde positions on gender as one of the standard bearers of our party. People are ruling out Nunn for basically the same reason regarding his position on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Not only are these groups important parts of the Democratic Party, but bigotry just happens to be the type of thing that Democrats avoid in their politicians, now matter who it is aimed at.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I was mainly mocking the people who keep bringing up the question of whether or not a pick alienates Clinton supporters. So I agree with you on all grounds. I just think talk about alienating Clinton is a little beside the point. Either her supporters come around of they don't the VP pick has nothing to do with that.

Should have put up snark tags. My bad.

[ Parent ]
Heh (0.00 / 0)
Glad to hear it. And I think that's a pretty good philosophy. If he runs his campaign well, he can win this thing. Trying to trick people who don't like him into supporting him is probably not a winning proposition.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Gimme an example of a pander pick (0.00 / 0)
How would one go about pandering up a female VP pick? What would this look like in practice?

Which female politician would be a pander, rather than actually seeming like one (as, apparently, Sebelius might do with some significant segment of Clinton supporters.)

[ Parent ]
I think we would be the most effective (4.00 / 2)
making it clear who would be unacceptable choices.

Who would that be?

Evan Bayh (Sen-IN)
Tom Daschle (Sen-SD)
James Jones (Gen-MO)
Sam Nunn (Sen-GA)
Jim Webb (Sen-VA)

and possibly Hillary Clinton.

Obama can't pick a lobbyist (Daschle), or a Big Oil director (Jones). He also shouldn't pick a extreme conservative like the anti-gay Nunn, anti-choice Bayh or somewhat anti-women Webb. Also Clinton would probably divide this party more then it would unite us and would be a terrible choice.

We should also make clear that we cannot pick someone who would lose the Democrats a Senate seat. That includes Dodd and Reed as well as Bayh.

So we come to this list.

Great choices:
Kathleen Sebelius (Gov-KS) (solid progressive, reinforcing pick)

Good choices:
Wes Clark (Gen-AR) (would be a balancing choice (Clinton, military, old southern white guy) but is also fairly progressive and Matt has argued is a reinforcing pick as well)
Mark Warner (Gov-VA) (questionable on the war but has a message and image like Obama)

Decent choices:
Joe Biden (Sen-DE) (Somewhat conservative and voted for the war but a fantastic attack dog who would rip apart the GOP)
Tim Kaine (Gov-VA) (spotless past, background is so close to Obama's its freaky, he and Obama get along fantastically, also fairly conservative, questionable on choice and would hand Virgina over to Republican control for a year)

Not going to happen list:
John Kerry (Sen-MA)
Patty Murray (Sen-WA)
Bill Nelson (Sen-FL)

Other choices not on the list are Edwards (who hasn't ruled it out like Stickland did and would be a fantastic choice) and Richardson (who would be a unacceptable choice for many reasons that Obama's vetters probably already know).

But I think we should really start to make a aggressive case against Nunn, Webb and other conservatives who's names have too frequently been mentioned.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

My pick.. (0.00 / 0)
Would be everyone that we all find objectionable.  If we can get Indiana or Virginia because of one of these guys (I'm thinking Bayh has more pull in Indiana than Webb does in VA), then we're good.

They aren't going to do anything unless [censored by Hillary haters].

Honestly, we need a token conservative.

A woman is both pandering and probably a little too much to ask of some Americans--a woman and an AA. It can't happen soon enough for us, but you know.  

[ Parent ]
I disagree strongly. (4.00 / 1)
Just you watch McCain pick a woman running mate. Don't underestimate him. Women are a huge demographic that should not be conceded by the Democrats. After watching Hillary's performance in the primaries, the Republicans aren't going to concede them.
[ Parent ]
So what? (0.00 / 0)
When McCain picks a woman as a running mate, it will be apparent to everyone that it's clumsy pandering.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
[ Parent ]
Not Wes Clark.... (0.00 / 0)
Not unless you want endless repeats in the media of his swapping hats story with General Ratko Mladic.

Sorry, no.

Reed's up this year (4.00 / 2)
If he's picked as VP, the Dems can put up another candidate in his place. It's Rhode Island in a very pro-Democratic year. I think we'd hold it. Seriously, who could the Republicans pick? They've lost Chafee and Carcieri probably can't manage a move to federal office.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
yeah (0.00 / 0)
so long has Reed resigned. Otherwise the governor is a Republican.
[ Parent ]
Excellent Point! (0.00 / 0)
Thank you for pointing that out. I now remove half of the reasons I can come up with for not picking him.
[ Parent ]
Half (0.00 / 0)
the other half of those reasons are probably the same as mine:

another blue state liberal? We might like him, but we're into the general now.

