Vice-President: Obama's Short List Emerging

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 16:26


Yesterday, it was revealed that Chris Dodd is being vetted in the final short list process. Today comes evidence that Hillary Clinton is also on the short list, along with Kathleen Sebelius (KS-Gov) and Jack Reed (Sen-RI). For Clinton, the evidence is that Obama told a donor she was on the short list. For Sebelius, it is that she flatly denied being betted in 2004, but refused to deny the same about this cycle. For Reed, it is that he is taking a trip to Iraq with Obama.

All four candidates had been previously named on the semi-short list of about fifteen candidates, so all of this talk about their chances has at least two layers of "rumor mill" evidence to back it up. Collectively, Clinton, Dodd, Reed and Sebelius now compose the likely short list. This actually isn't a bad group, and is certainly better than the next tier of somewhat less likely candidates:

Evan Bayh (Sen-IN)
Tom Daschle (Sen-SD)
Tim Kaine (Gov-VA)
Patty Murray (Sen-WA)
Bill Nelson (Sen-FL)
Sam Nunn (Sen-GA)

These six candidates were also on the semi-short list, and have not since been ruled out, ala Biden, Jones, and Webb. With the exception of Murray, those five make up is a pretty weak and conservative list. Dodd, Reed, Sebelius and Clinton are all better choices than those. At this time, there does not appear to be any significant talk about Edwards or Clark, who are certainly two well-liked choices online.

Given Obama's newfound problems with "moving to the center," which is really more of a problem about appearing to be a power hungry, valueless politician than an ideological problem, the need for a "reinforcing" Vice-Presidential pick becomes even more important. Hopefully, if the "moving to the center" meme has taught Democrats anything, it is that the "balance," also known as "compensation" theory does not work.

Moving to the center makes a politician appear uncomfortable in his or her own image and also makes a politician appear to be valueless and power hungry, and picking a Vice-President based on "balance" results in exactly the same image problem. If your Vice-President is experienced, and you are not, then it emphases your inexperience, not his or her experience. If your Vice-President has significant foreign policy credentials and you do not, then it just emphasizes your lack of foreign policy credentials, not his or her credentials. If your Vice-President is charismatic and you are stiff, then you just look stiffer. If you Vice-President appeals to a certain state, region, or demographic, then you just look less appealing to that state, region, or demographic.

The point is that a politician should not make moves that appear to distance himself from himself. Just like moving to the center, a balancing Vice-Presidential pick makes it appear that the politician is trying to compensate for some personal flaw in order to gain political advantage. This is an extremely damaging image for a politician, especially a Democratic politician given our chronic problem with not appearing to stand for anything or anyone in particular. As such, I've said it before and I'll say it again: seek reinforcement, not balance.

Looking at the likely short list, Kathleen Sebelius and Jack Reed are the two best choices along these lines, with Sebelius holding the edge. Both opposed the war before it began. Sebelius, like Obama, is a Midwesterner who hasn't been in D.C. very much. Sebelius, like Obama, emphasizes bi-partisanship, and can back it up with her record. Importantly, while both Sebelius and Reed are quiet and reserved to the point of possibly being boring, that actually isn't a contrast that hurts Obama. A boring Vice-President will simply emphasize just how strong and charismatic a speaker Obama actually is.

We are getting down there, but I like Obama's likely short list so far. While I continue to think that Sebelius is the best choice, I would be fine with the other three candidates on the short list. Clinton might be the most dangerous of the four, as she is the least reinforcing pick and would appear to be the most politically motivated choice. Still, with the exception of Patty Murray, she is much better than anyone on the second tier of choices right now.
Chris Bowers :: Vice-President: Obama's Short List Emerging

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Vice-President: Obama's Short List Emerging | 80 comments
Thats a silly Clinton story to cite (4.00 / 1)
Obama has been saying since before he won the primary that "Hillary Clinton would be on anybody's short list". There is no new "evidence" of anything in that story.


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
the supporter said (0.00 / 0)
that Obama told her that Clinton "is on his list". that's a specific, new fact, not the generality he put out there many times before. whether or not we should believe this supporter is another question.
[ Parent ]
Sounds like a good way... (0.00 / 0)
...to shore up lackluster fundraising to pay off Clinton's debt.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
I still have trouble putting any credence into public lists (4.00 / 2)

Hope you are right (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
I agree. (4.00 / 4)

Announcement should be in St. Louis, Monday, Aug. 4, Obama's birthday.

