Open Left - VP

Wait, Vice President Joe Biden?

tremayne — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:42:21 GMT

Today Joe Biden ends his 36-year tenure in the U.S. Senate. While he now probably seems well-suited for the job of "backup President" not many in the progressive blogosphere would have predicted or advocated Biden as VP just a year ago. In fact, if you told me 18 months ago that Barack Obama would be elected President I would have said "good" and been unsurprised. But if you told me that Joe Biden would be Vice President I would have said "Wow!"

In the spring of 2008 there were very few pushing Biden as VP. In order to reinforce Obama's central message of "change" Chris Bowers eliminated as best candidates any who supported the invasion of Iraq including Joe Biden. Others who advocated a "balancing" approach usually failed to mention Biden as well. I heard a lot of advocacy for Powell, Hagel and Jim Webb. Over at Daily Kos Webb trounced Biden in a head-to-head match-up.

In a poll of Open Left readers in June, Biden finished as the 8th "most acceptable" candidate. Bowers in July on Biden as VP: "Yeah, that's real change." For me, it seemed odd that Obama would select as his running mate the guy who's announcement for President is remembered only because he called Obama fresh, clean and articulate.

There were some commenters who advocated Biden, such as Shul who was pushing for Biden in early June:

I can't even properly express how giddy I get just thinking about the possibility of Biden as the VP. I have no doubt that he would get up every single day and just hope that he got the call to go out and hammer McCain as hard as possible.

It seems the general voting public had similar views. MSNBC and Chuck Todd, using an NCAA-style bracket of 32 Democratic candidates for Vice President and an online vote, had Joe Biden emerge as the winner, beating Hillary Clinton in the finals. Did the Obama campaign view this as a national focus group?

With the benefit of hindsight it all makes perfect sense. Biden was one of Obama's mentors in the Senate. Obama's theme was "change" but at the same time he loves being a bridge, a uniter. The Obama team probably knew that an African-American candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama who opposed the Iraq war from the start was about all the "change" they were going to need and then some. The Scranton-born Biden allowed them to better compete for one demographic that leaned McCain: older white men. And as a "backup President" no one doubted his credentials or ability to do the job if need be.

Goodbye Senator Joe Biden. Hello, Vice President.

Does Gender Matter in Evaluating Palin?

tremayne — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:26:55 GMT

Here's a theme that is evident in the comments on all the Palin posts today: We should keep our criticism of Palin on issues not on personal characteristics and certainly not on gender.

This seems clearly right at first but then there's this from conservative pundit Ramesh Ponnuru:

Tokenism. Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man?

No, I can't say that with a straight face. Even Dan Quayle had 12 years in Congress and nearly 2 as a Senator before his selection. And the first woman selected (24 years ago!), Geraldine Ferraro, had 6 years in Congress. Both Quayle and Ferraro held law degrees.

Imagine if McCain had selected a man in his 40s, Governor of a state with a smallish population who.....oh wait we don't have to imagine this, McCain had someone just like this on his short list and he was rejected as being too much of a lightweight: Tim Pawlenty. Let's compare Pawlenty to Palin and see if gender played a role in this selection.

Sarah Palin Tim Pawlenty

Alaska Minnesota

Pop: <1 million More than 5 million

Gov. for 1.6 yrs Gov. for 5.6 years

Prior: mayor 10 yrs State leg. including Majority Leader

Pro-Life Pro-Life

In addition to this, while Palin has no foreign policy experience and has admitted (recently) to not having thought much about the Iraq war, Pawlenty has travelled extensively throughout the world and met with foreign leaders as part of trade missions for Minnesota.

But the main knock on Pawlenty was that he would eliminate the criticism of Obama being too young and inexperienced. There was also some concern that Joe Biden would make him look bad in debates.

So, you think gender was a factor? Gender was the main factor. If it was just one factor then it would be defensible. Heck, as Adam Bink points out in the post below there are many Democrats who favored Hillary Clinton in part because of the importance, both symbolicly and substantively, of having a woman in that role. And there are many Democrats who factor in Barack Obama's race as another reason for supporting him. And earlier today Will pointed out that progressives have helped move the goalposts to make such a pick even possible for the GOP. But if gender is your primary reason for selecting someone, shouldn't you be asked to defend that? Especially if the person seems an otherwise dubious choice for the job and there are many other women who would be reasonable choices?

Now I agree that attacking Palin directly on this is tricky business. But it seems a fair question to ask McCain, especially in light of his earlier comments about Obama's inexperience and the need for a VP who is ready on day one. This is another McCain flip-flop and he should be called on it.

Who's Afraid of Sarah Palin?

Syrith — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:27:32 GMT

Not I. Full analysis below.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

McCain strategy: win election by exploiting Democratic primary divisions and crass gender politics

My take: This will fail. McCain is ignorantly falling for the same conventional wisdom as so many in the media - but his assumptions are false, false, false.

