Obama's Veep: A Headache, or a Head Fake and a Three Point Shot?

Al, how do you square this:

"It's a must-read for our Chicken Little inoculation program as it makes clear that the sky wouldn't fall due to an Obama-Bayh ticket."

with your post back here that implies that Bayh is one of the candidates who would, in fact, be disastrous to the ticket?

Stuart - You're correct: I see Bayh (or anyone that voted against the Immigration Reform Bill in 2007) as an extremely risky pick that could provoke backlash and/or apathy among the rising tide of Hispanic-American voters, who would be vital for Obama to win swing states like New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Florida, among others.

But did I use the word "disastrous"? If I did, perhaps I went too far. Among the names being mentioned, there's only one potentially disastrous choice, and it's not even her fault, but that of her bull-in-a-china-shop spouse. And even that one would be potentially harmful, not a sure or sudden death for the ticket.

As I wrote this morning, again: I think the outside-the-beltway pick is the smarter one. It would also be risky for other reasons (including that it will make so many with power inside DC nervous), but life is not about avoiding risks, it is about taking the right ones.

I think, in general, people can be much too quick to equate any misstep as apocalypse. Dial it back from "disastrous" to "not the best move" and I would agree with you. But since I wasn't nominated for president this year, I recognize that it's not my decision to make!

Why do I get a feeling he is going out of the box? I don't think Bayh makes any sense unless he 100pct delivers Indiana, AND Indiana is essential to the win.

I don't believe either to be true. I don't think geography is going to tilt the decision.

That was my own hyperbolic chicken-little interpretation of the gist of your prior post. My own interpretation of the polls (mainly based on 538's analysis with a side of skimming the crosstabs that occasionally get posted on Kos) would suggest that losing his current advantage among the Hispanic community would put Obama in a decidedly precarious position, or even give McCain a meaningful lead. NM and CO and to a lesser extent NV are pretty vital states if we want to avoid needing to count on OH this year. So I guess it's a matter of semantics whether that counts as disastrous or not.

Thanks for clarifying :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUr48lg9Ocs&feature=related.  And he doesn't pull his punches.

Or is the operative word "lie." Count me among the skeptics, but just for fun: http://lisajean.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/18/1677618-astrological-predi...

To more conventional political thinkers, Bayh might also seem an obvious choice -- someone to balance the ticket who has the potential to put an important state in play. I agree with Al, though, that Bayh's probably not the man. Although Obama has been moving to the middle as part of his strategy to put red states in play, I don't think he'll want to undercut his theme of "change."

Would seem like a boneheaded move to go with Bayh, but who am I to critique Obama and his people? There's a reason why he's running for President of the United States and I'm wasting time on my laptop before getting ready for work.

Yet more fun --McCain's next ad: http://incertus.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccains-new-ad.html

...would be the surprise shot from behind the boundary line (see diagram above) that many of us dream of being able to see.

There are way too many leaks from anonymous sources close to Kaine and Bayh.  It almost seems like a set up from a campaign known for its tight lips and discipline.  Last week was Kaine, this week is Bayh, who knows what the following weeks will bring?  Maybe he'll continue rolling out all the potential VPs, gauge the reactions, and then make his decision right before the convention.

This is clearly a fake. The Obama camp's way too smart to not have read Al's post from last week dismantling the Bayh claim to the spot.

But the problem here is that this could very well be a pump-fake, used to lift the defender on the outside post, to make a slick move to outside the 3-point-line, as Al said.  At the same time, this could just as easily be the Obama campaign showing the media the ball long enough to make a straight b-line to the hole for a monstrous Obama-jam!

Frankly, I want a president who's not afraid to go to the tin, take a foul, and get three the old fashioned way. Clearly, I'm partial to Biden for that reason. Al, FieldHands, is there any reason other than the inside-the-belt-way-ness of our man that keeps him out of the running?

Then Reed, then Kaine, now Bayh.

