Veepstakes-o-rama

By Kathy G.

Note: an edited version of this post can be found here.

I've been giving some thought lately as to whom Barack Obama should choose as his running mate. It will be an important, and revealing, decision, because his choice will say a lot about what his political priorities are and where he wants to lead the party.

In a bit I'm going to list the names that have been batted about and let you know which of them I think would be best suited for the veep. But first I want to write a bit about what qualities I think are important in a vice president.

As for the Republicans who might be McCain's running mate -- well, I'm not going to bother with them. They all suck anyway so I don't much care who gets it.

Okay, so what do I think the most important qualities in a vice president might be? I'll start off by mentioning a few of the things I don't think are important. As Josh Patasnik has written, in some ways the choice of the vice president tends to be overrated. Vice presidents rarely have an effect on the election. Patashnik notes:

A 1989 analysis by Robert Dudley and Ronald Rapoport in the American Journal of Political Science found that, on average, a vice-presidential candidate improves his ticket's performance in his home state by only a statistically insignificant 0.3 percent.

So forget about the canard that a vice president will "deliver" his or her home state. I also don't think that, say, "balancing" a ticket by picking someone who differs ideologically from the presidential candidate, or is from a different area of the country, or brings something (like national security/foreign policy experience) that the person on the top of the ticket lacks is going to help any, either. All the evidence indicates that people vote for the top of the ticket and the rest of that stuff doesn't matter.

But while I don't believe a vice president is going to gain the candidate any votes s/he wasn't going to get anyway, I do think that a poor veep choice can hurt a candidate. George McGovern's disastrous pick of Thomas Eagleton is, of course, the canonical example of this. But I'll bet that Dan Quayle and Geraldine Ferraro cost their respective tickets some votes as well. Ferraro's husband's business dealings and Quayle's overall dimness generated negative media coverage that detracted from the message their campaigns wanted to convey. In addition to those two, I believe that Joe Lieberman was also a poor choice. Even back in 2000, a lot of liberals (myself included) strongly disliked him, so putting him on the ticket likely depressed enthusiasm among the base, and may even have driven enough lefties into the arms of Ralph Nader to throw the election.

So, with that in mind, here are the qualities I think are most important in a vice presidential choice:

1. This almost goes without saying, but the veep should be someone who's smart, capable, and ready to become president at a moment's notice. Fortunately, it's been a very long time since this country had a tragedy that forced a vice president to suddenly take charge, but there's always the dim possibility that it could happen again. It's essential that the person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency be up to the job.

2. Another very important criterion is that the vice president be a reliable supporter of the basic values of the Democratic party. Now, no one is going to have a perfect record on all of this stuff, but I would say that the most important values of the Democratic Party include the following: being pro-choice, pro-feminist, pro-labor, pro-civil rights, pro-wealth redistribution, pro-gay rights at least to the point of being pro-civil unions, pro-activism on the environment and climate change, not being a corporate 'ho, and being, if not anti-Iraq War from the start, at least someone who is committed to withdrawing the troops quickly, and who is relatively liberal on foreign affairs. I'll add that it's important to choose someone who's been committed to these values from the start of their career -- not some who just discovered them the day before yesterday. Being reliable on this stuff is extremely important -- as I've said, we're talking about someone who will be just a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the land.

3. The vice president should have no scandals or distracting personal issues. This is in keeping with the "first, do no harm" principle of vice presidents. They can't help much, but they can hurt, so you want someone who's scandal-free. That way, the campaign can focus on getting their message out, not on damage control.

4. As a corollary to #3 above, you'll also want someone who doesn't have a big mouth and isn't prone to making gaffes or being a loose cannon. Being a disciplined campaigner and staying on-message are very important.

5. Another important criterion: the Democratic vice presidential candidate should not be a senator from a state with a Republican governor. The reason, of course, is that if the senator does indeed become vice president, his or her successor will be appointed by the governor. Now, some states have special elections to fill the seat, but such elections are not likely to happen immediately. And just a few months of a Democratic senate seat filled by a Republican could be problematic.

