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.

That should read, "Columnist, and known American traitor, Robert Novak...".

Another point to consider in evaluating Kaine:

If BO chose Kaine, the Repugs would have much more ammunition for their B.S. elitist charges against BO -- they would constantly talk about the two super-liberal Harvard Law grads who don't understand the common man.

Suzy Shure, I also wonder if it might be someone who is not a politician, a complete surprise choice.

My suggestion:  Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach for America   She is a competent administrator, an idealist, a person who doesn't whine about the world, she gets out there and tries to change it.  She represents the ideal of the Obama campaign -- we are the ones we've been waiting for.

I hope the Obama campaign is reading this!

Christie,

I personally think Biden would be a terrible choice for VP because he would be a terrible surrogate.

I've watched Biden's twice on "Meet The Press," and, in both instances, he managed to undercut Obama by saying that he couldn't defend Obama's mistakes (the first being the willingness to meet with our enemies without preconditions and the second being the rejection of public financing for the general election).

I think Biden is the classic too-long-in-the-Senate politico with an inability to relate to his audience and a pompous, self-centered and inartful speaking tone.  I also find him to be rather full of himself for a guy who was either an embarrassment or an irrelevancy in the two times he ran for President.  I also don't think he should be rewarded for sitting on the sidelines with his endorsement until the summer (even though Obama won his state pretty handily).

Finally, what constituency does Biden actually deliver?  And considering the way he voted on the Iraq War, why is he deemed such a foreign policy expert?

I'd love to hear why you thought he would make a good VP choice.

Anybody But Clinton!

As to the "1-2-3" part,  I'll take my cues from Our Leader...since he was about the only one besides Obama himself who knew for certain 'WAY back in September '07 who would be the eventual nominee and why!

I do know that Mark Warner will most likely win the Senate seat he wants and we and Obama will definitely need him there!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Here's a youtube of Kaine endorsing Obama at that rally I spoke about - I was there and the crowd lapped it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqz9unCxJgM

KD

In this day and age, the VP candidate has to:

1. be credible as a President, which is a combination of credentials and appearance,

2. look good with the candidate.

I don't think it will be Kaine or Bayh (another frequently mentioned name.) Kaine doesn't have a national rep, and he doesn't project a presence.  Bayh is so colorless in both appearance and substance as to be virtually invisible.

  If Dodd passes vetting, he's up there.  Sebelius and Obama look great together, as do Edwards and Obama.  My instincts also tell me that Obama will pick someone he knows and trusts.  He got the measure of Edwards and Dodd on the trail, and he's a big fan of Sebelius.

Richardson is a separate problem.  He passes the credibility and appearance tests, but he is gaffe-prone, and there's probably a stronger case for the Clintons to oppose him--seeing this as an insult--than opposing a woman.

Finally, I add two names who are great fits with Obama but are never mentioned: Bill Bradley and Gary Hart.

Cap'n F: Bradley was on my short list at the start of the campaign. I became enamored of him in the 1980s when I heard him talking intelligently about Gorbachev. The contrast between Bill and Ronnie was palpable.

On the other hand, Kaine becomes a dynamo at the mic when contrasted to Bradley. :)

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea of McCain picking Romney.  I know Romney has huge support in the Republican elite and the right-wing press, but watching the primaries it was pretty obvious that McCain just plain hates the guy's guts.  Despises him.  Thinks he's irredeemable.  McCain's digs at Romney in the debates etc. weren't just political, they were personal and venemous.  I know that isn't historically a dealbreaker in past veep selections, but in this case it seems obvious, and evident in reams of videotape.

And the Republican electorate (as opposed to the establishment) seemed to agree with McCain.  While the elites saw him as the Club for Growth's Great White Hope, the rank and file saw him as a particularly clumsy used-car salesman.  Also his performance as a debater and attack-dog so far wouldn't seem to inspire confidence in Crystal City.  Aside from a brief honeymoon from the Limbaugh-Hannity crowd, I'm not sure what he would bring to the ticket.  (The GOP know they're not gonna win MI).

One question:  Does anyone know what legal status Romney's billions would have if he were the Veep-nominee?  Does public financing render that moot?

Hey Al--

Do you think Catholicism still figures into it?

I don't know a lot about Governor Tim Kaine, but I saw him in action onstage when he welcomed Obama to Virginia during the primaries.  I really liked his feisty energy.  He seemed very personable, kind of a like a jolly wrestler or something.  Haven't looked into his background, I'm just reporting on my visceral reaction to his persona.

Anyone have thoughts on how Dodd's FISA stance plays into all this?  It would seem offhand that choosing the most passionate and active anti-FISA frontman as Veep would obviate any supposed advantage Obama gained by joining in the cave on the bill.  Doubtless there would be numerous front-page stories portraying the choice as a "sop to the internet hippies".

The running mate pick doesn't necessarily help  -- Wyoming and Texas were locked up for Bush with or without Dick Cheney -- but it can hurt.

A look at the Rasmussen and Gallup polling for head-to-head matchups throughout last year showed that, of the three major Democratic presidential candidates, Edwards had the best numbers.  His numbers were good in large part because the low-information white identity-politics voters (i.e., those with more than a touch of racism in their veins) thought he was more conservative than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, when in fact the opposite was true.  Meanwhile, those Dem base voters who were actually paying attention (and were more lefty than the low-info types) strongly backed Edwards.

Edwards' numbers didn't translate into a string of primary wins largely because, as Kos said, he didn't have a machine behind him: His main hardcore support was online.  But he won't hurt the ticket and actually could help it with the low-infos.

I really liked his feisty energy.  He seemed very personable, kind of a like a jolly wrestler or something.

Couldn’t have summed it up better myself. Given what a veep’s supposed to do on the stump, he’s got the perfect veep candidate skills.

I think you’re reading too much into the Dodd choice. The bottom line there is the two just work well together – Dodd was on the list way before the FISA vote. Going with Dodd (liberal from NE with a long record richly oppo-able legislative record) would pretty much mean throwing electoral calculus to the winds and going with good governance.

FISA or no FISA, that'd be a pure gut choice, IMHO.

Al, do you have any thoughts on Bradley?  Pros:  Yes he's somewhat bland, but he can be well-spoken and even somewhat charming in an interview/debate context.  Projects oodles of gravitas, and is nationally-vetted in a rather unique way (squeaky-clean public figure for 40+ years).  Excellent match for Obama's outsider-reformist "broken politics" post-partisan narrative.

Cons:  Not Catholic (Presbyterian).  Probably not ideal in attacking role.  Northeasterner (though likely puts NJ out of doubt, if it ever was).  Not sure if he's interested.

Of course, Obama-Bradley would undoubtedly be the best guard-forward combination ever to run on a national ticket.  As a hall-of-famer and former Princeton All-American, Bradley would definitely garner the all-important Barack's-brother-in-law endorsement.

Any thoughts on Senator Patty Murry (D-WA)? She's a powerful if quiet voice in the Senate hierarchy and has a strong environmental record.  

