I know we’ve had threads on that question before but now his nomination is more or less official, so let’s do it again.
I say Kathleen Sebelius – a white woman (to appeal to the Hillary base) with the executive experience Obama lacks (just in case the unthinkable happens and she actually has to be POTUS), not notably more liberal or conservative than Obama himself.
I am as in favor of Kathleen Sebelius as the next person. However, I wonder about the base dems - the ones Clinton was winning - will a black man and white woman be too much change too quickly. I’m unsure as of right now.
I think another very good contender is Jim Webb.
My preferences are:
eta: Hillary’s base will accept no woman but Hillary.
Yes, a woman governor would be a good choice. Unfortunately, Jennifer Granholm (Governor of Michigan) doesn’t appear to be eligible, since she was born in Canada, but Janet Napolitano (Governor of Arizona) would be another possibility.
I dunno. Two freshman senators on the ticket?
I’d put Biden as the front runner. Moving into the General election phase his biggest possible hamstring with the Independants is experience. Biden seems to be the best compromise of adding finance and foreign relations credibility without selling out toomuch for his base.
And I think Biden is enough of a company man to take the slot even if he doesn’t really want it for the good of the party.
Bill Richardson was born to be Vice President.
I am cool with ABH, though.*
*Anybody But Hillary.
He should ask John McCain if he can be his running mate. Then he will only finish second last.
This out on CNN as being the latest and greatest. No order in particular…interesting who the non-order-top-three are though.
**Evan Bayh: ** What he lacks in charisma, the telegenic Bayh makes up for in national security credentials, having served on both armed services and intelligence committees in the Senate.
Joseph Biden: A six-term senator who helms the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden, could offer the heavyweight foreign policy experience that Obama is often accused of lacking. But at 65 – and seen as part of the U.S. political furniture – he could undermine Obama’s message of change.
Michael Bloomberg: Since ruling out his own independent bid for presidency, the current mayor of New York has been seen as a potential running mate for both Obama and McCain. For Obama, the media tycoon and former Republican would help mitigate the Democrat’s problem with Jewish voters brought on by outlandish rumors that he is a Muslim, but do little to attract the white, working class vote.
Wesley Clark: This former NATO commander, who failed in his bid for the 2004 presidential nomination, was seen as a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter – a fact that could help unite the party. But the 63-year-old’s tough reputation as a no-nonsense soldier is unlikely to win much backing among party activists.
**Hillary Clinton: ** While the “dream ticket” of a Obama-Clinton campaign could help harness Clinton’s powerbase of women and white working-class Democrats, the prospect of uniting the two rivals has won mixed support. A non-scientific CNN.com poll said 60 percent of people were not in favor of the move.
Chris Dodd: A long-serving senator with solid foreign policy credentials who was previously considered as a running mate for John Kerry’s failed presidential bid in 2004, Dodd presents the same problems as Biden.
Chuck Hagel: A close friend of fellow Republican John McCain – Obama’s general election rival – Hagel’s strong anti-war in Iraq stance has generated cross-party appeal and though an unlikely choice he could be seen as the man to attract wavering Republican voters.
Ed Rendell: As an outspoken Clinton supporter, a Rendell partnership could rally support for Obama and as governor of swing state Pennsylvania, he could help secure key votes, but his popularity is limited outside Philadelphia.
Bill Richardson: The New Mexico governor, who identifies himself as Hispanic, could help sway the burgeoning Latino vote in addition to lending heavyweight foreign policy credentials as a former United Nations ambassador.
**
Kathleen Sebelius**: The two-term governor of mainly Republican Kansas, Sebelius has proven cross-party support but the rising Democratic star still lacks a national profile.
Jim Webb: Another rising star, straight-talking Webb has already dismissed his vice-presidential prospects, but his appeal as a Vietnam veteran and successful novelist are clear. Webb’s bluntness, however, led one commentator to label him an “unguided missile.”