Experience has shown that if a president wants to get anything done, s/he has to hit the ground running as soon as s/he takes office. Obama should seriously be trying to ram through as much legislation as is humanly possibly within the first few months. If he waits, the honeymoon period wears off and he'll be less powerful; also, delaying things would give the opposition forces time to mount. To get anything done at all, Obama will need a senate with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority of 60, or at least as close to 60 as he can get. So to sacrifice a Democratic senate seat, even temporarily, would not be wise. Therefore: no Democratic senators from states with Republican governors.

6. The vice presidential candidate should also have a good working relationship with Obama. Obviously, the quality of this relationship is something that only Obama and his running mate themselves can judge. But if the vice president is to be an effective advocate for administration policy, having a good relationship with the president is crucial.

7. It would be preferable, albeit not essential, for the vice presidential candidate to be a good potential candidate for president in 2016. Almost all vice presidents eventually run for president, and most of the ones who do run win the nomination. If Barack Obama is interested in building the party and securing his legacy, he will want to choose someone with the skills to be strong standardbearer for the party in years to come.

8. Another thing that is preferable, but not essential: that the vice presidential candidate be a woman. It is long past time for a woman to break through this particular glass ceiling. The fact that, throughout the 220 years or so of our constitution, we've only had one woman on the ticket is a disgrace. There are a some extremely talented Democratic women out there who'd make excellent vice presidents. Moreover, serving as veep would make them strong future contenders for the ultimate prize: the presidency itself.

Hillary Clinton's historic run made many women acutely aware of just how thrilling and powerful it would be to see a woman president at last. If we can't have that this year, having a female vice president is the next best thing.

Okay, those are my criteria. Now, before I get to my list, a few caveats. As Joe E. Brown said in Some Like It Hot, "Nobody's perfect," and indeed, none of the veep candidates are perfect, either -- not even my favorite ones. All of them fall short of the ideal in crucial respects, but as I argue, some come closer to it than others.

And so long we're talking about how nobody is perfect -- well, I'm not either (what? you couldn't tell?). I'm by no means an expert on the candidates on my list, and there may be important information, either favorable or unfavorable, that I'm leaving out. If so, please let me know in the comments. If I think it's warranted, I'll revise my judgments.

One final note: the people I'm including on my list are all the people I've seen mentioned elsewhere -- the ones allegedly on Obama's "short list" or his "long list" or whatever. If I'm leaving out people who seem to be serious contenders, let me know. I'm not including every possible senator or governor because, much as I'd love it if Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer were in contention, they ain't, and there's no need to waste time or energy pretending they are.

Now, without further ado, my choices (all are in alphabetical order, not order of preference).

The Best

Sherrod Brown - Brown was only recently elected to the senate (he's part of the class of '06), but before arriving there he was a 7-term Congressman from the Cleveland suburbs. He is a very smart guy and an economic populist with sterling progressive credentials. He was a skeptic on trade before it was cool, and helped lead the fight against CAFTA. He was also against the war from the start.

What are his drawbacks? Well, the "Obama Brown" bumper stickers might give one pause. And you do have to worry about someone who only recently entered the national stage -- lots of negatives tend to come to light in national races that don't necessarily rise to the surface on the state and local level. Also, you never quite know how someone is going to deal with the relentless campaigning and the pressure of it all -- will they make more than the usual number of gaffes? How will they come off on television and during speeches? That said, those are the kinds of worries you'd have with anyone who's new to the national stage, and I don't know of any reason to believe he won't be up to the job. Indeed, the evidence I'm familiar with suggests otherwise.

Another thing in Brown's favor: he won his senate race in an important swing state (Ohio) campaigning largely on economic themes, and hopefully he would influence Obama to move in a more economically populist direction. And btw the governor of Ohio is a Democrat, so we don't have to worry about losing a senate seat.

John Edwards - I've made no secret of my admiration for John Edwards and my belief that he was the best candidate running for president this year. I think we all know enough about John Edwards to have a sense of his strengths -- his economic populism, his genuine concern for the poor and for the economic struggles of ordinary Americans, his excellent policy ideas, his eloquence as a speaker, and his indefatigable energy.