I think the Caroline-Barack-Hillary flight was possibly significant, and I've heard quiet rumblings that have yet to reach the press that the now reunited Kennedy Clan favors the big unity ticket - not least because it would probably put RFK Jr. into the Senate and allow Ted to be the broker.

Now, I still don't think it's going to happen - and it's not just because of Barack (he's proven he'd do whatever is necessary to win the election, which really is his goal) or some relustance among a dwindling group of hard-core resisters in the Obama camp.

No, Hillary herself now sees a future that she didn't a month or so ago - and one that allows her to wield real power from the left, her natural position on the field. The big hints: keeping her list, keeping Peter Daou, restarting HillPac, playing nice in the Senate, shining on the trail with Barack. She is now a more powerful, more wide-ranging cultural figure than she was last summer - she's in constant demand as a speaker/honoree - and it has nothing to do with her husband.

Obama, ironically, is much more like her husband politically - ready to cut deals to get stuff done and win. I don't think think it's a bad thing, though it's really shocking to some of the more clueless liberals who projected a progressive strain on Barack that he himself doesn't possess. He IS a progressive, but he is NOT an ideologue - very much like Bill.

That said, clearly the best ticket from a political standpoint is Obama-Clinton - it's not even close. No other ticket could induce a euphoric Democratic blow-out, unless FDR somehow came back to life.

I know Romeny would hurt McCain with evangelicals. I think the question is (1) would putting him on the ticket get Mormon money flowing faster and (2) provide a nice cushion for the inroads Obama is making in the west?

I think that is the big thing with Romeny. I think the polls show that there is no enthusiasm for McCain in the party overall; so going with Romeny hits Obama double time with the experience issue and also insulates McCain on the eoncomic front as well as reopening the west to him and tilting it back to R a bit.

I think that is what it comes down to in the end. If the McCain camp decides they aren't making progress with evangelicals they'll go with Romeny; otherwise I think it's Pawlteny(sp?)

He would've made a very creditable nominee in '04 if the press hadn't gone out of their way to manufacture faults and flaws that didn't exist.  He right on all the positions, he's got the executive experience as governor to step into BO's shoes if necessary.  He's lacks the foreign policy credentials, but McCain's own foreign policy missteps have highlighted for even the most unobservant voter that experience is no substitute for judgment. 

Dean is a powerful speaker, a passionate advocate, and a tenacious debater.  He doesn't guarantee any electoral votes but no nominee is a guarantee of anything.

Greetings,

I think there are four different questions to consider in this debate:

1. Who would make the best Vice President for Barack Obama? (this takes into account the skill set, contacts, ability to take a #2 position, personality-we have seen that the organization prefers no drama types)

2. Who would help, and most definitely not hurt, Barack's chances at getting into the White House.

3. Does Obama need concrete help from a VP, ie: a state or demographic, or does the campaign think he can close the deal with the status quo, short of a Dan Quayle, Admiral Stockdale, Geraldine Ferraro blowup?

4. Ultimately, this great Democratic Renaissance occuring nationally, will probably be to no avail historically if we aren't able to garner a filibuster proof majority in the Senate by 2010 or 2012.(ideally 2010). With that in mind, I doubt the campaign will pick a Senator unless they are absolutely certain the replacement will also be a Democrat, and the campaign determines BO won't get elected without that persons help. So the question is, do they think they need the help?

Some other points for consideration:

1. Assuming a two term presidency, it is possible to choose a VP for the next four years that will help with the election now, and choose a different person four years from now in an attempt to set up a succession plan.

2. I don't think Tim Kaine's ability to fire up crowds is what the Obama campaign needs right now, I think the desire to turn VA blue for the long haul with him moderating the redistricting effort will be seen as a more important goal for the nations democrats.

3. I think Sibelius' super low key style and record as being successful in a bipartisan manner would be helpful, I also know she is limited by term limits in KS and so would be stepping down as Governor in 2010.

4. The idea of Hilary introducing Sibelius is very attractive, and I think likely to work with swing voters/moderate voters who weren't prepared to vote for Hilary. Kind of a good cop/bad cop thing.

5. I love the idea of Gore being offered the position first, I think he would be an asset on many levels, and the VP position is the single greatest predictor of future president's there is. I certainly think Barack trusts Al and would truly use him effectively, and ideally not drop all the baggage on him if he ran for President in 2016.

Ken in California

Your Hillary-love has once again blinded you to reality.  Hillary makes the least sense politically, not the most.  She's hated (not just disliked, hated) by 49% of the electorate.  She galvanizes the Republican base in a way that McCain cannot.  Many dems have soured on her because of her actions during the primary campaign.  Many of Obama's most raucous and loyal supporters despise her.  She brings along Bill's baggage.  She undercuts Obama's message of political change and letting go of our partisan political past.

I think you are overestimating the voters Hillary would bring to Obama that he does not already have, and underestimating the voters that would be sure to turn out just to cast a vote against Hillary.  I assure you that the latter is much higher than the former.  Obama might win a 50% + 1 election with Hillary as veep, but with Hillary and Bill returning to national prominence, he'd have a deeply divided body politic and a rejuvenated right wing to weigh down his presidency.

Hillary is a bad choice.

Evan Bayh I think has a really good shot. Obama is doing pretty well in Indiana at the moment. Bayh said he was interested in being VP and that he was being vetted---or at least alluded to it on MSNBC if I remember correctly. But I just can't picture Obama trusting or getting along with the guy.

Bob Casey. Obama and him seem to be the best of friends. They certainly have a lot of chemistry and I think Obama really trusts him. It would be a shocking choice, but understandable. It definitely would represent change and a generational shift, that's for sure.

Clinton? No, not going to happen, and she and her people know it.  That's why the exodus to FOX News by Wolfson et al.  Terrible choice that would fire up the Republicans like no tomorrow.

Richardson; Unlikely in the extreme. Good record, but short on flair, has some worrying stories about him, and not guaranteed to add much to the ticket vis a vis Latinos (who seem to like Obama just fine).

Feingold - sadly, no.  Too identified with leftwing liberalism for mainly centrist voters, and would probably not bring much to the table except with the more rabid leftwingers.

Dodd. No - recent scandal, not a great speaker, opens a seat to the Republicans, and doesn't deliver much except to the base, which is not going to help much.

Edwards: more popular with the Democratic base than many candidates, but was an awful VP pick last time, has lots of elite rich lawyer stories about him, and is not likely to win over wavering Republicans nor Independents.

Napolitano/Sebelius - not amazing speakers, might well annoy the Clinton fanatics, probably better where they are from a Democratic perspective. More plausible as Cabinet picks. IMPORTANT NOTE - SIbelius was a marvellous Classical composer from Finland, not a female governor of Kansas. SEBelius, Kathleen is the lady in question. I've no objection to Clinton introducing Sibelius, but I am not sure he will be providing the theme for the convention. Shame, really.

Biden - not good at staying on message, probably too old, and lacks enough of a national or local profile.

