Vice-presidential frontrunners

[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]

@foolsguinea

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

Paraguay. No extradition.

[foolsguinea]

@jayjay

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]

@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.

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]

@foolsguinea

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]

@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.

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.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@DoctorJ

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. 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]

@Little Nemo

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]

@jayjay

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]

@Free Range Otter

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]

@Saint Cad

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?