Vice-presidential frontrunners

[jsgoddess]

Other than Bill Richardson, who would be likely frontrunners for the two parties to be tapped as the VP candidate?

What are matchups you'd love to see?

Who is almost guaranteed not to be a VP candidate for anyone? For example, I think the chances of Obama being the VP candidate are pretty much nil.

What would each of the current frontrunners need to "balance the ticket" if you believe in ticket balancing? For example, I could see Obama picking Richardson to add experience and a certain level of stodginess. I could see McCain picking someone who seems poised to take office since people are certainly going to worry about his health.

Obviously, this is all speculation, but I think it reveals something about the candidates when we start thinking about pairing them up with a running mate.

[Pleonast]

I think Huckabee will end up being the Republican VP candidate. I don't think he can win the nomination, but he'd make a perfect counterpart to any of the other top candidates (McCain, Romney, Guiliani).

[Rhythmdvl]

I think the chances of Obama being the VP candidate are pretty much nil.

That's interesting -- why?

To me, I think barring a surprise we're likely looking at an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket. It would play on the strengths of both, and bring as many supporters in as possible. I also think that both would accept the VEEP nomination, as it puts them four or eight years away from running for the top spot.

[jsgoddess]

That's interesting -- why?

To me, I think barring a surprise we're likely looking at an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket. It would play on the strengths of both, and bring as many supporters in as possible. I also think that both would accept the VEEP nomination, as it puts them four or eight years away from running for the top spot.

Obama won't (obviously I'm guessing) get a VP slot because he would stand too great a chance of overshadowing his running mate.

[Malodorous]

As I said in another thread, none of the Dem one (or one and a fraction) term senators will choose another as VP. So neither Edwards, Obama or Hillary will be Veep.

Richardson is a good pick, but there's also an open Senate seat in NM with his name on it if he wants it. And presumably whoever gets the prez nomination will want a Dem senate, and so would probably prefer him to go that route if he's open to it. He was also something of a lackluster campaigner.


Huckabee does seem the obvious choice for the GOP frontrunners, presuming he doesn't win the nomination (and would also possibly negate any advantage Hillary might have in Arkansas as former first lady).

[Marley23]

I think there is zero chance that Clinton will be anybody's Vice President (as I posted yesterday, I think she wouldn't accept and nobody would offer), and I'd say a 0.5 percent chance that Edwards would offer/take the spot again.

The driving factor in a VP choice is supposed to be qualities that balance the presidential nominee - Edwards balanced Kerry's patrician bearing and total lack of personality, Cheney balanced Bush's inexperience, Lieberman balanced Gore's... um...

Anyway: I suggested Mark Warner as a potential Democratic VP yesterday, only to be told that he's more likely to run for the Senate. He's more useful to the party there, so he'll probably do that. Since the Democratic Presidential candidate is going to be a Senator, I think the choice will be a Governor this year. Richardson is the easy choice, and I don't know who the other available governors are. If Clinton is nominated, I guess she would look at Bob Kerrey. I thought Obama/Schweitzer is an interesting 'new blood' kind of ticket.

My guess in the other thread was a Huckabee/McCain ticket. I'm not sure who else matches up with whom.

[mswas]

Clinton - Not a chance
Richardson - I think he blew his chance because he should've backed Hillary more. Still a good Sec State choice for either Obama or Hillary. (I take it as a given that the Dem nod will go to one of them.)
Edwards - Shoe-in for Obama as he's been tag-teaming with him admirably.

[jsgoddess]

How about Evan Bayh?

[DSeid]

Edwards as VP would nearly be enough to make me vote for McCain. Or Romney. Not Huckabee though!

I can't see HRC taking the VP spot. She's 60 and in 8 yrs will be 68. I don't think she would relish running that old. This is her run at it. I could see Obama as HRC's VP to try to lock a 16 yr Presidential run. I'd like Richardson for either and don't see it for Warner.

McCain needs to choose wisely as many will be seriously considering the possibility of him dieing on the job. Huckabee would keep many of those swing voters away from that ticket so is a no-go. Romney maybe if bygones be bygones after all the negative press. That's my guess. Definitely a heavyweight that can appear up to the job and who is without close ties to the Bush White House. McCain OTOH is too old to be VP by far. Others might choose Huckabee to help deliver the South and the Evangelicals. Or maybe Newt? Huckabee would probably find a like-minded politician who keeps mostly out of the show. Maybe from a swing state?

[DSeid]

And also HRC as VP for Obama would detract from his change meme. No way.

[BrainGlutton]

Obama won't (obviously I'm guessing) get a VP slot because he would stand too great a chance of overshadowing his running mate.

That didn't stop Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.

What makes this discussion interesting is that the next VP will -- presumably -- inherit the vastly expanded powers and importance of the vice-presidency as they have developed under Cheney.

[dalej42]

Lieberman balanced Gore's... um...

Lieberman was supposed to balance the Lewinski and questionable fundraising factor for Al Gore. Lieberman was the one with strong morals who condemned Clinton on the Senate floor.

Didn't work. Probably the worse recent VP choice for the Dems. If Gore had picked Bob Grahama of Florida, the rest would be history. But, that's another debate...

[jayjay]

That didn't stop Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.

What makes this discussion interesting is that the next VP will -- presumably -- inherit the vastly expanded powers and importance of the vice-presidency as they have developed under Cheney.

I hope not. That genie needs to be stuffed back into the bottle headfirst and the stopper sealed with wax, wire, molten lead and priests' blood.

[mswas]

That didn't stop Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.

