Casey at the Naval Observatory

Bob Casey, Jr. doesn't make much sense to me as a potential VP pick for Barack Obama. Conventional wisdom says you need to be pro-choice to be on a national Democratic ticket, and I think that CW is correct. Among other things, I assume that in a general election Obama's going to want to make the point that John Paul Stevens is even older than McCain, so if he wins then all your reproductive freedoms are belong to Sam Alito. On top of that, Casey doesn't seem like an especially skilled politician. He has no real virtues relative to Jim Webb, some of Webb's flaws, plus some additional flaws.

So Webb continues to be tempting, I think Sherrod Brown would make a lot of sense, and I also have a soft spot for the ballsy (metaphorically speaking!) idea of Janet Napolitano.

Comments

I still prefer the idea of Schweitzer. Let Webb stay and do good work in the Senate.

Posted by Jesse | March 28, 2008 4:35 PM

I used to like the idea of Webb as well, especially in light of his SOTU response, but then his flaws were pointed out to me, and. . . I'm no longer convinced. He'd be a fine VP, but I think he'd be problematic as a candidate.

I have to go with Biden, who would be able to do the things a VP candidate is supposed to do, which John Edwards failed to do in 2004.

Posted by Ryan S | March 28, 2008 4:36 PM

I'm still predicting Richardson. He went out on a limb for Obama recently, and why? Anyway, he shores up Obama in the experience/gravitas area, and pulls more Latinos in. He's not a good attack dog, though. Lord, I'd love to see what Jim Webb would do in that role.

Posted by Daddy Love | March 28, 2008 4:36 PM

Jim Webb is a skilled politician? Accused of sexism (and, as I have recently learned, racism) multiple times, and he barely beat out his "Macaca'd" opponent IIRC. Still holding out for Wes Clark, which would probably bridge some of the Obama/Clinton divide.

No Kathleen Sebelius?

Posted by Monster | March 28, 2008 4:36 PM

On the flip side though, we in Pennsylvania might get a democratic pro-choice senator in the bargain.

Posted by Lon | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM

I still prefer the idea of Schweitzer. Let Webb stay and do good work in the Senate.

Posted by Jesse | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM

I'd put my money on Tom Daschle. He's western, from a "red state," is partisan but works with republicans. He's also older, a veteran, an early supporter of Obama, white, male, and loaned Obama some staffers who might want to reward him. And could competently serve as President, if need be.

Posted by David B. | March 28, 2008 4:40 PM

John Paul Stevens is even older than McCain, so if he wins then all your reproductive freedoms are belong to Sam Alito.

We're still expecting the Democrats to have a Senate majority, yes?

Posted by right | March 28, 2008 4:42 PM

I predict Tim Kaine.

Posted by Face The Music | March 28, 2008 4:43 PM

I predict Bill Richardson.

Posted by AKBY | March 28, 2008 4:46 PM

I agree, probably a woman governor like Napolitano. That soothes the ruffled feathers of Hillary-centric feminists, and ticks the "executive experience" box. Webb has his points, but we don't want to risk a Senate seat in a purple state (indeed, the Senate arithmetic is so crucial to getting any legislation passed that it doesn't really make sense to pick *any* senator:
I guess that also rules out Webb for SecDef, which otherwise might have made sense).

Alternatively Richardson might be in the running, though I'm always a little skeptical about picking a VP who has tried and failed to persuade primary voters that he belongs in the Oval Office.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 28, 2008 4:47 PM

right: but it might not be a pro-choice majority. You've got Nelson, Landreiu, I'm sure the Dakota Senators don't want a pitched battle on choice issues, etc. Control of appointments rests in the hands of the President; the Senate just gets to edit at the margins.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 28, 2008 4:47 PM

Casey would make a nice counterbalance for Obama's oratorical talents. Plus he has no discernable personality.

Posted by Undecided | March 28, 2008 4:47 PM

1) It won't be Richardson. It'll look like endorsement was a scheme to get on the ticket.

2) It isn't clear to me that Webb is an especially skilled politician, though he does have 'tough guy' cred. Plus, I'm not crazy about throwing away a Senate seat in a not so blue state.

3) Biden is intriguing because he can do the stuff a VP needs to do - use the sledge hammer that his running mate can't. His barb about Giuliani was a thing of beauty. Stuff like that more than balances out his gaffes. Plus, the dude has gravitas.

4) You don't want Sherrod Brown on the ticket. Trust me. There's a lot of stuff that you don't want to have revealed in the heat of an election.

Posted by Nathan Avinbl | March 28, 2008 4:52 PM

Bill Richardson is a no, I can tell you that. Too many skeletons about rumors of sexual harassment and whatnot. I'm big on Jim Webb, and in a not-too-distant second, Wes Clark - not for the Clinton ties, but for the fact that he's smart as a whip.

Jim Webb works for me because of all the obvious angles - military, doesn't back down, throws some Republicans a Reagan bone, somewhat neutralizes McCain on defense issues, can help make VA blue, etc - but because Tim Kaine can put a more liberal Dem in his place. Unfortunately I'd be skiddish about Webb meddling in SecDef issues.

And all the talk about Sebelius I just don't get. Yea, she's probabably a MILF... but she's not going to make Kansas blue. She brings nothing to the ticket, except maybe women voters, but we all know how that worked out for Mondale, and anyway, I'd imagine Cosmo and all the other girly-mags would make a point to women that the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade lays in the balance here.

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 4:55 PM

Feingold! Hyper-educated midwestern reformists unite!

Posted by badger | March 28, 2008 4:58 PM

I like Jim Webb. That would be my dream ticket. Biden is good too. But Virginia would be a prized asset.

Posted by Sharon Wilkes | March 28, 2008 5:00 PM

We're still expecting the Democrats to have a Senate majority, yes?

Yes, mostly the same group of folks that gave us Roberts and Alito.