[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)
Had not thought about that.

Reed should be at least on the short list then. The only problem I have found looking into him is that he married a wife who is nearly 20 years younger. That might not exactly help with women voters.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Reed good (0.00 / 0)
Jack Reed seems to be the best possibility on this otherwise lousy list.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
[ Parent ]
OK, if not Wes, then who did I like? (4.00 / 1)
Tim Kaine, though I know it means a Republican Governor as a replacement.

Jack Reed, though I dunno if he really adds to the ticket - he has progressive bona fides, but will he appeal to folks and help reinforce the ticket?

Karen Sebelius and Patty Murray, though I frankly don't know if either is really ready for the job.   (That said, being from Washington, Patty usually surprises everyone, in a good way, regarding most everything she's tried to accomplish - I wish she would hold stronger opinions regarding the war in Iraq, though.)

But personally, I stil say we start a "Draft Sherrod brown" campaign.  He's already had his share of rough and tumble in the House, he's loved in Ohio, and he's progressive as they come.

Who's with me?

Bob Graham not Bill Nelson. (4.00 / 1)
Bill Nelson is about as boring as watching paint peel, he's not really that reinforcing and he wouldn't necessarily deliver Florida.

Bob Graham is a beloved former Governor and Senator who left office with huge approval ratings, reinforces with the judgement thing (against Iraq war, distracted from Afghanistan conflict... which... btw, when he said that was NOT the popular opinion at all).

And he's been gone from Washington long enough (2004) to give him a bit of an outsider thing.

He was strongly, strongly considered by Kerry as a running mate, and would actually be a very strong out of the box pick.

The chances of him running to be President are pretty much none as he will be too old, but he could even step down after a term and let the new standard bearer take over in 2012.

Plus since he is not elected we don't have to worry about losing one of our red state governors or Senators.

C'mon, Bill Nelson??

Really.
There's no way he should be on that list and Graham shouldn't be.

Well.... (0.00 / 0)
There are those wierd notebooks he keeps (or used to) about everything single thing he did each day.  I think those have been an issue each time he has been proposed.  
[ Parent ]
Graham (0.00 / 0)
Signed so many death warrants when he was Governor of Florida that he became known as "Bloody Bob" . Many chose him over Bob Shevin when he was running because he said he would more thoughtfully consider whether or not to bring back the death penalty, but then once elected he started signing them and never stopped.   Ancient history, I know, and more years ago than I care to admit, but he still did it.
[ Parent ]
A "well, of course," pick nobody's mentioned (0.00 / 0)
Howard Dean. He's been a governor and instituted some really good domestic programs there, and now he's had national experience. Plus he and Obama seem to be reading from the same book. Both were do-gooders prepolitics.
The first four are great. (0.00 / 0)
Warner? Would so many of you piss away a guaranteed seat without a second thought? Terrible idea.
well (0.00 / 0)
after a one-state Presidential loss in 2004 and a one-state (asterisk) loss in 2000...I kinda would (if I thought that might be the difference maker).
[ Parent ]
I think it's a tough call, actually (0.00 / 0)
Certain Senate seat pickup v. near certain medium-size red state pick-up. I might swallow that Senate pickup, everything else equal.

And he's reinforcing and gap-filling and would make a potentially damn good (if not terribly progressive) presidential candidate in 2016.

I'm a Virginian so I'm biased but also reasonably familiar with the guy.

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 1)
it would go from guaranteed to almost certain.

The Republican nominee is former governor Jim Gilmore. He is wildly unpopular in Virgina, think Bush type approval ratings. He almost lost the GOP nomination to a unknown state legislator (I think the final vote was 50.3-49.7) and there are plenty of people who could step in for Warner and win the seat just as easily. For example their is currently a primary brewing in 09 between Craigh Deeds a state senator and former candidate for Attorney General and Brian Moran a delegate (Virgina's house) and leader of the Democratic caucus. He is also a close freind of Mark Warner and the brother of Rep. Jim Moran. He could easily win the seat.

And the only candidate who is popular enough to swing a state is Mark Warner.

He's got a few policy problems. Mostly on Iraq but otherwise he would be a very solid choice.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
I am completely underwhelmed... (4.00 / 1)
by all these choices.  While I voted only for Webb in the poll, the comments regarding his sexist comments now make my opinion about him as VP neutral.

None of the other names of the list make much sense, and some are just downright awful, although I can see Biden or Sebelius.  But Biden runs off at the mouth too much and does not bring along any constituency.  Sebelius does not add much either and looks like pandering.