We know some of his weaknesses as well -- what was up with those tone-deaf moves at the beginning of the campaign (that ostentatious monstrosity of a house, the ridiculously expensive haircuts, the apparently not very well-thought-out decision to hire bloggers who were sure to be super-controversial)? And some of his votes in the senate, and the way he pulled his punches as the veep candidate in '04, particularly in the debate with Cheney, were quite disappointing.

To be said in his favor, though, is that his '08 campaign for president showed he learned from some of those earlier mistakes. He was far bolder and ran much further to the left, and I think that, and not his earlier incarnation, is closer to his true self. And to his enormous credit -- in that race, he led, and Hillary and Obama followed. Edwards' ambitious health care plan and his aggressive economic populism forced them to move to the left, and that was a very good thing.

The real rap on Edwards, of course, is that he ran for president twice, losing by a substantial margin each time, and that he was part of a losing presidential ticket as well. Do we really want him back? I can well imagine the Hillary supporters being miffed if Edwards is chosen -- why would Obama pick the white dude who's a two-time loser rather than the historic candidate who came so close?

So, what's my argument for Edwards? Forget the polls that show he'd increase support for the ticket by up to 18% -- I don't buy that at all, and I think it's pure name recognition. My argument, instead, is that John Edwards is among the most talented and dedicated public servants the Democratic Party has, and it's not like there are so many of those around that we should be throwing them away. His economic populism is, or should be, the way forward for the Democrats. I would love to see him become president one day, but probably the only way that will happen is if Obama puts him on the ticket.

There are other very practical reasons for supporting Edwards. He's popular with the party and he'll do a great job raising money for other Democrat candidates. First and foremost, though -- he's been through this before. If Obama puts him on the ticket he'll minimize the risk of nasty surprises. Mickey Kaus to the contrary, I doubt there are any new skeletons to be found in Edwards' closet. Not only that, but we know he's excellent on the campaign trail, a terrific speaker, and good on TV. And do we really know that about other newbies, even the ones I like, like Brown and Sebelius? As John McCain shows every day, even people who've been on the national scene for a long time can really start screwing things up once they become the nominee and are constantly in the spotlight.

And then there's Elizabeth Edwards -- have I mentioned Elizabeth?  Are there any Democrats out there who don't love her? Or any non-wingnuts who don't at least like her? She'd be an  ideal person to help lead Obama's health care fight,  whether her husband is on the ticket or not. 

The reason to be for Edwards, in short, is that he won't hurt the ticket in the short-term, and in the long-term, he'll be very good indeed for the Democratic party. For those reasons, he is my top pick.

Kathleen Sebelius - This two-term Kansas governor seems to be on everyone's shortlist, and it's not hard to understand why. She's extremely smart and capable, has been named by Time magazine as one of the five best governors in America. She has a laudably progressive record: she's staunchly pro-choice, anti-capital punishment, and she opposed a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage.

She's significantly increased funding for education and she's very good on environmental and health care issues. She blocked proposed coal plants from coming into the state and, as state insurance commissioner, rejected an attempt by the insurance company Anthem to buy out Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, which would have increased health care costs for consumers. She's also known for her ability to work with Republican legislators and to win the votes of independents and Republicans in a red state.

So, what's not to like? I've heard two main criticisms of Sebelius. First of all, there's the argument that Hillary Clinton's supporters will be angry if Barack Obama chooses as his running mate any woman other than Hillary. I think this is ridiculous. There are probably not very many Hillary-ites who would feel that way, and the ones who do would reveal themselves to be more interested in perpetuating a cult of personality than in advancing the goals of feminism.

The other rap on Sebelius is her disappointing speech responding to Bush's state of the union address earlier this year. Yes, it was boring, but so what? Barack Obama is enough charisma for any ticket. Besides, if we're going to eliminate people from consideration for national office because of poorly received speeches, then we should never have elected Bill Clinton who, whose highly inauspicious debut on the national stage was his legendarily awful nominating speech for Michael Dukakis in 1988.

On the other hand, while it would be unfair to eliminate Sebelius from consideration on the basis of a single speech, her lackluster performance does point to a legitimate concern: she, like Sherrod Brown, doesn't have much experience on the national stage, and we really have no idea how she'll do. Selecting her rather than a more experienced candidate like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton would entail some risk. That risk, I think, is the major drawback for Sebelius, as it would be for Brown.