Posted by justinb | March 28, 2008 5:00 PM

On the subject of a female-gendered or neutral equivalent of "ballsy:

On the female-gendered front, I've liked "eggsy", but it's rather cute and not really parallel in terms of emotional loading. Having "Moxie" also is a possibility, being somewhat gendered, but it isn't an adjective.

On the neutral front, I like "gumption" a lot, but again it is not an adjective. "Forthright" is OK, but not precisely parallel; and "aggressive" is very similar but has more negative connotations.

Suggestions?

Posted by Warren Terra | March 28, 2008 5:04 PM

Does it really piss you guys off so much that someone like Bob Casey, somewhere in the world, believes that abortion is a sin, and should be against the law? Is it true what the conservatives say, that the unfettered right to abortion is the one issue that the Democratic Party will go to the wall over?

If so, then that's very troubling, and very sad. What a long way we have come from the party of Sargent Shriver.

Posted by Hector | March 28, 2008 5:05 PM

I am not making any kind of guess concerning the VP pick. But I always get a chuckle when, as soon as some top tier politician endorses Obama, there is immediate speculation if he/she is going to be the VP choice.

It is almost as if there was a bargain to be made in order to get the endorsement.

Is it just slightly conceivable that someone might endorse Obama (or Clinton for that matter) simply because the endorser believes that h/she is the best person for the job.

Posted by john m | March 28, 2008 5:06 PM

Casey is a weak politician. He won because he has a famous name and people had tired of Santorum. He would be ineffectual as a campaigner.

Posted by THS | March 28, 2008 5:07 PM

There's no way Obama will pick a female running mate. Hillary Clinton supporters will interpret it as a slap in the face and the punditry will suggest that Obama thinks women politicians are interchangeable and that as long as any woman's on the ticket female voters will be happy.

I'm still convinced Obama will convince Warner to join him. With a 20-point or whatever lead in Virginia, Warner can run for both the senate seat and VP like Lieberman did, and if he wins, then Tim Kaine can appoint himself as a replacement.

Failing that, I'd go with Biden. Not just because he offers an overwhelming foreign policy balance, but because the earlier incident with the "clean,articulate" stuff is a powerful message about the concept of working past stupid statements ... hint hint.

Posted by August J. Pollak | March 28, 2008 5:08 PM

I'm completely on the Biden for VP bandwagon. He balances out all of Obama's perceived liabilities - serious foreign policy cred, has been in the Senate since Hill moved to AK with Bill, white male. Just as important, though he's seriously brash, Biden knows when to curb the ego for the greater. Lastly, should the worst happen, he's fully ready to be President.

Richardson? Word is he wants State at least as much as Biden. Something tells me he's aware of his liabilities as VP.

Webb - keep that VA seat blue.

Clark - he drank too much of the Clinton Cool-aid. I still haven't recovered from his appearance on Bill Maher's show, arguing that Muslim women really DO love their burkas!!!

As far all the governors, not with Obama. Important as domestic issues will be in November, Iraq still casts a giant cloud. Obama will need a running mate with foreign policy experience. I'm a big Schweitzer fan but it won't happen. Should Obama be tempted to select a woman, I'd argue against it. Too risky to have both stamped national security lightweights next to McCain.

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by Judy | March 28, 2008 5:08 PM

You need an attack dog as your VP candidate. A major reason why Gore underperformed in 2000 and Kerry lost in 2004 is that Lieberman & Edwards weren't aggressive enough in attacking Bush. I'm not sure if Webb can play that role - he just isn't a great campaigner. Schweitzer & Sebelius seem like they're too consensus-oriented to go hard after McCain.

Also, IMO, it's silly to pick a candidate based on their state. Picking Edwards did absolutely nothing to boost Kerry in North Carolina, for instance.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 5:08 PM

Bob Graham?

Posted by UN Plaza | March 28, 2008 5:08 PM

Casey is a weak politician. He won because he has a famous name and people had tired of Santorum. He would be ineffectual as a campaigner.

Posted by THS | March 28, 2008 5:10 PM

I am not making any kind of guess concerning the VP pick. But I always get a chuckle when, as soon as some top tier politician endorses Obama, there is immediate speculation if he/she is going to be the VP choice.

It is almost as if there was a bargain to be made in order to get the endorsement.

Is it just slightly conceivable that someone might endorse Obama (or Clinton for that matter) simply because the endorser believes that h/she is the best person for the job.

Posted by john m | March 28, 2008 5:10 PM

Virginia will be in play, and probably won by Obama, without Webb on the ticket. His place is in the Senate.

Posted by eriks | March 28, 2008 5:11 PM

There's no way Obama will pick a female running mate. Hillary Clinton supporters will interpret it as a slap in the face and the punditry will suggest that Obama thinks women politicians are interchangeable and that as long as any woman's on the ticket female voters will be happy.

I'm still convinced Obama will convince Warner to join him. With a 20-point or whatever lead in Virginia, Warner can run for both the senate seat and VP like Lieberman did, and if he wins, then Tim Kaine can appoint himself as a replacement.

Failing that, I'd go with Biden. Not just because he offers an overwhelming foreign policy balance, but because the earlier incident with the "clean,articulate" stuff is a powerful message about the concept of working past stupid statements ... hint hint.

Posted by August J. Pollak | March 28, 2008 5:11 PM

Warren Terra: gutsy?

Posted by ML | March 28, 2008 5:12 PM

Casey is a weak politician. He won because he has a famous name and people had tired of Santorum. He would be ineffectual as a campaigner.

Posted by THS | March 28, 2008 5:12 PM

I definitely like Clark. He has drunk Klinton Kool-Aid, which is why I think bringing him in would be valuable -- reaching out to that wing of the party, which after all has a lot of supporters.

Although:
"Clark - he drank too much of the Clinton Cool-aid. I still haven't recovered from his appearance on Bill Maher's show, arguing that Muslim women really DO love their burkas!!!"

HUH??? Haven't heard this, and if true it's rather disturbing. Got a link to the video or at least a discussion of it?