The CW narrative goes like this: "Obama and Clinton had a nasty primary fight, and lots of white Democratic women ('PUMAs' and their sympathizers) are skittish of Obama as a result. Even if Clinton's speech this week began to reassure these women, they can still be peeled off, by appealing to McCain's incredible Maverickosity so that they ignore their Democratic Party instincts, and by appealing to their desire to elect a woman to executive federal office, an opportunity they were denied by Obama's defeat of Clinton." Sounds scary, right?

Too bad my good friend Mr. Actual Polling Results tells me a different story.

(full analysis, reader poll, and additional McCain strategies and rebuttals below the fold!)

The CW narrative is wrong about something very fundamental: polling is NOT showing Obama underperforming among "white Democratic women" - it has shown him underperforming among white Democrats - all white Democrats. Incidentally, it looks like there's a big bounce building among this group, likely thanks to the 1-2-3 punch of selecting Biden as VP, Clinton's great speech, and Obama's great speech that followed (see here for some numbers). But even if the bounce could be reversed, the fact that this group includes all white Democrats, not just women, suggests a rather fundamental insight.

Instead of a narrative in which white women are angry that Hilary lost, and are angry on the basis of gender/identity politics... we get a narrative in which white Democrats are angry that Hilary lost, and are angry just because they liked her better.

As an aside, this indicates that Hilary Clinton's speech was even more brilliant than I realized: by asking the eloquent and pivotal question, "Were you in it for me? Or were you in it for them [all the people who need help]?" she forced these wavering Democrats to confront that yes, in fact, they were "in it for her" at least a little bit... and that maybe that sort of identity- and cult of personality-based political decision-making wasn't the best way to go after all.

But what are the implications of this truer narrative (in which white Democrats were voting for Hilary because she's Hilary, not because she's a woman), on McCain's pick of Sarah Palin specifically? It means his strategy won't work, because it's based on the idea that these disaffected women will now vote for him because of his historic female Veep. Putting aside the fact that few people really vote for a Veep (only against one) anyway, it's apparent to me that since Clinton's voters were not primarily voting for her on gender grounds, they won't suddenly up and vote for McCain on those grounds either. Case closed. The only way he could make inroads on these people would be to pick a Democrat, not a woman!

But it gets better still. There's huge, and I mean HUGE, potential for a backlash narrative to emerge here (ideally, shortly after the RNC, when the media will have digested the Palin puff-pieces... hmm, Palin puffs - sounds like a delicious snack).

This is a classic and damning gender narrative: a young, more conventionally attractive, underqualified woman is picked to "replace" or "stand in for" an older, more qualified one. In this story, Palin is the trophy wife on McCain's arm (she'd be his second trophy, actually), while Clinton is the martyred and noble older woman. Or, for a non-marital metaphor, Palin would be the young blue-collar employee that keeps her mouth shut and stays in the boss's good graces, while Clinton is Lilly Ledbetter. I freaking love the potential here. Let's make them both pay for this one.

Net Impact: Neutral, or hurts McCain if the Democrats have any guts.

McCain strategy: rebrand the Republican Party, focus on youth and outsider status
This will fail. In a similar vein to the gender-pandering, this rebranding will be perceived by most as a purely political ploy, and will not hold that much weight in the election. People don't vote for the VP anyway - they vote for the president (though they may vote against a bad VP choice).

There will be a short boost of "maverick drooling" (or, instead of "Malkovich Malkovich?", you get "Maverick? MaverickMaverickMaverick!") from the media... but it won't last much beyond the convention. McCain doesn't even get separate or reinforcing bounces out of the VP and the convention, with the happening so close together (this happened to Obama too), and of course, Hurricane Gustav is going to muddle everything up even more.

Better still, this ties McC's hands on one of his favorite attacks - that Obama is inexperienced and not ready to lead. There's so much new counter-ad fodder here it's unbelievable (Cute Narrator: "If someone with 16 years of state House experience and 4 years in the Senate for one of the largest states in the Union isn't ready to lead, how can someone with only a couple years running a city of 5,000 people and a state with a few hundred thousand?").

Net Impact: Hurts McCain.

McCain strategy: emphasize reform as a kind of "change"
This will fail.

Number 1: McCain can't out-reform Reformer Obama. It will look like he's adopting Obama's ideas (what Dems do with DLC triangulation) - and will look like he has none of his own (news flash...).

Number 2: McCain will open himself up to a revival discussion of all the ways in which he IS corrupt - see Exhibit A, the Keating Five embalmed and on display.

Number 3: Sarah Palin may not be "clean" herself. It looks like she got her sister's ex-husband fired from his state patrolman job out of vengeance. That's gonna look great on national Democratic ad buys.

Net Impact: Neutral or hurts McCain.

McCain strategy: secure Alaska
This ought to work. But as far as I'm concerned, it's the main thing he gets out of this pick - not very impressive. Possibly, there might also now be coat-tails for down-ticket Republicans - Ted Stevens (Senator Tubes? I don't think so) and Don Young/Chris Parnell (maybe, I hope not because I want that House seat! if it's Young, then definitely not, because she tried to sink him by supporting Parnell). And seriously - McCain has to secure ALASKA? Ouch.

Net Impact: Helps McCain.