[ Parent ]
I don't like Richardson for VP, but (0.00 / 0)
do you have any idea why he's been systematically omitted from all iterations of the short list so far? He's been on plenty of fantasy league short lists, but I don't think his name has been in the mix in any of the leaks or tea leaves from the campaign itself. It would seem to be a no-brainer to float his name out there on the "political favor payback" list.
another one who, along with Edwards, we will surely see somewhere in Obama's cabinet. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
Of course Richardson is being considered! (0.00 / 0)
I am quite surprised by Bower's "short list". He is completely ignoring how both Richardson & Edwards have been used as hight profile surrogates for Obama.  The VP's #1 job is to be an effective surrogate for the nominee. Both Richardson & Edwards are secure in their place in Obama's circle and are surely on his shortlist. They don't need the ego-boast or increased media attention that comes with dropping a hint (like Chris Dodd or Kathleen Sebelius).  
[ Parent ]
Richardson and Edwards (0.00 / 0)
Richardson has women issues and is gaffe-prone. I just have a gut instinct that it will not be Edwards. I would think both would be good bets for cabinet positions. Edwards for AG; Richardson for State.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Omitting Edwards based on... (0.00 / 0)
What?

Edwards has said he'd seriously consider anything Obama asked him.

It isn't Edwards's decision (0.00 / 0)
Someone has to ask him. I haven't heard any talk of that.  
[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 1)
It's Obama's decision but I thought perhaps you excluded Edwards based on an earlier statement of Edwards' that he isn't interested, as you had done in the previous post you linked in this one.

There has been "talk" of Edwards being on the VEEP list but as someone noted, public lists are not too reliable, particularly when Obama has said, he'd like to keep this process very private.  

[ Parent ]
And plus (4.00 / 3)
There is no need for heavyweights like Hillary or Edwards to be "vetted" since they have been vetted extremely this year and in previous elections.

I actually think this list loses credibility without Edwards on it. Why?

1.You see all the Obama/Edwards polling against McCain. It orginiates from somewhere high up, you know...

2.And why else would Edwards change his words from absolutely not to doing whatever the Senator asks of him. Sounds like someone is being vetted.

3. The Congressional Black Caucus was told by Kennedy herself him and Nunn were on the list. Now, seriously, thats the best source we can have. Whether or not he really is on their 'official' list, he's one of the only few names they've leaked out themselves. I think the Obama campaign wants his name on these presumptive shortlists, please add him.

[ Parent ]
Clinton was never "vetted" ... (4.00 / 2)
Obama wasn't ever going to go negative ..  you don't think the Republicans are gonna attack Bill's business decisions .. or the library donors?
[ Parent ]
Of course you're right (4.00 / 2)
Why would Caroline Kennedy confirm Edwards was on the list if he wasn't?  She's too smart for that. The fact that Edwards backtracked and is now public about willing to consider the job means he's turned over his personal materials for vetting. He would look very foolish if he were suddenly opening a door but Obama had no interest. Neither John Edwards or Caroline Kennedy are foolish.  
[ Parent ]
No Edwards or Schweizter? (4.00 / 2)
I was just posting the merits of Schweitzer in a previous thread. Very disappointed he isn't being mentioned. For a guy like Schweitzer (mostly unknown) Obama would have needed to constantly float his name during the last couple months to drive up name recognition. He has not done so, making Schweitzer almost an impossibility at this point.

As for Edwards, he is easily well know enough that Obama could choose him at the last minute and no one would even blink. His name doesn't need to be on any lists to consider him in contention.

All things considered, my money is on Sibelius.

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

Schweitzer & Dodd appear progressive and sold choices (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Reed vs. Dodd (4.00 / 1)
I like 'em both. But if Obama picks Dodd, Dodd's replacement gets chosen by a Republican governor, no?