Posted by ResumeMan | March 28, 2008 5:13 PM

Nathan is right about Sherrod Brown. Despite being a great politician and, I think, a very good Senator, there are things that would be revealed in a national campaign that Obama would need like a hole in the head.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | March 28, 2008 5:13 PM

I definitely like Clark. He has drunk Klinton Kool-Aid, which is why I think bringing him in would be valuable -- reaching out to that wing of the party, which after all has a lot of supporters.

Although:
"Clark - he drank too much of the Clinton Cool-aid. I still haven't recovered from his appearance on Bill Maher's show, arguing that Muslim women really DO love their burkas!!!"

HUH??? Haven't heard this, and if true it's rather disturbing. Got a link to the video or at least a discussion of it?

Posted by ResumeMan | March 28, 2008 5:15 PM

I know Biden is almost insultingly obvious as the CW choice, but along the lines of "Even if you're paranoid, they're still out to get you", I think the CW is not always as stupid as it's Cokie Robertesque proponents. He's a smart choice. Richardson, Graham and Napolitano are all intriguing choices for different reasons.

Posted by Jim | March 28, 2008 5:15 PM

Again, the issue with Warner is: Will he be willing to be an attack dog? I have nothing against these "consensus-oriented", "non-polarizing" Governors - that's how Democrats get elected in a Red State - but I'm skeptical that they have the aggressive makeup necessary to be a VP Candidate.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 5:16 PM

I'm completely on the Biden for VP bandwagon. He balances out all of Obama's perceived liabilities - serious foreign policy cred, has been in the Senate since Hill moved to AK with Bill, white male. Just as important, though he's seriously brash, Biden knows when to curb the ego for the greater. Lastly, should the worst happen, he's fully ready to be President.

Richardson? Word is he wants State at least as much as Biden. Something tells me he's aware of his liabilities as VP.

Webb - keep that VA seat blue.

Clark - he drank too much of the Clinton Cool-aid. I still haven't recovered from his appearance on Bill Maher's show, arguing that Muslim women really DO love their burkas!!!

As far all the governors, not with Obama. Important as domestic issues will be in November, Iraq still casts a giant cloud. Obama will need a running mate with foreign policy experience. I'm a big Schweitzer fan but it won't happen. Should Obama be tempted to select a woman, I'd argue against it. Too risky to have both stamped national security lightweights next to McCain.

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by Judy | March 28, 2008 5:18 PM

Hector, it's just that we here in the Democratic party love, admire & respect our women, and don't presume to tell them what they can or cannot do with their uteruses (uteri?).

Posted by Brautigan | March 28, 2008 5:19 PM

What about the probablities of an Obama-Clinton ticket?

I say impossible. Does anyone think it could happen?

Posted by AKBY | March 28, 2008 5:20 PM

Yeah, a woman governor like Janet Napolitano for V.P. on the ticket with Obama sounds like a great idea!

Perhaps Obama could then give a historic speech on how everyone's really basically bisexual at heart!

Maybe at some point during the historic speech he could work in analogy that rests on the innate superiority of soccer and cricket to football and baseball! This while, yes, drawing attention to the underling homosexual overtones of all American sports fans!

These are just phenomenal ideas, kids!

Hey, what do the folks at Feministing think? Geesh, I bet they have some thoughts that'll work great for the rust belt and swing states as well! Better not dis them! Come on everyone, let's brainstorm!

Well, here's hoping the Dems have the balls (in the sense Matt's using the word) to listen to "progressive" youth just out of elite colleges!

Posted by ickRay avisDay | March 28, 2008 5:20 PM

I'm completely on board with Biden as well, and I agree with Judy's sentiments above re Webb: he's doing a great job in the Senate, keep him there.

Posted by Just Another Greg | March 28, 2008 5:22 PM

Webb would be awesome, BUT the Senate math makes it ultimately a bad idea. Clark would be great, too, and might mollify a few Clinton partisans, though he's hitched his wagon pretty tightly to Hillary and I wonder whether he'd accept it. Biden has a lot going for him -- not just the attack-dog abilities, but the fact that CNN loves him -- but again, there's the Senate math problem, and we'll win Delaware anyway... Reluctantly I think Richardson edges out Biden as our best choice. He's got der gravitas, the executive experience, the foreign policy experience, the Latino thing that puts the Southwest more firmly in play... I think what we currently know about his baggage (touchy-feeliness, Wen Ho Lee, ill-advised baseball boasts) is surmountable, though I worry what else might be out there and/or might be plausibly cooked up by dirty tricksters. It just better be someone with real progressive cred and not some ticket-balancing pro-lifer or corporate-friendly white dude. Sadly I think the latter approach is one Obama will we strongly tempted to employ.

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 5:25 PM

Casey is a weak politician. He won because he has a famous name and people had tired of Santorum. He would be ineffectual as a campaigner.

Posted by THS | March 28, 2008 5:26 PM

Webb makes much more sense as a Clinton VP pick than an Obama one.

Posted by mad6798j | March 28, 2008 5:28 PM

I would like to see Daschle as VP, for the reasons mentioned by David B. above. The problem, though, is that he doesn't bring an electoral college bonus with him, the way Webb or Napolitano might.

Clark drank the Kool-Aid, Richardson is great but not as popular as people think he is (there are better choices), and Biden just seems lackluster to me. Webb... well I'm scared he might be a loose cannon and go off-message (perhaps I think this because of the rumored racism and sexism and his weird spy novels). Napolitano does not seem to be a bad choice, but I think Obama needs someone with more well-established stature as VP, like Daschle.

Posted by CG | March 28, 2008 5:30 PM

Here's Clark on Maher, also featuring The Atlantic's own Andrew Sullivan:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cMgJsAt7bUU

I don't know, he's talked to many more women in burkas than I have.