So move along everybody, there's nothing to see here - just another snapshot of the continuing implosion of a cynical party of plutocrats and zealots that haven't gotten the memo, about just how soundly they are going to lose this election come November.

McCain Chooses Chris Rock as his Running Mate

mp — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:24:13 GMT

Following the premise of Head of State, McCain chooses Sarah Palin as his running mate, undercutting his own arguments for his own selection, but (possibly) opening new doors for the party's future.
In the movie "Head of State", in an unseen event, the Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees planes collide, leaving an open ticket for party leaders to fill. A self-interested Machiavellian party leader recognizes his party is doomed in the upcoming election, so instead attempts to increase his own chances four years later. He chooses a populist, inexperienced, young, brash black man from DC (an alderman), played by Chris Rock.

Here in 2008, in the real world and the United States of America, McCain and his party are in trouble, seeing awful polling numbers in states they are traditionally strong in, losing House and Senate seats across the nation. They have suffered from a rash of scandals and retirements, creating openings for Democrats to gain seats that should not be in play.

As far as the Presidential Maps go, looking state by state, it looks very strong for Obama, with the Democratic ticket currently lined up for 260 or so electoral votes with likely victories putting Obama well over the needed 270. I'm hoping for the number to approach or exceed 310 electoral votes, with 5+ seats gained in the Senate and a large number of seats gained in the House, giving Democrats a firm majority.

This is a very disturbing picture for Republicans, and certainly hasn't been helped by some of the gaffes of the McCain campaign and the rabid energy surrounding the Obama campaign. Given this scenario the Republicans have two places to preserve their party, maintain filibuster strength in the Senate and then use the remaining 60ish days of the 08 campaign to rebuild and re-energize their own party for the midterms and 2012 where President Obama will face a tough re-election bid unless he manages some major legislative successes over the next 2 years.

Putting a young(ish), vibrant, charismatic and (perceived) wholesome woman candidate on the ticket with their standard stogy whiteguy nominee allows them to bring in some new blood to their voting pool and costs the party nothing tangible. McCain will age out with this election as Bob Dole did in 1996, Palin will return to the essentially disconnected state of Alaska, potentially to return some years down the line as a Congresswoman or Senator, or potentially to serve as Governor until she retires from politics.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems pretty clear to me this was a high risk pick if the intent is to win in November, but a high yield pick if the target is farther down the road. The strength of Democrats among women, who are an increasing voting demographic, is a frightful proposition for Republicans, who are also losing ground rapidly among younger voters(<45), another rapidly growing voting block. This choice seems to attempt to stifle some of that slide, and provide a "rose colored glasses" look back at a loosing election in a really nice fashion, women will remember the Republicans had the woman nominee, and could potentially, after the fact, frame her and the party as victims of sexism, real or created from thin air (found between Karl Rove's ears), and further create interest and support for a 2012 challenge or a 2010 midterm flip of the House/Senate.

Even today, Geraldine Ferraro's campaign is referenced by mid to low info voters with theories of all flavors, blaming male sexism, blaming female vs female distrust, blaming her attitude/mannerisms, nothing based in fact mind you...but these theories shapes the perceptions of voters even today - the Republicans are banking that Palin will have similar effects in the future to their benefit.

It helps control the media narrative, giving them another reason to rub salt in the empty stories about obama/clinton disunity and the "puma's" anger and distrust of Obama.

It gives Biden a challenge in the VP debate, something none of the male VP potentials had any chance of doing. Not because she is more capable, qualified or intelligent - but because he will be in danger of being painted as being abusive, overbearing, etc.

Make no mistake, Biden is far and away stronger than her on foreign policy - a subject in which he is a world renown expert and she has zero experience. He has 30 years of experience where she has 1.5 years as Governor of a small state and a term as mayor of a small town with some Big Oil experience to give her just a touch of that Bush White House flavor.

Her complete lack of experience, and no prior demonstration of wisdom or national leadership, undercuts McCains arguments against Obama. An arguement repeated and furthered following Palin's announcement by Senator Mike Dewine's son while warming up the crowd for the big rally at the Nutter Center. Clearly the campaign does not plan to abandon those themes, dismissing the duplicity.

She reinforces big oil's pleas to drill, drill drill, something House and Senate Republican Candidates are banking on heavily around the nation. Otherwise providing little fodder for the undercard campaigns in either direction - unless the scandal involving her brother-in-law breaks into something real and shows a lack of ethics from a candidate/Governor who's reputation is based on sweeping ethic reform and "taking on the corrupt Alaskan GOP establishment", where Senator Stevens, his son and longtime house member Don Young find themselves in hot water today.

I'm not concerned about November, I'm confident that Senator Obama will be President Obama in late January, 2009. I am concerned that this is another example of GOP strategists outflanking Democratic counterparts, though in fairness, I wouldn't change Obama's VP pick, convention speech, etc...my only changes would be to strength the 50 state strategy and do more to deepen the benches of Democrats in all areas of the country.

