Who will Obama choose as his running candidate?

[DaveW]

I also read that Richardson was pro-AUMF in 2003. That's gotta rule him out. Whoever Obama chooses surely has to have been anti-war from the start.

That might prove to be a more restrictive criteria than you think. Consider Obama's primary opposition: Clinton. Edwards. Biden. Dodd. All recorded a vote in favour of the Iraq invasion.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Maybe Feingold is the man.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Obama's pre-requisites to staffers sourcing the recruit will probably look something like this.

1. Caucasian/No bad habits past or present
2. Christian
3. Female
4. Intelligence/Integrity

That rules everyone out then

Actually Monica Lewinsky might be interested provided it does not conflict with Billary and her contractural arrangements to the California Milk Advisory Board

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...+&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=2

 

[DaveW]

I don't recall Murray's comments,

Looked it up. Turns out they were about bin Laden.

but it strikes me that the GOP will try to tar whoever Obama's running mate is with all sorts of caricatured rubbish.

Yeah, indeed. Like when Cheney tried to characterise Edwards as a Congressional non-attendee by saying at the veep debate, (paraphrasing) I preside over the Senate as part of my duties as Vice President, and the first time I've met you is tonight.

Great line. But one with no basis in fact.

 

[Elle]

In terms of running mates, one name that I've heard mentioned a lot, but I didn't include my post is Bill Richardson.

He's got an impressive resume. He's held cabinet posts in the Clinton Administration and has been Governor of NM, and is highly regarded for his foreign policy expertise.

From a general election point of view, him being Hispanic could be a real fillip for Obama in NM and Colorado and other states with a significant Hispanic population. Of course, there's always been gossip about Richardson being involved in scandals of an extramarital variety. So that would be a concern.

How viable he is may also depend on how spooked Obama and co are by the notion that he's gonna struggle to mobilise working-class whites. If they share that concern, then someone like Sherrod Brown or Jim Webb or Tim Kaine probably seems more appealing.

I wish Richardson was a stronger debater. He was quite unimpressive and weak in several of the primary debates.

 

[Elle]

What about the other three? Oh. Right. What about the junior Senator from New York then?

It's important that any running mate not have any baggage that will weigh the ticket down. (You mentioned Richardson and supposed extra-marrital affairs; can't say I know much about that.) I was the other day reminded of something that popped up late in the 2006 Virginia Senate race. Jim Webb's 1979 article headlined Women Can't Fight.

Now I thought the fuss at the time was way overblown. Whatever you think of Webb's viewpoint, it's unfair to say that it's based on sexism. But in politics nothing much is fair, and this thing is bound to be dredged up again.

I think the Obama campaign would be weary of offending female voters. Particularly after the primary campaign.

Yes, I think it's bound to be revisited and exploited, and most definitely if McCain selects a woman VP. For the record, Webb no longer holds many of those views from 1979, he matured, is comfortable with women in the military, and led the way for the advancement of women in the Navy, but not that it would matter though...the mere existence of Webb's writings will indeed present a problem for Obama regarding Clinton supporters. However, I still find an Obama/Webb ticket very intriguing and think he negates McCain's strengths on most fronts. His son served in Iraq too, like McCain's son, which is helpful.

There was also the silly book scandal. However, McCain is certainly on record, quoted on the book jacket, praising Webb's Lost Soldiers:

http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780440240914&view=quotes

“James Webb’s new novel paints a portrait of a modern Vietnam charged with hopes for the future but haunted by the ghosts of its war-torn past. It captures well the lingering scars of the war, and exposes the tension between the dynamism of a new generation and the invisible bondage of an older generation for whom wartime allegiances, and animosities, are rendered no less vivid by the passage of time. A novel of revenge and redemption that tells us much about both where Vietnam is headed and where it has been.”
— Senator John McCain

 

[Elle]

That might prove to be a more restrictive criteria than you think. Consider Obama's primary opposition: Clinton. Edwards. Biden. Dodd. All recorded a vote in favour of the Iraq invasion.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Maybe Feingold is the man.

Thoughts on Bob Graham? He voted against the war, and was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2001 to 2003.

Edit: He's quite old though, maybe too old.

 

[DaveW]

Thoughts on Bob Graham? He voted against the war, and was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2001 to 2003.

Graham's the same age as McCain. I think they'll want someone younger.

Crude as it may be, I think the Democrats see the age difference working in their favour. Having a 71 year old running mate detracts from that youthful image.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

____ing scary stuff.

How can someone so self righteous be so easily terrified?

 

[JW Frogen]

I wish Richardson was a stronger debater. He was quite unimpressive and weak in several of the primary debates.

Richardson is a cross between Cheech Marion and the Pillsbury Doughboy.

Harmless, entertaining but....do you really want him one heart beat away from the Presidency?

That is assuming our lord and savior Obama has a human heart.

 

[KissStephanie]

Is Clinton still viable as a possible running mate given the negative campaign she has run during the Democratic Primaries?

