[QUOTE=Lakai]
Sure stars aren’t needed to be an efficient VP when elected, but until then, lets just say Obama needs all the help he can get with his inexperience.
[/QUOTE]
BARACK TO MICHELLE: It’s not what it looks like! She was just helping me with my inexperience!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Speculation that he’ll pick Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana).
[/QUOTE]
Well today’s opportunity has come and gone. Doesn’t mean it’s not Bayh but not today anyway.
On 7/9 I asked if anyone would join me in handicapping the date of an announcement:
Responses included both Marley23 and Captain Lance Murdoch opting for the conventional wisdom of before the Olympics.
Time has pretty much ticked down on that clock unless he chooses to announce just before opening ceremonies, which would be foolish indeed.
So any one else want to play?
I’ll stick with 8/15 (he’ll get a week end cycle) and have started to move my chips to Chet Edwards.
C’mon, play along.
I would have thought before. But, he didn’t.
So, I’ll guess that last weekend. Let the news cover China this first two weekends. If it was Bayh, it would have been announced today.
China fatigue will start to set end towards the end of the Olympics so I guess the news will slip the final weekend.
I think it’s pretty obvious McCain is going to wait until after the Democratic Convention, but what Obama is doing has gotten hard to predict. I thought he would probably choose one soon, in part because of that timing issue and in part because it would counter some of the rougher treatment he’s been getting in the press lately. But it looks like he’s ignoring those pressures and taking his sweet time. I don’t think he’ll do anything tomorrow, which means nothing gets announced until early next week at the soonest.
Now I read that it is unlikely to be even by my birthday.
Still, I’ll stand by my guess.
Here’s a last-minute pitch for MI Senator Carl Levin. A black-Jewish ticket, no less!
Levin seems like a great pick, but I think he’s way too important in the Senate. If I was Obama though, I’d get him on the campaign trail for me early and often, no matter what horse-trading I’d have to do.
I suspect the choice has already been made and they’re just holding off on the announcement. If I had to bet at this point, I’d bet on Baye.
As far as Levin’s Jewishness - it’s not like he’s a Bloomberg. Would be funny if we had Obama-Levin and McCain-Cantor!
As far as having not heard of him being considered … I won’t be shocked if Obama springs someone who hasn’t been on a public short list.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
I won’t be shocked if Obama springs someone who hasn’t been on a public short list.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but who HASN’T been on a public shortlist since the end of the primaries?
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Yeah, but who HASN’T been on a public shortlist since the end of the primaries?
[/QUOTE]
Not many people, but then again who saw Cheney or Quayle coming?
I thought he would have picked by now. They are really waiting on this. Edwards was picked on July, 6.
BTW how does Carl Levin do so well with MI’s heavy Muslim population?
Separately, which of the longish short listers have the least negatives? Positives are nice, but above all the VP can’t bring the head of the ticket down.
Hillary’s baggage is evident, along with her positives.
Further alienating her past supporters with the choice would be a negative. That’s a ding against Sebelius or any other woman no matter how qualified. (Sad but true.) It’s also a ding against several other top tier names. As this analysis by NOW President Kim Gandy expresses
So even though Bayh has been part of the Hillary camp, he may still bring on some negatives with her supporters. Biden no strong negative there. Richardson’s record is clean except that so many Clinton supporters resent his support of Obama. So of the top tier Biden seems to have the fewest negatives with that crowd anyway. His only negatives? His tendency to keep talking and to end up saying things that he would have been better of not saying, and that he doesn’t stay within Obama’s narrative of changing the way Washington does business. Biden says Beltway.
Which do make some of the dark horses seem less unlikely. Both Chet Edwards and Carl Levin get 100% NARAL ratings. Neither has any significant baggage that I know of. Yes they are both Congresscritters but not like Biden is. Yes, Edwards voted for the war but that hardly counts as a major negative. And maybe Levin’s Jewishness could be a slight negative in some circles but not major. Both can help with particular demographics of importance. Edwards is big on Veteran affairs, and could help across the South and West. Even if my minority of one analysis that Texas is winnable is wrong, he could definitely help build the structures there in the hope of eventually turning Texas blue. And once again he fits the narrative in the same way Sebelius does without the negative. Levin has been a long time reformer of the way Washington works, voted against the war (bonus!), and while helping secure MI also helps Florida a bit.