The VP has one major responsibility, possibly a greater burden than the President takes on. They must take over the Country in a moments notice in the wake tragedy of epic proportions and be the leader we need; to ensure our liberty, security and prosperity continue. Gov Palin is not ready for that responsibility.

Was Chris Rock unavailable? Bernie Mac passed away recently, RIP.

Palin as McCain's VP

tremayne — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:49:17 GMT

From Wikipedia:

- Sarah Palin is 44 years old

- Has served less than 2 years as Governor of Alaska

- Pro-life

- Helped to pass an ethics reform bill

- Is accused of trying to get her ex-brother in law fired and last month fired the Commissioner of Public Safety. Investigation still underway.

- Has ~~four~~ five children. The oldest deploys to Iraq next month and youngest has Down's Syndrome.

- Big supporter of more drilling

- 2nd place, Miss Alaska Beauty pageant, 1984

There appears to be a battle at her Wiki page as "brother in law" recently disappeared from it although an account of the scandal still exists without those words. This pick would seem to eliminate and indeed could reverse the "not ready for the job" argument the McCain campaign has aimed at Obama. Can they argue Palin is ready to be President of the United States? Your take?

About the Text Message

QueenTiye — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:52:20 GMT

Everyone is talking about how the text message scheme went awry - some cretin in the campaign spilled the beans to CNN's John King - making the media, not the people the first to know that Joe Biden was Obama's VP pick.

OK - but - wasn't it fun? This had almost as much drama as election night. All of us were glued to our computers, our cell phones, our smart phones, etc - waiting for news of the vice presidential pick. Honestly - I don't know if I would have been this excited about the decision if I hadn't signed up to BE excited about it. I was unsure if anyone would care about being the "first to know" - and only circulated the news because I thought it would be worthwhile to get others on the broadcast list. But just the fact of signing up, meant that I was anticipating this news, and increased my interest.

In short - even the news interest was heightened because we were all waiting on the notice - and the official notice was not anti-climactic - it was "official."

One thing the Obama campaign has succeeded in - has been garnering enthusiasm. In this - the texting campaign was a smashing success.

Obama/Biden '08: What is your Reaction?

optimusprime — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:52:31 GMT

Saturday 3:18 am my cell phone received the text of the Obama's running mate.

5:17 am, my buddy who is a regional coordinator for Obama PA for good measure sent another message:

Joe biden

If he was awake this early, makes me wonder how many of us are sleep deprived either lambasting Biden for VP or nodding their heads in approval.

Suprised by the news. Hardly. Dejected? No.
Senator Biden with his blue collar roots from PA brings experience on foreign affairs and pressing economic issues. His proven effectiveness at debating critics will provide an attack dog against the GOP smear and fear machine:

9/11 & Guliani

Iraq War Resolution: Biden rips McCain and Bush on the Senate Floor

Questions will linger on whether he is the best choice.

Biden as do all the potential veeps do have his flaws.

Can he keep his off the cuff boneheaded remarks to a minimum?

Biden the "Gaffe Machine"

Other questions. Since Biden has run for President twice, will he be comfortable playing the role of second fiddle? Will Biden be effective to galvanize the Democratic Party to coalesce around their nominee?

We will soon find out.

Share your thoughts below on your reaction to the news.

Biden will be a good surrogate for Obama

desmoinesdem — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:04:45 GMT

The case for Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate is simple: he's got a lot of experience at the federal level, particularly in foreign policy. That will reassure voters who may be concerned about Obama's resume and blunt a major line of attack from John McCain (whose ads have been questioning whether Obama is "ready to lead").

But plenty of people in Washington have served in Congress for 20 or 30 years. What makes Biden better than most of them as a running mate? Media scripts about the "gaffe machine" notwithstanding, I submit that Biden's campaigning ability will be a huge asset to Obama.

I know the stories about Biden putting his foot in his mouth, and I am old enough to remember the Clarence Thomas hearings, when Biden talked too much and didn't put Thomas on the spot enough.

But he is a much better campaigner than people give him credit for. Follow me after the jump for more.
Of all the presidential candidates, Biden got the best word of mouth from Iowans who attended his events last year. I don't think I ever talked to anyone who went to hear him and walked away unimpressed. I wrote about this last summer and again right before the Iowa caucuses.

If you don't believe me, read accounts by other people who listened to Biden take questions for an hour or more from voters, sometimes just about Iraq and foreign policy but more often about any topic Iowans felt like bringing up.

Biden is not going to need a crash course in federal policy to prepare for the vice-presidential debate, because he knows this stuff inside-out. And despite his reputation for long-windedness, he is able to answer questions in 30 to 60 seconds. In the Democratic candidates' debates last year, Biden did extremely well despite consistently getting 30 percent to 50 percent less time to speak than the front-runners. He often had the most memorable one-liners from those debates too.

Speaking about the news media's blackout of long-shot Democratic contenders, Elizabeth Edwards wrote in this op-ed for the New York Times:

And it's not as if people didn't want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: "I want to know more about Senator Biden," participants would say.

Biden's speaking style is more aggressive than Obama's, which will help him be the attack dog Obama will need.