Clark - probably too honest and made a mess of pretending that we all have to think that being an incompetent pilot qualifies McCain for anything in particular. Not a charismatic speaker.

Kaine - possible, but does he really help that much with Virginia? I'd have preferred Warner for this.  Might be better where he is.

Schweitzer - not a bad pick, put not a high national profile, and Montana is not going Blue because we pick him.

Sam Nunn. Well, if you want to alienate a good part of the party, and don't mind choosing an old old man.....

Chuck Hagel.  Slight more likely than my being invited to an orgy with Madonna and Cindy McCain .. but not by much.

Al Gore.  High profile, but probably rouses the Republican base in the same way as Clinton. May well not want the job anyway.

If I had to pick someone, it would be Warner, but I am not sure he wants the job,  Failing that, I would pick Kaine or Schweitzer.

 I only saw Biden on MTP the second time after the public financing statement came out. In every other aspect, except the one you mentioned, which I too thought he did a lousy job as a surrogate, he was good at hitting back hard on the issues. I liked his attitude towards the Repugs on that show and thought Barack might need that Foreign Policy experience (I know there are better FP people). I liked him the day Petreus was in front on Congress & Senate updating on the war in Iraq. I thought Biden did the best job questioning him. Anyway, I am over him being VP. I decided as long as it is ABC (like Pam says) I don't care who he picks.

Shawn, that's soooo April-May - c'mon, the world's changed. Your whole first graph is off. Hillary's the star, not Bill. Barack's "message of change?" has, in fact, changed - it's just about winning. I've seen no 49% "hatred" polls, so that's a non-starter. The Republicans, in fact, fear her. She's a rock star, widely admired, totally post-primary. Gotta get with the new landscape on this one.

Now I agree, a small band of dead-enders in the Obama camp still despise her (roughly the equivalent of those who won't support Obama after supporting Clinton) but who cares about them? Certainly not Barack! He's got their votes anyway.

Not saying it's gonna happen, because I think she no longer wants it. But there are very senior people trying to make it happen. I think they'll fail, and she'll go her own way. Too bad, really.

In the past ‘short lists’ have been leaked to the media, which Obama has said he won’t do. Everyone in the media is making their own short lists, and since they really didn’t want Obama in the first place – the voters did – the lists mostly consist of establishment politicians including the most conservative possibilities.

What you said, Al, about Obama being cited for a centrist shift plays a part here – the VP choice will be more of clear and lasting test of Obama’s real ideology than his recent refinements on a handful of issues. There is the risk of the pick blunting his grassroots movement by signaling politics as usual, and in that respect, the media attention given to Obama’s position changes amplified by McCain’s remarks about them makes it harder for Obama to pick a center-right figure.

In the previous thread I supported Schweitzer and it’s great to see the grassroots appeal for him here. He’s more popular with the public than the media and that reflects on the coverage of the Veepstakes. Obama really doesn’t need help in any state in particular but someone with intelligence, dynamism, and the personality to reach out to independents.

It’s really a matter of reading Obama’s mind. I think the campaign is satisfied with where they are now, and they need someone who won’t rock the boat but will maintain the excitement - whatever that means.

It’s in Obama’s interest to postpone the pick until right before the convention since he’s ahead and McCain is most likely waiting to see what Obama does. McCain could benefit from picking a dynamic choice now since he’s struggling.

I remember a while back when asked about VP choices, he said he would like someone who would complement his skill-set - and he mentioned that he considered foreign policy one of his strengths.  On other hand, he felt like someone whose strength was the economy would be helpful.  Especially in these economic times (with the news today of $147/barrel of oil, Dow falling and possible collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) - what out of the box suggestions are there for economists/ business-type people?  Laurence lessig? Or politicians with a business background?

KD

PLEASE choose Romney, MCain! You'll lose Massachusetts as you always would, you'll win Utah as you always would, and you'll lose Michigan, as you're going to. "Hi! My dad ran a car company into the ditch here thirty years ago! I'm his son!!" That's catchy.

Plus, we here in Massachusetts have a list of the people who lost their jobs thanks to Mitt. I'm sure they won't mind going on the teevee to say how their lives have turned out.

He will be out of office at the end of 2009, so will not be around  for 2010 congressional redistricting.

A little more bio: Like Obama, Kaine was a civil rights attorney and also taught legal ethics at the Univ of Richmond Law School.

He has 14 years of elected experience as Richmond City Council member, mayor, then VA lt governor and now governor. He is currently Chairman of the Southern Governors Assn.

He has been a lay missionary in Ecuador, is fluent in Spanish and has served as  an Obama emissary to Hispanic communities throughout the campaign.

He appears to be a strong 'Peace and Justice' Catholic, opposed to the Iraq war and capital punishment, as well as personally pro-life. Although he has supported consent and PBA laws, he has cut off funding for abstinence-only education, and  has said he would veto any legislation criminalizing abortion either for a woman or her doctor.  

He is reputedly a very close friend of Obama's.  Obama campaigned for him when Kaine  ran for governor in 2005 and Kaine was the earliest official outside of IL to endorse Obama. More simpatico: both of their mothers were born in the same small town in Kansas.

From what I have read on-line, Kaine is reputedly  'sqeaky clean' and will sail through a vetting process.

He sounds like a great complement to Obama: down to earth, principled, and good natured.  A no-drama type of guy.

My hunch is that if trust and partnership values prevail over other considerations, Tim Kaine will be VP. 

Al,

I'm wondering if it might be interesting for us to speculate about someone who would make a good VP pick and who isn't already on the list of the usual suspects.  I don't think that Obama should necessarily restrict himself to the familiar faces who are already in the political realm.  It might be refreshing and exciting if he came up with a surprise choice from another walk of life that made us all say, "What a great idea, why didn't we think of that before?"

It could be August-September.  Hillary is a divisive, polarizing person who is despised by many.  While she has some support among Democrats, the vast majority of Independents and Repubs do not think too highly of her.  If Obama is campaigning for Independents and crossover Republican votes, Hillary is absolutely the wrong pick.  It's a fact.  In May, Obama had higher approvals in NY than Hillary.  That says alot.  But you keep beating that Hillary drum, Tom.

I'm trying to be objective here but I just don't see this increase in power you refer to with Clinton.  I mean, the primaries ended a mere 5 weeks ago and she went on vacation/under the radar for two of them.  So you're basing this on 3 weeks of information?

I am trusting Al that it won't be Clinton.  And I personally believe that she will, as mentioned prior, do more to energize the right to turn out against her than she willl bring to the ticket.  It also furthers the non-change meme that the media is working on.

Appears to be part of the coordinated multimedia assault that is being staged by Hillary dead-enders.  CNN tonight AC360 - The Clintons Never Quit.  Full of outright lies.  18 million supporters.  Obama needs help with women and Hispanics (!).  HuffPo had several of her sycophants surface this week like Glenn Close in the bathtub (cf Kristen Buttwiper, I mean Breitweiser).  Hillary's the real progressive.  Look, she voted no on FISA!  It's not too late, disaffected Obamabots!  Hail Queen Hillary, the savior of the Left (if you ignore her voting record up until Tuesday).