Posted by Monster | March 28, 2008 5:32 PM

judy - I think I saw that Clark appearance on Maher. IIRC, Clark's point (that he didn't communicate fairly, probably because of shouting) was that Muslim women like to wear their burqas because it's a cultural and religious institution they embrace.

I'm sure he'd agree that they don't like the oppressive culture that enforces that they wear burqas, however. I mean, hell, women here in the States wear burqas, presumably because they choose to.

I don't doubt that Clark would prefer that Muslim societies adopt a liberal, secular stance that embraces a woman's decision to wear or not to wear a burqa, much like ours embraces a women's decision to wear a cross on her necklace or not.

Also, I think that militant Vagina Monologues chick was on there flipping out and making a strawman out of Clark, decrying him as a chauvinist pig. I don't think the liberal media has given him a fair shake on this issue, largely because of his association with Clinton.

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 5:36 PM

I was just going to suggest Daschle as a midwestern counterbalance to Obama's rhetorical skills with no personality, instead of a mid-Atlantic one.

But as with Biden, Daschle's candidacy would be complicated by having voted for the AUMF. I suspsect he'll have to look outside Washington, for that reason. Kaine'll be out of a job in a year and won't have a spot waiting for him in Congress, so he probably deserves a few good looks.

Posted by phil | March 28, 2008 5:36 PM

No discussion of OH Gov Strickland? I know he's a Clinton superdel, but I think (and agree with the Wes Clark boosters) that all that goes out the window come the nomination. Except for Clinton herself, of course.

I doubt it'll be a fellow Senator, partly because there aren't a lot of good candidates, partly because of the need to preserve the majority (and relative paucity of backup candidates and the Old Boys Club/importance of tenure in the Senate), partly because CW and some degree of sense says the ticket should probably not be all-leg.

Frankly, I still like Gore as Obama's VP.

Posted by The Confidence Man | March 28, 2008 5:37 PM

This electoral college bonus is way overrated. Janet Napolitano is not going to swing Arizona to Obama, because very few people vote on the basis of VP. It's much more important to pick a VP candidate who can attack McCain.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 5:37 PM

Matthew Struhar & Nathan Avinbl:
Care to back up your contentions or are you just talking out your ass?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 28, 2008 5:40 PM

What about Phil Bredesen, Gov. Tennessee?

Posted by AKBY | March 28, 2008 5:45 PM

Can someone explain to me the origin of this "VP must be an attack dog" idea? Last few VPs: Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush, Mondale. I don't get it.

Posted by Barbar | March 28, 2008 5:46 PM

Peter H - I think that's true; too much of an emphasis is placed on that. No one is going to turn a solidly blue or solidly red state the other way. If that's your rationale for picking a VP candidate, you have to take a very prominent politician from a swing state. You can't just take Sebelius and expect to get Kansas. Proof? See 2004.

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 5:46 PM

socctty, I get your take on Clark's Maher appearance. I had considered it. Still, he just seemed WAY too defensive of HRC. When he lit into Sullivan, it bothered me. Granted, Sully's a conservative but I'd have said the same thing - and I'm a Berkeley liberal, vintage 1958.

I really don't get all the love for Kaine, outside of the idea that he's a Catholic who might bring along VA. He's has zero foreign policy experience.

Daschle? If anything, he's Obama's chief of staff. I see him more as Obama's consigliere.

That's why I go back to Biden. He's all the experience, no serious baggage. Some may think he's a tad dull (I disagree) but Obama doesn't lack for star wattage.

Of course, to REALLY go out on a limb, I suggest Chuck Hagel - actually, my dream Secretary of Defense.

Posted by Judy | March 28, 2008 5:47 PM

Richardson seems like someone who would be fun to know, but, to me, he seems sloppy. He might be good in the campaign, but I don't see him as VP.

Implausible as it might be, I would like to see an Obama/Bloomberg ticket. Bloomberg could take on all sorts of projects and be tremendously effective. His presence wouldn't add foreign policy cred, but it would be helpful in other ways.

Posted by THS | March 28, 2008 5:48 PM

socctty, I get your take on Clark's Maher appearance. I had considered it. Still, he just seemed WAY too defensive of HRC. When he lit into Sullivan, it bothered me. Granted, Sully's a conservative but I'd have said the same thing - and I'm a Berkeley liberal, vintage 1958.

I really don't get all the love for Kaine, outside of the idea that he's a Catholic who might bring along VA. He's has zero foreign policy experience.

Daschle? If anything, he's Obama's chief of staff. I see him more as Obama's consigliere.

That's why I go back to Biden. He's all the experience, no serious baggage. Some may think he's a tad dull (I disagree) but Obama doesn't lack for star wattage.

Of course, to REALLY go out on a limb, I suggest Chuck Hagel - actually, my dream Secretary of Defense.

Posted by Judy | March 28, 2008 5:50 PM

My apologies if someone has already said this (I don't have the time to go through what are now 58 comments on this posting), but I cannot believe my governor, Janet Napolitano, will take the gig--if she leaves office, the job will be taken over by our hard-right Secretary of State, and I don't believe that Janet would inflict that upon us, given the idiocy of our legislature. The CW is that she's running for McCain's seat (either when he retires or, if he wins the presidency, after the stand-in Republican she appoints as required by state law graciously steps aside for Janet's sure-thing victory). But, of course, the CW may be wrong... Still, I don't think she'll run for VP (and if you're reading this Janet, PLEEEEEEZE DON'T DO IT--we need you to block the Trogs).

Posted by David in Tucson | March 28, 2008 5:57 PM

Casey makes a lot of sense if you consider his pull with two kinds of voters Obama will need to win the general and has not done well with thus far in the primaries:

1. working class whites
2. Catholics

Plus, having a pro-life running mate would SERIOUSLY pull Independents and anti-war anti-Bush Republicans in Obama's direction. Sure, Naral and Planned Parenthood would have a fit--but where are they going to go, McCain? Hardly.

So I think that Casey would be a fine pick for VP.