I think they are all brilliant headfakes. Maybe next Biden buzz but I think the pick has to be Sebelius. Obama wants and needs to pick a Washington outsider to really signal that he's about change. Sebelius is better than Kaine in every way. It would be a very risky pick but it has the most upside as well.

Obama/Sebelius 08!

Al, I think you drilled your own jumper this morning.  I suspect Bayh is indeed another head fake and that the change message is best supported by selecting someone from outside the beltway.  I can't see Mr. O leaving McCain the opportunity to go "outside the box" and attempt to wrestle the change theme away.

Al, not to nit-pick, but it wasn't Nate who said that, it was Sean (Pocketnines) who wrote that article.

By the way, I wonder if the whole Kaine thing last week wasn't an effort to make it appear that he isn't the running mate by being too blatent about it, the idea that sometimes the best place to hide something is in plain view?

I can't see this pick happening before Obama takes the vacation to Hawaii he's been talking about.  I also think it's possible that he hasn't necessarily talked to or given instructions to anyone about how they are "allowed" to talk about the process - he may be just carefully observing how each contender is playing their hand.  We've heard about his information-gathering process before he makes decisions - listening to every possible angle and side to every argument.  *If* a particular candidate brought something absolutely indispensable to the ticket, and absolutely stood out in the field, but he did not connect personally with them very well, I think he would pick that person anyway.  But it seems from all the analysis, that there is no particular candidate that stands head over shoulders above the rest, so I think he will only have two criteria:

- can I work with this person?

- what skillset/expertise do they bring to the table?

And being alone with Michelle on vacation you can bet she will have input, especially on point 1.

KD

I'm hoping it's Schweitzer given the importance of the energy issue this election.

Howard Dean

http://www.ontheissues.org/Howard_Dean.htm

Al,

Would love to hear more of your thoughts on Schweitzer.  He's my favorite choice, as well, for 3 reasons:

1.  Appeal to Mountain West libertarian demographics

2.  Authenticity and folksy charm

3.  Energy policy expertise

But, what do I know?  I'm not as smart as the Washington establishment who fawns over folks like Biden and Bayh (two choices that I think would be very mediocre).

Well, I am leaning toward Schweitzer as well.

But I would hope that the O-man has in mind someone much, much more brilliant.

I think that the McCain camp will choose after Obama--and, if they are smart, they will choose someone smart, and someone outside the box as well.   McCain is at a disadvantage in many areas, and this is not a Republican year by all accounts--so, McCain has room to be a bit 'daring'.  However, I am sure that it will be someone relatively young.

On another note, we are organizing nieghborhood canvassing efforts here in Orlando.  I just got off the phone with the woman from the Obama campaign that is charged with my geographical area of the city.

First, it was Kaine from Virginia.  Now, it's Bayh from Indiana.  Maybe the discussion will revolve around Sebellius (Kansas) next week.

Seems like he's prepping everyone for a western choice: Schweitzer.

I like your blog too much to let you confuse me with Nate.

The head fake. Bayh has two big strikes already mentioned, the immigration vote and the loss of a critical vote in the Senate. I think there's a third strike in the Indiana, Illinois, link. The neighboring state tactic is not worth repeating. What is needed is another outsider with a measure of geographical diversity.

OT Another significant point Al has raised recently. Several friends have gotten one or another smear mail and so far I have heard stories of very inventive replies. Not only reference to the Obama sites, Factcheck and Swopes, but people have been using the e-mail media in reverse, sending a rebuttal back to every recipient.

Nice analogy, and I agree that Obama is more than likely to pick someone outside the beltway, and to count on throwing off the press with head fakes in order to gain the element of surprise when he sinks the three-ball! I've argued here that Schweitzer (or even Tester) from Montana could be more helpful at pushing Obama over the top geographically that anyone else from the so-called "toss-up" states.

Bayh is a head fake.

VP=Richardson

He shaved his beard (for Ad appearance?)

Will be at the Illinois State Fair this month. This would be a good way to introduce himself to the state.