I also agree with Jonathan Singer's point that Biden's relative lack of wealth will reinforce the message that the Democratic candidates can relate to ordinary Americans on bread-and-butter economic issues.

Finally, Steve Clemons is absolutely right: Americans are going to love Jill Biden.

Biden wasn't my number one choice for Obama's vice president, but he is going to bring a lot to the table.

I'm glad it's Biden...

btchakir — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:59:47 GMT

Why?
1. Longer experience in government than McCain
2. He owns 1 house... and it's in Delaware... and he commutes to and from it and doesn't live in Washington DC
3. He is, after 3 decades in the Senate, not a wealthy man, ie: he lives on his Senate Salary and does not turn his political power into $$$
4. Tremendous foreign policy background
5. Relatively enemy free... people on both sides love him

Now some bring up his verbosity... I pulled this off YouTube from one of the earlier Presidential Primary Debates. This says it all:

Under The LobsterScope

For What It's Worth

Matt Stoller — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:43:59 GMT

From a source.

A friend of a friend overheard a phone conversation between Biden and Obama staffers making plans for Biden, his wife and his son to be in Springfield on Saturday.

So now you can say that you read on a blog that a friend of a friend of a source of a blogger overheard a phone conversation between Biden and Obama staffers making plans for Springfield.

UPDATE: Steve Clemons reports that Biden is the pick.

Obama VP Open Thread: Because It's Fun to Be on the Record

Syrith — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:08:47 GMT

Alright folks -

In the next 24 hours (maybe less) Barack will decide that he's ridden McMansionGate long enough and that it's time to push the button on his cell phone and send a VP announcement text message to millions of Americans.

In the meantime, way too many of us in the Netroots are sitting around refresh-refresh-refreshing our browsers and hoping Mark Helperin or Howard Fineman will drop some crumb of insight that salves our fears and reassures us that it's not Dick Lugar (or, you know, whoever - stay calm, stay calm).

Since even the monkeys at the Washington Post are apt to accidentally type a few lines of Hamlet once in a while, I'm opting to take Howard Kurtz' advice:

Why wait for the actual event? Whip out that keyboard and tell everyone what you think about Obama's VP choice right now.

Consider this an open thread for you to expound, in your infinite wisdom, on your Final Predictions for the the Obama Veepstakes.
This is your final opportunity! Earn the instant (if highly-temporary) respect of your blogospheric peers! Firm up that smug, knowing smirk! Make up a great story tomorrow about your insider leak on the campaign!

Here are the rules. You get to list 6 names -
- 2 conventional-wisdom picks that you think are most likely to be picked
- 2 unconventional picks that you think have a real shot
- 2 wishful picks - the people you would select, if you were the O-man

I'll start us off.

Conventional -
Biden. Sebelius.

Unconventional -
Gore. Clinton.

Wishful -
Schweitzer. Clark.

Have at it, and have fun!

Hillary Clinton

tremayne — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:42:37 GMT

No, I didn't get a text message. Just a hunch and this post might look really dumb very shortly. Partly, it's based on the process of elimination. The supposed final 3 were Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. Two days ago Biden was asked where he'd be this Saturday and he said "here" (in Delaware) and then followed up with "I'm not the guy." If he was just trying to deflect attention away that was an overly definitive statement. I think he's not the guy. While he'd bring a lot to the ticket he carries some risk, perhaps too much for the careful Obama.

Follow along for the rest.

As I've argued before, I think the schedule would be odd for a Virginia VP pick. You spend 2 days in VA and then leave to make the announcement somewhere else? And then you go (reportedly) to Indiana? Plus, there's this from Ambinder:

VA Dems pessimistic about Kaine's chances after reading his body language.

There was also an unconfirmed report that Kaine hadn't tested well compared to Warner with Virginia voters. If the main reason for his selction is to carry Virginia and that's not a certainty, do you pick him?

Bayh would be totally uninspired. It would say "I have this election in the bag and all I want my VP to do is not say anything stupid for 2 months." The strongest signal that it's Bayh is that we have heard so little from his camp. And that kind of discipline might be very appealing to Obama. So, of the three, and with the Indiana event that has been reported, I would predict Bayh.

But there are some reasons to think Obama might do something unexpected, something like going with Clinton. Here are some:

1. The race is undeniably close at this point. The Obama team may have a much superior ground machine but that sounds a little too much like wishful thinking for me. Obama wants to win and there is reason to believe that Obama support among Dems would move toward the 90% range if Clinton is the VP. It may move in that direction anyway but do you really want to leave that to chance?

2. The Clintons would complicate Obama's White House. But Obama is a pretty confident guy. Like Bill Clinton of the 1990s, he is pretty good at compromise. I am sure he is cognizant of the potential problems and also confident in his own ability to deal with it.

3. It goes against brand but maybe it doesn't. He's for change and HRC represents the past. But she, like he, would make history with a victory in November. In that sense they both represent significant cultural change.

4. Obama needs somebody (if he realizes it) who is willing to throw sharp elbows and dirty punches. He gets 2 such people with the Clintons. Bill used to be somewhat subtle with the putdowns but that was then and this is now.