Have some big drawbacks, but well above average

I really don't think Barack Obama should choose any of the following people as his running mate -- each of them has at least one major drawback that I believe should be disqualifying. On the other hand, they're all capable, talented, and reasonably progressive, and if any of them were indeed chosen, I could get excited about that. I would just hope that their negatives don't turn out to be as big a deal as I fear they might.

Wesley Clark - Matt Stoller made the best case for Clark that I've read; you can find it here. In brief: he's progressive, he's scary-smart, and he's popular within the party (Matt says he's the most requested surrogate in the country other than Barack and Hillary, and he's good at raising money). His biggest strength would obviously be his serious foreign policy cred, and he did oppose the Iraq War from the beginning. Also, the fact that he's run for president helps -- he has more experience on the national stage than many others being considered. The downsides? Well, assuming his recent remarks about McCain don't disqualify him (and they shouldn't), I've heard some negative things about him as a campaigner. And I also have very serious reservations about putting someone on the ticket who's never held elective office.

Hillary Clinton - Well, probably everyone reading this already has an opinion about whether Hillary on the ticket would be a good thing or a bad thing. Even so, I urge you to read this brief by Bob Beckel, which lays out a surprisingly persuasive case for Hillary as VP. She's extremely smart and capable; we all know that. She has tons of experience on the national stage, and is a decent speaker and a strong campaigner. But Beckel points out a few other things: the money and organizational strengths of the Clinton machine would be a huge boost to Obama, for one. Also, there is nobody, but nobody, who'd be a better attack dog against McCain and the right than Hillary. And Mr. "Hope and Change" Obama could definitely use someone on the ticket who's not afraid to go negative when it's warranted.

That all sounds very good -- so why do I oppose her for veep, anyway? Well, she never did apologize for her vote authorizing the war, and I also have grave reservations about the hacktastic group of advisors (Penn etc.) she surrounds herself with. The fact that she kind of represents the past at a time when we as a nation need to be moving forward also gives me pause. More than anything else, though, Hillary's main drawback is that she has an albatross around her neck named Bill Clinton. If I were Obama, I'd worry, first of all, that Bill's unsavory business deals and sleazy associations would be nonstop fodder for Republican attacks. I'd also worry about the potential for Bill's behind-the-scenes meddling, especially once I'm office.

Hillary might be worth a shot if she can persuade Bill to spend the next eight years on an international fact-finding tour, but otherwise? 'Fraid not.

Chris Dodd - What's good about Dodd: decent, progressive record overall. He was instrumental in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act, he's great on children's issues, and he has foreign policy cred as well (though unfortunately he voted to authorize the war). Moreover, he's been well-nigh heroic regarding FISA. He's been around for a while and he's run for president, which is good experience.

What are the drawbacks? Well, a big one is that his state has a Republican governor. And he's 66, so if you're of the school that Obama should pick someone who can run for president in 8 years, he's not your guy. Also, there were rumors about his womanizing, including one infamous story involving his participation in public debauchery with Teddy Kennedy in a DC restaurant. But Dodd seems to be behaving himself these days and I think that, when it comes to Reagan-era sexploits, the statute of limitations has run out.

But the killer for Dodd, I think, are his close ties to the financial services industry, for whom he has done some very questionable favors -- Google "chris dodd" and "countrywide" for the details. So no, though he's basically a good guy, this is a serious blot on his record, and one that the Republicans, no doubt, would never shut up about -- this at a time when Democrats should be emphasizing their differences with Republicans over this sort of thing. So, sorry Chris -- no go.

Patty Murray - I honestly don't know much about Murray, who's serving her third term as a senator from Washington state. But I looked up her voting record, and it's quite strong (she was against the war from the beginning). She's been low-key but, according to articles I've read, surprisingly effective. One thing that seems to work for her is that people observe her quiet, no-drama demeanor and then proceed to underestimate her -- inevitably, to their peril. As any student of the political career of Ronald Reagan can tell you, being underestimated can be an extremely powerful political weapon in your favor. Plus, I find the following quotes about her in this article to be highly appealing:

On the one hand, she's the soccer mom in tennis shoes," said a Washington state GOP operative who asked for anonymity. "On the other hand, she's created a political machine that scares the heck out of everybody -- including me."