They're goal is to infect the MSM with the idea that Obama is in trouble.  Isn't getting the bump he needs.  Can't pull ahead of that brilliant maverick McCain.  Only Clinton can save Obama!

The trouble is, no facts support their lies.

Can I just say that I am sick of white men who are establishing their "liberal" "anti-sexist" bonafides through what is actually sexism towards Clinton? Krugman, Greenwald, Tom W., all white men who as white men benefit the most from racialized patriarchy and yet project their guilt on to Obama without recognition of Obama's race. They also see Clinton only as a woman rather than as a white woman and themselves only as men rather than as white men and thus in a different position than Obama.  I remember when Tom W. just categorically rejected (how mighty white of you) the fact that Clinton's campaign was racist (as if it is up to you to "decide"; perhaps black scholars and the black community may actually know more about this than the rest of us?). By mythologizing her and refusing to see her in a realistic light (all their analytical, research, and political skills seem to just evaporate into thin air) and by granting her powers she does not have do they not realize that they are actually being sexist? Do these men have mommy issues?

Seriously. Do these men know anything about women and feminism? The actual feminist community and its activists and scholars are embarrassed by Clinton and her campaign. Yes, she has millions of supporters. But do not couch this fact in terms of her gender unless you know what you are talking about because some of us actually have Ph.D's in the subject and have been feminist activists for decades. It's condescending and patronizing.

(Al, I know this may not get published and that is fine. I just had to say my piece.) 

Given that Spanish is spoken by so many millions in this country, it would be nice for the VP to speak Spanish as well. As a community organizer, I'm sure that Obama understands the importance of languages...

Al, ¿qué pensás del siguiente video?

¡Sí se puede cambiar!

Bien a la Nueva Canción...

Somehow the Hillary dead-enders don't get that it's also about Bill and his potential landmines as well. Obama needs the potential scandal and drama  around him like he needs the endorsement of the Aryan Nation. Bill's post-Presidency, the part that we do know about, has not really been vetted as thoroughly as some think. The deals that have been made public may be legal, but they have a dubious smell to them. We still don't know who contributed to his Foundation and Library, and whether or not they want a quid-pro-quo or at least enhanced access. And does anyone think that Bill has been true while Hillary has spent nights in DC? Maybe he's more discreet now, but I bet he has at least flirted seriously with someone since he's left office. And if he's had an affair? Obama might as well drop out now and at least salvage his political career if he takes on Hillary.

Even without that, do voters need to suffer the rehash of everything from Whitewater to Monica Lewinski? What a way to drown a campaign for change by making it all about the Clinton scandals again and allowing the public to be diverted by trivia. The shadow of them brought Al Gore, boy scout to being a potential landslide to barely (illegally) losing to George W. Obama is already going to deal with some folks who won't vote for him because he's black or a bit too liberal for their tastes. Fortunately that crowd mostly votes Republican anyway, but Clinton is less than loved among Independents too, adding to the loss.

And Bill is uncontrollable. He was unable to control himself for his wife who was running for President-he certainly won't be a team player for Obama even if its in his wife's best interests or the party's best interests. It's all about him and his ego, and his vindication. He certainly would be a public backseat driver if Obama was elected with Hillary on the ticket. Maybe even imply that he did things better in order to make Obama a one-termer.

For the two-bit pop psychology "analysis" of my mommy issues - I needed a laugh or two this morning, as it's been a rough week. But I will stoically ignore that stuff; you can't argue it.

Politically, talk about over-reaction - I nowhere suggest Barack "needs" Hillary. in fact, I do not believe it. He's a fine candidate who has proven me wrong on one big issue (and this is important to me, and I worried about it during the thankfully brief messianic period) - he will do anything necessary to win, including blowing off the left, and triangulating his opponents. I really do want Obama to win folks, you can continually call me a dead-ender if you want - that's great community organizing, a la Alinsky, on your part! Well done...right out of the text book.

I happen to believe - and I'm not alone - that Obama-Clinton is a slam dunk whilst Obama-Bland Unknown is a mere lay-up.

I know it's hard to pull back from candidate hatred as well, but Hillary Clinton has moved on (and yeah, maybe some of her ardent supporters haven't - again, understandable even if I strongly disagree). I'm lucky enough to occasionally speak to occasional insider or candidate or activist, and from that limited experience, my observation is that her star - a solo star - is ascendant, even if ain't the presidency. And you know, our candidate - a very smart man - clearly understands this as well. He's moved on too. These people are politicians of the highest order; they cut their losses and strike our for new contests - and they're incredibly adept at sensing shifts in the playing field. [And by the by, Ted Kennedy's illness is not just a personal tragedy, it's a harbinger of a major political shift in the party - one that has helped fuel more unity among these hardscrabble pols - Al may have better reporting on this.]

On the Bill point - uh, where is he going to exactly, either way? Obama or not, he's still one of our few elder statesman, at minimum holding Jimmy Carter status for the rest of his life, doing his humanitarian work (and btw, he's done impressive stuff even if you don't love all his partners). I love the misguided idea that somehow each of the Clintons will somehow become silent...fat chance. And btw, Al Gore lost because he didn't use Bill in the campaign - if President Clinton had pushed that campaign, the irony is we'd be probably have Lieberman as our nominee this year!

I like the idea of Schweitzer, but my partner thinks that Schweitzer doesn't bring enough electoral votes to the table. I say he brings a very different image to the ticket....outdoors, Western, can-do, blue-collar. Would he agree to give up Montana for DC?

I was at the picnic in Butte where Schweitzer worked the crowd up for the intro to Obama. They worked well together, played off each other, and seemed compatible at that point. It was a lovely day and a great picnic and everyone seemed pretty relaxed and optimistic. At the time, I wondered if that might also be why Obama spent so much time in Butte. He came in on Thursday night and didn't leave until late Sat morning.

Tom,

Here are Hillary's favorables/unfavorables per Gallup, going all the way back to '92(!) (scroll down).  Two things to note:  The "no opinion" number hasn't been out of single digits in 15 years.  And the "unfavorable" number hasn't dipped significantly below 40% since she joined the Senate.  More often it's been closer to 50%. (Here are some other numbers fwiw -- scroll down again.)

The best that can be said of HRC's national image is that she's the "devil you know."  This is not a devil-you-know election.  If it is, Obama loses no matter who the number-two is.

It's useless to deny that there is by now an established industry devoted to stoking Hillary-hatred and using it to fuel right-wing causes and candidates.  Is it fair?  No.  But it's fact.

Vague allusions to "insiders" notwithstanding, it's frankly ludicrous to suggest that one month's worth of positive media coverage based on one good speech and one Senate vote changes the fundamentals of the Clintons as political factors, built up over 20 years.