Reed's runing for re-election so there may be time to put another (4.00 / 1)
Dem name up in that state if he gets the nod so there would be less worry about losing a Senate seat because of a Republican Governor appointing... that is IF Reed were to give up his seat while running as Veep
[ Parent ]
Same with Reed (4.00 / 1)
as both Connecticut and Rhode Island have a Republican Governor. The only question is if there are any specific laws in either state that would limit the Governors in their choice (possibly excluding a Republican replacement).

BTW, does anyone know if there is one site on the internet that lists the US Senate replacement laws of all 50 states? With all the vacancies and all we've learned (like in Wyoming) that would be a great help for future replacements.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog

[ Parent ]
the governor apoints in both states (0.00 / 0)
but I think it's only till the next federal election cycle.

But appointing Shays, which would be the smart move means that the seat probably stays with him....In this voting spectrum I keep posting.  Shays is amidst cnetriat Democrats...not another Republican fo rmiles around.  We jeoapridize 60 votes.  I shouted NO NO when Clinton apointed Bentsen of Texas to thecabinet because I knew we had lost that seat for a very long time.

And Rhode Island sppoints Chafee and unless he's become a Democrat we've got another Repbulican who can hang onto the seat.

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

[ Parent ]
When was the last time .. (0.00 / 0)
you had a Senate vacancy(meaning death or resignation)in the middle of a term .. and the Governor was of the opposite party of the quitting member(I don't mean a state like Wyoming .. where it is law that the Governor has to replace the Senator with someone from the same party)? ... I don't see Jodi Rell(for example) .. replacing Chris Dodd with Chris Shays(just using an exmaple) ... wouldn't that create more headaches then it is worth?
[ Parent ]
Georgia in 2000 (4.00 / 2)
When Paul Coverdell died. Georgia had a Democratic Governor Roy Barnes who appointed Zell Miller who then was a populist Democrat before he went of the deep end.
Pennsylvania in 1991- When John Heinz died. Pennsylvania had a Democratic Governor- Bob Casey Sr who appointed Harris Wofford who narrowly lost in 1994 to Rick Sodomy.  
[ Parent ]
John Lewis (4.00 / 3)
John Lewis agitated to be appointed, but Miller won out. Imagine of Barnes had had the courage to appoint Lewis. How different history might have been.
[ Parent ]
Gov. Jodi Rell of Conn. is enormously popular (0.00 / 0)
Shays is still well thought of and there would be next to no blowback becasue that vote won't be critical to getting a majority.. 60 votes is too nuanced a point for most voters.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Yep (4.00 / 3)
And if Reed ran for re-election at the same time (not sure if that's legal), was elected to both offices and resigned from the Senate then his replacement would also be picked by a Republican.

However Reed is up for re-election in 08 and as far as I know does not have a single Republican challenger so the Democrats could easily swap Reed for say, Patrick Kennedy or whoever they want and that person will cruise to victory. Also Dodd has a much more questionable past (loan scandal, divorce, celebrity dates, drinking, voted for the war, etc) then Reed. I think they both bring pretty much the same advantages but Dodd has more downsides as a VP much as I like him.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Press would eat Reed up (0.00 / 0)
in a good way. His story, his bio, his national security creds, would make much positive fodder for national press corps. good pick.
[ Parent ]
Lieberman did it in 2000 (0.00 / 0)
I don't know if CT and RI law is similar on this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.
[ Parent ]
He was criticized for it mightily (0.00 / 0)
Ironically, Edwards did not pull the same ploy at the time (and polls showed he would have won his senate seat) and now there's this false meme spread by ignorant folk that Edwards ran for VP because he could NOT win his senate seat. Sometimes doing the right thing just does not pay.  
[ Parent ]
Another name I haven't heard anyone mention, and I wonder why... (0.00 / 0)
Anyone know why Martin O'Malley (Gov-MD) has never been mentioned as a possible VP pick?  Granted, he's only been in office two years and Obama doesn't need any help to win his state, but it's not as if Sebelius could deliver Kansas for Obama; if winning the running mate's home state is a reason for the pick, it should be Kaine, Nelson, or (more of a stretch) Nunn or Bayh.