5. If, in June, Clinton told you she should be your VP and you were seriously considering it, what would you do? You would probably tell her that the only way it could happen is if you wholeheartedly endorse me, make it clear you have gotten over the joint ticket idea, have those under your influence (such as the "Vote Both" folks) drop all of their efforts on HRC's behalf. You'd say, I can't look weak by picking you, like I was forced by circumstance. It must look like a choice I made that I didn't have to make but I did because I'm such a big person and I care about the country and I care about victory.

6. If, given the bitterness and length of the primaries, HRC came to you and said "I want to have my name formally submitted for nomination," would you say "sure" and also reward both Clinton's with high-profile speeches at the convention? Wouldn't you be a little worried about that? Unless of course you already had a VP deal in the works too.

7. There's no time left for McCain to raise "scary Hillary Clinton" money for his campaign because he switches to public financing in 13 days. The RNC can raise money this way but then again, Hill and Bill are pretty good fundraisers who would free Obama from those duties for the fall.

8. I've heard that Obama has a sense of theatrics and staging. Does he really think Obama-Bayh is exciting?

Okay, that's enough. Like I said, this will probably look dumb but who knows. I think when the only option is Bayh you really hope for anything that would be more exciting than that. Like "Obama-Can of Paint, 2008"

Obama VP: Let's Puzzle This Out...

tremayne — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:08:40 GMT

Today's VP developments...in order (I think)

1. We hear from multiple reporters that the VP will be announced, via text, on Friday evening, followed by a Saturday rally in Springfield, Illinois.

2. We hear that Tim Kaine will be speaking at the convention on Thursday, same day as Gore.

3. Joe Biden tells reporters, "I'm not the guy."

4. Ambinder, one of the reporters we got number 1 above from, says his sources "got skittish" about his report and now won't say whether the Saturday event will be the "unveiling" or whether it could occur earlier.

5. Biden backs off, somewhat, from his earlier denial by saying "I have not spoken to anyone" in the Obama campaign.

6. Obama uses "he" to refer to his VP.

So what do these developments tell us? Follow along...

The first development, that the announcement would be made Friday evening (text) and Saturday (rally) pointed away from Virginia candidates and toward someone like Biden. Delaware is not a swing state and there's no reason to hold the announcement there. Biden's appeal is mostly not geographical so going to Obama's turf (and Lincoln's) to make a symbolic announcement would make some sense. If the choice was Tim Kaine and Obama was in Virginia on Wednesday and Thursday, why would he leave Virginia (and crowds that would be stoked by a Virginia VP) and make the announcement the very next day somewhere else? So the first development points to Biden (or some other surprise, like say, Hillary Clinton. More on that below.).

The anti-Virginia momentum is pushed along by development number 2, the announcement that Kaine will speak at the convention on Thursday. Sure, other possible VP contenders have been schedule to talk. But those announcements came earlier (Obama made up his mind days ago, reportedly). Now it's possible that the VP could give his/her speech one night and still show up Thursday to introduce Obama but this development does point away from Kaine.

But then development number 3, Biden seemingly takes himself out of it. Is there any wiggle room in Biden's "I'm not the guy." Could he mean "if you photographers are looking for Brad Pitt, I'm not the guy." Maybe he meant "I'm not the guy who would announce it."

Realistically, I don't think there's much wiggle room in it. I think he came back and said "I haven't talked to anyone" because he realized that by saying what he did, he helped narrow the already tiny list of possible suspects. His denial would help reveal the secret. But, I think, Biden really is "not the guy." If he were the guy he would have to give 2 very important speeches in the next week. He just got back from meeting with the President of Georgia and, according to some reports, he had his golf clubs with him when he drove off saying "I'm not the guy." Doesn't seem like someone who's busy practicing those speeches.

Development number 4 is interesting. Obama's camp intentionally put out the news of a Springfield campaign event with the newly named VP but apparently didn't like the spin Ambinder and others reported, that it was the official unveiling to be preceded by a text the night before. Either they didn't like the spin because it wasn't true or they didn't like it because it was true but it gave too much away. What would it give away? As I've written above, a Friday/Saturday VP launch would point away from a Virginia VP.

I agree with Ambinder's revised thoughts, that the announcement is unlikely to be revealed on Friday evening. That's the absolute worst time to get publicity for something. If Obama was embarassed about his choice, Friday evening would be the best time to announce it. For publicity, Thursday would be much better. Obama is in Virginia on Thursday. That timeframe points back to a Virginia VP.

So what does it all mean? I think Biden is out but he has been known to pop off so one can't be sure. If the announcement is made tomorrow or Thursday then it's quite possibly Tim Kaine but I still wouldn't discount Mark Warner. Yes, he said he didn't want it but all he'll have to say is "Barack's a persuasive guy."

If the announcement is made on the Friday/Saturday timeframe, here's a possibility: Hillary Clinton. She was born and raised in Illinois so an announcement there would make sense. But what about development 6 above? Yes, Obama used "he" in that hypothetical when he has normally used "he or she." But he was clearly referring to Dick Cheney there in what he didn't want his VP to do and I think that's a plausible reason for his use of "he." Or maybe an intentional misdirection play...

