Veep Veep!

I've long thought Kaine would be in the top tier to bring Virginia in the fold, to make inroads in a former red state, a border state turning blue, and personal compatibility. My fave has been Bill Richardson because I like him.

I don't think it will be Kaine. I don't think Obama can risk anyone who does not toe the line on abortion (which is why my dream choice, Bob Casey, would also be out.)

I think Edwards would be a good choice. He is polling well (I know, I know) and Elizabeth is well liked by a lot of Hillary supporters, and would be good on health care.

Its sickening that the chances of another woman being VP are being impeded by some of Hillary's supporters. I mean, so much for the sisterhood, right?

And Al, your description of Howard Wolfson was priceless.

Dodd would be replaced in the Senate by a Republican (Gov. in CN. is Repug). Any Dem. Senator chosen would have to be sure of having a Dem. replacement.

Kaine has a Repug Lt. Gov

Sibelius (Dem. Lt. Gov)

Napolitano( no Lt. Gov., not sure about successor)

===

What about Schweitzer? He might actually be worth a few EVs in the West.

Al,

I have three questions for you:

Do you think Sebelius would be more of a front runner without the Clinton backlash?

Have you considered Al Gore, who was by most accounts a very effective VP for Clinton?

Off topic, but have you been following the merger of foreign policy teams from the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Apparently Obama's "Senior Working Group" doesn't include Dick Holbrook, who seems like the most talented negotiator in the Democratic Foreign Policy Stable. I would be very interested in reading your thoughts on this matter.

Thanks for the blog

Ken in California

Al! Congratulations on getting up to speed. ;)

I called Kaine a while ago: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/11/184214/275/725/513879

Kat - Kaine's position is essentially the same as that which Obama has always had on abortion matters. It's how he phrases it that's different.

Jonathan Jacobs - Excellent info. Yes, those factors could tip the scales back to Sebelius.

Anonymous - To answer your three questions: 1. Yes, because Senator Clinton's campaign to those people was never really about feminism or electing a woman as president: it was and is about access to Power through her. 2. I presume that Obama has asked Gore to consider it and Gore didn't say yes. 3. Not only is Holbrook on the outs, but also Sandy Berger. Some other really bad news bears have wormed their way into Obama's foreign policy shop of late, though. I'm on the hunt for them and at some point will nail various pelts to the wall here.

Slaney Black - I see we're using some of the same software!

As Jonathan Jacobs mentioned, the lieutenant governor of Virginia is a Republican and would be in office to replace Kaine until the November 2009 gubernatorial election. So this could be a drawback in selecting Kaine.

I am a Schweitzer fan myself, but he is really a dark horse!

Sometimes I wonder if McCain will pick Lieberman as his VP, though Romney does seem the most likely.

vote for Obama-Kaine thinking they were voting for McCain.

Virginia is looking like a toss-up state this election and if Kaine's presence might swing just enough votes to deliver it.  McCain might choose Romney for the same reason (his dad was a popular governor 40 years ago), but it's not quite the same thing.

This is a non-trivial drawback to Kaine but Bill Bolling has already declined to run for Gov. next cycle b/c he doesn't want to give up his insurance business...and he's kind of a weird guy.

Putting a Repub. Gov. in place isn't ideal, but if you have to do it, at least this guy's reluctant and/or minimally electable.

He seems like a level headed campaigner. Does he not bring the votes ?

And your worrying about Obama's FP team worries me too. What gives ?

amk

Anyone hear that Gore is giving a big speech next week? The timing is very interesting? Of course the G8 meetings just ended. I've been saying all along that Gore would have more power with making changes to this country if he got back into government-the fact is, we really need him. I've heard people mention him as a VP-Energy Czar all-in-one. Who else could carry that heavy weight? It's a far out dream I know but would sure stir up a reminder of the 2000 election season. I'm sure it would go a ways to quiet the Clinton crew too. Could they argue that she is a better choice than Al Gore??? Nope, didn't think so.