One other note.  Generals make terrible politicians.  Thinking Clark and others would help Obama get things done in Washington is wishful thinking.  In terms of getting votes they may help some, but public debate and speaking are not their strong suits.  At most it is probably a wash.  Best to keep them behind closed doors hammering out defense, security and foreign policies.  Maybe as talking heads on TV on issues they know about like security, but they generally do not know much about anything else (witness Clark in the '04 debates) and are not used to the non-rigid nature of public life.

Other options:

McCaskill:  Woman, governor, Missouri?  Seems reasonable enough.

Richardson: Crazy experienced, adds weight to ticket (but not so obviously as a former military pick).  Latino.  Does have baggage though.  Is he too risky?

Edwards:  Has taken himself out of the running, and a second time around might seem as exciting as day old bread.  No serious experience, something I think Obama desperately needs.  However, fits the 'change' theme and might assuage Clinton supporters.  Darn charismatic as well.

Schweitzer:  Popular Gov. of MT.  Could make it a swing state and help with other Western states.  Kinda conservative though.

Feingold:  Way progressive, which is way cool.  Gives us WI, but what else?

I cannot think of anyone else.  I am getting depressed over this since no one looks like a slam dunk.

www.progressivemovement.net, talking about how progressives can improve their messaging.

McCaskill is a senator (4.00 / 2)
and is pretty darn conservative so that rules her out. Sebelius adds a helluva lot more and can someone explain why she would be pandering? She's been a super popular progressive Democratic politician for 22 years in Kansas. That takes some serious skill.

Richardson has way too much baggage. Edwards doesn't want it. Schweitzer is up for re-election and Montana Dems don't have any bench.

And c'mon. Does anyone think Feingold is going to be picked? I love Russ but it ain't gonna happen.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Agree mostly (0.00 / 0)
But I don't think it's accurate to label Schweitzer as "conservative." Perhaps more accurate to say he has a "libertarian" streak. Normally that word makes me cringe, but Schweitzer is libertarian really only on personal rights, e.g. his staunch and courageous opposition to the Patriot Act and related attacks on the Bill of Rights. On economic issues he's a great populist.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
[ Parent ]
Why is Schweitzer and Brown not on the list??? (0.00 / 0)

Mark My Words ... (0.00 / 0)
Howard Dean will be on that short list. I wouldn't be surprised if he is the VP pick.  
I love the idea (0.00 / 0)
Although I don't think it would happen.  Obama's health care plan is, after all, almost a copy of Dr. Dean's.  I just wonder if Clinton supporters will use it to claim that the primary season was rigged against Hillary.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I'm marking your words. (0.00 / 0)
But he doesn't appear on the list.

Mark mine: Obama is going to go with someone perceived as centrist or even conservative, or someone who might have killed someone in the past.  

[ Parent ]
Dean (0.00 / 0)
was considered centrist to conservative as governor, very budget minded, endorsed by the NRA. He came to be seen as liberal because of his opposition to the Iraq War and his social liberalism. But I'm pretty sure he didn't kill anybody as a family doctor.
[ Parent ]
Dean (0.00 / 0)
Magnifies the perception of Obama as being out of touch and condescending towards working class folk.
[ Parent ]
Sibelius (4.00 / 1)
I know there are two basic theories for VP picks: shoring up weaknesses and augmenting.  I don't think the latter theory was meant to compound inexperience with experience.

I was a dyed in the wool Clinton supporter, but I've never thought much of her as a VP choice because she doesn't help Obama's theme of change and his position on Iraq.  

Reed is from the bluest state--not sure he adds anything.
Clark always showed himself to be overrated as a campaigner.

Webb was always against Iraq, but it puts his senate seat in danger.

Obama supporters specifically and Democrats in general are historically pretty tone deaf when it comes to this kind of selection.  

We may have objections to Nunn or Webb, but they will both be subservient to Obama's policies.  Both of them answer most people's uneasiness about Obama.  Hell, I would even support Hagel for that reason.

You want to beat them, but I want to win.

they may be subservient (4.00 / 2)
until such a time as they inherit the job (VPs often become Ps through any of several routes). Then what have we done?
[ Parent ]
Clark (4.00 / 2)
Webb and Richardson are out, for obvious reasons that shouldn't have to be restated.

I think Sebellius will be a big mistake.  Yet gain the Dems take a pass on national security, this time after the GOP have committed the worst strategic disaster in the country's history.  What is wrong with this picture?