From what I know of O'Malley and his politics he seems like an excellent "reinforcing" pick in most regards, and balancing in one sense that would probably help Obama more than hurt him: appeal to working-class white Catholic voters who make up a significant block in the Industrial Midwest that strongly favored Clinton over Obama in the primary.  I would think he ought to at least appear on the second-tier list.  He'd make a very credible possible successor -- and will even if he isn't Obama's VP, especially if Obama goes with one of the older candidates like Dodd, Reed, Daschle, Nunn or Nelson who might not be so inclined to run in 2016.

The list overall seems to me too heavy on senators and light on governors, and I'm less than delighted with the idea of picking a senator from a state with a Republican governor who can appoint a Republican replacement --  Bayh, Nelson, Reed or Dodd as VP would cost us a seat in the Senate.

"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

O'M is HRC guy and old school (0.00 / 0)
he is everything that Obama isn't and visa versa. but he clearly wants to move up. barf
[ Parent ]
How does a short list get leaked? and by whom and for what reason? (0.00 / 0)
It's a drip -- one name at a time (4.00 / 1)
No one knows what the real list looks like.  It's possible that Bloomberg is on it, for example, but that only Obama, Kennedy, Holder and Bloomberg know this. We can guess at the shortlist by hints people drop. Or in Dodd's case, they can come right out and admit it.  Sebelius hasn't confirmed but she hasn't denied, so that makes it seem like she's on the list. Obama told someone that Hillary was on his shortlist. Webb came out clearly and said he would not be vetted.

Sometimes the leaks come from Obama himself (such as Nunn and Edwards) and there are likely reasons for that, namely to see if any negative stories surface. Other times, the leaks come from the person himself.  I would guess that Obama might not like that since he values discretion.  

[ Parent ]
which suggests more names (0.00 / 0)
Assuming Obama values discretion (which makes sense to me), I suspect that the most likely VP would be someone not on the list - followed by someone possibly leaked by someone in the Obama camp.
[ Parent ]
I wonder if Dodd hurt himself (0.00 / 0)
I might be wrong but I have to think that Obama might be a little annoyed with Dodd for telling the press he's on the list.  If Biden or other high profile types are not the list, for example, they might be offended. It's a very delicate process and a non-denial denial is usual the best route for potential VPs to take.  
[ Parent ]
And this makes me wonder why Gore and Edwards are off Chris's list (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Bloomberg? (0.00 / 0)
That would be an absolutely idiotic pick. It would definitely give The Village a massive hard-on, but it would be a massively sucky pick. I don't know if you remember, but Bloomberg hosted the quasi-fascist 911 Fest known as the 2004 Republican Convention. There is video of him giving a speech saying that George W Bush is the Most Awesome Glorious Leader Iraq 911 Iraq 911 Iraq 911 Evil Doers Bush Awesome.

If Obama picks Bloomberg, I will not vote this year.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Chris, cite something more showing Sibelius is a progressive (4.00 / 3)
Let me preface. On personal level I like Kathleen Sibelius very much.  She is a shrewd politician. She is relelntless. this is all covered by an attractive person and a keen intelligence and effortless amiability.  However except for the war, abortion and her position on coal...is there any evidence she's a progressive?  

Actually what evidence is there about her political principles and philosophy?  Not much. The few times I saw her speak in person she spoke about her success in Kansas getting Repubicans to switch...but as even she made clear it's because tha Nebrask Republican party is so nuttily right wing.

What are her positions on economic issues, unions, taxes, infrastructure, social secrity and other entitlement programs....etc..etc.  You may like her.  I like her ( and I know it can seem sexist (raging feminsist that i am)  but do not underestimate how appealing it is that she is quite lovely to look at...it always puts people in a mood to give that person the benefit of the doubt)

Patty Murray, you know where she stands...and it's usually with us and unlike lots of others...Patty almost always does the right thing without being pushed (except for trade issues involving her state's economic interests) Patty is a terrific human being and has been a great Senator.

Okay...but if you ask any other woman than Hillary,  he will risk an really enormous backlash and loss of enthusiasm.  And neither Murray or Sibelius have a big enough fan club to make up the difference.