Barack needs to do something exciting and un-conventional. Just my opinion. If not Gore-which I wish for but still find highly unlikely-I think Edwards would be the best pick. He excites people much more than Sebelius and Kaine-though I like both of them too.

In response to a couple of questions about Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. I think he'd be an astoundingly good choice, electorally and governability-wise. The chemistry may not be there between the two men, though. I recall that when Obama visited Schweitzer earlier in the year there was some rooster gamesmanship involving Schweitzer pulling out his guns and punking Obama a bit on his lesser enthusiasm for the Second Amendment. I agree with Schweitzer on the issue, by the way, but he may be just a little to swashbuckling and upstaging to be anybody's number two. However, I would be thrilled because it would signal a move toward the libertarian left for the Democratic Party, which is long overdue.

And, Muthu - Part of coopting the Clinton wing of the party is giving their policy wonks a feeling of inclusion. And there may be some use for them in the campaign in terms of fighting foreign policy turf to a draw with McCain while beating him on economic issues. Remember that one of the people that will most be involved with staffing a possible Obama administration in that realm, Samantha Power, is in the wings. I'll repeat my adage learned from years of political reporting: what a candidate does or says during a campaign has almost zero impact on how he or she governs. (And as always, my challenges for anyone to point out examples to the contrary go unanswered.)

He supports the partial birth abortion ban, for example. The partial-birth abortion ban endangers women's health for no particular reason, other than that the details of late-term abortion are icky and make people uncomfortable. That is a legal issue, not a rhetorical one. NARAL describes him as 'mixed' on choice, and that is how I would describe him as well. This is distinctly different from Obama's position, which is pro-choice, period. I'd also like to hear more about what he means by 'abstinence-focused education'. This sounds like a bit of a dodge to me, and I'm less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who already supports numerous restrictions an abortion. Does he mean the abstinence-only education that's proven such a dismal failure over the last eight years? Or does he mean comprehensive sex-education that includes abstinence? Or some hybrid, whatever that might be? 

Given the current state of our country, I'm not sure what I would do if Obama picked a VP who was not solid on choice and sex-ed, but it would be a huge issue for me and something I feel should have been disclosed as a possibility in the primary, at the very least. 

Here comes Allan, the broken record.

Russ Feingold!

Pros:

1.  Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law grad.

2.  Has won every election he entered.  Three terms in WI senate, now in his third term in the US Senate.  Judiciary, Foreign Relations and Intelligence committee member.

3.  FISA and the Patriot Act votes - the progressive blogosphere has proclaimed him their champion and rightly so.

4.  Best known for McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act.  Proves he's a) bipartisan, and b) eminently well-qualified to excoriate McCain's maneuvering around same law and his fat-cat lobbyist connections.

5.  Jewish.  Did someone say Florida?

6.  Wisconsin's governor is a Democrat.  Tammy Baldwin is in the House, and would make a great replacement.  And her House seat is the reliably Democratic Madison district.

7.  Is never mentioned by any MSM pundit as a candidate, who have been wrong about anything/everything Obama since day one.

8.  Solid Midwesterner.  Has a great personality and sense of humor.  Has a squeaky-clean image that appears to be genuine.

Cons:

1.  MSM will declare him "too liberal."  See FISA/Patriot Act above.

2.  Not widely known.

3.  Jewish.

4.  Obama's a Midwesterner too, and doesn't need help to win WI.

5.  Twice-married, twice-divorced.

 I like your thinking but do not believe Gore wants any part of it. I am still on you to join the San Diego group of Fieldhands, also, have you signed the petition for Al yet? We have 1434 signatures as of now. We would really like to get to 1500.

My hope for VP is Sebellius, I know she is not a great orater and might underwhelm but I also think she is a great woman leader in Kansas. I would love it if the scenario Al describes above with Clinton nominating her happened in just that way.

Allan,

I also like Feingold.

The problem with Edwards is that he seems like sort of a dick

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498,00.html

He also wasn't a very succesfull pick in 2004 and got behind Obama way too late. John Kerry would have a serious talk with Obama if he were considering Edwards.