Bill Richardson makes the most sense. He’s a governor with LOTS of foreign policy experience who appeals to Hispanics. He hits all of Obama’s (perceived) weak points. And, very importantly, he can credibly take on the “change” theme-- something Bayh and Biden can’t do, as strong as they might be as candidates. You wouldn’t have to worry about the double minority ticket, because Richardson is a non-Hispanic’s Hispanic. He can appeal to Hispanics without turning off non-Hispanics.
Chuck Hagel? Not in a million years. Ditto for Bloomberg.
BR all the way. It’s gotta be him.
ABC
(Anybody but Clinton)
Ditto what John Mace says. Richardson doesn’t have a Hispanic name, so nobody will be reminded of the “two minorities for the price of one” factor every time they see a bumper sticker. And an aging boat anchor like Biden would knock a chunk off the idea of “New! Different!” that Obama needs to rely on. The Democratic Congress is unpopular enough as it is - does Obama really need any more identification with it? Somebody on the ticket better have executive experience, and it ain’t gonna be BO.
To the extent that a running mate matters for Obama, and it ain’t much.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - it won’t be Hilary.
I think Richardson is the correct answer here as well. His resume is pretty ridiculous. He also helps in NM, and with Latinos in general. I think picking a woman other than Hillary would do more to hurt with the women vote than help - too obviously pandering. Webb is probably best suited where he is, and having two Democratic senators from Virginia (once Warner wins this fall) is not something to give up lightly. Biden - too old (although perhaps good for State). Hagel - too Republicanish. Bloomberg - too rich. Edwards is too perfect for AG or some other cabinet position. Rendell, Bayh, and Dodd seem like reasonable long-shot candidates I guess, but my money is on Bill.
The problem with Richardson (who otherwise would be my pick) is that his endorsement of Obama around Easter ruffled a lot of feathers in the Clinton camp. With the close ties that he had had to the Clintons prior to that point, it was seen as a major betrayal (hence Carville’s 30 pieces of silver line). So, can he pick him without alienating the Clinton wing of the party?
Sebelius I just don’t see. I guess she’s a popular enough governor, but even with her, he’s not going to win Kansas, and while she has some experience, she doesn’t have that much.
The entire keystone of this election is going to be Independant white middle and working class voters in the band from Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Penn., and Virginia. I don’t know if Richardson helps that cause too much.
My pick: Phil Bredesen
Obama/Bredesen 08!
Wouldn’t picking anyone other than Hilary piss them off to the same degree?
Certainly re-unifying the party has got to be one of BO’s priorities, but he doesn’t need Hilary as his running mate enough to pick her. So the Hilary-or-die types won’t be happy anyway. So picking a candidate who otherwise makes sense might be the way to go.
This is based mostly on my suspicion that the Hilary supporters will come around sooner or later, and conclude better Obama than McCain.
Like I say, I doubt Obama’s pick of running mate matters all that much. Less, certainly, than for McCain, who is a lot older.
I am more or less discounting the paranoid fantasy about Hilary asssasinating or sabotaging Obama before the convention. Even if she were willing, she isn’t dumb enough to think she could get away with it.
Regards,
Shodan
I still pull for Zinni although Sebelius would not surprise me. Rendell has eliminated himself by recent statements but Strickland has been notably muted. The narrative that Obama wants to tell is a break from the past and a reach across the aisle however and while Strickland can deliver Ohio and maybe Pennsylvania … maybe even help heal with the Clinton wing some … it doesn’t fit that storyline. Telling that story is what the VP choice must do above all else I think.
I’m still thinking Richardson would be the best and most obvious choice.
After Gore/Lieberman, I’m always worried that the candidate will make a crappy choice. However, Obama is a candidate like none I’ve seen in my lifetime; I trust that his pick for running-mate will be spot-on.
So I leave Richardson as best and most obvious choice, with Sebelius as the dark house. I’d get excited about either.
Choosing Clinton would be a very, very bad mistake after all she’s trashed Obama during the nominating contests of the past couple months, and for other reasons besides that were mentioned above.
Agreed. There is no way Democrats are going to sit out this coming election.