At this point choosing Hillary would send a good message....that he's strong.  that he's confident...that he doesn't feel threatened....I'm the nominee...I can stand next to anyone and not be outshined. That's what Bill Clinton did when he chose Al Gore  

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

We know... (4.00 / 4)
you want Hillary.  You've been pushing her the whole primary.  Why should we be surprised that for you the only woman who can be veep is Clitnon.
[ Parent ]
Sorry for the Clinton typo... (0.00 / 0)
meant no harm.  Next time I'll read more closely before hitting the post button.
[ Parent ]
If he picks Clinton it will be a sign of weakness (0.00 / 0)
plain and simple. It will be because he needs her politically on the ticket.
[ Parent ]
I keep asking the same question about Sebelius (0.00 / 0)
Good luck getting an answer
[ Parent ]
Looks pretty centrist to me (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
yeah- a lot of it is good government stuff (0.00 / 0)
that has a different applicability at the state rather than federal level or no-brainers on healthcare. Is this the only source or are there are other things where its clear (again outside of abortion) where she's taking a real stand on progressive issues ?
[ Parent ]
See my comment below (0.00 / 0)
Is that enough?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Let's count (4.00 / 4)
Anti-war, anti-death penelty, pro-choice, environmental hero, blocked the merger of two big HMO's, progressive on infrastructure*, hero of unions**, cons hate her on taxes***, stood up to Bush****

* http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/...

**http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/06/25/sebelius-leadership-conference-gamesa-honored-for-supporting-workers-rights/
http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/03...

***http://kansastrunkline.blogspot.com/2008/05/5102008-question-why-is-kathleen.html

****http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/07/sebelius-tornado/

Is that enough to destroy that false argument or do I need to use Google some more?

I'm warming up to Jack Reed and away from Sebelius but Sebelius is a progressive and if picked would be a fantastic choice.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Thank you (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
do you have similar stuff on reed (0.00 / 0)
it maybe useful to do a diary breaking down each nominee wth this sort of analysis rather than just the horse race of will he or won'the pick this or that candidate
[ Parent ]
Good idea (4.00 / 1)
Reed is for sure a progressive (number three in Progressive Punch lifetime scores and in the top ten of every ranking) but I think I will do so a more complete issues based run down of VP candidates.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
fafblog (4.00 / 1)
hahahah (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Can someone finally explain to me why it's bad for people to think that Obama is a centrist? (0.00 / 0)
I happen to think it's a great move, because it shores up Obama's greatest weakness: The perception that he'd do something extreme in office, that he's a radical and a muslim and a black panther and a tool of the black churches and the pimply bloggers.

That sort of attack will ring pretty hollow after he gets the media to repeat 1000 times that he's basically a centrist politician. People like the hope stuff, but I don't think enough will feel safe voting for this unfamiliar black guy with a strange name unless he's safely identifiable in the mainstream of the political spectrum. And all kinds of free press (which Chris documented earlier) is making that very point for him.

Hooray! Right? Or, why not?

bad for people to think that Obama is a centrist? (4.00 / 6)
In terms of getting elected, there is nothing wrong with this.  There is a big problem in looking like someone who just changes positions based on polls or political calculations.  He ran the primaries as a post-partisan progressive.  He needs to keep that identity to look strong.  
[ Parent ]
He's keeping the post-partisan tone and demeanor though (0.00 / 0)
I think that progressives projected a lot of hope on Obama during the primary. He was, and still is, certainly more progressive than Clinton, Richardson and possibly Edwards, but apart from having opposed the Iraq war from the beginning (which really is no sign of progressivism - my Republican parents can say the same) he certainly had no record being anything but a mainstream, strongly pro-choice Democrat.

If there are people who remember the Obama of the primaries for the policy positions he took, it's not many, and it's heavily weighted towards the bloggers. More people remember him for the manner in which he talked about issues and the the way he always seemed to prefer the high road. If he changes that demeanor then yes, he'll look weak and be in trouble. He's not going to look weak if he revises some policy position - and apart from FISA, I'm not sure if he even had. The media has kept saying that nobody knows his actual positions, so it will be hard to pivot that into "he has changed his previously-precise position."

If anything, pissing off the bloggers is exactly what he needs to do to maintain his strong, post-partisan appearance, don't you think?