You can win with the three but not without defense and rebounding.  Bayh does provide defense against the "inexperienced" claim.  Sebelius would be like adding another three pointer to the team.  VP's play defense but they also grab a missed shot and put it back up.  I like Bayh for that.  He knows DC and the legislative manuevering and he's a safe bet in the paint.  If Obama were up more points (or down too many) I could see adding Sebelius.

No matter who the pick is, it makes sense to announce it in Indiana, and then it also makes sense to ask Ever Blah to be there for support.

We all know the only sensible VP pick for Obama is Howard Dean.  Obama's entire campaign is an extension and perfection of Dean's 04 campaign, and also when they appear together they really seem to enjoy each other's company.  Obama saddled up his campaign to Dean's 50 State Strategy.  The DemocratIC base would rally like never before.  Great life insurance policy for Obama as well (hate to say it).  Makes a lot of sense.

Some of bad votes from Obama I can understand given the dynamics of Congress and being a junior Senator.  A lame VP pick like Ever Blah would make me seriously question Obama's judgment since this is basically all him.

I hope we'll be seeing a shot like this in the next day or so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9qRNB4uZGU&feature=related

This makes sense, but if this is a pump-fake, what is Bayh's motivation? Is he still auditioning for the part, or has the one-time Clinton supporter become such a convert to Obama that he's willing to make all of the appearances and build up the buzz for an offer he's not going to get? Even if Obama doesn't want Bayh for a running mate, it doesn't seem likely that he'd string Bayh along for cover and risk the fall-out of that.

With Kaine the fake-out seemed more natural. He was always a supporter, he and Obama seem to genuinely like each other, and he wouldn't necessarily have had his heart set on the Naval Observatory. So faking out the press could be good fun.

That doesn't seem as likely with Bayh.

I like Schweitzer, too, because he brings that sense of ideological independence that I think the ticket needs.  I also think his bio, demeanor and style will help with rural voters and will help the downticket races where I work (CA foothills).  Schweitzer looks and sounds just like the guys who drive bulldozers and run cattle here.

Also, he's Catholic, isn't he?  So maybe he can go toss back a few in Youngstown and help out there, as well.

That said, I recognize that you live by the 3 point play, and you die by the 3 point play, and if you're ahead you're better off driving to the hoop and making them foul you.  So, Biden may be the smarter pick (mostly I just want to see him in a debate).

Thanks for taking the time to write with some stye Al.  It's hard to come by on the internets.

Christie, I would personally love to see Howard Dean be the VP choice.  Only problem is that I think that both Dean and Bill Richardson are radioactive among the strong Clinton supporters.  The long contentious primary has sadly knocked out a couple of very good options, in my view.

Reed fits the bill: older than Obama, white as white, male so as not to piss off the Clintons anymore than they already are, lots of foriegn policy experience, a military background, blue collar upbringing, and progressive vote history.

perfect in everyway

In the grand scheme of this cycle, the VP choice is more about someone that isn't going to hurt the Presidential candidate.  I think that all of the VP talk is a great circle jerk, but if Obama has to rely on the VP pick to deliver this election, he will not win. 

I'm glad it's not my job to pick.  There really are so many variables. 

In having observed the personality of this campaign so far, I just can't help but think it will not be the most obvious pick.  They run such a leak free shop that it seems likely to not be the name du jour.  Think back to the June financials...the real number took everyone by surprise after the chatterers all had it pegged at a much lower number.

So what would happen to the MT Governor's race if it were Schweitzer??  And Dems to Win says certain choices are radioactive to Clinton supporters...it may be a true statement but I still just can't get my head around catering to such petulant, self-absorbed voters.

I think doubling down on sitting Senators would be a mistake.  I'm pretty sure we've only elected a sitting Senator prez once in the past century or so, and JFK was a first-termer like Barack -- not an old DC hand like McCain or Bayh.  Bayh's ex-Gov status mitigates somewhat, but I'm still skeptical.  Personally, Senator / not Senator is the only "ticket balancing" I'm interested in.