Bryan Jones, a University of Washington politics professor, agreed, saying, "Don't underestimate Patty Murray's ability to go for the jugular." Likewise, Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group, called her a "bare-knuckles brawler."

A "bare-knuckles brawler" who can "go for the jugular," eh? Well you know me -- I like that in a dame!

Problem is, in spite of a bit of reading around, I still don't know all that much about her. And unfortunately, her lack of national experience is a risk -- who knows how good a campaigner she'd be, or how well she'd do on the cable news shows? Nevertheless, I've learned enough positive things about her to believe she could turn out to be a fine choice. And the governor of Washington is a Democrat, so filling her senate wouldn't be an issue.

Janet Napolitano - Much like Kathleen Sebelius, she's a very smart and highly capable progressive who's been a successful Democratic governor in a red state, Arizona. She also has an impressive resume -- before becoming governor, she was a U.S. Attorney. What's problematic, from my point of view, is that -- gasp! -- she's not married. I know, I know -- I hate the idea that this matters, but I think it does. I believe America is well on its way toward electing its first African-American president. I also believe that most of America is not going to have a problem with a ticket that includes an African-American male and a white female.

But an unmarried white female? That, I'm afraid, might be pushing things a bit too far. There are the inevitable gay rumors about Napolitano, of course, and it's not that I believe or disbelieve them, or care. But being unmarried does freak a lot of people out, and I think this is one boundary we shouldn't try to push this time, especially given the fact that she has no national political experience.

Jack Reed - Jonathan Cohn recently wrote a good post summing up Reed's strengths and weaknesses; you can read it here. What's good: working class Catholic background, West Point grad, strong progressive record, strong foreign and defense policy credentials (he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning). What's not so good: Senator Reed's home state, Rhode Island, has a Republican governor, and that, I believe, should disqualify him.

There's also the rap that he's "boring," which in itself I don't find especially problematic. What is problematic is that, according to Cohn,  Reed's recent appearance on ABC News "This Week" was quite weak, which is unfortunate, because the ability to hold one's own on shows like that is vital for a politician of national stature. Perhaps it was just an off day for Reed, but even so, it's enough to create serious doubts about whether he's up to the demands of the veep job.

Not experienced enough

Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia

Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri

Jon Tester, Senator from Montana

All three of these folks have yet to complete a full term in their current respective offices -- Kaine became governor in 2006, and the other two entered the senate in 2007. They might be good choices for future tickets, but they need more seasoning in the big leagues first.

Otherwise engaged

Mark Warner - The former Virginia governor is currently running for the U.S. senate. Even if he were willing to drop out of the senate race to become Obama's running mate, I don't think he should do it. Getting another Democrat to replace him in the senate race would be tough -- let alone getting a Democrat who, like Warner, is favored to win this red-state race.

Eh

Brian Schweitzer - The Montana governor would be an acceptable choice, I guess. He's popular and said to be politically skillful, but he's too centrist for my tastes. I think Obama can do better. Schweitzer is also currently running for re-election as governor, which might prove an obstacle. If need be, though, I think we can sacrifice a gubernatorial candidate -- albeit not (for reasons discussed above) a senatorial candidate.

Please God no

Joe Biden - Delaware's senior senator has an obnoxious personality and a big mouth, and that's just for starters. But what really makes him unacceptable is strong support of the bankruptcy bill and his longstanding position as "the senator from MBNA." Next!

Tom Daschle - Sorry, but he was an awful senate majority (and minority) leader who constantly caved into Bush and presided over substantial Democratic losses in the senate. He also cast crappy votes aplenty -- in favor of the bankruptcy bill, the ban on "partial-birth" abortion, authorizing the Iraq War, etc. Oh, and his wife's a corporate lobbyist, which will be sure fodder for conflicts-of-interest galore. I don't know about you, but I have definitely had my fill of this guy.

Bill Nelson - Another Democratic senator from a state (Florida) with a Republican governor. Also, he voted for the bankruptcy bill, and he wants to do away with the estate tax. I say, screw 'im.