Posted by wj | March 28, 2008 6:01 PM

The problem with making Clinton the VP candidate is not bad blood that has developed to date -- Obama could easily get over that. In fact, I think he'd relish the Lincoln "Team of Rivals" approach. The problem is that Obama simply could not (and should not) trust her. She would be like Jefferson as Adams' VP.

Posted by Led | March 28, 2008 6:03 PM

I like the idea of Tim Kaine. First he actually helps the ticket in a very important southern state. Second, he seems like a very bright and capable stand-up guy who would actually be a good President if it ever came to that. Third, there's no Richardson-like baggage as far as I'm aware. Fourth, he's a true Obama supporter and he and Barack just seem like a good match with genuinely good chemistry. Fifth, his association with the Virginia Tech tragedy adds credibility on the gun control issue and helps Obama in that department. Sixth, he would reinforce the "new generation of leadership" theme.

Webb worries be a bit. He seems a bit quirky and tightly wound, and not entirely comfortable with electoral politics and the rigors of campaigning. I worry that he would have a tendency to become the story himself. His independent-mindedness and boat-rocking background suggest a guy who might not like having to run on another candidate's positions, and defend those positions convincingly and unflaggingly. Also, the Vice Presidency just seems like too boring a job for someone with Webb's capabilities. I like the role he plays for the Democrats in the Senate, where he has more freedom to be a bold, credible and independent voice.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 28, 2008 6:05 PM

The conventional wisdom is often wrong on what makes a good VP. The truth is that aside from JFK picking LBJ in 1960 and winning TX, the VP doesn't really bring anything to the ticket. The criteria to be used are 1) could he/she be president, and 2) does he/she advocate on behalf of the president. Does someone really believe that if Obama doesn't match up with McCain on a particular issue i.e. nat'l sec or defense that the VP really changes the decision-making calculus. After all, it's not as if Obama or McCain in the middle of a foreign policy crisis are locked in a room with no ability to communicate with any advisers. Sec. Def., Sec. State, NSA director, Joint Chiefs, etc. are all involved in a decision in addition to the VP. So why, if you are going to vote against Obama because you're afraid he'll surrender LA to Al Qaeda or Seattle to Iran or some other nonsense, does the prospect of a VP with some national security or foreign affairs experience make you feel better.

Face it, the VP is fun to think about but it matters nothing. The only thing a VP can do is be an effective campaigner, go after McCain and Bush, and try not to be a distraction.

Bob Graham -- he read the NIE report before the AUMF vote and highlights Obama's judgment argument. Biden voted for the war. Richardson is too much of a buffoon. Sibelius is too conciliatory. Webb needs to hold down the Senate and work with Majority Leader Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Mark Burlingame | March 28, 2008 6:05 PM

Just wondering, not being up on Ohio politics, but what are Sherrod Brown's deep, dark secrets that we don't want revealed?

Also, Judy --- I'm with you on Biden; I think he'd be a great VP choice. But just noting that AK is Alaska, not Arkansas. Arkansas is AR.

Richardson --- seriously, not a good national candidate. Bland as a campaigner and is not the magic bullet that will draw in Hispanic votes. I live right next to East L.A. and Richardson had no buzz. He'd make a great Secretary of State, though.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 28, 2008 6:09 PM

Can someone explain to me the origin of this "VP must be an attack dog" idea? Last few VPs: Cheney, Gore, Quayle, Bush, Mondale. I don't get it

I may have exaggerated in using the term "attack dog", but you definitely need the VP candidate to aggressively attack the other candidtate. If the presidential candidate is too aggressive in attacking, he raises his/her own negatives, so it's best to give most of the attacking role to the VP candidate.

I wasn't around for Mondale & Bush, but Quayle, Gore, & Cheney (especially) were all aggressive attackers.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 6:09 PM

As an Ohioan, I am kind of in love with Sherrod Brown. But if he were picked, if there would be a special election we'd be in a tough spot.

And he's not that great of a retail politician either - he's very much an Ohio politician. Kathleen Sebelius, on the other hand, has Ohio roots and national potential.

Posted by Steve W. | March 28, 2008 6:12 PM

Richardson is too much of a buffoon

A buffoon? Maybe he's not your favorite pick but I don't think he deserves THIS label. Respected diplomat, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy...

???

Posted by AKBY | March 28, 2008 6:17 PM

Here's one a little outside the box: Lincoln Chafee. Only repub senator to vote against the war. Has left his party because of its extremism. Talk about a unity ticket.

Posted by lh | March 28, 2008 6:21 PM

For all you Kathleen Sebelius fans, have you thought about the fact that this might look like a slap in Hillary's face?

I can hear it now...."If he's going to choose a woman, why not Hillary Clinton, who has built up enormous support?" yaddy yaddy yaddy

Posted by AKBY | March 28, 2008 6:22 PM

Hillary. She can attack with the best of them, unifies the party and makes crazies think twice before going after Obama. Sorry, but you know what I mean.

Posted by Bajsa | March 28, 2008 6:33 PM

I hate to be the first one to mention this, but Obama is a liberal African-American running on a platform of direct challenge to the status quo, in a time of terrorist threat.

As such, there is a distinct possibility (hopefully minute, but still) that he will...*ahem*..."not finish his term." I think any VP choice has to be made with this in mind.

Biden might be a sober voice in the WH, and offers a lot of gravitas to the ticket--but he's a hawk, and I don't trust him to sanely push the buttons in the event, that.

I like Jim Webb. I remember seeing him speak for the first time and hoping one day he'd be president. I guess I'm ignorant of his so-called controversies (I try to stay away from media and meta-politics, except when necessary), but I've been less than thrilled with some his votes lately.

However, unlike the rest of the dinosaurs in DC, Webb seems to "get it," particularly on the global questions. I also like Clark in this regard, and thought he should have gotten the nod in '04.

But regardless of personal preference, first and foremost, we need a VP who is sympathetic with Obama's positions, both domestic and foreign, and willing to carry his agenda to fruition.