Sunday Night VP Candy

tremayne — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:04:56 GMT

Certainly the speculation will end soon but there are a few new nuggets to report tonight. First, a growing sense that Obama will make the announcement within the next 3-4 days:

"Obama cannot announce during the Denver convention and it makes no sense in terms of the news cycle to announce during a weekend,” said one Democrat with no ties to the Obama campaign. “So I would be very surprised if he left it later than Thursday."

Wednesday or Thursday is emerging as the most likely time but not everyone agrees. Jim Geraghty thinks tomorrow makes sense. That would rule out Joe Biden who is in embattled Georgia right now. Biden, though, could certainly make it back in time for a Thursday announcement.

Obama will be in Virginia on Wednesday and, seemingly, Thursday. He has an event scheduled with Mark Warner in Martinsville on Wednesday, an event Tim Kaine says he is too busy to attend. As for Thursday, Kaine is acting coy:

But Washington Post reporter Shailagh Murray reported today that Obama also plans to be in Virginia on Thursday, although the stop has yet to be officially announced by the campaign. Kaine said he doesn't know if he will see Obama on Thursday. Obama could announce his vice-presidential candidate sometime this week.
"Schedules are in flux," Kaine said. "Only the Martinsville event has been announced, but Wednesday I am really tied up wall-to-wall with this cabinet community day."

Meanwhile a cameraman has been tagging along with Kaine filming things for the Obama campaign. Hmmm.

And if you're nonplussed by all of that, here's a serious (sounding) argument for why the ticket will be Obama-Gore. No, really.

Update: More speculation based on unnamed sources here (includes more Gore candy).

Obama VP Speculation

tremayne — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 03:50:16 GMT

Just ten days between now and the start of the Democratic National Convention so time is running out on a VP announcement. Let's take a look at the possibilities for an announcement.

Friday, August 15: Obama still on vacation in Hawaii

Saturday, August 16: Obama in Nevada and California

Sunday, August 17: Maybe but big day for Olympic coverage

Monday & Tuesday, Aug. 18 & 19: Obama in (Update) New Mexico (Mon.) and Florida

Wednesday, August 20: ??????

Thursday, August 21: Obama campaign event in Virginia, VP?

Friday, August 22: Low ratings for TV, bad day for major press

Saturday, August 23: Same as above except good for Sunday political coverage

Sunday, August 24: Better day for TV ratings but last day of the Olympics

Monday, August 25: Convention begins.

Ambinder has more details on the Virginia possibilities:

Another potential clue: a Democratic research firm spent part of last week quietly focus grouping the political skills and attributes of Kaine and Gov. Mark Warner last week, two people familiar with the results say......Warner came off well; Kaine did not, with respondents saying that he lacks substantive accomplishments and kisses up too much to Obama.

My money is on Wednesday or Thursday for an announcement but a Sunday announcement is also a possibility. Thursdays and Sundays are traditional big ratings days for TV (and TV News in particular).

Evan Bayh, the Perfect Choice for a Flip Flopper

Matt Stoller — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:53:29 GMT

Ari Melber has a great piece on Bayh. The money quote is here, on Iran.

You just hope that we haven't soured an entire generation on the necessity, from time to time, of using force because Iraq has been such a debacle. That would be tragic, because Iran is a grave threat. They're everything we thought Iraq was but wasn't. They are seeking nuclear weapons, they do support terrorists, they have threatened to destroy Israel, and they've threatened us, too.

As Jonathan Schwartz says, "You really have to hand it to The System. They do good work." Bayh, incidentally, is also one of the bad guys on partial birth abortion.

Obama would do a great service by resisting the siren call to pick this guy. While I'd still pull the lever for an Obama/Bayh ticket, Bayh as VP really would turn this contest into a lesser of two evils type race. And as VP, if Bayh's going to help Obama govern, that's discouraging. And if Bayh ever has to step in as President, God help us.

Dude, What about Brian Schweitzer for VP?

kauffmanr — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:19:31 GMT

The same names keep popping up for Obama's VP choice: Dodd, Sebelius, Bayh, Biden, and Kaine seem to be the consensus favorites. But if we want to think strategically here, can't we throw out the Senators? We will need long standing Senators to shepherd legislation through Congress next year especially now that a 60 vote majority is looking unlikely.
That leaves Kaine and Sebelius. I don't really like Kaine. He just doesn't seem like he has what it takes to stand up to the Republicans without looking vindictive. I love Sebelius, but thanks to the efforts of the PUMAs (and the public image problems they are creating for women everywhere) its becoming less and less likely Obama will choose her or any other woman.

Which brings me around to my pick. Brian Schweitzer is the Governor of Montana. He helped turn that state from Ruby red to progressive blue. Blue dog you ask? No. Definitely not. He made sure there was funding for renewable energy like wind and ethanol research, development, and infrastructure development. He upped the tax on cigarettes by $1 a pack (I smoke) and used the money to help pay for a partial healthcare system. Then he ensured that all school children would learn about the original residents of Montana. yes. The ones that have been there for 12,000 years.