I am curious as to what's driving the pundit-pack in a new direction each week.  Do they really have sources or are they just reading the campaign schedule and swinging blindly?  My vague sense is that while Kaine & his people were self-flogging to an off-putting extent last week (w/ both leaks & media appearances), Bayh has been relatively tight-lipped -- which might be both a recommendation and a tip that he's more of a real possibility.

My own guess is that Obama waits til after the Olympics & his vacation, and that all the speculation that he "has to" make a splash before then is just the MSM beast crying "Feed Me!".

Important to distinguish campaign drama from the dramatic narrative of the candidate.  Plenty of latter w/ Obama, which in my book means the pick cannot be underwhelming in any way, doubly so after all this (I agree, carefully calibrated) fake-outery.

Watching from the upper seats w/ this point in mind (among others), I think it's going to be Gore.  Just think about it again, after you groan.  Think past the CW on this for both men but esp. Gore.

He's an outsider's insider, or an insider's outsider.  Re-read Al's post, also Sean's, w/ this in mind.

As a general rule, Obama has surprised me.  I expect he'll do so again.

I'm still keener on Kaine or Sebelius than most of the other possibilities.

I know everybody likes to talk about Obama's love of basketball, but if you listen to his fellow state senators in Illinois, if you want to understand him, play poker with him.

They'll tell you he doesn't tend to make high risk bets or big stake bets, but almost always walks away a winner.  Looking at the possibilities, try to figure out how this plays into the VP selection.

Schweitzer, I actually think, fits the bill.  He is not too flashy, but comes across well.  Has limited baggage, so is not a high risk. Provides a solid "white" image to counter complement Obama's personna.

But then, the same argument applies to others.  All I am really saying is Obama is a better poker player than a basketball player and he doesn't give away many "tells" as Al talked about yesterday.  He has a real poker face, and his whole campaign staff does too.

There are a couple of references above to not picking this person or that person because the Hillary people won't like it. That reminded me of Rachel Maddow's wonderful comment last night.

Toward the end of the show, Pat Buchanan is going on and on about how if it's a woman it has to be Hillary.  He asks why women shouldn't be insulted if Barack chooses a woman who is not Hillary.  I'm in my living room answering out loud - yes, talking to my TV set - when Rachel Maddow says it for me.  "Because all women are not the same."

Thank you, Rachel!  Women are not interchangeable!  How sad that we would have to explain that.  I believe Barack will make his best choice, regardless of who might not like it.  For what it's worth, I think it will be Kathleen Sebelius.

no offense to Roy Martin above, but every time i see an Obama supporter casually repeat the fallacy:

"Although Obama has been moving to the middle as part of his strategy..."

i feel like a stroke is coming on!

for the love of the gods, we MUST stop doing the Republicans work for them by casually repeating their frames and memes until they become CW.  Obama has NOT been moving to the middle, he has always been there- Al has even posted on this before, as eloquently as always!

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/if

as Al said in part then:

"...the nominee has not "moved to the middle," and even his vote last week on the compromise FISA bill did not surprise those that paid close attention to the Obama candidacy since last year or earlier."

it's the same as when people allude to Hillary's "18 million voters." the night she said that in her non-concession speech, people rightfully noted that by using that math and pushing that metric, the clear implication being made was that the nomination went to someone other than the popular vote leader.  techically irrelevant based on how we pick our nominee, but psychologically very damaging to party unity. but since then it been repeated and repeated, without being challenged, and  now i see it everywhere, from blogs to reputable papers to pundits on TV- it's become fact, despite the minor inconvenience of not being true.

i hate to sound like Ari Fleisher (gack!), but people really do need to watch what they say, PLEASE. it's pervasive, pernicious, and dangerous to let opposition talking points slowly become "the truth."

From what I've read and heard, it does seem that Schweitzer would be a great VP.  Unfortunately, I don't think he'd be a great VP candidate in that he seems to be too much of a loose cannon for Obama's disciplined message machine.