[ Parent ]
"pissing off the bloggers" (0.00 / 0)
He has pissed me off, mostly with the FISA thing. If I thought that I were an idiot, then pissing me off would be great. But I don't think I'm an idiot, and I don't think "the bloggers" are idiots, so naturally I don't think pissing us off is s good sign. I think it's a sign that he did something that sucks.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Obama doesn't want to be seen with you in public. (0.00 / 0)
Nor with me.

We're not in the mainstream of American politics, and if he were seen with us, he would have no chance with the voters that decide this election.

Also, we (and I mean the leftist participants of leftist blogs) often do collectively support idiotic policies (regarding energy policy, for example). Not saying you do. Anyway, get used to it. We here are the mole people of the Left. Occasionally, when we comb out our dreads, take out our piercings and sober up, we might be invited to some function. But we scare people as much as the Jesus Camp kids scare us. Notice that McCain isn't exactly people-bathing in their throngs either. That doesn't mean he disagrees with them; it's a strategy. The same goes for Obama.

I'm dealing with it, and I understand it well enough to where I can't imagine being pissed off. After all, Obama already has my support. I don't need to be preached to. I've been one of the choir since before he ever spoke about running for president, and I've worked hard on his behalf in the primary. Because NY will vote for him, I might not be able to do much except contribute for the GE, but I'll try. But I'm very impressed with how Obama is doing exaclty what he needs to, and I'm pleased more than ever that he's our nominee. I might be less proud of Obama now, but that's a different matter. He'll hopefully have 8 years to make me proud.

[ Parent ]
Who you calling not mainstream? (0.00 / 0)
My political opinions are more mainstream than most of the Republicans in Congress and in the current administration. If he doesn't mind associating with Tom Coburn, he should have no problem with "the left" i.e. the center. I don't buy playing along with bullshit regarding who's mainstream.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
If the real short list is Sebelius, Reed, Dodd and Clinton (0.00 / 0)
I hope it is Sebelius or Hillary. Dodd and Reed bring absolutely nothing to the ticket and would both be replaced by Republicans in the senate. Clinton brings her support from the primary and women in general. Sebelius doesn't have the Clinton negatives and is impressive in her own right so I think talk of a backlash with female Clinton supporters is overblown. Many of the most ardent are feminists so I really can't see them kicking up a fuss over only the second ever major ticket to include a woman just because that woman is not Hillary Clinton.
"First do no harm." (4.00 / 1)
Anyone who voted for the war undercuts Obama's judgement argument. That is a big plus for Reed and Sebelius. Neither have any big negatives, which in and of itself is a big plus for them. Hillary has a lot of negatives.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Looking at potential Obama VP runningmates. (0.00 / 0)
If he goes the Al Gore 1992 route- He picks Evan Bayh.
If he goes the Dick Cheney 2000 route- He picks Bill Richardson or Jack Reed.
Are you serious? .. (4.00 / 4)
what does Evan Bayh bring to the table?
[ Parent ]
Indiana? (0.00 / 0)
maybe.  

I don't get Bayh either, though.

[ Parent ]
Polls show that Indiana to be a tossup. (0.00 / 0)
Bayh can put Indiana in play and lock up Ohio and Michigan for Obama. He provides executive experience being a successful former two term Governor and US Senator.

[ Parent ]
How about McCain/Bayh? (4.00 / 1)
You are clearly a Republican. You let that cat out of the bag with your hidden comment above. If you love Bayh so much, why don't you go to some Republican site and argue for McCain to pick him. Bayh is a corporate butt-boy weasel. That would make him perfect for the Republican ticket.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
How about Obama/Craig? (0.00 / 0)
You are a Communist Pinko.
I have been a life long Democrat from the get go. I voted for Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004. I will support Obama in 2008.
I have followed Evan Bayh's political career- when he was a popular two term Governor of Indiana- He gave the keynote address at the Democratic Convention.
Bayh was on Gore's VP shortlist in 2000.
He was mentioned as Kerry's VP runningmate in 2004. He is going to be on Obama's VP shortlist regardless of what our opinion is.

So do me a favor-
Suck Larry Craig's balls.

[ Parent ]
What is up with your (0.00 / 0)
obsession with Larry Craig's balls? You obviously have a weird fixation on homosexuality. Perhaps you should seek therapy to deal with this.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Liberal Bloggers who spend all the time blogging on various blogsites (0.00 / 0)
need therapy.