What makes this discussion interesting is that the next VP will -- presumably -- inherit the vastly expanded powers and importance of the vice-presidency as they have developed under Cheney.

I think the Presidential candidates will be thinking long and hard about not making people think they have a Cardinal Richelieu Cheney in the VP seat. They'll want someone who can bring interest but doesn't seem like a puppetmaster behind the throne.

[Key Lime Guy]

I believe Obama would choose somebody really off the chart - Chuck Hegel?

[mswas]

I believe Obama would choose somebody really off the chart - Chuck Hegel?

Mike Gravel ;)

[jsgoddess]

What if Hillary gets the Dem nom and the Pub picks Bloomberg as a running mate?

[DSeid]

Of the top contenders none are so weak that even a strong VP would be seen as a puppetmaster ... well, I'll exclude Huckabee and Edwards from that list.

[mswas]

What if Hillary gets the Dem nom and the Pub picks Bloomberg as a running mate?

What if Hillary gets the nom and SHE picks Bloom as Running Mate. Bloomberg is a Democrat essentially. He only took the Republican slot because it was available.

[It's Not Rocket Surgery!]

Does anyone see Ted Strickland as a possible Dem running mate, especially for Hillary?

[DSeid]

Well if she really really wants to lose the South. Two from New York and one a New York Jew? Golly.

(Bloomberg, not Strickland) :)

[jsgoddess]

Does anyone see Ted Strickland as a possible Dem running mate, especially for Hillary?

It's funny about Strickland. It seemed that it was all-Taft all-the-time around here while he was in office. There was always something to go all eyerolly over. But Strickland hasn't made much impact. My husband follows politics and he couldn't remember last night who the Ohio gov was. It finally came to him, but there was a definite lag.

Anyway, I don't think Strickland would have much impact on the race either way.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Obama should offer it to Edwards to get Edwards out of the race.

HRC should offer it to Edwards for a promise from Edwards to stay in the race as long as possible.

Edwards is siphoning votes from Obama far more than HRC. Without Edwards on the ballot I bet Obama would have taken New Hampshire.

Additionally Edwards would be a suitable VP for either one.

[jayjay]

I've heard Rendell's name mentioned, too, but only if Hillary gets the nom. Ed's very friendly with the Clintons and he's only got two years left on his term. That pops Catherine Baker Knoll into the governor's chair here and sets her on her way to face Ricky Santorum in 2010.

[Marley23]

What if Hillary gets the Dem nom and the Pub picks Bloomberg as a running mate?
She still wins New York in a walk.

[DMark]

The old joke is that by picking Cheney, it made Bush assassination-proof.

My guess is that the candidates already have their short lists, so the best bet would be to see which Senators, Governors or other politicians have been strong supporters over the past few months or so.

I don't claim to know every politician in every state, but if you can find one that is:
A: Very popular in their home state.
B: From a state or region that might not be a strong-hold for the candidate.
C: Has been an open supporter from early on.
D: Appeals to a different audience than the candidate (different gender/race/age group)
E: Has been around long enough to have been vetted by the press and opposing party to ensure no major skeletons in the closet.

Well, that would be the ideal VP.

Still, I can see Obama just maybe consider it - he is young enough that even if he is VP for 8 years, he would be primed and in the position to be the next President.
He will no longer be a fresh face in the crowd in 8 years, so a VP position would be his best chance to almost be ensured the slot as the next candidate.

[Marley23]

Still, I can see Obama just maybe consider it - he is young enough that even if he is VP for 8 years, he would be primed and in the position to be the next President.
He will no longer be a fresh face in the crowd in 8 years, so a VP position would be his best chance to almost be ensured the slot as the next candidate.
I see your logic, but being a fresh face is arguably his strongest point. The VP spot isn't a stepping stone to the Presidency, and in eight years he'd also have to defend somebody else's record and voice some support for moves he didn't agree with.

[Billdo]

What if Hillary gets the Dem nom and the Pub picks Bloomberg as a running mate?

I'm pretty sure that no Republican would pick Bloomberg, who is really a converted Democrat and recently gave up his Republican party membership. Although he would probably appeal to the fiscal wing of the party, he'd be a big turn-off to the larger (voters-wise) social conservative wing.

Clinton can't pick Bloomberg. Under the Constitution, the President and VP cannot be from the same state. Bush and Cheney got around this by Cheney's quickie move from Texas to Wyoming, but neither the sitting New York Senator nor the sitting New York City Mayor would really be able to move the way a corporate executive like Cheney could.

Obama/Bloomberg would be really interesting, but I'm pretty sure it won't happen because he'll need someone with international relations experience to balance his ticket. Beyond hopping his private jet to Bermuda every weekend, Bloomberg really doesn't have any. This is disappointing, because I think Bloomberg would be a great candidate.

If it is Obama, I'm betting his running mate will be Richardson, if Richardson doesn't run for Senate (which he has until Feb. 12 to do). Actually, he'd be a pretty good choice for Clinton, too. I think that after the Feb. 5 primaries, he'll be in a very interesting horse-trading position.

I doubt that Obama would want to be VP under Clinton, because another four or eight years in the Senate will give him much more exposure. On the other hand, as VP, you don't have a voting record to use against you. Nixon got the top seat after serving as a relatively junior VP to Eisenhower's, so it work for Obama. I'm not sure that Clinton would want to choose him, particularly if she'll be going against someone with a lot of foreign policy experience like McCain. This would play out even more strongly if Obama were considering Clinton for the VP slot.

