None come readily to mind. I mean, obviously, it can’t be another woman…Bernie would be nice, but some actually consider Hillary as too “radical.” It strikes me a governor with military experience would be ideal, but…who?
Jesse Ventura.
Jim Webb? He’s a senator with military experience.
Nah. People who go gaga for military experience vote Republican anyway. I think that unless the primary gets uncivil, it’s O’Malley.
What I’d like to see would be Joe Biden come back. Perfectly qualified and no veep has ever loved swearing in new Senators like he does.
Elizabeth Warren. Or Tina Fey.
Or the exceptionally qualified and popular choice… William J. Blythe III.
Not bad. I had forgotten him…not a governor, but still has political experience. I was under the impression he was still considering running for the number one spot himself, though. He earned the purple heart, silver star and bronze star. His son served in the Middle East. He doesn’t seem to be a loud mouth.
I would love for her to pick Brian Schweitzer, former governor of Montana, but he’s probably too conservative for her.
Webb is the logical choice but I’d throw Sherrod Brown in the mix too. Senator from Ohio. There is no path to a GOP victory that does not include both Virginia and Ohio minimally. Castro will get a keynote speech and a high level position to set him up to potentially be a player in 8 years.
Interesting choice. And In his own way, he’s not that conservative. Consider his health-care stand for instance. But he may be a bit obscure on the political landscape. He is definitely agriculture knowledgable. But will that be that much of a help? Even though it is international agriculture?
I haven’t liked his stuff since he left the Stray Cats.
The low-EV mountains/plains West is not within Clinton’s reach and he can’t help her there. Appealing to the factors that appeal to voters in larger swing states would be better.
There’s Wesley Clark. Obvious military experience and he’s been politically connected with the Clintons.
His problem is that he’s 70. If Clinton’s age becomes a campaign issue, they’re not going to be looking for a running mate who’s older than her.
I don’t know. The primary may not get uncivil, but Baltimore definitely did, and he is so closely tied to Baltimore. Also, he is very East Coast and that may be a stumbling block for Hillary.
Plus Neil Kinnock can get some money writing his nomination acceptance speech.
The only point on which Schweitzer is more conservative than Clinton is guns. And even aside from demographic considerations, he’s an extremely skilled campaigner.
That’s all you got? That he failed to attribute the quote in a speech even though other times he did attribute Kinnock? If it didn’t hurt him in 2008 or 2012, why would it do so in 2016?
I was more thinking his pro-gun stance would soften Clinton’s more hardline stance, getting her more moderates that are “liberal but for guns”.
Although it would be nice if he brought along half a dozen plains states, that’s not really why I like him.
I agree that it would have to be a dude; can’t ask the voters for too much at a time.
Waaaaay too early to count these particular chickens, but what the hell:
Martin O’Malley - As noted above. Despite the recent unpleasantness in Baltimore, has a pretty good record to run on as mayor and as governor of Maryland. A good campaigner and a can-do technocrat: Martin O'Malley - Wikipedia
John Hickenlooper - Popular, effective mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado, a key swing state: John Hickenlooper - Wikipedia
Mark Warner - Former governor and current U.S. senator from Virginia. Centrist and smart. Made a killing in telecomm before entering politics: Mark Warner - Wikipedia
Tim Kaine - Same political resume as Warner’s. Was considered as a running mate by Obama in 2008; has only become more seasoned since then: Tim Kaine - Wikipedia
Sherrod Brown - U.S. senator from Ohio. Maybe too liberal to be on Hillary’s ticket, but he’s a good guy, a skilled campaigner, and is from, duh, Ohio. Remember Ohio? Every four years, you bet you do: Sherrod Brown - Wikipedia
You missed Joe Biden.
As VP for the past 8 years, obviously beats out anybody else on the experience item. And he’s managed to do so without making any serious enemies. His reputation for speaking out of turn is useful – he can say things as trial balloons – if there’s bad response, just backtrack; if there’s good response, say he was speaking for the Administration. And as a long-time Senator, he is better poised to work with Congress than most of those suggested.
And keeping the current VP will please the Obama voters, and keep them voting. (Those who would be turned off because they hate Obama already would be voting GOP.)
Also, there would be a lot of pressure inside the Democratic Party to support Biden.
Pretty much everybody mentioned is a potential Democratic Presidential candidate post-Hillary; they would rather keep Biden than have one of their rivals become the VP and thus leading for the nomination next time.
Also, keeping Biden means:
- no big distraction for Hillary – she can concentrate on the campaign.
- no serious fights at the Democratic Convention – it all goes smoothly.
- no upset Democrats who were supporting losing VP candidates.
There are lots of reasons a Clinton-Biden ticket makes sense.
It’s going to be Jerry Brown from CA. You heard it here first, folks!
Say what you will, but he has been a effective leader and consensus builder and not afraid to work with all sides to get things done. I think even the local GOP would begrudge him some respect.
She’s going to need to choose someone fairly young, which rules out Biden and Jerry Brown, and possibly a few others. The one thing a VP absolutely has to do is survive if the President dies in office, and although she’s in fairly good health, Clinton is no spring chicken.
Also, the same guy running as VP for two different presidents just feels wrong. I know there’s no constitutional barrier against it, but “feeling wrong” is enough of a barrier, when you need to get peoples’ votes.