Brklyngrl - That's what I mean when I say that Kaine has to tilt to make this happen. What would your attitude be if this summer he announced that after much soul-searching and new information available, he has come to respect the right to partial-birth abortions and if he ever became president would want Supreme Court justices that felt the same?

He wouldn't be the first Democrat to make that evolution: Dennis Kucinich started out as a staunch anti-choicer, for example.

Tim Kaine is a great guy who has a spotless bio.

However he's very unpopular in Virgina and might actually HURT Obama in Virgina. He tried to push through a transportation plan and it failed 96-0

He looks like a attractive choice on paper and I bet he is being vetted but he would be a bad choice for VP.

Also Chris Dodd will not be the pick. He'd lose us a safe Senate seat for Obama's first two years, we can't afford that.

Likewise Napolitano would hand the state over to the Republican Secretary of State which is unlikely to happen.

I really don't know who is going to be picked. Everyone has their upsides and their downsides. I really don't think this is a choice that our educated guesswork will be able to crack. In the end it will be about what Obama wants in a VP. My guess is that he will pick Sebelius but I really have no idea.

I don't have a particular dog in this fight.  Just like with the primary, the Democratic party has a plethora of riches, and I am not sure that Obama has to necessarily look at his VP choice in terms of winning a particular demographic.

In fact, I think the pick of Schweitzer would be great, partially due to the gun issue.  But, I do think Obama is going to look at it in terms of who would be best qualified to A. be President if something happened to him and B. be someone who he would feel comfortable getting advice from.

Regarding Kaine's pro-choice stance, particularly regarding partial birth abortion, although the vast majority of Americans favor choice, the vast majority of those don't really want a blanket permission type policy.  Partial-birth abortion is probably the least approved by the nation as a whole and thus, I don't think Kaine's stance is necessarily a negative.

Concerning the foreign policy adviser group, I second Al's comment.  This is, to some degree, an appeasement of the Clinton side of the equation.  Also, Obama has always been partial to hearing differing views.  I think he likes to have devil's advocates around him and is bound to have some people who have different views, at least in an advisory position.

But a bland centrist second-tier white guy with no national rep ain't exactly the rock star "change we can believe in" choice we were looking for...

If you look at the Hillary-Barack footage and stills of recent weeks, well that's the only real choice of true vision and party unity - I don't expect it to happen, however, even if the Kennedys do push for it...too many negative voices.

I love the idea of winning Virginia.  And Kaine seems like a good choice even without that possibility.  Do you think there would be Spanish speaking rallies?  Or does that just add fuel to the "non-American, non-patriotic" fire?  Seems like his abortion positions could be ironed out.  It's got to be near impossible to run as big time pro-choice as a governor in VA. I also prefer the idea of a governor and not two senators on the ticket.

Why the no Richardson?  He seems like a good choice on paper to me.  I never have heard the details on the skeletons he supposedly has in his closet.  I kinda figure he must not think they are so bad or he wouldn't have run for President.

I agree Gore is unlikely but I think it would be a winner.  The idea would be that he would be granted the power to spearhead  the changes he deems necessary on global warming.

Regarding Edwards, seems to me the image of a two time loser just can't be good.  And the elitist meme would really work with him.

And are we certain that Clinton is still really out?  Time does heal...

Finally, will this really not come out until the convention??  Edwards was chosen early in July of '04.

pick Feingold. A great progressive choice.

I'd like to see McCain pick Pawlenty so we could take the Minnesota governorship away from the Republicans.

 but, I think this is a big deal. Obama and Nascar teaming up. He is really going after that good-ole boy vote in the south. If he can win over the Nascar fans, I doubt it will matter who he picks for Veep.

Today Huffpo reports Obama will not be sponsoring a Nascar after all. Too Bad!