Edwards wouldn't be a particularly good addition to either an Obama or a Clinton ticket as he doesn't add much and doesn't really have a committed constituency.

Absent Richardson, either of them could pick an elder statesman, perhaps someone like Bill Bradley or George Mitchell.

Across the aisle, it's a toss-up. Of the candidates, Guiliani just isn't the type, even if anyone would take the risk of nominating him. Romney would probably be a good choice, but I can't see any of the others nominating him. Huckabee might be chosen balance out any of the rest of them. McCain would probably give up his Senate seat for the job, and I could see the others perhaps selecting him if the race doesn't get too ugly. Forget Freddy 'Snoozer' Thompson.

Off that list, I could perhaps see a pro-war candidate like McCain selecting Condi Rice, particularly as a counterweight to an Obama candidacy. It's a high risk strategy, but it could work (but proabably wouldn't).

[jsgoddess]

Is there any chance at all that Al Gore would be someone's running mate?

I'd love to see an Obama/Gore ticket, but I figure it would be so unlikely that I'll get laughed out of the room.

[jayjay]

Is there any chance at all that Al Gore would be someone's running mate?

I'd love to see an Obama/Gore ticket, but I figure it would be so unlikely that I'll get laughed out of the room.

That's not going to happen. Gore would have been the shoo-in candidate if he'd actually wanted to run for president this year, but he didn't. There are still grassroots Draft Gore organizations, and he's shown no real interest whatsoever in taking the nom. He has a new career and a new vocation educating and advocating to mitigate climate change. He's not going to go for 8 more years of second banana. Besides, as much as I admire Gore, another 8 years of Clinton/Gore (albeit with a different Clinton) would be kind of grotesque.

[Marley23]

Nixon got the top seat after serving as a relatively junior VP to Eisenhower's, so it work for Obama.
Nixon last the election after his second VP term ended, and became President eight years later. I'm not sure Obama wants to go that route. ;)

[jayjay]

Nixon last the election after his second VP term ended, and became President eight years later. I'm not sure Obama wants to go that route. ;)

Yeah. But it was NIXON! Against KENNEDY!

Obama, on the other hand, IS Kennedy, for the purposes of this comparison...

[John Mace]

Bildo: Nice analysis. But why do you think McCain would want to be VP? At his age, it can't be a stepping stone to the presidency, and he's probably more effective in the Senate where he has a lot of seniority. VP is a thankless job, unless you get to run for prez.

And Obama or Clinton might want to try and run again in '12 (jeez, are we getting to the double digits in the 21st century that quickly!!), so I can see them not taking the VP slot even if offered.

I was thinking McCain/Rice quite awhile ago, but I'm getting a sense that she really wants to get out of Washington.

[DSeid]

The VP spot isn't a stepping stone to the Presidency, and in eight years he'd also have to defend somebody else's record and voice some support for moves he didn't agree with.The VP is a stepping stone to the nomination at least. An incumbant VP should have no problem being his or her party's nominee if desired. That's the main reason to take the gig.

Alternatively, being a Senator for eight years is more of your own record to defend (HRC has tried hard to not create much of a paper trail and Obama hasn't had a chance to create one.) It is a tougher shot.

HRC would do it if she warn't so old, just for that reason.

[jsgoddess]

That's not going to happen. Gore would have been the shoo-in candidate if he'd actually wanted to run for president this year, but he didn't. There are still grassroots Draft Gore organizations, and he's shown no real interest whatsoever in taking the nom. He has a new career and a new vocation educating and advocating to mitigate climate change. He's not going to go for 8 more years of second banana. Besides, as much as I admire Gore, another 8 years of Clinton/Gore (albeit with a different Clinton) would be kind of grotesque.

Not wanting to run for president again doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't be willing to be VP again.

I know it's not likely, though.

[jsgoddess]

I'm pretty sure that no Republican would pick Bloomberg, who is really a converted Democrat and recently gave up his Republican party membership. Although he would probably appeal to the fiscal wing of the party, he'd be a big turn-off to the larger (voters-wise) social conservative wing.

I knew he was a converted Democrat and I knew there was noise about a third-party run, but I didn't know he had officially de-Pubbed himself.

I was thinking that someone who was solidly socially conservative could use the moderation of Bloomberg, plus the appeal to the fiscal conservatives.

I know that Sam Nunn was also talking third party, but I haven't read up to understand what his deal is. I know there were a lot of Pubs who respected Nunn. Would anyone have a chance of luring him in as a VP for either party?

[Icarus]

I wouldn't be too suprised to see George Allen from Virginia brought back into the mix as a VP for the Republicans. Before the 'macaca' incident he was a possible anointed front runner this time around. If McCain takes the nomination, then Allen offers geographic balance, and plays well to the Christian Right factions (where McCain is weak). Then, Allen is lined up for running for the oval office in the future.

Regarding Allen's crash-and-burn, the time he has spent out of the media spotlight will wash him clean.

As for the Democrats, I give Richardson a lock on the VP spot. If, however, Richardson is not chosen, I really don't see one of the other known candidates being selected. I would put money on it being a current or former Governor.

[BrainGlutton]

I was thinking McCain/Rice quite awhile ago, but I'm getting a sense that she really wants to get out of Washington.

In any case, I can't see the Pubs putting a lesbian on the ballot.

[John Mace]

I wouldn't be too suprised to see George Allen from Virginia brought back into the mix as a VP for the Republicans. Before the 'macaca' incident he was a possible anointed front runner this time around. If McCain takes the nomination, then Allen offers geographic balance, and plays well to the Christian Right factions (where McCain is weak). Then, Allen is lined up for running for the oval office in the future.