The counterargument that HRC somehow helps Obama's supposed problems with women, Hispanics and hard-working white Amurkins (which I assume is the basis of your "slam dunk" theory) was always based on a demonstrably false extrapolation of primary electorate to general electorate; it's already being belied by the polls.  Her "comeback" in the later primaries coincided neatly with the fundamental shift from Obama being the anti-Hillary to Hillary being the anti-Obama.

Finally, HRC has spent 6 months ensuring that Obama's choosing her for the ticket could only be seen and portrayed as a capitulation to blackmail, and a sign of weakness.  If she actually wanted the job (and I've never understood why she would, but that's another conversation), she should have conducted her campaign in a fundamentally different (and frankly more honorable) manner.

Of course they're not going to "go away" or "become silent"; but if you can't see the difference between both Clintons on the Stump as quasi-independent endorser/surrogates (and later as Senator and ex-Pres/elder statesmen), and as running mates (and later as Second Couple), then your political calculator truly is hopelessly on the fritz (and I don't mean Walter Mondale).

1. Gender is not synonymous with female genitalia.
2. Gender intersects with race, class, religion, nationality, etc. It cannot be extricated. Anti-sexist critique if not complicated by race, class, etc. can become tantamount to race (racist) loyalty. Anti-racist critique if not complicated by gender, class, etc. can become tantamount to gender (sexist) loyalty.
3. Mythologizing a woman and rendering her super-strong and/or more powerful than she actually can be is just as sexist as demeaning her.
4. When you encounter a woman who knows what she is talking about, you listen.

Gang (and I say this to all sides of any debate): Let's not make discussions personal toward those with a different idea. All commentators here deserve basic respect, even when one doesn't necessarily respect their opinions.

Michael, the difference is clear - I don't see them as the devil, at all. I see both of them as tremendous national assets and political actors.

I'm also careful not to simply conflate a married couple as one person - it seems less than charitable (and accurate) to do so.

Also, I'd adjust one of your points to read thusly: "...there is by now an established industry devoted to stoking Obama-hatred and using it to fuel right-wing causes and candidates. Is it fair? No. But it's fact." He's the lightning rod now, and she might be able to help with that. This whole election is gonna be thumbs up/down on Barack - it's because he is such a star and promises so much.

There are only two personality-driven movements in national politcs; I won't say "cults" because it's both unkind and overstates the inherent devotion of most supporters. Barack's is number one. Number two is equally obvious - and number two can either loyally oppose on certain issues or support from inside as the path to becoming number one, but probably not both (this being about politics and power for each of the personalities involved).

But I still don't expect it to happen, as I've said repeatedly, but it would be best if it did. And, of course, I'll be supportive of the final ticket, that goes without saying.

While I really like Schweitzer as veep for his western/energy cred (and he shares Feingold's qualification that no one is talking about him!), are soil scientists really blue-collar? For me, soil-scientist-married-to-botanist, both focus on science education in MT, is a huge plus for the Naval Observatory, but I don't think I'm representative of America as a whole here.

Half-seriously: How many of these veep-prospects have played Not My Job on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me? I'm becoming convinced that that's a key to political success--either you get the show, or there are at least people around you who get the show. Both Obama and McCain have appeared. I know we've recently had Napolitano, Rendell, and Webb. Let's get Sebelius on!

Sid - you learn something new every day, I alway say - so thanks for the instruction. I've certainly learned an incredible amount about societal sexism in the last year, particularly on the left, I'm sad to say. We'll call this another lesson in a long year.

If anbody cares, my second choice for veep is Biden.

Moved on, Tom. And, thanks for the schooling, Siddhartha. Your points are well articulated and useful for all of us as we continue to chart a post-Bush and post-Clinton future. There is too much talent in the Democratic Party to get hung up on one royal First Family. 

The excitement around Obama remains high precisely because we are working towards a generational realignment--one that we can hasten this year, but one that will happen anyway. As is chiseled on the tombstone of W. B. Yeats: "Cast a cold eye / On life, on death / Horseman, pass by!" 

Tom,

I don't see the Clintons as the devil either.  The point is that a significant portion of the electorate -- including most of the national press -- does, unfortunately.  Again, these are political facts that one has to acknowledge even as one deplores them.

The difference between the Obama-hating industry and the Clinton-hating industry is obvious:  the latter has been established and refined for two decades; the former is brand new, and seems still to be casting about for a solid narrative.

Likewise, refusing to "simply conflate a married couple as one person" fails to address the uniqueness of Bill Clinton as a factor.  Even discounting the personality, unpredictability, and finance questions, there's simply no historical parallel to the prospect of a former President as a spouse to a national candidate.  Obama himself reportedly made this point in simple terms:  "Once you're a president, even if you're a former president, you're always a president."  And even ignoring all the potential negatives, it undercuts Obama's whole turn-the-page, fresh-start narrative.

Again, as pure political calculus, HRC makes no sense. And as I've argued before (apologies for spamming), her (and his) value as national asset and power as political actor(s) going forward are better served by staying off the ticket.

The idea floated earlier that Hillary and her supporters would refuse to back Obama if he dared pick a woman who wasn't Hillary.

Um, where's the feminism in that?

Let's put aside for a second the difficulties that a Hillary selection would bring with regard to her own political baggage as well as that of her husband.

If we all go along with the media narrative that Obama's shift to the center is a shameless and craven ploy to win over moderate Republicans and Independents, doesn't it stand to reason that chief among Obama's criteria for picking a VP is that the choice does not hurt the ticket in that segment of the electorate?

I don't have access to the data at my fingerprints, but I do believe that that there has been substantial polling (particularly in swing states) showing that Hillary has net disapproval ratings among Independents and Republicans, and in some cases, pronouncedly so.

With Hillary on the ticket, I suspect (and I believe that the polling substantiates) that Obama's chances of winning safe states like WA, OR, MN and WI; and swing states like IA, CO, NM, VA, MI, MO would diminish considerably.

So, Obama faces a fairly easy strategic question:  does he add Hillary to the ticket for a 2-3% increase in the likelihood of winning Florida and/or Ohio in exchange for a 5-10% decrease in the likelihood of winning many other swing states.

Finally, if I were one of Hillary's handlers, I would strongly encourage her to decline the VP nod.  Her elevated national status correlates to her independence from Obama's political fortunes.  Serving as Obama's VP confers to her a much higher magnitude of potential downside than upside.

I must disagree with one statement in this post.  Of the contenders mentioned Ede Rendell almost certainly one of the most fun to actually see in action.  As a Philadelphia resident who mostly, but not entirely, approves of Rendell, I have to say he's one of the best natural politicians I've ever encountered.  I don't see why he belongs on a list of "snoozeworthy" politicians alongside bores like Sam Nunn and Evan Bayh.  Tim Kaine is far, far more dull than Ed Rendell, although I guess he comes from a sexier state.

I have a number of female friends outside of politics who invested their time, energy, money and passion in Hillary's candidacy. Even though I disagreed with their choice of candidate, I also understood why they've bridled at the thought of another woman chosen as v.p... especially when they believe with all of their hearts, that Hillary is the most qualified to be Barack's running mate. I'm not for Hillary as veep, would be pleased if Sebelius were chosen (assuming she can keep a tv audience awake for more than 5 minutes)... but think about it this --

How would Obama's most devoted and passionate supporters feel if Hillary were the nominee, beat Obama in a long primary, then chose Deval Patrick as her running mate? People here and elsewhere would at least initially go ballistic.