Ed Rendell - Pennsylvania's governor is another loose cannon, with precious little political discipline. Not worth the risk, especially given the womanizing rumors.

Bill Richardson - Yes, the New Mexico governor's energy policy plan was impressive, and he also had the best plan for getting out of Iraq (Barack Obama, repeat after me: "No. residual. troops.") But he also has a lot of bad ideas, especially about economics -- he supports a balanced budget amendment, for example. And what can you say about a person whose model for a Supreme Court justice is Byron White? (He later took that back, but still . . .) In addition, there are the unsavory rumors about his personal life. A Latino on the ticket would be great, but Richardson's not the guy.

Oh no God no

Evan Bayh - At the moment, this is the choice I'm most worried about, because Bayh does really seem to be on Obama's short shortlist. I think he'd be an awful choice, and not just because he's a senator from a state (Indiana) with a Republican governor. Evan Bayh is one of the biggest Democratic corporate 'hos in the senate -- he's "fiscally conservative," voted for the bankruptcy bill, is a DLC Dem all the way. He is literally one of the Wall Street Journal's favorite Democrats. He also voted for the Iraq War and is quite hawkish overall. On top of all that, he brings nothing to the table in terms of being personable, being a good speaker, etc. Someone I know who met him said he comes across as completely plastic -- MItt Romney, he said, has more authenticity and soulfulness. If Barack picks this dude, it's going to be a very long four (or eight) years. Let's hope he has the good sense to choose someone else instead.

Oh no no no God no no no

Sam Nunn - As I've explained before, Nunn was among the most conservative of Democratic senators. That's bad enough, but what puts him in untouchable territory as far as I'm concerned is his homophobia. Not only was Nunn the chief architect of the awful "don't ask, don't tell" policy, he also personally fired two of his staffers who were gay. I say, forget this guy.

Unthinkable

James Webb - I've explained why at length: he has an awful record on women and a disturbingly wingnutty past in general. Nor has he done such a great job so far as senator. For a Democrat to choose someone with his record to be a heartbeat away from the presidency would be madness. Fortunately, he seems to have taken himself out of contention, so I don't think we'll have to worry about him being on the ticket.

Totally beyond the pale

The absolute worst idea I've heard this political season is that Barack Obama should put a Republican on the ticket. Why, pray tell? There are a number of good Democratic veep candidates, for starters. And at a time when public opinion polls and electoral trends are leaning strongly Democratic, why would he want to make a move that damages the Democratic brand and gives a boost to the Republican one?

Even worse -- as the Republicans have moved ever further to the right, just about all of the decent ones abandoned the party long ago. Chuck Hagel is the Republican who is most frequently touted as Obama's running mate, but in most respects even he is just as bad as the rest of them. Hagel is rated 0% by NARAL, the pro-choice group; 100% by the Christian Coalition; 11% by the NAACP; 8% by the AFL-CIO; and 12% by the American Public Health Association (i.e., he has an abysmal record on health care). He has a better record on Iraq than most, but even that is not saying much.

An Obama/Hagel ticket would give David Broder a thrill up his leg, but just about everyone else would cringe at such a gutless pander. Fortunately, there's no evidence Obama is considering this move, but I really have to wonder about the people who have been suggesting it. What planet are they living on again?

Comments

[American Hawk]

I won't comment on the bulk, but there's two things you mentioned that strike me as being bolstered by recent political events:

I also don't think that, say, "balancing" a ticket by picking someone who differs ideologically from the presidential candidate, or is from a different area of the country, or brings something (like national security/foreign policy experience) that the person on the top of the ticket lacks is going to help any, either.

The "balance the geography" canard was conclusively buried in the past eight years. Cheney and Bush were both in Texas pre-2000; the only reason Cheney listed his residence as Wyoming was because two Texans on the ticket would make them ineligible for Texas's electoral votes (as per the 12th Amendment). Regardless of your opinion on the true results of the 2000 election, it seems impossible to maintain that them both being Texan hurt the ticket.

So forget about the canard that a vice president will "deliver" his or her home state.