Regarding Allen's crash-and-burn, the time he has spent out of the media spotlight will wash him clean.
Oh, I doubt that. Once a macaca, always a macaca. He's not going to be on anyone's short list.

As for the Democrats, I give Richardson a lock on the VP spot. If, however, Richardson is not chosen, I really don't see one of the other known candidates being selected. I would put money on it being a current or former Governor.
I agree about the governor part. But maybe Richardson would make a better SecState than VP.

[mswas]

John Mace I think Condi is in a hurry to start her CFR retirement with her $ 50k speaking engagements.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Personally, I wouldn't mind a Clinton/Clinton ticket... ;)

[hajario]

The VP is a stepping stone to the nomination at least. An incumbant VP should have no problem being his or her party's nominee if desired. That's the main reason to take the gig.

The last sitting VP to win the Presidency was George HW Bush. The one before him was Martin Van Buren.

[alphaboi867]

Personally, I wouldn't mind a Clinton/Clinton ticket... ;)

Chelesea's too young and Bill's ineligable.

[jayjay]

Chelesea's too young and Bill's ineligable.

Hey, Roger's available! Or, as I've suggested before, George. He'd need to change the group name, though, and Congress Funkadelic isn't very euphonious...

[Icarus]

Oh, I doubt that. Once a macaca, always a macaca. He's not going to be on anyone's short list.

"The past is the past." "Let's just move on." The Republicans are master of this.


I agree about the governor part. But maybe Richardson would make a better SecState than VP.

Why not both? I'm sure it would never happen, but I wonder........

[atomicbadgerrace]

Chelesea's too young and Bill's ineligable.

Is he? Ah well. I thought he was just prevented from being elected into the presidency again. Shows what I know.

[jayjay]

Is he? Ah well. I thought he was just prevented from being elected into the presidency again. Shows what I know.

The vice-president has to meet the same requirements that the president does, one of which is being eligible for election to the presidency.

[Saint Cad]

I predicted 6 months ago the Romney would beat Edwards in November, so sticking to that:

If Edwards were to pick Obama, then Obama would be a fool for not taking it. He would be the highest black official ever and is a heartbeat for the Presidency. It would gain him the experience he needs to be considered a leading candidate in 2016. However, I don't think he will offer it to fellow senator Obama. Richardson is a good choice but it's 50/50 as to if he'd rather be a guarantied Senator or potential Vice-President. I'm leaning towards Senator. My prediction is Governor Ted Strickland (D-Ohio). He has a good reputation for education and economy reform and is as moderate as anyone could be on abortion. The fact that he is extremely popular in a swing-state doesn't hurt.

If Romney listens to the RNC, he's going to feel that he need the support of the religious right to take the Southern state. Governor Huckabee has also shown a following outside of the South by picking up Iowa and 11% of NH (McCain and Romney strongholds). Assuming a decent showing in Michigan, we will have Romney/Huckabee defeating Edwards/Strickland

[Billdo]

Bildo: Nice analysis. But why do you think McCain would want to be VP? At his age, it can't be a stepping stone to the presidency, and he's probably more effective in the Senate where he has a lot of seniority. VP is a thankless job, unless you get to run for prez.

And Obama or Clinton might want to try and run again in '12 (jeez, are we getting to the double digits in the 21st century that quickly!!), so I can see them not taking the VP slot even if offered.

I was thinking McCain/Rice quite awhile ago, but I'm getting a sense that she really wants to get out of Washington.

I think that McCain would want to run for the Vice Presidency for a few reasons. First, if he wins, it's a promotion, a cushy job, and an impressive way to round out a distinguished career, even if it isn't a stepping stone to being elected president (though he would be one heartbeat away, as the cliche goes). Second, if he loses he'll just remain in his Senate seat, with some additional recognition and reputation (assuming he doesn't piss it away like Lieberman). Third, if he stays in the Senate and the Republicans win the Presidency, it remains unlikely that they will gain control of the Senate given the way the seats up for election are breaking by party and security of seats (see this analysis (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senate_races.html)), so he will be a senior Senator but likely in the minority party.

I think the VP slot would be great for Obama. He'll be in the spotlight and not have to make votes that can be used against him, and running as a first term Senator as the second to a more senior Senator and former First Lady is no disgrace. At age 46, he'd be well positioned to make a presidential run up to 24 years from now (6 election cycles) assuming he remains healthy and politically involved, so a "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" scenario shouldn't be frightening to him if the electoral sands shift in the medium term. And, besides, there's that one heartbeat thing.

Clinton running as Obama's VP nominee, on the other hand, would be a bit more awkward. I can't see her playing second fiddle to him, particularly if she loses in a hard-fought primary campaign. I think he'd want someone with more foreign policy background to fight the "inexperience" claim. At 60, she'd pretty much be limited to running in '08 or '12 (perhaps '16, though she'd be older than McCain is now), and a VP slot would prevent her from an '08 run (though an Obama victory without her on the ticket would pretty much prevent her in '08 as well, unless he screws up big time). It's still possible, though.

Even if Rice wants to get out of Washington, I can't imagine she'd give up the chance to run for VP. Even if she loses, those $50k speaking engagements turn into $100k gigs.

[Bryan Ekers]

I see your logic, but being a fresh face is arguably his strongest point. The VP spot isn't a stepping stone to the Presidency, and in eight years he'd also have to defend somebody else's record and voice some support for moves he didn't agree with.
It's not automatically a stepping-stone, but it does let him stay in the public eye, and spares him from having to rack up votes on various issues in the Senate (except, I guess, the occasional tie-breaker) which is used as ammunition against, well, everyone in the Senate, I guess.