From a poll:

-Forty-seven percent of Hillary Clinton's primary voters said they'd be more likely to vote for Obama if he chose a woman running mate, and 4% said less likely. This is the exact breakdown of current Obama supporters overall. However, Hillary's primary supporters were largely unmoved by a woman on McCain's ticket (59%).

People tend to forget that only a small (but vocal) minority of Hillary supporters are Hillary dead-enders who will be outraged when Obama picks a woman other than Hillary. The large majority would be fine with it, or even enthusiastic about it.

Ok, this would be a total surprise VP.  I am not say'n that this will even remotely happen: but how about Colin Powell as VP?

I know, I know--his part in the imperialist slaughter in Iraq is well known.  But, I am just say'n--this would eff the rightwing up, big time.  Some would even jump out skyscraper windows.  Just that alone would be worth it.

(Ludicrous as VP would be even better--but, hey, we know O-man would lose in that senerio.)

Ok, jokes aside, I echo other comments here: Schweitzer seems like the man.  Is he Jewish?--this would help firm up that part of the traditional Dem constituency.   An older guy couldn't hurt the ticket.

I have never read comments here. My BAD. I have been for Schweitzer forever but I am not on the hip blog circuit. Brian will be the pick I venture. Why. Beause he is the only person out there as good as Barack at the same thing. The same vision. The same direction. And he is as smart as Barack, And the real reason why Barack will pick him. He was NOT for Barack. He was not interested in VEEP. He had to be convinced about Barack and he may not even now want to be VP. The point is he is like the electorate. He needed to be wooed and won.

Barack did not make that 3 pointer over there to be turned into a timid soul when it comes to playing out his grand plan which involves what David Wilhelm correctly called a 65 percent presidency.

When it all comes down, I bet even Saul Alinsky will launch a few approving etithets from his resting place.

And If I am wrong, I would much rather live with my fantasies than what I expect the world will look like with any other veep sort.

You want more on S. Hit my blog and search on it. Tons of good videos and even some apposite comments from Caped Composer.

Cathy, as someone pointed out to me a couple months ago:  Gore is wealthy, he is a nobel winner, he is getting up there in age, etc.

I think that he would be a great choice--but I don't think the man has the desire to be second on the ticket.  Indeed, I would be wrong.  Gore on the ticket would definately invigorate the last stretch of the race--but I don't think that it is likely to happen.

By the way, I don't like Baye from Indiana.  He seems like a Leibermann-type, very willing to cater to the far rightwing and big business--and uncomfortable with the civil rights and activist groups, the leftwing of the Dem party.

Schweitzer is Catholic. Wikipedia has a bit more on his family background.

I would love it to be Schweitzer and probably spend too much time constructing arguments showing that he could still be the choice.

Sebelius is awfully quiet while all the attention goes on other candidates, which leads me to think she may be the one, or it is someone like Schweitzer who is not on the shortlists.

It would be interesting to trace where all the Bayh talk is coming from.

Also, please note that, as of today, John McCain is also a celebrity!

Their supporters may not care but the Clintons care very much....

Stephen, I don't much like 'hip blogs' either.  Convential wisdom liberals, imbued with corporate America values and down with US imperialism creep me out.

Sorry, I misspelled Bayh--but it does rhyme with "don't like the guy".

Oh, so Schweitzer is Catholic.  Cool.

...not because of anything to do with her, and CERTAINLY not because i fear the wrath of the PUMAs, who, in my humble opionion, can suck it.

no, i worry that the woman and the black guy is just TOO MUCH CHANGE for one election cycle, even for an electorate hungering for change.

maybe it's because i've been black a looooooong time (my whole life, actually) but i just think progressives (read: white folks) are often too naive about the rest of the country being as enlightened as they are.  (i fight the same battle living in San Francisco- i NEVER saw Ah-nuld's election coming, for example, because i had never met one single person in the City who was going to vote for him.) 

i think an Obama/Sebelius has the potential to be seen (and potrayed) as an "affirmative action" ticket that will just make Obama's job harder in the heartland.

 and yes, i was here for the primaries- i saw the results in Wisconsin, Iowa, etc., and i see that he is doing fine in the polls with blue-collar whites.  but screw risk- i want him to get elected, and if that means a safe, old white dude that is more palatable to more of the masses, then so be it.