Also, to Allen Brauer -- is it possible to be less of a dick toward Kristen Breitweiser? Do you really need to call her derogatory names? She lost her husband in 9/11. And, she with the other 4 Jersey Girls, were courageous & relentless in pushing for the 9/11 hearings in the Senate. She also put it on the line -- and faced horrific name-calling from the right -- for publicly campaigning for John Kerry in '04. I've read her Huffington Post pieces touting Hillary and putting down Obama. Big deal... that's her opinion. You don't agree with her, fine. But try to keep your insensitivity to yourself.

Phoenix Woman,

Exactly.

Anybody read this article in the huffingtonpost today;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/12/sticking-a-wrench-in-the_n_112303.html

could be bad.

The bloggers in other librul blogs might do this

but not here in The Field

amk

McCain's family values - Marrying into a family with a lot of $value

 AMK, That is funny and gross at the same time. Too Much!

Tom W.- I do not want to personally attack you & you are definetely entitled to your opinion but, I have worked hard converting at least 30 Republicans this last six months. If Hillary was on the ticket they would run like Jesse Owens back to McCain. I think you are wrong in thinking that Obama/Clinton would be a slam dunk. I have volunteered countless hours of my time on the ground (not blogging) for Obama's campaign because I am very tired of seeing the names Bush or Clinton on the ballot for VP or Pres. The quickest way to turn off people like me would be to pick Hillary as his running mate.  Obama does not need HRC and she does not need him so why keep pushing for it?

Assets: Popular governor of swing state. Excellent grasp of urban issues (ex-mayor), infrastructure, family issues. Close to Obama. Squeaky clean. Catholic. His wife is daughter of Linwood Holton, VA's first 20th-century GOP governor (a moderate, long since estranged from the party).

Liabilities: Minimal foreign-policy/military credentials. Not great orator (oddly, better in Spanish than in English). If Obama needs an attack-dog surrogate, Kaine's not it. Mushy choice stance could put him in conflict with hardline bishops a la Kerry & Sebeleus. Arch-conservative GOP Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling would succeed Kaine for a year, and would probably purge executive branch (most state executive officers are appointed by governor, who also fills judicial vacancies when legislature out of session).

Kaine has set up a confrontation with VA GOP over transportation funding - huge issue in Northern VA, big in Norfolk area - which will play out in 2009 legislative session leading up to Nov 2009 state election. Departing to become VP, or running on losing ticket, could short-circuit Dems' chances of taking back VA House in time to control redistricting, which will be extensive because of NOVA population growth. (US House and legislative districts now gerrymandered to favor GOP; 8Rs & 3Ds in congressional delegation.)

I'm surprised the semi-obscene reworking of Kristen Breitweiser's name (never a cool move) was allowed to stand farther up - sure I may disagree with her on the last-ditch efforts to re-open the nomination process, but she's a true American hero - she stood up to Bush when so many Democrats laid down. I wrote this brief post four years ago:

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2004/04/kristen_breitwi.html

To respond to Christi, I'm quite sure Obama's not worried about your vote at present - it's hardly likely that given your (admirable) record of involvement that you'd switch if he chose a VP you didn't love.

Again, I'm not pushing Hillary because I don't think it's likely - I'm just saying she's pretty clearly the best choice, in my view. Nobody need agree.

First time caller, long time listener. Great post and discussion.

There are many compatibility, life story and even old fashioned geopolitical reasons in favor of picking Kaine. But he's in the middle of a dogfight with the GOP-controlled General Assembly over funding transportation. The GOP, probably sensing Kaine on the Veep short list, are doing everything they can to frame him as a tax raiser and stubbornly blocking any budget resolution. He will have to cave at some point. He's reasonably popular -- he certainly hasn't damaged the Dem brand -- but he's no Mark Warner. Mark Warner will win his senate race against Gilmore in a 60+ landslide, which will be incredible for a modern era Dem.

I agree with your reasons for dismissing Dodd, but even before Countrywide, he conflicted with the change message, which might be ok if he brought foreign policy/national security credentials, but he doesn't.

Like Kaine, Sebelius makes sense in terms of compability, life story and geopolitics. But she, and the other folks, fail to solve an issue I think Obama's VP must solve.

There are a lot of people who are on the fence, who don't really want more of the McSame, but don't really know or trust Obama yet. Their vote is probably Obama's to lose, but they are waiting for Obama's Veep decision to get a better sense of the guy. It's a big deal for them. I think it needs to be someone who is an established figure who people already trust. Another unknown on the ticket compounds the lingering insecurities some have about Obama.

For a while I thought Gore might be that guy, but he doesn't seem to want the job and seemed like he had lost a step in Grand Rapids with Obama.

As a wild card, Powell might be interesting. But after the FISA uproar, I'm not sure Obama wants to piss off the netroots further, as Powell would with his infamous UN WMD speech and role in WH torture authorization.  He takes nat sec off the table, because he clearly knows more than McCain, which leaves McCain with no issues.  However, the economy will drive this election, and Powell has no record there.

I think Bayh might be the best of the remaining guys. Like Sebelius, he's been very successful in a red state. He's been on the Intelligence select comm for years. Former two term governor, which is important for an economy election and counter-balances BO's senate experience. Still reasonably young family guy. Pro choice (more than Kaine). His dad Birch was huge behind ERA, youth vote (26th Amend) and Title IX, a helpful voting legacy. Was an HRC backer: unity. Well known in the chattering class, disciplined speaker. Public school education (i.e., not Harvard). He is extremely popular in IN, which is in play. In fact, like VA, McCain can't afford to lose IN. Fiery northeasterners may find him boring, but he exudes midwestern-ness, which could help nail down OH, IA, MI, MN, WI. Mystery is whether they like each other. They might -- Bayh was actually fairly polite during the IN primary.

But what do I know.

The most important reason for picking Schweitzer is being overlooked. Yes, he's a great campaigner with appeal potential for independents, Republicans, libertarians, blue collar and Western-state voters. But more important than that is nationwide focus on rising gas prices — Schweitzer has a realistic plan to achieve energy independence in 20 years, and I think his expertise and smart approach would play very well with the electorate as well as attract a lot of favorable attention to the campaign from lower-information voters.

Nellie, your observation about Obama's long stayover in Montana (on a holiday, no less) is the best thing I've read all week. I think there's something there — they have to test out the chemistry. Also, if Schweitzer is going to be tapped, he needs time to work out some kind of contingency plan for Montana's gubernatorial race, and I would think the Obama campaign would have a word or two for him about how to do that without attracting any attention.

Remember the meeting in Salt Lake City, attended by Cheney and the GOP big money people and ONLY Mitt Romney. Their pocketbooks are CLOSED until Romney gets on the ticket.