Posted by scythia | March 28, 2008 6:33 PM

LH,

I do like that Lincoln Chaffee is one of the few sitting politicians who is pro-Venezuela and pro-Chavez. He wrote a recent editorial in the Providence Journal that was quite laudatory of the Chavez record, as it should be. I'm not such a big fan of Chaffee's pro-choice stand but it's no worse than most of the Democrats.

Posted by Hector | March 28, 2008 6:38 PM

My top choices for Obama VP:

1. Kathleen Sebilius

2. Bill Richardson

3. Mark Warner

4. Bill Bradley

5. Steve Jobs

Posted by MR1 | March 28, 2008 6:40 PM

Oops,

I forgot Russ Feingold!

Posted by MR1 | March 28, 2008 6:47 PM

I admire the pragmatism of you Obamatons: to be willing to put Jim Webb -- Steve Sailer's ideological doppleganger -- within a heartbeat of the Presidency just to help your guy win the election.

You guys must not remember Dave Chappelle's advice for the first black President: make a Mexican your VP.

Posted by Juan | March 28, 2008 7:02 PM

scythia, the sexism allegations against Webb are decades-old, and for the most part he has weathered them. But as for sympathetic to Obama's agenda- he voted yes to Kyl-Lieberman and the recent FISA bill.

Posted by Monster | March 28, 2008 7:03 PM

Whoever it is, it shouldn't be a sitting Senator. Our margin is too thin to risk losing a Senate seat.

Posted by fostert | March 28, 2008 7:08 PM

Okay, fostert has me back in the game. Here's a long-shot: true-blue Obama supporter Tim Roemer. No longer in Congress, vet of the 9/11 Commission, head of a national security think tank, conservative pro-life Democrat.

If we're going to throw in Casey, why not Roemer? Okay, and to be profoundly shallow, he's very easy on the eyes.

Posted by Judy | March 28, 2008 7:30 PM

MR1,

You forgot:

7) Geraldine Ferraro (like Janet Napolitano, Matt -- only tested!)

8) Jared from the Subway commercials

9) Elliot Spitzer

10) Kwame Kilpatrick

Come on, kids! Everyone brainstorm within the bubble! You can do it!

Posted by ickRay avisDay | March 28, 2008 7:33 PM

In follow-up to my last post, I SWEAR I had not seen Cillizza's column:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/friday_line_veepstakes.html

Evidently, I'm not the only one thinking Roemer.

May I also add that IN could be a swing state in November?

Posted by Judy | March 28, 2008 7:42 PM

If you guys want to go outside-the-box, why not Gary Hart? From a purple state, prescient work on the pre-9/11 terrorism commission, etc. I don't think his two-decades-old sex scandal would be an issue now, especially in the post-Clinton era.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 7:59 PM

Monster:

Yeah, the FISA vote in particular is what troubles me. But Webb was one of first to call bullshit on Bush when most Dems were having trouble pronouncing the "B." His anti-corporate speeches following his election I also found quite powerful, and daring.

Moreover, as I recall the driving narrative of his campaign was the repudiation of recent U.S. foreign policy. One of the larger problems facing this country is the difficulty the establishment (on both sides of the aisle) has in facing 21st century geopoltical reality.

Obama's perspective on global issues is one of the main reasons. I'm supporting him. Webb might send up some red flags in certain areas, and being a former Republican he might be closer to the center than I'd like, but this country needs people in office who read John Robb, not Ken Pollock, and I think Webb is definitely on the right side in that.

Posted by scythia | March 28, 2008 8:01 PM

MY - John Paul Stevens is even older than McCain, so if he wins then all your reproductive freedoms are belong to Sam Alito

MY has reached the journalistic equivalent of

"All your planes now belong us".

Posted by chris ford | March 28, 2008 8:23 PM

Biden, and maybe a longshot in Dodd, are the only Senators who should be considered. I think that making Biden the VP after the laudatory racism of his "clean, articulate" comment could be good politics - saying he knew what Biden meant and didn't take offense.

Sebelius, Napolatino and Schweitzer all have some real positives. The women issue could be overcome with Clinton supporters by hinting that he would endorse them in 2016. In addition, his problems are mostly with older white women, so he doesn't have so much a women issue as a problem with white women over 50 or so. I doubt putting a Latino a VP would be that smart politically, but McCain is the candidate we could do it against because he can't really shift toward being Tancredo without looking transparent and undermining the McMaverick meme.

I like Kaine, but he came off as gay during his State of the Union response. This is part of why I like him, but it won't fly during a national security election.

Three dark horse candidates I like are Zinni, Feingold and Chafee. Zinni has national security gravitas coming out the wazoo, could probably help in places like Virginia, has working-class roots, good judgment, etc. Feingold is rather likeable - rather conservative Republicans I've talked to in the Midwest have a soft spot for him because of his Midwesterness. He also has good judgment and would reinforce Obama's message and help to solidify the ticket as a Midwestern ticket. Chafee is a RINO at this point but is still a Republican. He could also reinforce Obama's message and be the type of guy who makes liberal ideas just seem like common sense while reinforcing the idea that the Republicans left people like him behind.

Webb just has too many problems: we need him in his seat, would undermine Obama's message, sexism and being married to an Asian woman wouldn't endear him to the type of people who would be nervous about voting for a black guy but would feel better if he had a white male VP.

Posted by Reality Man | March 28, 2008 8:29 PM

Hart could also bring along some foreign policy gravitas as well. The fact that the guy has a degree in divinity also doesn't hurt.

Posted by Reality Man | March 28, 2008 8:40 PM

I think the Democrats would be wary of having to work to get another Democrat elected to the Senate from PA. Casey's not going anywhere. If Obama wants to win Pennsylvania and mend fences with the Hillary people, he should go with Ed Rendell.