Obama is plenty of change on the ticket for me, and not just because he's black.

Laura, both Schweitzer and Tester are part of the more progressive, forward-thinking wing of the Democrat Party in the Western US.   There is a fierce libertarian streak in this part of the US ideology--and this would attract indies and moderate Republicans.

As far as race/gender.  The argument against Sebelius is that the ticket might be too outside the racist/patriarchy that has been the norm in the US.  However, I don't think that the campaign should cater the the baser instincts of US society--on the other hand...you can be sure that the rightwing WILL cater to these more ignoble and irrational aspects of the collective pscyhe.

Read Tim Wise's essay "What's the Matter with White People"--it's compelling.  This is a permutation of Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas", a book that was the rage among some establishment liberals.

is worth a read:

Obama and Schweitzer might come off as two highly attractive originals whose ability to see things eye-to-eye speaks multitudes to an electorate accustomed to narrow reasoning and penurious results.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose/does-barack-obama-have-a_b_113150.html

Al,

Off topic, but a few weeks back you blogged eloquently on how McCain's reversal on offshore drilling would sink him in coastal states like Florida.  Now, Obama seems to have reversed himself as well in his comments two days ago.  My guess is that Obama read the polls showing that a majority of Americans (ignorantly) think that more drilling offshore will reduce gas prices soon, and switched so that he couldn't be painted as the candidate who favors high gas prices.  Is this going to hurt Obama like you thought it woud hurt McCain? Thanks. absentee bob

The thinking behind the Gore hypothesis:

1. On Steven's age point: Gore is 60, 13 years younger than McCain.  He'd be 68, 5 years younger than McCain, at the end of 2 terms AND STILL ELIGIBLE.

2. The wealth thing I don't get, unless it goes to Gore's motivations, which is what most of the naysaying is based on.  On that issue see next points:

3. The overriding aspect is this: Gore can *cause* this ticket to win, as if he were God.  The landslide potential goes up, along w/ governing majorities and mandates.  The ticket would be a political godzilla shaking the ground as it strides toward Nov. 4th, republicans fleeing, tiny, before it.

4. If these were any old times and this were any old election I'd say it's not enough.  But we're in a pickle of historical proportions right now, the kind that draws out extraordinary service from people who are taken that way.

5. Gore is taken that way.  He and Obama would use it as an example of the national service model for the party and country generally.  The selflessness would score major cultural points on this question.

6. It's an open job description AFTER the relationship w/ #1 is worked out (which I think is very possible).  People say he can do more in his current situation than as VP.  Really?  Think about his potential on pushing legislation through, leaning on constituencies, bringing people to the table.  The various foundations and organizations can carry on substantially w/out him at this point.

7. He said in Austin recently of his private work "this is the best use of my life" and "I could be wrong about this."  This is a criterion for judgment and a declaration of fallibilism about his judgment to stay in private work.

8. Obama has said "not just go to funerals" and "roll up sleeves"; he has also talked about a specific expertise/portfolio on an important issue, and about someone committed to changing DC's ways (see Assault on Reason).

9. See body language during the speaker hand-off at Gore's endorsement (video somewhere).

10. Gore would not have to do any of the things he dislikes in the campaign--all in Obama's portfolio.

11.  Gore is unquestionably better qualified for the position than Clinton.  Cannot produce a politically sounder scenario for united party and turning disaffected Clintonites out in enthusiastic droves.

12. The usual attributes for Obama VP all satisfied, as far as I can tell.

13. No need for Bill Clinton to get over himself, or even show up, in my view, for the fall.  Who would he bring out that Gore wouldn't?

14. The decisions taken during and after the primary have all left this carefully open.  Gore could have endorsed during the primary and did not; I don't think it was political cowardice after the Dean foray.  He's got clean hands within the party for supporting Obama.

There's more, but chew on this!