Anyway, since Truman (when it became fairly obvious that the office of Veep should to be taken more seriously than it had been), about half the Veeps have either run for the big office or made serious bids for their party's nomination, so it's by no means a dead-end. Obama would get to keep making speeches without being burdened by any major responsibilities and if the post was offered, I think he'd be a fool not to consider it. Being the first black vice-president has got to make a satisfying legacy, if he never gets the main gig.

[foolsguinea]

I was thinking McCain/Rice quite awhile ago, but I'm getting a sense that she really wants to get out of Washington.Hm. Well, her husband's moving back to Texas, right?

I don't know what to add to this; I'd rather see candidates run with a cabinet slate rather than a bucket of warm spit VP candidate. If there were a promise to let Edwards or Hillary be Health-Care Czar, that would mean more to me.

[foolsguinea]

Personally, I wouldn't mind a Clinton/Clinton ticket... ;)Bubba can't run for VP, it's in the Constitution. Not only is he her husband from the same state--they both live in NY--but he's a former Prez & term-limited.

Therefore, I assume you mean George Clinton, which I support, but I doubt he will leave his duties in the Parliament* for the VP job.The last sitting VP to win the Presidency was George HW Bush. The one before him was Martin Van Buren.Yeah, Presidents tend to go eight years & it's hard to get the populace to sign on to four more of the same party.

*Funkadelic

[Little Nemo]

On the Democratic side, Obama and Clinton have probably gotten too big to be a VP candidate. They'd overshadow the front runner, even if it was the other. Edwards won't take it because a second VP run would be a dead end to his career.

Richardson is a strong contender; he's running a respectable campaign, he's Hispanic and a westerner so he's got good balance for most of the candidates. He probably wouldn't get chosen by Obama though - a Black/Hispanic ticket would trigger too much anxiety.

Biden's a possibility. He brings "experience" to the ticket, especially on foreign policy. But they might want to save him for Secretary of State.

Wesley Clark's another contender. Ironically he's supported Clinton but he'd be a better VP match for Obama much like Richardson's supported Obama but would be a better match with Clinton.

On the Republican side, I'd have said Huckabee was angling for a VP job earlier in the campaign. He'd shore up conservative credentials for a candidate that might seem to have shaky support from that base. But in the last few weeks, he's become convinced he can get the nomination himself and he's burned some bridges. So if he falls back down (and I think he will) the eventual nominee might look elsewhere for a conservative running mate now.

I don't think any of the main Republican candidates will go for VP. Romney would see it as a failure after being front runner, Guiliani has too much ego to be VP, and McCain is too old to wait eight years. The one exception might be Thompson; his campaign stalled so quickly he may have realized he's not ready for the lead role yet and accept a VP run to bolster his resume.

Nobody's going to pick Rice. It's basically saying "Four More Years of Bush's Foreign Policy" - not a winning strategy. Allen's another non-starter; his public image now is "racist throwback".

I once put forth Alan Keyes as a long shot possibility. The conservatives would love him. And assuming Obama doesn't win the nomination, Keyes would be a major threat to the Democratic hold on black voters. They might not vote for him but they might decide not to vote against him. And if the Republicans can drive down the Black vote, they have a much stronger shot at winning the election.

Other candidates like Kucinich, Paul, Tancredo, Gravel, Hunter, and Dodd aren't going to be considered. They didn't do well enough to bring any major support to the ticket and all of them have got some negatives.

[jayjay]

Richardson is a strong contender; he's running a respectable campaign, he's Hispanic and a westerner so he's got good balance for most of the candidates. He probably wouldn't get chosen by Obama though - a Black/Hispanic ticket would trigger too much anxiety.

I think I've already mentioned (though I've been posting the same thing on DailyKos, so I don't remember if I mentioned it here) that I really hope that Richardson decides to run for Domenici's open Senate seat in New Mexico. He's practically a shoo-in and he's probably the best chance to block Rep. Heather Wilson from slithering in her mentor's footsteps.

edit: Never mind...forgot about Udall.

[Billdo]

This just in: Richardson to End Presidential Bid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_el_pr/richardson).

He's been in the race long enough to get his name out there, but dropped out early enough not to piss anyone off. I think he's got the choice before him to run for Senate, where he'll have really strong shot at winning the open NM seat, or sitting tight and being in a leading position to get the VP slot on the Democratic ticket.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's calling Clinton and Obama and asking their "advice" on whether he should run for the Senate.

[mswas]

This just in: Richardson to End Presidential Bid (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_el_pr/richardson).

He's been in the race long enough to get his name out there, but dropped out early enough not to piss anyone off. I think he's got the choice before him to run for Senate, where he'll have really strong shot at winning the open NM seat, or sitting tight and being in a leading position to get the VP slot on the Democratic ticket.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's calling Clinton and Obama and asking their "advice" on whether he should run for the Senate.

Yup. My Father who is a Republican in NM and works up in Santa Fe thinks that he's got that Senate seat if he wants it. He'd probably be smart to take it, increase the Democratic seats in the Senate and he can work alongside Jeff Binghaman.

[jsgoddess]

It's funny that people squeak about experience and then a candidate like Richardson doesn't get any traction.

[Billdo]

edit: Never mind...forgot about Udall.If Richardson wants the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat, it's his. Tom Udall will just go back and run for the House seat he'd vacate to run for the Senate. I don't think Udall would be too upset, even, because it would a tough fight for him to fill Domenici's shoes.