For the runningmates.

I could support
Evan Bayh-IN
Bill Richardson-NM

Both of these candidates have Gubenatorial Experience.  

[ Parent ]
I want Al Gore (4.00 / 2)
For those of you who dismiss the idea, please give me a good reason that Barack shouldn't select Gore.

(Not reasons that Gore wouldn't want to do it, we know those. But I think he would accept the call to duty and the opportunity to help make energy/environmental policy that could change the world.)

Gore/Lieberman. Heard enough? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Al Gore has said categorically that if he (0.00 / 0)
reenters politics, it would only be to run for President again.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Honestly! (0.00 / 0)
Undercutting The Constitution is much different than "moving to the center."

Obama, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Axelrod, Goolsbee, Donna Brazile, et al. -- traitors to progressive causes and constituencies.

I don't think there is a shortlist (4.00 / 2)
and if there is none of us know it.

It seems though as if Dodd, Sebelius, Clinton, Kaine, Reed, McCaskill and Richardson for sure and probably Edwards, Bayh, and Daschle as well.

Out of those I think Clinton and Edwards are extremely unlikely beacuse of the fact they are Clinton and Edwards. Clinton would be seen as a political cave, Edwards would be seen as picking a loser. Also both don't seem to really want the job that much as they have national platforms and causes already. Political reasons (i.e. we can't lose Democratic Senators or Governors) rule out Bayh, Kaine and Dodd. Vetting problems (Lobbyist wife, Bill Clintoneqse stuff and conservativeness respectively) rule out Daschle, Richardson and McCaskill.

That leaves us with Jack Reed and Kathleen Sebelius.

Both don't risk losing Democratic control of anything, both are reinforcing and balancing picks. Both also are not exactly inspiring speakers but can hold their own and more importantly have Obama's trust.

I would be quite happy if he picked either.

At this point though we just don't know. And I know think we will until Obama says it. If I had to guess one name though I think it would be Jack Reed.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Picking Reed is similar to GWB picking Cheney in 2000. (0.00 / 0)
Cheney did not deliver any state for Bush since WY was a safe GOP state it produce 3 EV. But Cheney helped with energizing the Conservative Base. Foriegn Policy  and National Security Experience.

Reed is Liberal and he represents a state that is going Democratic anyway. His strength is Military Experience.

[ Parent ]
Reed is not Cheney. (4.00 / 1)
Bush, being frighteningly unqualified for the job, needed someone like Cheney to actually run the government. Plus, Cheney is a sinister crackpot. Bush needed someone with more experience to reassure people, because Bush is a shallow dumbass. Obama has proven to have superior judgement and intellect to McCain and does not need a VP to make up for any shortcomings. Reed is a good pick because he reinforces Obama's case for superior judgement because he also opposed the war.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
My comparison to Reed with Cheney is based on the producing EV. (0.00 / 0)
Bush could have selected a Tom Ridge of PA as his VP runningmate or John McCain-AZ or Fred Thompson-TN but he choosed his Father's Defense Secretary-Dick Cheney. Who comes from the the reddest state of the country that produces only 3EV(Wyoming).

Reed comes from the bluest state in the Country which produces only 4EV(Rhode Island).

If Opposing the War is the criteria.
Obama could pick
Jeff Bingaman(NM)
Russ Feingold(WI)
Ron Wyden(OR)
Sherrod Brown(OH)

and if Opposing the Bankruptcy Bill is the criteria
Jeff Bingaman(NM)
Russ Feingold(WI)
Ron Wyden(OR)

Sherrod Brown would be the perfect Runningmate for Obama- He opposed NAFTA,Iraq War and the Bankruptcy. He comes from a key battleground state Ohio.

[ Parent ]
Sherrod Brown (0.00 / 0)
would make a great running mate. Hey! We agree on something!

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Do people really believe (0.00 / 0)
that this is the short or the semi-short list?

I'm not convinced the short list has been created yet.

In other words, if there's a dark horse on the real short list, how would we know about it?

I don't get sebelius (4.00 / 2)
Small state governor - what does she bring to the ticket?

I just don't get it.

Vice-President: Obama's Short List Emerging | 80 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