So thoughts: who do you think has the least negatives of the longish short list?
[QUOTE=DSeid]
So thoughts: who do you think has the least negatives of the longish short list?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if he’d get picked, but I like Biden’s straight talk and low tolerance for bullshit. Sure, he shoots off the cuff, but he’s also a good attack dog. I think he’s kind of a Democratic Cheney in some ways. I suppose the media will try to dredge up the “clean” remark again, though.
With Biden, you’ve also got the plagarism thing. I know it happened a long time ago, but it’ll still be brought up and used against him. His support for the bankruptcy bill will also hurt him with some people.
Yeah, I think it’s going to be Baye. He has no significant negatives (that I’m aware of) and he’s a solid midwestern moderate. Indiana is neck and neck right now and Baye might be able to put Obama over the top there, plus I think he helps (or at least doesn’t hurt) in the other “bitter” states.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
BTW how does Carl Levin do so well with MI’s heavy Muslim population?
Separately, which of the longish short listers have the least negatives? Positives are nice, but above all the VP can’t bring the head of the ticket down.
Hillary’s baggage is evident, along with her positives.
Further alienating her past supporters with the choice would be a negative. That’s a ding against Sebelius or any other woman no matter how qualified. (Sad but true.) It’s also a ding against several other top tier names. As this analysis by NOW President Kim Gandy expressesSo even though Bayh has been part of the Hillary camp, he may still bring on some negatives with her supporters. Biden no strong negative there. Richardson’s record is clean except that so many Clinton supporters resent his support of Obama. So of the top tier Biden seems to have the fewest negatives with that crowd anyway. His only negatives? His tendency to keep talking and to end up saying things that he would have been better of not saying, and that he doesn’t stay within Obama’s narrative of changing the way Washington does business. Biden says Beltway.
Which do make some of the dark horses seem less unlikely. Both Chet Edwards and Carl Levin get 100% NARAL ratings. Neither has any significant baggage that I know of. Yes they are both Congresscritters but not like Biden is. Yes, Edwards voted for the war but that hardly counts as a major negative. And maybe Levin’s Jewishness could be a slight negative in some circles but not major. Both can help with particular demographics of importance. Edwards is big on Veteran affairs, and could help across the South and West. Even if my minority of one analysis that Texas is winnable is wrong, he could definitely help build the structures there in the hope of eventually turning Texas blue. And once again he fits the narrative in the same way Sebelius does without the negative. Levin has been a long time reformer of the way Washington works, voted against the war (bonus!), and while helping secure MI also helps Florida a bit.
So thoughts: who do you think has the least negatives of the longish short list?
[/QUOTE]
Levin, much like John Conyers, Detroit’s Congersscritter, is a Good Guy. His staff is nice, he’s a good guy, he stands for the decent things, and he even personaly answers some of his emails; a fact that my family (**gonzomax ** in particular) can attest to.
Agreed, he seems like a good decent pick. Bayh just seems too bland, though maybe that’s what they want across from Barackstar* Obama.
*Please tell me I’m the first to think of this.
I am very embarrassed to admit I have not been following the Democratic “Veepstakes” in the media at all and have only skimmed this thread. As a result I am pretty out of touch. I would be quite obliged if someone would post the current short list (or medium-short list 
) of people under consideration to be Obama’s running-mate (5 or 10 or whatever).
Regarding Evan Bayh-- I thought he made a good presidential candidate with a decent chance and I was sorry when he pulled out of the race. I’m not sure I think he’s the right choice for VP, however. I’m hoping to compare him with the other “possibles”-- that’s why I asked for a little help! Thanks.