Not only does the guy do the right things. He does them in the right way. $0 from PACs in the last campaign. Sound familiar?

Schweitzer also knows how to communicate progressive ideals in a way that ranch owners, farmers, and small town folks can get behind. So Obama connects with everyone whos not white (check the polls, its true), urbans, and the youth and Schweitzer gets the rural folk.

Watch him discuss how to connect with rural America as Democrats:

At the very least Schweitzer would force McCain to work his ass off in states like Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, and Nebraska instead of being able to attack into Obama's blue territory. Thinking more optimistically he could tip the scale for states like Texas, Arizona, and Nevada.

If things went totally awesome Schweitzer is the kind of balance Obama and the Democrats need to grab that 60 vote Senate majority and make 2008 a Republican's nightmarish flashback of Reagan's Revolution. The two of them pairing has the potential to sweep the electoral board and redraw the political landscape.

Obama/Schweitzer'08.

Links:
On Brian Schweitzer As VP Sean, 538
Obama's VP Pick: Schweitzer
Back Where the Uprising Started David Sirota, Open Left

VP Rumors

tremayne — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:55:13 GMT

The folks at First Read have started an Obama VP rumor based on a fact. The fact is the travelling press has been notified they'll be spending 21 hours - an exceptionally long campaign stop - in one small midwestern city starting Tuesday evening. The city? South Bend, Indiana.

That's right. The home state of your favorite VP contender and mine (snark) Evan Bayh. The First Read folks are suspicious:

It seems seems like an awfully long time to be in one place. (Where exactly is Evan Bayh?)Bayh's home town is near Terre Haute, Ind. -- about four-hour drive from South Bend. But South Bend is a nice geographical point between Illinois and Ohio, and just south of the Michigan line. Obama communications stretegist Robert Gibbs says all that should be taken from it is that "Indiana is competitive and winnable for us," he said.

What other reasons can you think of for the long layover?

Update: I did some research and found more details: Obama has a Wednesday morning campaign appearance, another town hall meeting, at Concord High School in Elkhart, Indiana.

Why No to VP?

QueenTiye — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:36:08 GMT

One by one they fall. In watching the VP media chatter, I've been struck by the number of people insisting that they don't want to be vice president.

The conventional wisdom on the subject suggests that this is just standard practice - say you don't want the job to be polite (if so, it's a stupid practice. Sorta like saying no thank you to food when you are in fact, hungry. Your host just might take you at your word...). But some politicians have really gone out of the way to be written off. The entire Virginia delegation seems to be quite content where they are, as is Gore and as is Edwards. In fact, I only remember 3 politicians going against this bit of conventional wisdom - Biden, Clinton, and Hagel.

This diary is really an open question. What the heck is going on? Are there reasons why someone would legitimately NOT want to serve as Vice President? I can think of a few. For instance, I don't think Hillary should want or accept the Vice Presidency. I think it undersells her talents. I can see Gore and Edwards not wanting the post - Edwards because he already ran as VP and might not want to do it again (and then the fact that his wife is fighting cancer - I can see him prioritizing home and family), Gore because - been there, done that, and he's bigger than the Vice Presidency at present. But the Virginia contingent actually worries me, as does the refusal of the role by travelling companion Jack Reed. Why don't they want the job?

Some cynical part of me thinks that Obama's promising choices are being paid (in money or favors) to sit out, so that someone else will have to be the next choice. Another part of me thinks that white men aren't going to do so well with having a black boss (in this, I appreciate Biden's honesty. He didn't frame it in terms of black and white - but he DID express an uncertainty about being able to work for ANYONE, having been his own boss for so many years). But thinking more positively - are there other good explanations for people to avoid being Obama's vp?

Obama's VP Should Be....

tremayne — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:45:00 GMT

Every corner of the web seems to have a different opinion. The latest MSM fantasy is Chuck Hagel. At DCW, the readers' pick is Kathleen Sebelius. At CQ the readers chose Wesley Clark. Right now Chuck Todd and the folks at MSNBC are running a VP bracket and the final 4 are:

Hillary Clinton vs. John Edwards

and

Joe Biden vs. Kathleen Sebelius

Of those four, who do you think is the most likely choice of Barack Obama? Did you say "Joe Biden"? If so, you're in agreement with Chuck Todd. That's right, Vice President Biden. Get used to it. He's clean, articulate and he's never shot anyone in the face. And, MSNBC readers seem to agree. He's currently leading Sebelius in the vote, 70% to 30% (Clinton leads Edwards).

Anyway, Todd's reasoning against the other three semifinalists is as follows:

Clinton: Obama will only pick her if he has to and he doesn't think he has to

Edwards: Doesn't really want it, would rather be AG

Sebelius: Clinton supporters would be mad.

Todd does believe that Obama and Sebelius have a personal rapport which, he concedes, may end up being a big factor in his choice. Some seem to think a VP announcement is imminent. I doubt it. August seems more likely to me.