I would be fine with that - enthusiastic, even. I try to approach this purely as a legal matter. It doesn't bother me at all that people have a different personal moral approach to abortion than my own as long as we're all on the same page legally. And I'm just not much of a rhetorical purist. 

Can you explain why Kaine would have to change his rhetoric on abortion? It seems perfectly fine to me.

Obama likes him which seems to me to be the first test any VP candidate would have to pass. The second thing is Kaine is popular in VA and would help lock down the state.

Warner would actually have guranteed the state; but he's already indicated he won't go for the job which actually sucks IMO because I actually like him better and he has a great deal of economic experience that would balance well against Romeny given his buisness successes. Both their stories go well w/Obama.

I can't wait to find out who it is; I think Edwards is being vetted given his sudden push on stage to be helpful. He's making moves as through he realizes he is in  the game.

Ugh.  Raising Kaine to the ticket would be a drag.  Howard Dean would be the ultimate choice, and best life insurance policy Obama could ever have.

Edwards is the most practical.  Instant, built-in ground game and excitement, and can appeal to "white working class" voters everywhere with his populist message.  Imagine the O-man and this guy hitting the streets and airwaves together:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbhVFAAVJ98

(especially the last half of the clip...one of the best debate answers I've seen)  Plus, Edwards has just signaled he would take the job if offered.

Obama is going to win no matter who is the VP pick, especially since the VP choice is historically overrated (Dan Qualye?  Dick Cheney?  Hello?!?)

I hope he picks who would make the best future President rather than on nebulous political calculus.  President Kaine...no thanks.  President Edwards...oh yeah.

"Some other really bad news bears have wormed their way into Obama's foreign policy shop of late, though. I'm on the hunt for them and at some point will nail various pelts to the wall here.

I'll repeat my adage learned from years of political reporting: what a candidate does or says during a campaign has almost zero impact on how he or she governs."

While co-opting some Clinton experts is a good idea (after all expertise can be recognized regardless of ideology or group-ism), your above statements is giving me a pause.

As an outsider, it was sad for me to see US lose the prestige and respect in the last 7 years due to RW neocons like cheney/rumsfeld/rove under an idiot of a president.

And I was kinda hoping that Obama will at least try to turn that tide and put forth some sensible FP.

amk

There have been major inroads to establilshing Va as a blue state.  That could be set back a good bit with pulling Kaine out of there.  Especially with census and congressional districting.

It's obvious from the options for VP that Obama isn't worried about his foreign policy/ defense cred.  So wait a while and we'll know.

I don't think Clinton will be Obama's running mate and it is primarily based upon the last couple weeks, including the FISA vote.

I think (pure gut instinct) that she has realised that her long term lagacy is going to be based upon her Senate record, much like Ted Kennedy's.  Tom W. was right when he talked about her power.  As long as she is in the Senate and works on Obama's behalf, she does have power and Obama wants to harness that power.

This is one reason why I think he may choose a Clinton ally (I have no idea who) as his running mate, as the VP is almost like an extra Senator (although Cheney made a mockery of the role). 

Did you see who wrote that?  Perhaps the biggest loser in the DemocratIC Party in recent times.  Bob Shrum has played a significant role in the 20+ year downfall of the Party.  He's also known as a petty gossiper in the cocktail weenie circuit.

That fact that he's dissing Edwards means that Edwards is probably the best pick.  I mean...his critique is that the Edwards's didn't return phone calls right after Elizabeth is diagnosed with cancer?!?!  Ya think they might've had their own doctors already, and didn't need the Kerry's recommendations?

Incredibly self-centered and inconsiderate response from Shrum (and Kerry if Shrum's account is true...which is highly suspect) to knock a family during a health crisis.

If McCain picks Mitt "Who Let the Dogs Out, Woof Woof" Romney, I will be in 7th heaven.  Not only will it increase the evangelical disdain for McCain's candidacy, with Romeny being the wrong flavor of fundamentalist and all, but it will also give us a few months of Romney's signature gaffes and pander-filled hyperbole ("We should super duper quintuple Guantanomo to the gazillionth power, and build a moat with flaming crocodiles around it.")