I actually still believe that Clinton can win the nomination because she keeps racking up the states that the Democratic Party need in November, which she did again in WV. If this happens, then Obama may be offered to be her running-mate, and it will be up to him to accept it or not. A lot depends on how FL and MI delegations will be seated.

 

[Qsaint]

I actually still believe that Clinton can win the nomination because she keeps racking up the states that the Democratic Party need in November, which she did again in WV. If this happens, then Obama may be offered to be her running-mate, and it will be up to him to accept it or not. A lot depends on how FL and MI delegations will be seated.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I know. She's like the Black Knight in that Monty Python sketch.

"It's only a flesh wound!"

 

[Sandola]

I know. She's like the Black Knight in that Monty Python sketch.

"It's only a flesh wound!"

The Age today has an article comparing her to that other MP classic, the Blue Norwegian parrot.("It's not dead, it's only pining for the fjiords.")

 

[Qsaint]

Eight reasons why Obama should not choose Clinton as his running mate in `08

I know, I know. More than 15 million Democrats have voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and many of them are so invested in her candidacy that they're threatening to stay home in November or vote for Republican in waiting John McCain in the very likely event that the Democrats nominate Barack Obama for presdient.

Obama should choose her as his running mate to honor and woo those Clinton supporters. He should choose her as his running mate to help soothe the still escalating intra-party hostilities. He should choose her as his running mate because she runs far stronger than he does among certain core Democratic constituencies.

And for those reasons he probably will offer her the No. 2 spot on the ticket.

Yet here are eight reasons it's a bad idea:

1. Choosing Clinton would belie Obama's message of change. Whether you admire her or not, you have to acknowledge that Clinton's an old-style, legacy Democrat. Obama's candidacy is premised on a break with the past.

2. Choosing Clinton would belie Obama's repudiation of the old way of doing politics. Clinton and her surrogates are tough campaigners who have gone hard after Obama (see below) trying to draw him into the fight. And on those occasions where he and his team have responded in kind, Team Clinton has smirkingly asked whatever happened to the politics of hope?

3. Bill Clinton. He's a brilliant man and an amazing politician, but he's shown an inability to stay on message and keep his foot out of his mouth as he campaigns for his wife. Obama already has Rev. Jeremiah Wright to worry about -- he doesn't need another loose cannon out there ready to fire.

4. She's polarizing. For all that she's shown how popular she can be with certain groups of primary voters, Hillary Clinton also remains a controversial and unpopular figure. Here are her "unfavorable" ratings among all voters in a set of recent national polls, with Obama's unfavorability ratings in parenthesis: 37 (30) ; 45 (37) 46 (38) 49 (40) 54 (39) 53 (37).

5. She'll be the star of anti-Obama commercials: "It’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," she said on March 6. "I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”

6. She's gone beyond the pale in attacking Obama: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," she said on March 4. Clinton delivered this insulting, dismissive, destructive critique several times, and it's a bell she can't unring.

7. She's toting unpacked baggage. Clinton likes to claim that she's been thoroughly vetted and withstood all the Republican attacks of the 1990s and now any bad news about her is simply old news. It's not so. Obama hasn't called her on this claim because he's trying to preserve the image that he's above the politics of scandal. And the Republican operatives are lying in the weeds, boosting Clinton's candidacy and licking their chops, waiting to pounce.

Not only are there all the "--gate" scandals from her husband's administration that were set aside rather than fully resolved in the public's mind (travel, file, cattle and so on), but the issue of the pardons Bill Clinton granted on his way out of the door and the mysterious funding sources from the Clinton Presidential Library are still out there.


8. Picking a real teammate is better than picking a political counterweight. Bill Clinton of Arkansas himself surprised the pundits in 1992 when he chose as his No. 2 another young moderate Democrat from from the mid-South -- Al Gore of Tennessee -- and the two ran a vigorous, consistent campaign. Obama would do better to pick someone of his generation who shares his general outlook and who can speak passionately and convincingly to voters about why they should support Obama.

Chicago Tribune

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Came across the following graph at Open Left. SUSA has done head-to-head polling in Pennsylvania (a battleground state in November) on a few different Republican and Democratic tickets. I'm a bit sceptical about the worth of head-to-head polling this far out from the general; all the same, these results, especially for the Obama-Edwards ticket, are interesting.

[Some background... Sebelius is the (female) Gov of Kansas. Hagel is the GOP senator from Nebraska, who has recently had some nice things to say about Obama's foreign policy, in the process sticking the boots into McCain. Rendell is the Gov of Pennsylvania and was a strident Clinton supporter during the Pennsylvania primary. Pawlenty is the Gov of Minnesota and a very good chance to get the VP slot on McCain's ticket.]

I'd be staggered if Obama chose Hagel, and I doubt that Rendell is a chance either. Sebelius would be a VP frontrunner, and Edwards has said he's not interested, but those sorts of polling figures might make a lot of people (including Edwards?) think twice.

 

[DaveW]

Yeah, it'd be nice if they restricted it to realistic running mates.

Obama's not going to choose Hagel, a Republican. Nor is he going to choose Ed Rendell, who has been as contemptuous of Obama's candidacy as any Clinton supporter.

And McCain aint going to choose Lieberman, who still caucuses with Senate Democrats.

Those numbers suggest the choice of running mate makes plenty of difference. Surprisingly, it's Rendell makes the least amount of difference (positive or negative). I'm sceptical.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Yeah, it'd be nice if they restricted it to realistic running mates.

Obama's not going to choose Hagel, a Republican. Nor is he going to choose Ed Rendell, who has been as contemptuous of Obama's candidacy as any Clinton supporter.

And McCain aint going to choose Lieberman, who still caucuses with Senate Democrats.

Those numbers suggest the choice of running mate makes plenty of difference. Surprisingly, it's Rendell makes the least amount of difference. I'm sceptical.

Yeah, Hagel is a bizarre choice. But including Rendell in the matchups gives the polling on the Democratic side a nice point of reference. To me, it was surprising to see that the Obama-Edwards ticket outperformed the Obama-Rendell ticket in Pennsylvania (I thought Rendell was quite a popular governor?). One of the reasons commonly touted when speculating about VP picks is their ability to swing their home state/region. So to see Edwards outperforming Rendell in Penn is an interesting one. It'd be interesting to see SUSA use a similar methodology in other swing states -- Ohio and Michigan, in particular.

 

[DaveW]

8. Picking a real teammate is better than picking a political counterweight. Bill Clinton of Arkansas himself surprised the pundits in 1992 when he chose as his No. 2 another young moderate Democrat from from the mid-South -- Al Gore of Tennessee -- and the two ran a vigorous, consistent campaign. Obama would do better to pick someone of his generation who shares his general outlook and who can speak passionately and convincingly to voters about why they should support Obama.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I'd love to see an Obama clone in the number two spot.

I just can't figure out who that is.

 

[DaveW]

To me, it was surprising to see that the Obama-Edwards ticket outperformed the Obama-Rendell ticket in Pennsylvania (I thought Rendell was quite a popular governor?). One of the reasons commonly touted when speculating about VP picks is their ability to swing their home state/region. So to see Edwards outperforming Rendell in Penn is an interesting one.

My sentiments exactly.

Perhaps Rendell is too popular a governor. They'd rather he serve out his term in Harrisburg than go to Washington...

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I'd love to see an Obama clone in the number two spot.

I just can't figure out who that is.

If Mark Warner weren't running for the Senate in VA, he'd be a good fit. And I think Edwards has a lot to recommend him.

(I'm still hoping it'll be Feingold.)

 

[DaveW]

Agree on Warner, he'd be an oustanding choice. Incredibly popular governor and would pocket Virginia's 15 electoral votes for the ticket. And I'm not convinced either Kaine or Webb can guarantee that.

I think he's more centrist than Obama, but that's not such a bad thing. At 53, he's also young enough to be his successor.

Is the Senate bid too complicating a factor? Take Warner out and the Dems lose what otherwise looks to be an almost certain gain. So that's certainly an argument against. He could run for both; it's been done before - by Lieberman and LBJ. Although those two were incumbents which probably made it look a bit less hubristic.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Agree on Warner, he'd be an oustanding choice. Incredibly popular governor and would pocket Virginia's 15 electoral votes for the ticket. And I'm not convinced either Kaine or Webb can guarantee that.

I think he's more centrist than Obama, but that's not such a bad thing. At 53, he's also young enough to be his successor.

Is the Senate bid too complicating a factor? Take Warner out and the Dems lose what otherwise looks to be an almost certain gain. So that's certainly an argument against. He could run for both; it's been done before - by Lieberman and LBJ. Although those two were incumbents which probably made it look a bit less hubristic.

Warner certainly meets most criteria -- and he certainly trumps Tim Kaine on most scores. But I couldn't see Warner running for both -- it'd be seen as him hedging his bets, and the Repubs would have a field day. Dropping out of the senate race, which he's just about certain to win, is a very high price for the party to pay IMO, especially when there are other excellent VP prospects out there.

Obama and Kaine are apparently quite good friends, so I still think that's a good bet.

 

[JW Frogen]

Obama and Kaine are apparently quite good friends, so I still think that's a good bet.

Yes, freindship and ideological xerox machines make for good tickets.

 

[Willis]

Sebelius would be a VP frontrunner, and Edwards has said he's not interested, but those sorts of polling figures might make a lot of people (including Edwards?) think twice.

I like the sounds of Sebelius I think she offers a lot of positives for Obama. Here is an opinion piece on an Obama-Sebelius ticket for anyone who is interested.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/15/2245217.htm

 

[DaveW]

Accidently posted this on another thread. Take two...

Here's an argument against Kaine:

http://governing.typepad.com/ballotbox/2008/02/kaine-and-stric.html

In a nutshell: poor man's Warner.