Heck, look at Al Gore. He represented Tennessee in Congress for ten years, as a Senator and as a Representative. Despite that, he couldn't win it in 2000; he lost by almost 100,000 votes. Given that, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that a mere VP pick can 'deliver' a state.

[Village Green]

I've been reading and admiring your blog for awhile now. Just had to stop lurking to say, please no -- we really need Sherrod Brown here in Ohio. Don't put him on the ticket with Obama. I like Sebelius -- for all the reasons you list. Plus, I was watching the documentary on Greensburg (Planet Green) and she showed up in an episode meeting with Greensburg residents to encourage them in their quest to turn their town green. She came across so very genuine, concerned and supportive.

[8==m==>]

As I read through this, my first reaction was that this entire post was nothing but mundane regurgitation of netroots recevied wisdom. But, on second thought, I comprehended the truth: so is everything else on this blog, a point of which you are apparently much more aware than even your loyal readers!

Now I fully understand it - this is really a marvelous little self-parody. Quite hilarious, and clever, if I may say so. You are really showing your range as a writer by including this little morsel of literary mischief. 7/10.

[arbitrista]

I've been working on an elections model lately, and found a somewhat more substantial 2-pt bump in the running mate's home state. But basically you're right - people don't vote for the bottom of the ticket.

[Free Marketing eBook]

This is really a marvelous and you are showing your range as a writer by including the morsel

[Free Marketing eBook]

This is really a marvelous and you are showing your range as a writer by including the morsel

[Tano]

Good list - I agree with most of your points.
Couple of issues I wonder if you could comment on.

Considering Mark Warner - couldn't Gov. Kaine jump into the Senate race if Warner were chosen? Kaine is almost as popular as Warner and would probably win vs. Gilmore.

What about Tony Zinni? Seems like all the advantages of Wes Clark, with none of the downside. Of course, it would set off several weeks of media stories that begin with "Tony Who"? But that has two advantages - it undermines the focus on the GOP convention in the week following the Dem convention. And secondly, there are, far as I know, no bad things that will emerge from a media-driven focus on figuring out who this guy is.

[eliana]

Hillary Clinton's recent announcement that she'll be peddling $50 tee shirts with an obnoxiously inspirational/bitter slogan is both annoying and sad. Besides, if she's got to sell stuff, it might as well be cool, or practical, like a Husband GPS Tracking System to keep an eye on Bill, or a handy watch that tells you when it's time to concede...
http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/13/hillary_clintons_20m_mental_re_7691.php

[Fabio]

Regarding Hillary:

I still for the life of me cannot understand why she should have to apologize for her vote on the AUMF-- and why apologizing or 'being against the war from the start' is somehow more relevant than having a plan to get us out now.

And why this really bothers me is because Obama and Clinton have remarkably similar voting records on war funding authorization. Obama explains this by saying that now that the war is going it's his duty-- in effect, getting himself off the hook for voting for the war by saying context is relevant. Yet when Clinton did the same thing-- by pointing to her speech before the AUMF vote where she said 'I'm voting for more inspections first and foremost' somehow it is craven and context doesn't matter-- she's just deserving of moral opprobrium or conniving or triangulating.

Why should she apologize for Bush's mistake? And why should Obama have gotten a free pass from the Left about his consistent funding for the war? Or his FISA reversal? I mean, come on-- you can't have it both ways-- context for him and not for her.

[Ben Alpers]

One thought about Sherrod Brown. Despite an otherwise admirably progressive record, as a member of the House in the fall of 2006 he voted for the Military Commissions Act, which tried to take habeas corpus away from the prisoners in Guantanamo and also attempted to give torture by American officials the retroactive cover of law.

In a long list of criminal acts by our government over the last several years, this one ranks high. No candidate is perfect, but at least one major party should avoid having a war criminal on its ticket this year. Voting for the Military Commissions Act should disqualify Brown from serious VP consideration. In a just world, it would earn him a trip to the Hague.

[Another Luke]

Fabio, the context for a pro-AUMF vote by an intelligent Democrat is you really really wanted to be president. Let's not start with the revisionist history about how we needed to get the inspectors back on the ground who were already on the ground.

[Dan]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I learned some things I did not know before - like the fact that Janet Napolitano is single - and heard some names, like Sherrod Brown, that I hadn't before.