As for the Dem Veep pick, I'm suprised, Al, that you did not mention Richardson.  He seems like a natural choice.  I think Sebelius could be a great pick, despite her less than inspiring oratorical skills.  Besides, if Romney is McLame's choice for veep, she won't exactly have to summon the ghost of Winston Churchill to best Romney's grifter/Amway salesmen schtick.  Clinton is a non-starter.  Kaine will be a little hard for the feminists to swallow.

Lush Limpdick and Pox Newz came out hard for Mittens early.  This means word went out at the highest levels that Mittmo was the chosen one.

Unfortunately for them, the Repube base was having nuthin of it, and picked CrazyTrain McCain't.

I've always expected Mittmo to be resurrected, since they aren't going to let "the people" decide for themselves, so look for Mittmo to play a large role somehow...either VP or I still wonder if there's some sort of plan still to anoint the chosen one, since McSame has been such a disaster so far.

...in Iowa.  He came in second place there.  Edwards would fire up the base greatly, and can attract a lot of the so-called "swing voters" at the same time.

As a VA resident, I do not feel that Kaine is too bland or unpopular here in a sense that he would not be an asset to Sen. Obama.  Whereas it is true that he is not the "first impression" man that Mark Warner is, he is a solid and well-respected politician who grows on you as you hear more about him.  His wife, Anne Holton is a smart and wonderful first lady (Princeton undergrad, Harvard law like Kaine, judge in juvenile and domestic relations court, very active in children's issues), and no distraction like Theresa Heinz could be.  (She would be a great addition in reaching female Clinton supporters).  I still like Anthony Zinni, and even Sam Nunn.  And Tom Daschle for chief of staff! 

Hmmm, I'm actually a bit surprised to hear that, not because it's outside the realm of possibilities, but because I've heard that the dislike between Romney and McCain is ridiculously high and that McCain would rather pick either Pawlenty or Charlie Crist of Florida. Of course, maybe this is McCain's way of trying to throw Michigan into play (or as a nod to the right-wing of the party) and I will admit that Mitt Romney can probably play an "attack dog" role that McCain himself is probably not as comfortable with, so I can why McCain's people are considering that, but I'm still skeptical of Romney being the VP.

Could it be someone who is not a 'politician' - a business leader, a college president, a well known & respected academic or public person? Just thinking....a "Profile in Courage" we would say "oh, yes, what a great choice" but haven't thought of yet?

Allan:  I love your analyses!  Keep 'em coming!

My Veep picks w/pros and cons...

1) Richardson...I just plain like him;

Pros: Foreign policy, Hispanic, handsome--love the beard! (sorry! LOL), gave the Clintons the finger...

Cons: Has stated that he wants Michigan's water for New Mexico---hands off, Bill! Whatever those *skeletons* are...maybe two *minorities* (hate that term) are just a little *too much change* for some people to believe in...

2) Edwards...I know, I know re: 2004...I know he was late to the party while trying to keep his powder dry, but a lot of things have changed since then...

Pros:  Young, energetic, fighter, handsome---love the smile! (sorry! LOL), Elizabeth is the HRC-ites second favorite woman; I think he and BHO really like each other; he's rich now, but he used to be kinda poor--and his father worked in a mill...; that Southern accent; union-backed...was great on Colbert's "Word" Section...executive experience

Cons: his lifestyle and his "poor peoples' policy" are completely opposite, but he did make his millions through his own hard work, even if you don't like "trial lawyers"...

I know all of the political pundit reasons for this person or that person, but as a Black Woman, I still believe that someone should be chosen *just because* they're Black or a woman...that really bothered me re: HRC and really endeared me to BHO.  He has never said: vote for me because I would be a historic Black President.  Others have said it about him, but HE hasn't said it or run his campaign on that premise...

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

What a typo!  I MEANT to say

"...as a Black Woman, I still believe that someone should NOT be chosen *just because* they're Black or a woman..."