Period.

I'll make a deal with you and the living Saint Kristen of Jersey. 

I'll stop being one toward her as soon as she stops being one toward Barack Obama and the millions of reasonable and intelligent Americans who support his candidacy.

Fair?

Al -- love your blog!

Anyway, it seems to me that this would be a series of binary choices as opposed to just plucking a name off a list. Kaine vs Sebelius = Kaine because of Hillary voters not supporting another woman. Clinton vs. Edwards = Edwards because of Clinton's vetting problem. Biden vs. Dodd = Dodd because of Biden's foot in mouth disease and so on, until one person is left.

I actually suspect that McCain has already chosen Romney but is making him sweat it out for kicks and because he does want some good second choices just in case. And now that it's fairly clear John Edwards is being vetted and he's signaled that he's open the job, I suspect Obama has already chosen him and is also making him sweat it out, but not so much for kicks, more to test him because of concerns from those close to Kerry. Polls show that this election hinges on the Economy. McCain has an age problem, Obama has an "exotic" problem, and that make Romney and Edwards, respectively, the obvious choices for each candidate. Now with Gramm-gate, how can McCain not pick Romney? And Stumper's article in Newsweek is right on about Edwards as being utterly safe and therefore exactly what Obama needs.

As for Kaine and Sebelius and Dodd, I suspect that's disinformation leaked by Barack Obama's team to throw McCain off. They would clearly rather run against McCain/Pawlenty than McCain/Romney (or Lieberman or Hutchinson). If McCain thinks Obama might be serious about a minor regional figure, that might lull McCain into rejecting Romney for personal reasons and picking Pawlenty instead.

I don't trust them. Obama would be an idiot to trust them. The only thing he can be sure of is that they are trying to undermine him at every turn. Her donors are trying to blackmail him into putting Hillary on the ticket. Hell no to her. Bill Clinton comes out and praises MCCAIN'S Energy Plan? Same old BS.

HELL NO.

Obama should win or lose on his own, because Hillary is a guaranteed loss for him.

They're complaining that Obama isn't doing enough to reach the Latino population in southwest. Said could make great inroads, and need to do NOW, not wait until Sept. Passing along in the event that Obama pooh-bahs might read this blog. Problem: they do not want to be perceived as vote stuffers only valued late in Sept. They want him to do something before convention. I told them about Teddy Kennedy and Piolin, and none of them had heard the show that day. Said "he" (unidentified) must do another.

"How would Obama's most devoted and passionate supporters feel if Hillary were the nominee, beat Obama in a long primary, then chose Deval Patrick as her running mate?"

Allie,

What if Michelle Obama had been a past-President? Would that alter your perception?

All Bill has to do is create one scandal and Obama's presidency is toast. I wouldn't touch Bill with a ten-foot-pole or any other nationality.

Bill Clinton makes a Clinton VP-ness an impossibility unless Obama has a death wish.

The pro-choice movement has a beef with Bayh about his stance on partial birth (take it up with them). Birch's record irrelevant.  Obama can win Indiana but if he does, it won't matter at that point.

Kaine on Fox News Sunday:

KAINE: Right. Well, I think it's kind of declining interest to the American public what Ralph (Nader) says he's going to do. I mean, he's the Harold Stassen, you know, the great perennial candidate.

I mean, when you get into running for your third or fourth time, I don't think people will pay that much attention to it, and I wouldn't see it having any effect on the race."

Quite candidly, there has been and will always be more interest in what Ralph Nader does than what Tim Kaine does, and Kaine's lack of respect speaks volumes about his understanding of history and citizenship.

Many have remarked on this board that Obama has often appeared to be playing three-dimensional chess while everyone else plays checkers.  Continuing with that vein, I think Matt's post above (@ 10:38 p.m.) presents a VP choice that is a quantum strategic leap above any of the other choices (with all due respect to their national service creds).

Here's my rationale (which shamelessly piggybacks on Matt and earlier posters):

1.  Schweitzer is a true darkhorse pick that would appear to be out-of-left-field to the chattering media punditocracy.  Suffice it to say that he would not be a pick that Team McCain would be expecting, anticipating or preparing to combat.

2.  Schweitzer's public affability, verbal acuity and camera presence would dwarf any McCain VP pick, with the possible exception of Huckabee (who may have lost a little luster after his ill-advised jokes before the NRA).  In particular, Schweitzer would generate much greater likeability than Romney (who, as a conspicuous multi-millionaire, might be a lightning rod for resentment from lower and middle-class voters).

3.  Schweitzer amplifies an emerging electoral calculus theme of this election ... the rise of the Mountain West.  Not only would he greatly improve Obama's prospects for winning Montana, but his presence would strongly improve Democratic prospects across the region in places like the Dakotas and Colorado.  And, think of it this, way, Montana and North Dakota are 6 electoral votes that no one ever expected being in play.

4.  One of the points that the Obama campaign has made is that they want to maximize the number of options that gets them to 270 electoral votes.  Guess what?  Montana + N. Dakota + Colorado + New Mexico = Ohio.  Imagine the deliciousness of making McCain fight on 4 different fronts:  (1) Ohio, (2) Florida, (3) Virginia and (4) Mountain West with Schweitzer as the campaign's chief surrogate.

5.  Gas prices and energy policy have vaulted in importance in recent weeks.  There is not a single viable VP choice left (Gore has already taken himself out of contention) who is more impressive on these issues than Schweitzer.  Schweitzer would be an especially-valuable asset in debunking McCain's offshore drilling gambit.

6.  The recent Supreme Court decision effectively neutered one of the chief obstacles of a Schweitzer nod, namely his pro-gun position.

7.  Schweitzer has the executive experience that Obama has hinted he would value most in a potential VP.  Many other oft-mentioned alternatives like Biden, Dodd and Clinton have little to no executive experience (grandstanding doesn't qualify).

8.  Schweitzer's likeability should not be underestimated.  I apologize in advance if this remark offends anyone or strikes anyone as insensitive, but Schweitzer really does have a Russertesque quality in terms of likeability.

Another possible reason for picking Schweitzer - there was an unrelated story on NPR yesterday about America's love affair with cowboy presidents and the West - Reagan, etc.  A Western pick may be just what Obama needs.

KD

 The point I was trying to make is that if he picked Hillary, the people who were involved the most in the primaries would step back, maybe not travel to help GOTV, stop registering new voters or commit to anymore donations. I am sure Obama is not afraid of losing our vote, but I don't think the campaign would want the hardest working of his supporters to be so disappointed they disengaged from the organizing.  The other point and this has become a dead horse is he would lose a hell of a lot of cross over votes that he has now. So I don't see how she could be the best choice. I am glad you believe it won't happen "too many voices", I am one of those.

No, it's not a deal.  I don't think your sub Love Guru toilet humor re: Kristin Breitweiser, a courageous woman who also happens to post negative pieces on Obama, advances anything.  Comment on the substance of what she says, instead of showing your lack of wit and respect.