Posted by Dan L | March 28, 2008 9:03 PM

I'm sorry to say it, but if she will do it, it has to be HRC. That unifies the party instantly, which is more than you usually get from a VP pick. And she'd be great in the attack dog role.

Posted by Pithlord | March 28, 2008 9:05 PM

I'm sorry to say it, but if she will do it, it has to be HRC. That unifies the party instantly, which is more than you usually get from a VP pick. And she'd be great in the attack dog role.

Posted by Pithlord | March 28, 2008 9:05 PM

Re attack dogs, don't forget that one of the greatest political putdowns in history came from Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.

On the other hand, you had John Edwards, trying to be a dawg, but failing with his clumsy invocation of the lesbian in his opponent's family.

Posted by nbt | March 28, 2008 9:42 PM

I'm sorry to say it, but if she will do it, it has to be HRC. That unifies the party instantly, which is more than you usually get from a VP pick. And she'd be great in the attack dog role.

Plenty of attack dogs to go around in this election without Hillary...although Hill IS pretty good at it.

I think the right VP pick will be able to bring those Clinton supporters along.

Posted by AKBY | March 28, 2008 9:48 PM

I dont' get it, why hasn't anyone suggested Ralph Nader?

Posted by matt | March 28, 2008 10:30 PM

Reality Man --
"Chafee is a RINO at this point but is still a Republican." No, he's not. Changed his registration to independent and publicly quit the GOP.

Squeaky in RI

Posted by SqueakyRat | March 28, 2008 10:36 PM

Casey is a standard-issue political hack who would make somebody like Kerry look scintillating and passionate on the campaign trail. I'm very sure that Obama's smart enough not to fall for that.

Posted by scottreads | March 28, 2008 10:50 PM

Nbt,

I disagree about Edwards being an attack dog in 2004. According to this New York Times piece, the Kerry Campaign was furious with Edwards for not aggressively attacking Bush-Cheney:

But the convention was barely over when the attacks began, starting with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accusing Mr. Kerry of lying about his military record. Kerry aides complained that Mr. Edwards would resist or try to tone down language when they asked him to deliver negative lines — “pundit lines,” as one of Mr. Edwards’s aides scoffed. He argued it was more important to talk about what the Democrats would do differently rather than what the Republicans had done wrong.

He objected to anything more than the most generic attacks on the Bush administration. After weeks of battering by the Swift boat group, he called only for the president to “stop these ads.” When Mr. Cheney said voting for the Democrats would invite a terror attack, Mr. Edwards called it “un-American.”

“We were getting our heads taken off and he was still talking about two Americas,” said David Morehouse, Mr. Kerry’s traveling chief of staff.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 11:28 PM

Sebelius for me.

From the "This Sounds Sexist But It's True" file:

Hillary's older female supporters will get over and forget the sting of their darling victimologist snake being denied the nomination. They'll also finally figure out that it's not that men are mysogynistic--it's just that Hillary does all the things men can't stand women doing(using gender as a bludgeon, claiming status from gender, pretending to be overwhelmingly more competent than more laid-back but equally competent male peers, failing to understand that competitiveness is a virtue but spite is not, pursuing an argument long past the point where it's relevant).

Why Governor Sebelius:

Sebelius can do something for Obama that Hillary would never be able to do: Calm white people's angst. Sebelius is like a racial dogwhistle to white people: "OBAMA'S GOT A CRAZY PASTOR. . . oh. That lady with the nice voice is on the ticket. She could be my grandma. I guess Obama's not so bad."

Calmness from a woman or a black man soothes racial/gender animosity among white men/women, thus increasing electability. Obama's numbers will climb back up as soon as Hillary is out of the race. Obama's numbers only really go down when white people sense chaotic racial waters. Notice, as soon as Reverend Wright's sermons stopped running on a loop, Obama's numbers shot back up again.

The second group Sebelius helps Obama with is the group I call the Stern Set. The Stern Set are the people who, "Heavens no! I could never vote for that unqualified liberal young black guy! He's so unqualified! How dare he!"(this is a large faction of Hillary's supporters) Sebelius seems like someone who has credibility to vouch for Obama with the Stern Set. She'll get him the cranky old white lady vote.

Posted by Abe | March 28, 2008 11:37 PM

More on Edwards in 2004 and his lack of aggressiveness as VP candidate:

But Kerry and more than a half-dozen former high-ranking Kerry-Edwards campaign officials dispute the idea that Edwards favored a tougher strategy in 2004, and maintain that Edwards often refused their requests to make sharper attacks against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The former campaign aides said Kerry made a personal appeal to Edwards in a face-to-face meeting in Ohio in early September 2004, and Edwards vowed to turn up the heat on their Republican opponents.

But the vice presidential nominee, who had presented himself as a campaigner with a positive message, continued to shy away from aggressive attacks, according to the former aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were describing internal campaign communications.

Indeed, Edwards responded to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth political advertisements only after Kerry delivered the first blow.

"Edwards refused to play the traditional role of a running mate -- being the person who's delivering the negative message on the opponents," said one former senior campaign official who was involved in the discussions between the Kerry and Edwards staffs. The official no longer works for Kerry and is not affiliated with any of the 2008 presidential candidates.

"He just wouldn't do it," the campaign official said of Edwards. "He wouldn't do it on Swift Boats, and he wouldn't do it on any other issue."

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 11:46 PM

There are really people who are nervous about putting Biden at the bottom of the ticket, but think Jim Webb of all people is a good choice? Webb is sort of crazy, so far as I can gather. I like the idea of him as a Senator, but I very much dislike the idea of him as a running mate.

In terms of Biden, it's worth noting that there's no senate problems, because Governor Minner of Delaware is a Democrat. (There's an election this year, in which I don't think she's running, but my sense is that the Dem is heavily favored, and in any event Biden can always resign before Minner's term ends, so she can appoint a replacement).