Time for my nap! LOL

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I've been thinking about this the past couple of days and Kaine and Sebelius had floated to the top of my list too as the most probable choices. I think Obama would love to pick Sebelius but it is a problem that her selection would outrage a faction of the Clintonites... which to me only underscores how phoney their supposed feminism is. As a woman, it's really upsetting that a great female candidate like Sebelius could be blocked from a chance at being VP (and possibly president) solely due to the egotism and selfishness of some in the Clinton camp. How's that for sexism?

On another note, prior to Mark Warner taking himself out of the game, I was thinking he'd be perfect. He even looks like a Kennedy -- you can't pay for that kind of symbolism. Unless he really is being vetted and his disclaimer from a few weeks ago was just a feint.

On a superficial note, the Obama-Kaine name combination has the best ring to it, and you can't discount the importance of that. Someone on another blog wrote that Obama-Sebelius sounds like a venereal disease, and I haven't been able to get that out of my head since! (Sorry for putting it in your heads.)

I could live with Kaine, although I still consider Schweitzer to be the superior pick.  That being said, as long as Obama doesn't choose the sanctimonious Joe Biden, I'll be thankful.

As far as the Edwards article in Time, I have to laughingly agree that whatever Bob Shrum does, we should do the opposite.  Referencing anecdotes about Edwards' family misfortunes was particularly unseemly.

 @ Vik, Tell me why you think that about Biden.  Just wondering because earlier this year, I really thought he would make a good VP.

As someone who works in a visual medium, the thought of Tim Kaine as veep concerns me.  I've seen him on tv a few dozen times and can barely remember what he looks like.  I've also heard him speak a number of times and can't recall what his voice sounds like.  Rightly or wrongly, since politics is also show business... to me, Kaine comes across more like a third banana.  Then again, since McCain keeps sleeping on banana peels, maybe it won't matter.

I really do think, when you boil it down, it will be Kaine.

Both men come from similar backgrounds, and Kaine seems to be the best personal "fit" for Obama.

So this doesn't suprise me at all.

I think the most important factor for Obama (other than will this person be able to be President) will be does Obama really get along well with this person.  David Plouffe has said that the VP pick will not be based on whether that person can help win a state or demographic.

I think Obama does get along really well with Kaine (Kaine has been aboard the campaign for a long time) - some aspects of their stories are similar and I was at a rally in Northern Virginia where Kaine introduced Obama and he was really on fire.   I think he also gets along with Sebelius too, but I have to say that she is pretty underwhelming any time I have heard her speak.

So, playing the devil's advocate here for a minute - my question is what are the feelings about Clinton?  During the Primary I was completely disgusted with her and her tactics, but I have to say I did like her pre-Primary, and I am impressed with post-Primary Hillary.  So I wonder how Obama has been getting along with her?  The story always was that she is much more personable one-on-one (who was that person who endorsed Obama but told a moving story about Clinton how she had been there for him and visited when he had a sick child in the hospital), so I wonder, during all their recent meetings and plane rides - how have they been getting along?  And would she be a deal-breaker for current or potential Obama voters?  And I do have to agree with Tom W. they do look good together.

KD

Alright, sure, he's from MO so the accent is a little flat...and sure, he's no glamourpuss like Barry is, he doesn't ooze pantheric charm like WJC...

But he can definitely get a crowd worked righteously up. I've seen him do it...look for YouTubes of him campaigning for Webb. He riles up the crowd, and it's about the only time you'll ever see people going nuts for a live Jim Webb stump speech.

He can do the mayoral perfunctories, he can do a rabble-rousing union hall type performance. I think that's great chops for a veep - the whole point is to throw out raw meat to the base during the campaign and then attend funerals in office.

 Karen,

I don't know how they are getting along these days but I would be verrrrry disappointed in BO if he picked Clinton. He has already disappointed me in the FISA vote but picking Clinton would really turn me off. I also think his life would be in more danger if she were VP. I would want a taste-tester hired, just my humble opinion.