[mswas]

It's funny that people squeak about experience and then a candidate like Richardson doesn't get any traction.

That's because he's a terrible public speaker and is unable to suavely hide his own naked ambition. I was all about Richardson a while back, but he just doesn't have what it takes to be President. Experience is important, but so is force of personality. Remember, the ability to get voters to vote for you is the same ability that gets people to do what you want them to when you are actually filling the office.

[kaylasdad99]

The vice-president has to meet the same requirements that the president does, one of which is being eligible for election to the presidency.
Eligible to serve as president, I think. Thus, if Bush was to come across a pretzel that even the Secret Service couldn't save him from, and Cheney got ergotism (because it was a rye flour pretzel), Cheney could successfully elevate Bill to the vice-presidency.

Admittedly, a bizarre sequence, but not constitutionally prohibited.

[DoctorJ]

It's funny that people squeak about experience and then a candidate like Richardson doesn't get any traction.
We went with experience in 2000 and 2004, and, well, you know the rest. I'm just about convinced that the last thing we want in a nominee is an overabundance of experience--it's just ammo.

I think Obama has to pick a white Southern male, and his choices there are Edwards and Mark Warner. I haven't believed up until now that Edwards would take it, but I'm starting to think he might (from Obama, anyway).

Richardson is perfect for Hillary, though she might go for a cipher like Bayh, Vilsack, or Biden.

I have no idea who will get on the sinking GOP ship. Their best bet might be to get a young up-and-comer on the ticket to get his name out there for 2012 or for a tough Senate race in 2010.

[Little Nemo]

Eligible to serve as president, I think. Thus, if Bush was to come across a pretzel that even the Secret Service couldn't save him from, and Cheney got ergotism (because it was a rye flour pretzel), Cheney could successfully elevate Bill to the vice-presidency.

Admittedly, a bizarre sequence, but not constitutionally prohibited.This issue has been discussed before and most people (including myself) would disagree with your intepretation.

[jayjay]

Hm. Well, her husband's moving back to Texas, right?

Paraguay. No extradition.

[foolsguinea]

Paraguay. No extradition.Heh. If we're back to a 1950's-60's style CIA, it won't matter. We'll take him out covertly & drop him in front of the International Criminal Court immediately after joining.

I do wonder where John Yoo will go to ground if a Dem is elected.

[Free Range Otter]

On the Democratic side, Obama and Clinton have probably gotten too big to be a VP candidate. They'd overshadow the front runner, even if it was the other. Edwards won't take it because a second VP run would be a dead end to his career.

Richardson is a strong contender; he's running a respectable campaign, he's Hispanic and a westerner so he's got good balance for most of the candidates. He probably wouldn't get chosen by Obama though - a Black/Hispanic ticket would trigger too much anxiety.

Biden's a possibility. He brings "experience" to the ticket, especially on foreign policy. But they might want to save him for Secretary of State.

Wesley Clark's another contender. Ironically he's supported Clinton but he'd be a better VP match for Obama much like Richardson's supported Obama but would be a better match with Clinton.

On the Republican side, I'd have said Huckabee was angling for a VP job earlier in the campaign. He'd shore up conservative credentials for a candidate that might seem to have shaky support from that base. But in the last few weeks, he's become convinced he can get the nomination himself and he's burned some bridges. So if he falls back down (and I think he will) the eventual nominee might look elsewhere for a conservative running mate now.

I don't think any of the main Republican candidates will go for VP. Romney would see it as a failure after being front runner, Guiliani has too much ego to be VP, and McCain is too old to wait eight years. The one exception might be Thompson; his campaign stalled so quickly he may have realized he's not ready for the lead role yet and accept a VP run to bolster his resume.

Nobody's going to pick Rice. It's basically saying "Four More Years of Bush's Foreign Policy" - not a winning strategy. Allen's another non-starter; his public image now is "racist throwback".

I once put forth Alan Keyes as a long shot possibility. The conservatives would love him. And assuming Obama doesn't win the nomination, Keyes would be a major threat to the Democratic hold on black voters. They might not vote for him but they might decide not to vote against him. And if the Republicans can drive down the Black vote, they have a much stronger shot at winning the election.

Other candidates like Kucinich, Paul, Tancredo, Gravel, Hunter, and Dodd aren't going to be considered. They didn't do well enough to bring any major support to the ticket and all of them have got some negatives.

This is very close to what I was going to post. Your analysis of Huckabee is interesting, although the reason I would argue he would not get the VP spot is because he is such a lightweight on foreign policy experience, and with the current Republican field (except for McCain) I think they need someone with more experience. That and the fact that when he is not talking about Jesus or abortion, to many Republicans he is really not that conservative.

I don't believe Obama, Edwards, or Clinton would be the VP because none of them really match up well with each other. Someone earlier mentioned Edwards/Obama - I think that's the worst match between the three of them. Two candidates, one only four years removed from the state legislature, and one who is running for his party's nomination (and losing) after already failing in the same endeavor four years ago. I know Edwards has his supporters here, but I think he's a has-been - he couldn't connect to voters four years ago, and he's not connecting now. The two of them together, with little experience between them and especially little foreign experience, would add up to one disaster of a presidential/VP team.

Of all of the Democrats, I think Richardson would make the best VP by far - experienced, would help to bring in Hispanic voters and focus on immigration issues, and has a great foreign policy resume to boot. Yes, we all know he has some skeletons in his closet, but so does everyone else.