Once upon a time I thought Jim Webb would make the best VP candidate, but that has passed. The name that keeps rising to the surface for me is Kathleen Sibelius. The only concern I have is whether such a selection would be acceptable to the Clinton wing of the party ("no woman but Hillary!").

Finally, my problem with Chuck Hagel has nothing to do with "pandering" (since it seems to mean taking a realistic view of the political landscape) so much as having a bona fide GOP a heartbeat away from the Presidency. We can not afford that, no matter who it is.

[Gary Chartier]

I agree with you completely about Chuck Hagel. But what about Mike Bloomberg, a Republican who doesn't suffer from Hagel's liabilities.

But my vote still goes to Wes Clark. (1) I'm not sure why having held elective office should some how be a prerequisite for service as vice president. (2) My sense is that Clark was an inexperienced campaigner in 2004, but that he's improved significantly since then. (3) His remarks about McCain were right on the money.

[Jestak]

Very good run-down. I have a few comments to add:

-Patty Murray has crossed my mind, as I live in WA. She's pretty solidly liberal, has plenty of national experience and is young enough to be a plausible contender in 2016. One issue might be that while WA currently has a Dem governor, we have a gubernatorial election this year, and it's likely to be a close race--it's a rematch of 2004, which Chris Gregoire won by less than 200 votes (after a recount which has had WA Repubs crying "fraud!" for the last 4 years).

-My impression of Brian Schweitzer is that he is pretty close, politically, to Sebelius or Napolitano. I don't see a huge difference among the three of them policy-wise; Sebelius would probably be my first pick as a potential VP because she's the only one who would automatically be succeeded by a Democrat.

[Ken Houghton]

I'm in that small minority of Clinton supporters who would "lose the ballot" if Sibelius were chosen, for the three reasons cited above. That is: ALL three reasons apply.

Choosing a woman who has no national experience, doesn't add any experience to the ticket (if KS is in play enough that she would make a difference, it won't make a national difference, and the argument that her being the daughter of a former OH governor would make that state solid is one of those "politics as usual" arguments that undermines the idea of "change we can believe in" for those who believe), and isn't an interesting speaker when you have a woman who has national experience, is an interesting speaker, and adds gravitas to the ticket will--probably correctly--be seen as deliberately picking someone you don't see as an equal/threat. Which also argues against the "ready to serve, heartbeat away" idea.

Murray and (especially?) Napolitano haven't bombed nationally. Sibelius did--and only six months ago, just before Black-Makes-History Month. People will overlook it, but not yet. (As you noted, Bill Clinton took a few years to recover; think Wes Clark this year.)

[Kevin Y]

Is it relevant that Rhode Island has a Republican governor? Jack Reed is up for reelection this year, so someone else could jump into the race to replace him -- and it's hard to imagine that the Democrats can't find someone who would beat a Republican in RI.

[Frank]

Kathy
Very perceptive and well-written piece, but I think you underrate Brian Schweitzer.
David Sirota, who I know you respect, has worked closely with Schweitzer and has praised him as a legitimate economic populist. Also, Schweitzer is fluent in Arabic and comes from a region of the country where the Democrats have serious potential for growth.
However, I still maintain that Wes Clark is the best choice for Obama. He has been vetted in his previous run in 2004, he has close ties to the Clinton people whose support Obama still needs to solidify, and he has spent the last four years as a sought after media commentator and pundit, so I think he'd be able to handle the press in spite of never having held elective office. By the way, Clark did not run all that bad a campaign in 2004-he made the mistake of listening to advisers who told him to skip Iowa, which cleared the way for a Kerry romp there. Had Clark chosen to campaign in Iowa, the whole campaign might have been very different.

[spencer]

Bill Nelson

Man, I think back to this guy's 1990 run for governor (lost in the primaries to Lawton Chiles) and I wonder what the hell happened to him. Every single one of his TV spots that year started with him saying, "Hello, I'm Bill Nelson, and I support a woman's right to choose." Now he's a ridiculous, out of touch DINO. I hate that he's actually the better of my state's senators.

[spencer]

Janet Napolitano is single

Yeah, but she did some great work in Concrete Blonde.