Clark can be Obama's Cheney in running the administration*, and he has progressive values.  He was awkward starting off campaigning in 03, but he learned fast on the stump.  In any case, any VP pick is going to be outshone by Obama.  Unlike other picks (I am not taking Webb seriouly for VP), his background gives him the chops to tell the military-industrial complex to get in line when they ask for a trillion dollars to repair the damage that Bush has done.  

* Unlike Bush, Obama has the intellectual curiosity to ask the right questions, so he would not be the VP's puppet as Bush is to Cheney.  Obama needs Clark's administrative experience to run the bureaucracy, as Cheney has run the bureaucracy for Bush.  If Obama doesn't get that kind of background support in place, his first term will be a train-wreck and he won't have a second term.

ps I cannot believe anyone is seriously talking about bringing that dinosaur Nunn back.  I mean, he's pre-Clinton.  WTF?

Couple of thoughts (4.00 / 1)
I mostly agree with the way this poll has shaken out.  But two things baffle me:

1) Why anyone would find rabid Clinton supporter, awful political strategist Wes Clark acceptable is beyond me.

2) Why anyone who finds Sam Nunn unacceptable would find Joe Biden acceptable is beyond me.  They are both far-right, corporate, hawkish, racist right-wing no-good Democratic Senators, and neither should get anywhere near the presidency, ever.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future

Sam Nunn (4.00 / 3)
fired members of his staff beacuse they where gay and said he did it beacuse the Georgia wouldn't approve of gay people working for him.

Imagine if he did that beacuse a few of his staffers were women or African American or something like that.

We wouldn't tolerate that. We shouldn't tolerate Nunn. He would be far worse then Biden.

Biden wouldn't be the best pick but he's not nearly as bad as Nunn.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Completely agree (0.00 / 0)
We don't need anyone that the mainstream media applauds for their "foreign policy experience." Invariably, that's establishment code for, "We trust him to vote with the defense industry."

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...
[ Parent ]
Everyones is being thrown off the trail (4.00 / 2)
with the 'leaked' list
Obama has already picked his VP

It's a woman
Older than him
Outside of politics

Obama-Weiss 08

It's a done deal folks.

What has John McCain done for veterans?

The Best Choices are John Edwards and Mark Warner (4.00 / 2)
John Edwards for reasons that are obvious to those who read this site regularly.

Mark Warner, I think, is one of the best reinforcing choices Obama could make.  They both emphasize the current political dialogue as being not about liberal or conservative, but about "the future versus the past".  They are both charismatic.  Warner is extrememly popular in Virginia, and would probably give Obama an advantage there.  He also has the benefit of NOT being a Senator.  I would really hate to put an almost certain Senate pickup into "maybe" territory, but I think having Warner on the Presidential ticket might create some coat tails for whoever stepped in to take his place in the Senate race.

Also from a strictly superficial standpoint, Obama/Edwards and Obama/Warner  look good both in print, in a way that Obama/Daschle, Obama/Sebelius, and Obama/Schweitzer would not.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

the other edwards (0.00 / 0)
He is already working with Elizabeth on health care. I bet her positive/negative ratings are more favorable too. :)
[ Parent ]
Warner is a little iffy on the war (4.00 / 1)
but if he did a Edwards on that I think he would be a great pick.

Warner is also closer to Obama's age then some of the other ones and I think that would help reinforce.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Jim Johnson (0.00 / 0)
has resigned.
So many Senators on the list, but no Feingold? (0.00 / 0)
What gives?  Feingold would help win the working class vote in the upper midwest.
Max Cleland (0.00 / 0)
One up McCain!!! ;-)

I've suggested him before (0.00 / 0)
We ought to take Georgia on the basis of their total embarrassment, for one thing.

But I don't know how he stands on domestic issues, or whether he's got intemperate remarks on record to be YouTubed, or his health (see Bob Graham on the last; I seem to prefer candidates with potential health issues, or else MDs like Dean).

[ Parent ]
Cleland on the issues (0.00 / 0)
I had no idea where he stands either, but he seems surprisingly liberal (in summary, if not on all issues):

* against curtailing various abortion rights
* against SS privatisation
* against school vouchers
* fairly pro-gay
* aganst 3 strikes
* favours immigration
* against missile defence
* favours UN approval for military action!

That's pretty good for a guy who ran in Georgia.

http://www.ontheissues.org/sen...

Was a member of the DLC, though!

This blog seems to be making the argument for Cleland:

http://healthybagofpolitics.bl...

[ Parent ]
Vice-President Poll: Acceptable / Unacceptable For The Semi-Short List | 187 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox