Put on your strategist shoes. Who should John McCain select for his running mate? What will maximize his bang for the buck, impress the media, expand his appeal, reinforce his message, shore up his base or, perhaps conversely, help him appeal to Democrats and independents?
Who should Barack Obama choose? Should he go with someone with military/foreign policy experience, or will that remind everyone of the dysfunctional Bush/Cheney relationship? Should be pick a woman like Governor Kathleen Sebelius? Should he pick a red state Democrat like Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana or Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma. Will that reinforce his 50-state strategy? Or should Obama look for someone that can put him over the top in a closely contested state like Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, or Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida? Should he pick someone with a similar vision for the party and the country or someone that balances the ticket between the new and the old, like former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa or Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware?
And, since she is still technically in the race, should Hillary Clinton somehow pull out the nomination could she afford to pick anyone other than Barack Obama? If so, who would help put the party back together again and give some juice against McCain?
I think McCain has to pick someone who will shore up the base for him. I think the likeliest pick is Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. People mention Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota a lot, but his approval ratings suck, and his races for governor were always very close. With Obama on the top of the ticket, he wouldn’t swing MN to the Republicans.
There’s a compelling argument to be made for putting Jim Webb on the ticket, but I do feel that Obama will probably go for Sebelius. It seems like a natural pairing.
Clinton, if she somehow pulls it out, will pick Evan Bayh or some other similarly milquetoast DLC politician who won’t mind taking a back seat behind Hillary and Bill. Even if she did offer the VP slot to Obama, he’s smart enough to turn it down.
Barak Obama and VP Anthony Zinni
McCain/Barbour
Huckabee/Graham
Obama/Sibelius or Obama/Freudenthal
Clinton/Richardson
Gravel/Cleland
McCain/Barbour?? Fuck no, that WOULD remind everyone of Bush/Cheney. Unless you can imagine Haley Barbour taking a back seat to anyone…
You heard it here first. (1) Impeccable Bushevik conservative credentials, (2) Southern governor, (3) Lots of chits available to call in.
McCain’s task is to mobilize the Republican base, remember.
How about if Obama wins McCains Veep should be female, and if Clinton wins, then his veep should be a member of a minority, sow disaffection and try and splinter any democratic voter coalition.
I agree that if Obama wins, McCain may well pick a steely woman in the Margaret Thatcher mold. I’d say Sibelius is the front-runner for Obama’s pick. For Clinton, I’d say Richardson, to shore up the Hispanic link.
I think McCain will need to woo wobbly Dems and Indies as the campaign goes on, without offending the Iraq bullies too much. Obvious choice: Lieberman.
Obama: Richardson would provide geographic balance, Hispanic inroad, foreign policy, sense of some continuity with the establishment. But Obama will need a formidable attack dog. Can Richarson do that? And would a Black/Hispanic ticket be the last straw for committed whiteys?
Clinton has to choose Obama. But I doubt her advisors will let her.
Could Hillary legally name Bill?
Yes, she could. I don’t think it would ever happen, but she could.
Probably not, actually, based on the 22nd and 12th amendments. From wikipedia:
Some have questioned the interpretation of the Twenty-second Amendment as it relates to the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, which provides that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”[8]
While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the President and Vice President, it is unclear if a two-term President could later be elected–or appointed–Vice President. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment bar any two-term President from later serving as Vice President as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States Presidential line of succession. Others contend that while a two-term President is ineligible to be elected or appointed to the office of Vice President, he or she could succeed from a lower position in the line of succession which he or she is not excluded from holding. Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election. Neither theory has ever been tested, as no former President has ever sought the Vice Presidency, and thus, the courts have never had an opportunity to decide the question.
Actually, that’s exactly what I had in mind when I made that statement…I had just forgotten where I had read it!
So, there’s nothing legally stopping her from doing so. There’s not a clear answer. It would probably be challenged and then the courts would decide.
I wouldn’t think so. Wouldn’t the Twenty-second Amendment disqualify him?
No, the 22nd alone would not. It is very clear on its use of the term ‘elected’.
As froggywomp pointed out above, it gets muddier when you combine the 22nd with the 12th, and there’s no clear answer right now because it’s never been tested.
OK, now my head hurts.
your mouth to gods ear! Lieberman! It won’t happen but I can see Dean drooling over that choice. I know that I am, just thinking about it. That piece of shit is such an embarassment to everyone that the folks in Ct would vote him out of office today if they could.
Are you kidding? They really like each other. I think McCain would like to pick Lieberman, if he could. I bet it would even help him wih Republicans! The question is whether the old men of the party who pushed him over the top would go for it.
The answer to my dreams: The opportunity for me here in Cali to vote against Lieberman.
But isn’t this all crazy talk? Wasn’t McCain born in a madrassas in the Panama Canal?
I can’t imagine that Obama would accept the VP slot if offered.
I agree re Richardson – I think that’s the pick that makes sense for Obama’s VP.
. . . that he will not accept the nomination for VP if McCain offers it.
Wouldn’t Jeb Bush as VP reconsolidate the Repug base? Even given that his brother is a raving idiot, the party does/did march in virtual lockstep under his rein.
As much as I’d love to see Feingold as VP under Obama, we need him where he is. Although she doesn’t have a great national presence, Rep Louise Slaughter of NY could be very helpful.
As to HRC, who cares?
Seriously, I don’t think it would work. My retired Repub sister in Florida, even when she was cheerleading the war back then, was fed up with Jeb. The way I saw it, the oligarchs plugged in the Clintons when things got too hot with the first George Bush. I think they may have to wait a long time before they foist another Bush on America.
But Floridians likely have a lower opinion of Jeb than the rest of the country.
You can’t possibly be serious.
I heard the Richardson suggested, but not from an informed source.
Still, I thought it an interesting choice, and for several reasons.
One, the hispanic vote — of course. This is a predominantly Democratic demographic anyways, but it makes sense in terms of solidifying this group for the future and creating a long-lasting identification with the Democratic party.
Two, a western appeal. I haven’t written here on the subject of re-alignment, but ‘we’ve’ (speaking of some in political science) been expecting a coalition shift, and the west should, and has, shown signs of shifting to the Democratic party. Some of the libertarian western ideas should help the Democratic party appeal to a wider swath of America, too.
VPs usually offer balance; geographically, in terms of foreign policy, in terms of managerial experience, etc., and I expect these will be the criteria for selection. I would also prefer it if the VP didn’t remove an office holder from a hard to win, and thus replace, seat. This is why I’m less than enthusiastic about selecting some of the aforementioned governors.
Obama/Edwards is what I’d like to see.
Obama/Clark would give national security chops to the ticket.
Obama/Clinton if a deal has to be struck to keep the Clintons and their supporters from carrying a hopeless cause onto the convention.
Clinton’s only real choice would have to be Obama.
Obama/Edwards would be cool, but he’d be a good AG too.
Clark is supporting Hillary. Edwards for DOJ.
Obama needs to name someone who brings foreign policy national – security heft without overshadowing. Also, naming from the military may hinder his hand to withdraw from Iraq…those guys just love to go to war. Best the military types endorse, pay homage.
I waiting for Colin to lean on one of his buddies to come forward and endorse. Too bad his reputation has been diminished that his direct endorsement would not be helpful.
In the end, what we need is selection on merit. To name a woman would be too, too, obvious – an insult.
I like Obama-Gore. Here’s the reason. I think Obama is going to win massively in November. Despite current polls he will take FL, and I think if his surge continues and the money gap between him an McCain continues to widen, that he has a chance in Texas as well. His main problem is not finding someone who can pull him over the top — though in this respect the best candidate is Richardson, but someone who will be his life insurance policy. He and we need a Veep who can stand in immediately if he assassinated. Hate to bring up the ‘A-word’ but it will be on everyone’s mind. Having Gore as the next in line insures a progressive President with experience and balls. In other words, a political assassination leaves the assassins where they started.
I’d be a bit afraid of a McCain/Huckabee ticket as that would probably pull the Religious (not so) Right back to the voting booths when they might stay home and not vote for McCain.
I suspect that the decision as to who runs as McCain’s Veep will not be made by McCain but by his superiors. I doubt that they’d put a clown as Veep, given McCain’s age. I would expect more of an empty suit that can be painted whatever way they need to: A Romney kind of guy, whether it’s him or someone akin to him. Better someone less known. Maybe even a business exec with no public exposure.
Yeah, I agree. McCain has to win over some liberals and shaky Dems if he’s to avoid a blowout defeat. Picking a guy who thinks the universe is 6000 years old and wants a 23 percent national sales tax will not let that happen.
But what do I know? Bring on the Huck! Please.
But it might drive moderates to Obama.
I think everyone is missing the obvious: Obama will have Clinton as his VP whether he likes it or not. That would unite the Party and make a double-good historic slate. There was something on Countdown last night and I can’t remember the particulars. Someone asked Clinton and instead of the usual answer about “it’s not over yet,” she said something that sounded like she was open to the idea. KO thought it was quite significant.
That would certainly put her in a more genuinely “inevitable” position in 2016. They could make Bill some kind of roving ambassador and keep him out of Washington so that she could establish herself in her own right. She’s a good attack dog and while the right-wingnuts focused their hatred on her, Obama could continue to appear above the fray. It would also be really effective assassination protection for Obama.
Obama-Clinton won’t happen. No need to saddle Obama with the baggage that putting the Clintons on the ticket will bring. Furthermore, it will probably lead to dysfunction on the ticket – similar to the Kerry/Edwards problems of 2004.
I think Obama would rather put Rush Limbaugh on the ticket.
Ha!
I’m sure you’re right but I didn’t say HE would pick her or want her. It would be put to him to accept her “for the good of the Party.” The VP slot would be a consolation prize from the Party to the Clintons.
There’s a feminist site I go to where the commenters are rabid Hillary partisans. They are saying they’ll stay home and won’t vote for Obama. There are strong feelings on both sides and this is one way to resolve that divide.
Personally, I abhor the Clintons. I’m just saying this is what I expect might happen — especially if she pulls out one more win in the primaries and the Superdelegates are looking for a way to vote with the people for Obama but not entirely betray their loyalty to the Clintons.
We’d see it for the grossly cynical ploy that it would be.
And talk about tying a rock around his neck. Two Clintons? No way. He needs to appoint and govern according to his own style and principles.
It’s not assassination protection if the people with the guns would rather have Clinton over Obama. Obama’s assassination protection would have to be someone much farther to the left which would weaken him in the general election. Besides, Agnew was Nixon’s assassination protection and he got replaced with CIA buttboy, Jerry Ford.
It was a lame joke. Maybe I should have put a little winky face behind it.
Picking Clinton as his VP is probably one of the top ten mistakes Obama could make to kill his candidacy. If he does that after the attacks she’s made against him, all his claims about being an outsider and a reformer go right down the toilet, and his support goes with them. If he did that, McCain could pick Nixon’s corpse as his VP and still have an even chance of getting elected.
I truly don’t see her as necessary to his ticket. Her base of support is traditional Democratic voters. Exit poll after exit poll has shown that self-identified Democrats would be fine with either of them.
The blog candidate wars don’t extend to most of the real world.
The voters most invested in Hillary are woman and it appears that the ones with the strongest feelings are the older women. It’s possible that he could lose some if them but I don’t think it’s a big risk. Again, in real life people aren’t as divided as they are on line. And assuming this gets decided next week there will be a long cooling off period before the November election.
So I don’t see him needing her. And why take on her negatives if you don’t have to?
Webb.
Obama needs a hammer. One that can move the Senate & has an express understanding of foreign affairs. I’m still of a mind that Susan Rice could be that.
The country might finally be ready to elect a black man as president, but (assuming Obama/Clinton is off the table)add a woman to the ticket and people’s heads would explode. That’s just way too big a step for many people.
I agree.
Who are these people whose heads would explode? I’m assuming they’re not the people who have turned out in unprecedented numbers to vote for a woman or a black man in the primaries? If so, are they Republicans who’d be apathetic to a black president, but would suddenly rush to vote if there were a black president and female veep?
I think caution in this direction isn’t really necessary.
Those people who are on the fence; who are sucking it up and thinking of putting aside their fears of being “beneath” a black man because they like Obama’s message. Add someone like Sibelius and you lose many of them.
Part of the reason: for a woman to be on the ticket (or any minority for that matter) they have to have proved themselves worthy. They can’t just be picked.
People could talk seriously about having Obama and Clinton on the same ticket because both proved themselves throught the nomination process and proved that people would vote for them. They had to work hard to get credibility.
Take a look at Susan Rice’s page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice
And have you heard her on MSM? She’s even better than Rachel Maddow and that’s saying something. And since Obama already has her in the fold her chances are good for some kind of a position.
For veep? No way. She’s never held elective office. She’s never even held a high decision-making position in a cabinet at the presidential level. Has she ever even campaigned for election? She’s certainly not tested on the campaign trail in a high profile election. With everything that’s going to be flung at them by Republicans the veep candidate needs to be a solid campaigner with unassailable credentials.
I saw her the other night and thought she’d at minimum make a good press secretary.
McCain/Hannity
McCain/Cheney
McCain/a great big wolf that can tear yr fucking face off, you little pissant
McCain/800,000 rabies viruses
McCain/Zombie Reagan with Richard Nixon’s hands attached so it can play the piano
McCain/Limbaugh
McCain/Conway Twitty
McCain/a Dallas Cowboys helmet lamp
If McCain is going to stand any chance of winning, there’s only one possible answer for his Veep selection.
That’s right. Badass Jesus.
The more I think about it the more I believe it would be a mistake for Obama to pick Gen. Zinni or Jim Webb or another pick with security/military/foreign affairs credentials in that it would reopen the experience question and speculation he’s not fit to run national security issues. It would also create another Bush/Cheney situation with a strong person behind the nominee.
In the end I’m with you booman, my absolute favorite is Kathleen Sebelius. She’s in his mold, she would make up for Hillary not being the first female nominee, she’s a redstate Gov. with Democratic values (pro-choice), etc, etc.
Wouldn’t mind Schweitzer or Brad Henry either.
So:
Obama/Sebelius
Obama/Schweitzer
Obama/Henry
As for McCain, I think he might surprise us all and pick someone who’s not on everyone’s list. He will want to avoid a 2 white men or 2 old people ticket which would exclude almost everyone currently talked about, including Kay Bailey Hutchison.
So, it will come down to a younger person (preferrably below 60), a woman or minority. There aren’t that many who fit the bill in the Republican party but among them are: Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska (there’s even a draft blog out there which has posted a very recent wapo video interview with her discussing VP), former Rep. J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), or a current Congresswoman like Rep. Mary Fallin (OK) or Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN).
So:
McCain/Palin
McCain/Watts
McCain/Diaz-Balart
McCain/Fallin
McCain/Blackburn
McCain/Huckabee or McCain/Lieberman. I would guess the first, though. The party establishment hates
HickHuck, but you cannot deny the man’s appeal or his political skills. And with Dobson blanketly refusing to support McCain ever, he has no chance in the general without a strong Christian presence on the ticket. Interestingly, I think it is possible that Lieberman might help with this demograqphic, too. I’d love to see +/- polling on Lieberman in the South…Obama/Biden or Obama/Sibelius. The big arguments for Biden: White guy; foriegn policy cred galore; great President of the Senate; good zingers on the campaign trail; handsome; great reputation among Dems who don’t get bankrupcy bill; great reputation among financial industry execs who want to get paid. Also, maybe some regional appeal even though DE is small. Negatives: No western presence; can be counted on to make at least one gaffe; will make base somewhat grumpy if the two of them start looking at SocSec as a policy initiative.
Dark horse: Obama/Edwards. Wouldn’t it be nice if unicorns and dragons really existed and they delivered candy and sweet green nugs to your door for free, and fairy royalty came with them to give you magic massages while little gnomes did your dishes and your laundry? No VP for Edwards, It would scare the bejeebus out of the Villiage, and Obama has worked too hard to make them his friends. Edwards for Secretary of Labor. AG is too much. Labor is an intuitive spot for him that doesn’t make him too important.
Frankly, I’m surprised that Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s name is not mentioned more frequently in the blogosphere. Here’s a guy who knows exactly how to connect with apolitical citizens who might not otherwise feel compelled to participate in the political process. He is a big-picture thinker, frequently tying together the issues of the war in Iraq and energy independence. Schweitzer is an agricultural scientist by training. His career as an irrigation specialist took him to Saudi Arabia, where he lived for seven years, so, while his experience is not militaristic, it is international; Schweitzer is no bumpkin.
“But, his state only has three electoral votes,” you might be thinking. To which I point out that the idea here is not a matter of mere electoral math; it’s about getting voters across the Mountain West– and, frankly, across the country– to vote Democratic. Let’s face it; at a psychological level, voters want their elected officials to resemble them in some way. That’s what all this “identity politics” talk is all about. I do not simply mean this in terms of race or gender (although those elements certainly do factor into many voters’ decisions, undeniably). What I mean here is, voters need to be able to feel that a candidate is “one of them.” That’s what John Kerry could not pull off; even as he stood for economic policies that would help the average American, he seemed to be out of touch, some rich guy who spent his spare time practicing weird, elite sports like windsurfing. John Edwards’ presence on that ticket didn’t help matters; although Edwards came from impoverished roots, he definitely had the manner of a slick lawyer, not a plain-spoken country boy. Schweitzer, on the other hand, is direct, unapologetic, and very down to earth. Furthermore, he can be a bulldozer when he needs to be. Obama’s lofty rhetoric calls for an “attack dog” VP, and Schweitzer is it.
“But,” you say now, “What about Jim Webb? He is combative enough to be an attack dog, plus, he has military experience, and comes from a state with more electoral votes than Montana!” In response to that, I remind all of you of those controversial essays Webb wrote in the 1980’s, declaring that women should not serve in combat. He garnered the ire of many a woman, including a very public rebuke by Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, one of the highest-ranking women ever to serve in the U.S. military (and, before the wheels in your mind start turning, Lt. Gen. Kennedy can’t be on the VP shortlist, since she was born in Germany). But, I digress. My point is, after defeating Hillary Clinton, Obama would make a grave mistake by picking Jim Webb for VP, as many female voters already disappointed or discouraged by Hillary’s loss will unequivocally withhold their support and stay home on election day. Remember that. And that’s before even getting into the fact that Webb won his senate seat by the slimmest of margins, and his vacating that hard-won seat could create a comeback opportunity for the loathsome, rapacious miscreant known as George Felix Allen. In short: Brian Schweitzer has most of Webb’s positive attributes, and none of the negatives.
Phew!
the idea that the Clinton Tag team would accept the VP post is humorous.
Bill would be #3 in that arrangement and he would not stand for it.
Schweitzer would be nice, but i am pulling for Webb.
and as for the Publicans…Jeb is finished at least for 4 more years… it causes his daddy to cry in public, when he thinks of how son Dubya ruined the family plans for Jebbie
. . . has problems. See my above comments. Women who will already be incensed over Hillary’s loss will definitely not turn out for a guy who made controversial comments in the 80’s. I’m telling you, it’d be a terrible, terrible move to pick Webb. Check out the discussion over at the Swing State Project:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1470
McCain/Cheney
That gives the base (the American al qaida) their desired continuity. Nothing in DC will change and Bush might not declare martial law after all if he feels that Cheney will still run things while he scoots down to his Paraguayan hideyhole.
The Republicans need Lieberman in the Senate. As Chair of Homeland Security Committee, he ensures that no hearings will ever happen and there is so much for them to hide. As soon as Lieberman joins the ticket, Reid will endure such a shitstorm of complaints that he’ll finally have to deal with the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing… and a new Chair will almost certainly start asking questions.
For the Democrats? If Clinton steals, bribes, or strong-arms her way onto the ticket, I will not vote. There is nobody that she can choose that would get me to support Her Excellency’s quest for power, and, OTOH, Obama would prove terminally stupid if he agreed to accept her as running mate.
Obama doesn’t need to “balance” the ticket in order to get votes: he has widespread appeal and likability on his own. He can afford to choose a VP based upon merit. (Gosh, what a refreshing and audacious concept!) This choice doesn’t have to be a female, a westerner, a white, or a purple pony-tailed Martian. If he truly wanted to “balance” the ticket, he’d choose an elderly tree-hugging lesbian atheist from Oregon… and we’d know how likely that would be. The country isn’t ready for an atheist, yet.
I’d recommend that he ignore the DLC insiders because they desperately want to stay in power and their advice would be bad for Obama and bad for the country. We need to clean house and somebody from outside is best able to do that.
I’d recommend that he not bother considering the members of Congress despite and because of friendships formed. Look at the problems Congress has setting up an ethics committee, much less dealing with corruption and scandal, even after their members get indicted. Look at their weakness when faced with the Bush/Cheney criminal pack. As it stands, there are only a handful of Democrats who take their oath of office seriously (Dodd and Feingold and Kucinich among them), and we need those members in their committees.
I’d recommend that he choose somebody older, with gravitas and statesmanship and diplomacy. The VP is going to be doing a hell of a lot of traveling and mending fences overseas. We desperately need Gore to keep doing what he is doing to save this fragile planet, but somebody with that same sort of quiet authority and practical solutions should prove the choice. Intelligence would not be a handicap.
If there is an assassination or reasonably strong attempt, the possibility of widespread civil unrest will be quite high. People get emotional and reason goes out the window. Look at all those pacifist Sikhs who were attacked after 9/11, because some good-old-boys wanted to chew on anyone wearing a turban of any sort! If the attacker was a purple-pony-tailed Martian, the country would rise against all people with purple hair and all Martians and all ponies. It would require somebody of calm and reassuring stature to restore order and commonsense. If there isn’t an assassination attempt, those same qualities are badly needed to heal the wounds of war and deal with natural disasters planet-wide.
My second recommendation would be that he restructure the Cabinet to include a Secretary of Peace and a Secretary of War (stop calling it defense). We’ve started this century on the wrong foot, but there are 9 more decades to go and if America considers peace to be as important as war, perhaps we’ll survive them!