For the Republicans, I really don't know who the best candidate. Marley23 mentioned how important it is that the VP balance the presidential candidate, and I agree with that completely. The problem is that the Republicans running for Pres right now are so different, and none of them are particularly strong candidates within the Republican party. Haley Barbour, maybe? Does he have any foreign policy experience? I honestly don't know who in the Republican party would really step up to this.

[Little Nemo]

Foreign policy hasn't been a big issue among the Republicans. They're all running on a variation of "Shoot everyone who's a Mexican or a Muslim and ignore everyone else." An informed and nuanced foreign policy platform would probably hurt a candidate with their base.

[BobLibDem]

Bubba can't run for VP, it's in the Constitution. Not only is he her husband from the same state--they both live in NY--but he's a former Prez & term-limited.

Nitpick: From the 12 Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

You could have two New Yorkers run, but one of them wouldn't be eligible to receive New York's electoral votes. The other states would be free to cast their electoral votes for president and vice president for two New Yorkers.

It always bugs me when people say that two from the same state can't run together. Yes they can, but the electors of their state only cannot vote for them both.

Regarding veeps:
Richardson in a walk. Or maybe Webb.

If McCain wins, Liebermann.
Otherwise, I have no idea.

[Free Range Otter]

Foreign policy hasn't been a big issue among the Republicans. They're all running on a variation of "Shoot everyone who's a Mexican or a Muslim and ignore everyone else." An informed and nuanced foreign policy platform would probably hurt a candidate with their base.

I think the current Republican candidates are short on foreign policy (as are the Dems), but to say they are running on a variation of "shoot everyone who's a Mexican or a Muslim" is incorrect. There may be some Republicans who feel that way, but the guy who just won New Hampshire two days ago, and who is undoubtedly one of the Republican frontrunners (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html) (and polling well nationally against both Obama and Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html)), advocated a path for legalization and eventual citizenship for Mexican illegal immigrants living in the U.S. And to say that the Republican base would prefer a candidate who is uninformed about foreign policy seems a bit silly.

[Happy Lendervedder]

I think Obama has to pick a white Southern male, and his choices there are Edwards and Mark Warner. I haven't believed up until now that Edwards would take it, but I'm starting to think he might (from Obama, anyway).


I think you're partially right. But both Obama and Hillary would benefit from picking a white southern male-- and let me add governor or businessman to the requirement as well; someone who has actually had experience preparing a budget.

There is no way in hell a short-time senator will pick another short-time senator as a running mate. Other posters have said this, but no one seems to understand what campaign suicide this would be. Senators have a hard enough time getting elected to the presidency (waffling on issues & bills is part of the job), but add national inexpererience into the mix, the Pubs would have a field day in the general.

Here is my prediction of the next Dem veep candidate: Phil Bredesen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bredesen). He's white, male, southern (with east coast roots), he was mayor of Nashville, he started a successful healthcare company and sold it for millions, he's a relatively popular governor of Tennesee (won relection '06 by 18 percentage points), he's not a filthy stinkin' lawyer, and he's a moderate.


Obama/Bredesen '08!


ETA: Why I don't think Richardson will be the veep nom (and I could be wrong on this, because the man has a killer resume, and I think would be a great pick): he's too brown. We've moved closer to having someone besides a white man in the Oval Office than we ever have in our 232-year history. I think even if the ticket has a woman or a black man on top of it, it needs to be balanced with a WASP-y kind of fellow.

[DSeid]

Interesting choice Happy but dang he looks too much like Carter! :)

I don't think Richardson's Hispanic roots would lose Obama any more than Obama's skin color already does ... those uncomfortable with one are likely just as same uncomfortable with the other. As Free Range Otter says, he would help not only with his foreign policy chops and energy knowledge but also energize a Hispanic turn-out that does consider comprehensive immigration reform to be a top issue and that might otherwise not be thrilled with Obama's racial identification. That's especially important in some key swing states.

[Little Nemo]

I think the current Republican candidates are short on foreign policy (as are the Dems), but to say they are running on a variation of "shoot everyone who's a Mexican or a Muslim" is incorrect. There may be some Republicans who feel that way, but the guy who just won New Hampshire two days ago, and who is undoubtedly one of the Republican frontrunners (and polling well nationally against both Obama and Clinton), advocated a path for legalization and eventual citizenship for Mexican illegal immigrants living in the U.S. And to say that the Republican base would prefer a candidate who is uninformed about foreign policy seems a bit silly.I agree that McCain actually has a rational policy on immigration that does not resemble "shoot all Mexicans". And, just like I wrote, it's hurting him with the conservative base. McCain's support among conservatives comes despite his foreign policy not because of it. The same is true for Guiliani's pro-choice and gay rights policies or Paul's Iraq policy. But these policies are unpopular among the base and so you're not going to see any other candidates looking to adopt them.

So my response was a little hyperbolic but mainly true. The Republican candidates have mainly been putting out foreign policy positions that emphasize "getting tough" and "there's a simple solution to this problem" and "we need to be strong". The candidates that have varied from these slogans have lost support because of it. The base doesn't want a complex foreign policy.

[Elendil's Heir]

I'll just address the Democratic side of the equation.

I'd never heard of Bredesen before, but having read his Wiki page, I agree he'd be a real VP prospect for either Hillary or Barack.

The next President will want to make it clear that his or her VP is not in the Cheney mold, but since Mondale most VPs have had increased access to the President and, to varying degrees, a greater role in their respective administrations than had previously been the case. It just makes good sense for people to know that there's someone ready to take office if tragedy strikes the White House.