Thank you to Matt, Vik Murthy, and others for the thoughtful posts re: Gov. Schweitzer.  I hadn't given him really serious thought before, and was intereted enough after reading your comments to 'google' his website, and learn more.  BTW, Vik, I agree with the "Russert" image too.  Interesting.  And, besides Al Giordano's wise words, the comments are another wonderful reason to read The Field@narcosphere.naroconews.com ( Hi, David!)

Interest in Nader? Other than the fact that the Sunday shows put him on perennially as that crazy guy who sits in a rocking chair in an attic for 3 years until the Presidential elections come around, who is interested in anything Nader says or does? He did some good work 35-40 years ago. OK. Public Citizen is a fine organization, but from folks I knew working there when Nader was around the joint, he was loathed and seen as a cruddy manager at best.  So the non-question is: what has he ever built politically? Nothing.  In the post-1980 years, Al Franken deserves much more respect than Ralph Nader for addressing issues in American politics and society--and I am including his SNL time. Please, apologists for Nader--like the perennial candidate himself--are simply trying to assuage guilt for Florida 2000. And, yes, I do blame Nader for Florida. But, this is the last time Nader's shriveled and decrepit shadow will creep across my psyche--at least until 2012!

Allie Mann writes:

"I don't think your sub Love Guru toilet humor re: Kristin Breitweiser, a courageous woman who also happens to post negative pieces on Obama, advances anything.  Comment on the substance of what she says, instead of showing your lack of wit and respect."

1.  I mentioned her in passing while commenting on the point of Mr. Giordano's article here, the veepstakes, as being part of an organized campaign of Hillary dead-enders like our esteemed Tom W. to force Senator Clinton on Obama as his VP selection. To continue discussing her here is to hijack the post and I have no intention of doing so.  Readers of this post who are curious to know more about Mrs. Breitweiser's screeds against Barack Obama are welcome to use their computers to visit HuffPo and read them, along with the thousands of comments they have already generated, and I refuse to give them more attention.

Mrs. Breitweiser has moral authority on one issue and one issue alone: the death of thousands in the WTC disaster and its aftermath.  She has none when commenting on the 2008 Democratic primaries.  She identifies herself as a Republican, though she may have advocated for the Democrat in the 2004 presidential election.  And a check of Fundrace shows that Mrs. Breitweiser has made no financial contributions to any candidate in 2004 or 2008 to date, which makes her call for Obama supporters to stop contributing to his campaign even more ironic. 

(Fundrace's information lags somewhat, so it's possible she may have contributed to Clinton more recently.  In searching my own name, only my contributions to Obama show up, though more recently I have contributed to the DNC and to Hillary Clinton, following Senator Obama's lead to help retire her substantial campaign debt.)

2.  Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, a guidepost for Mr. Giordano, The Field, and community organizers everywhere, includes the following:

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

Here and elsewhere, and frequently within the context of providing specific criticisms of their arguments, I have referred to Kristen Buttwiper, Debbie Waterboard Schmutz, Harriet Tubman Jones, Grandpa McSimpson, Phil Gramm-Cracker and his lovely wife Enronia, Phil Gramm and his lovely wife Lindsey, Rudy Giulinineeleveni, and others.

I do not cede to you the authority to dictate to me my choice to use mockery among my rhetorical weapons.  You are welcome to view me as lacking wit and respect, and in fact I cede the latter while refuting the former.  To show respect to those who are unworthy of it is to make a mockery of the very concept.

I await your input on the topic at hand: who would be Obama's best running mate? 

If you wish to discuss Mrs. Breitweiser further, you are free to email me at allanbrauer@sbcglobal.net or take the discussion to Fieldhands.

In an attempt to get back to the subject at hand, I would respectfully submit that some of us may be massively underestimating the downside risk of picking Hillary as VP.

Currently, the Obama campaign is dealing with the media-fueled and leftblog-fueled perception that it is merely just another conventional political campaign lacking in authenticity, principle and courage.  If Obama chooses Hillary as his running mate, he will provide tremendous amounts of gasoline to this simmering cauldron.  He would be seen (and rightly so) as a win-at-all-costs type of politician with hollow claims of bringing a new type of politics to Washington.  While the choice may result in less web-based histrionics than the recent FISA affair, it would nonetheless significantly dampen the enthusiasm gap that his candidacy currently enjoys (I would agree mightily with Christie's previous thoughts on this subject) in its base.

There is another significant risk to bringing Hillary on board.  She has been a notable, public and vocal defamer of his track record, experience and character.  In political terms, choosing Hillary would be akin to asking the ugly woman who deemed Obama "an inadequate black man" outside the Rules and Bylaws meeting to make a keynote address at the Democratic convention.  This is true because of the broadcast media's predilection for playing the most incendiary sound-bytes on "rinse and repeat" mode.  It is no wonder that some of the biggest media proponents for Hillary as VP (e.g., Chris Matthews, Howard Wolfson) stand poised to benefit from further, stirred-up controversy down the road.

Finally, Hillary as VP dampens the breadth of Obama's appeal.  She would effectively reduce Obama 2008 to the "inspired" (sarcasm alert) 50%+1 strategy waged by Kerry in 2004.  Instead of forcing McCain to wage battle on 4 different fronts, Hillary's inclusion on the ticket would reduce the battlegrounds to Ohio and Florida.  While these states may still be winnable for Obama, he would be dramatically limiting his options and would be forced to awkwardly reposition himself to demographics that are not as naturally receptive to him as those in the Mountain West.

Brian Schweitzer has a complicated problem:

http://governing.typepad.com/ballotbox/2008/06/brian-schweitze.html

Brendan, I wasn't intending to start a discussion about the 2000 election, and venture to guess that your views on Mr. Nader are driven by your political opinions.  If Kaine had more of a grasp of American history he'd know that Ronald Reagan won the White House on his third try, so he needs to find a new rationalization to dismiss Nader and his supporters.

I don't intend to feed an irrelevant discussion about a New York Senator that won't be picked, but:

1. Hillary wouldn't pick Derval Patrick because she's a bigot who recycled George Wallace's talking points on race;

2. Obama won't pick someone who publicly cited his possible assassination's potential impact on her political ambitions;

3. Hillary attempted to create an electoral mandate to "obliterate" 71 million people with no stated contingent provocation.  That would make four times more deaths than any political leader in human history.  Her continued support has provide valuable insight into certain segments of the electorate.

Hillary relevance to the history of women's politics has been aggrandized on behalf of her self-interest, and attempts to block other women from being selected should drive home the obvious about her concern for women in general.

Yeah, that is an important caveat. Above, I made a similar argument against Kaine. It is a problem that will come up with many Democratic governors, or senators for that matter, that Obama might pick. A choice like Clark or someone else who does not hold elective office would avoid this, but I think we may need to accept it as one of the costs of picking a VP rather than ruling out any potential VP that might have this problem. We would lose too many good choices that way.

I very strongly think that Obama should pick a governor rather than a senator as his VP, or more generally someone with good executive experience. I think this is a good balance with his own talents and skills.