I highly doubt Hillary would ever accept the VP spot from Barack... but no one thought LBJ would, either, JFK, including JFK and Bobby (and LBJ's ego was even bigger than Hillary's, and his resentment of JFK as a whippersnapper was even stronger). Who knows what she'd decide until the offer is extended? Anything could happen. Frankly, I doubt Obama would offer it in the first place, given her high negatives and the many other qualified prospective running mates out there (male and female).

I'll put in a plug, as Saint Cad and others have, for my governor, Ted Strickland. A very popular moderate Dem and former minister (Methodist, I think), fiscally conservative, in the Dem mainstream on all issues. Got his budget passed nearly unanimously by a GOP-dominated General Assembly last year, which is unprecedented in recent Ohio history. I won't say Ohio is indispensable for a Clinton or Obama win, but it'd sure be nice. Bill Clinton took the state by pluralities in both 1992 and 1996; Dubya carried it relatively narrowly in both 2000 and 2004 (had either Gore or Kerry carried the state, they'd have won the White House). The Dems nearly swept all statewide elected offices in 2006, and it's definitely winnable this year.

I like former Va. governor Mark Warner a lot, but I think he'd probably rather run for the Senate, which he'd be more certain of winning.

Sam Nunn makes Al Gore actually look exciting and dynamic, plus he's been out of the public eye for a long time. Can't see either Clinton or Obama picking him. If either goes for a Southerner - which I think would be wise - then Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia would be appealing, although he, too, is just in his first Senate term. (I agree with those who think that Macaca Man is toast on the GOP side).

I've always liked Dianne Feinstein, senator from California, but Cali is almost certainly in the bag for the Dem nominee, so she wouldn't add much to the ticket. Hillary almost surely wouldn't pick her anyway, as an all-female ticket would be waaaaaay too chancey.

Hillary might pick Tom Vilsack, former gov of Iowa, briefly a presidential candidate himself and a strong supporter of hers (and a graduate of my high school - woo hoo!). Barack might find either of two female governors good for the ticket - Kathy Sibelius of Kansas or Janet Napolitano of Arizona. Both have excellent reps, and are very popular in their states. Sibelius also has Ohio roots (her dad was governor for a term in the mid-'70s), and Napolitano just might bring Arizona into the Dem column (although probably not if McCain is the GOP nominee). Then again, Obama might decide that a black man at the top of the ticket requires a more boring white guy as Veep.

My two cents' worth.

[Elendil's Heir]

Forgot to add:

I just can't see Edwards agreeing to run as someone else's VP after doing so in 2004, and Kerry's endorsement of Obama speaks volumes about how he sees Edwards now.

Richardson just doesn't thrill me, and the voters of Iowa and NH, having seen him up close and personal, seem to have already given him the thumbs-down. Maybe better for SecState in a Dem administration, or running for the Senate seat that practically seems his for the asking in NM.

Fun to speculate, though!

[Free Range Otter]

I agree that McCain actually has a rational policy on immigration that does not resemble "shoot all Mexicans". And, just like I wrote, it's hurting him with the conservative base. McCain's support among conservatives comes despite his foreign policy not because of it. The same is true for Guiliani's pro-choice and gay rights policies or Paul's Iraq policy. But these policies are unpopular among the base and so you're not going to see any other candidates looking to adopt them.

So my response was a little hyperbolic but mainly true. The Republican candidates have mainly been putting out foreign policy positions that emphasize "getting tough" and "there's a simple solution to this problem" and "we need to be strong". The candidates that have varied from these slogans have lost support because of it. The base doesn't want a complex foreign policy.

Little Nemo, that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying that. I wonder, though, if the base you speak of is growing or shrinking? I can't imagine we would have so many moderate Republicans running - and doing ok at it (although who knows how Rudy's Florida strategy will play out) - if the religious base were still in full control of the party? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

[tds1273]

Hey, Roger's available! Or, as I've suggested before, George. He'd need to change the group name, though, and Congress Funkadelic isn't very euphonious...

"They still call it the White House, but that's only a temporary condition. Can you dig it C.C.?" /GCatPFAS


Richardson and Edwards would be absolutely perfect picks as Secretary of State and Attorney General, respectively, for any candidate; they were made for these roles. Though I could see Obama as an AG himself.

As far as VPs go, I don't know a lot of the other politicians that have been mentioned here so I can't add more than what has already been said better and prior to this post, but I still have a feeling Gore is going to jump in at the last minute and take Obama as his running mate. Could there in anyway be a stronger ticket than that? I think it would only be a one term run for Gore, and with four years of executive experience Obama would run away with the nomination in 2012.

Other predictions:
Obama- Edwards, Clark, or Schweitzer(only know him from TCR, but I like this)
Clinton- Clark or Obama
Edwards- Obama

McCain- Hagel or Lieberman(Yikes, never thought of this, but could easily see it. Damn you BobLibDem this is what political nightmares are made of.)
Huckabee- McCain
Romney- McCain(he will be sure to be on the ticket some how)
9iu11iani- An OBL look-a-like holding a knife to an adorable little girl's throat(you know, just so we "never forget")

[Saint Cad]

Someone earlier mentioned Edwards/Obama - I think that's the worst match between the three of them.

That was me, but what I was saying is that Obama would be a fool for not accepting the VP slot, HOWEVER there is no way Edwards would ever pick him for it so it's a moot point.

[BrainGlutton]

That was me, but what I was saying is that Obama would be a fool for not accepting the VP slot, HOWEVER there is no way Edwards would ever pick him for it so it's a moot point.

Why not? And who would Edwards pick?