Also - it's one thing to run for reelection while not facing a serious opponent while also running for vice president (as Bentsen and Lieberman did). It's quite another to run for an open seat and run for VP, as Warner would be doing - I can't think of something more guaranteed to give us Senator Jim Gilmore. Warner is not a possibility.

I tend to think Biden or Dodd (although Dodd is more affected by the senate math - Governor Rell of Connecticut is a Republican) would be good VP candidates, or perhaps Richardson. Certainly the former two would be willing to go after the Republicans pretty aggressively, from what I can tell, which is the only real benefit a good VP candidate brings to the ticket.

And, yeah, Cheney, Gore, and Quayle were all tough and willing to attack the opposing party strongly on the campaign trail, in a way that, for instance, Edward, Lieberman, and probably Jack Kemp were unable or unwilling to do.

Going back, the classic attack dog VP was Spiro Agnew. Bob Dole fulfilled the same role for Ford in 1976. I'm less certain about Mondale or Bush, although both candidates' later campaigns on their own behalves suggest a willingness to throw an elbow or two (in particular, Mondale's primary fight with Hart wasn't particularly genteel; Bush's campaign against Dukakis was nasty).

Posted by John | March 29, 2008 12:22 AM

She talks like my grandma too. Hot damn this woman is boring:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vY4rgdPjlTE

Posted by 55 | March 29, 2008 12:25 AM

IIRC, Biden is VERY good friends with McCain. Hopefully that wouldn't stop him.

Posted by 55 | March 29, 2008 12:27 AM

If the economy is still the big issue by Nov, even bigger than Iraq, which is likely (60%), Biden's big weakness is that his senate seat is synonymous with Visa (more precisely, MBNA). Doesn't bother me, I love the credit card companies (seriously), but hard to be the populist attack dog with this on your resume. OTOH, it's virtually impossible for McCain to attack him on this, without absorbing collateral damage, so it's not really a liability either.

Posted by Kolohe | March 29, 2008 1:17 AM

SqueakyRat, my fellow New Englander, that's good to hear. You have to wonder why he waited until after he lost to Whitehouse that he left the party.

Abe, I think the grandma thing could be very helpful for Sebelius. Who wants to beat up on grandma? "Leave that poor woman alone, she hasn't hurt anyone!" Part of me wishes Obama would use this logic to pick Barbara Boxer, who has long been one of my favorite Senators, but sadly that probably will never happen.

"IIRC, Biden is VERY good friends with McCain. Hopefully that wouldn't stop him.

Posted by 55 | March 29, 2008 12:27 AM"

Why does this not surprise me?

Posted by Reality Man | March 29, 2008 3:51 AM

But boring is GOOD. Obama has a crazy background. He needs a red-state governor with a high-approval rating. She's also a Catholic and she's the daughter of former Ohio governor Jim Gilligan(two more boxes Obama needs checked).

If Obama puts her on the ticket, his numbers will go way up in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

One other advantage: This will pull a total mind-fuck on Hannity and Limbaugh and the like. How, you ask? Every racial dogwhistle automatically turns into a sexist dogwhistle too. Every sexist dogwhistle turns into a racist dogwhistle. Mess with blacks, you can get away with it. Mess with women, you can get away with it. Mess with blacks AND women? You will totally get your ass kicked in the polls. The sheer magnitude of being able to kill two demographic birds with one stone will become impossible for McCain to overcome. One demographic bird and you can box them in. Two demographic birds and it becomes DESTINY. At that point, you're just not a patriot if you don't vote for the ticket of destiny, black guy/white woman. Voting against that is un-american(another box Obama needs to check).

Making Sebelius his VP would be the one move Obama can make that simply cannot fail. The media will fawn on that ticket for months on end, it will completely change the game in Obama's favor, and say hello to President Obama.

Posted by Abe | March 29, 2008 4:05 AM

At 5.05pm yesterday Hector wrote Does it really piss you guys off so much that someone like Bob Casey, somewhere in the world, believes that abortion is a sin, and should be against the law?

Well, quickly passing over the idea that an exhaustive and 100% accurate list of sins can be found in a particular document whose status is beyond argument, why does it follow that sins should be against the law?

The same document says that adultery and covetousness are sins, but there's no head of steam anywhere to criminalise them. Perhaps Hector would care to start one.

The "abortion is murder" argument is bought by 12% of Americans, most of whom won't vote for the Democrats anyway.

Posted by Innocent Abroad | March 29, 2008 6:01 AM

Working off what Abe said, Sebelius also brings the benefit of not being a total unknown to a national audience. Her State of the Union response may have been as dull as waiting for Earl Grey to cool down, but it wasn't crazy stoned-out incompetent in a Michael Moore way that makes her look crazy and thus fitting into Democratic stereotypes, just boring in an Al Gore way. This avoids the choice causing a total "who the fuck is that" or "why the fuck is that person even near the ticket" reaction that plagued us in 1972. She's already being groomed for something bigger by the party once they decide to give her the chance to make that address. She's also a Permanent Convention Co-Char this year.

Also, the Bible doesn't say abortion is a sin. The Bible doesn't even mention abortion. When Columbus came to the New World, the missionary the Vatican sent to convert Asians, Bartholemew de las Casas (who became famous for being one of the few moral voices against the European genocide against the Arawaks), thought it was a good thing that Arawak women could so easily have an abortion through folk medicine. The Church's strident anti-abortion stance is of much more recent vintage than most people realize.

Posted by Reality Man | March 29, 2008 8:20 AM

What about Phil Bredesen, Gov. Tennessee?

Here. here.

I also think Tim Roemer is an interesting choice, if he can actually help with Indiana. Strickland too with Ohio. The narrative aspect is important, but it still comes down to the electoral college. All of those discounting the 'win a state' can't add. How much better off would we be if Al Gore had picked Bob Graham instead of Lieberman?

Posted by AJ | March 29, 2008 9:39 AM

Reality Man,

There is a strong case against abortion based on the teachings of the early church.

-The 'Didache', which is apparently accepted as scripture by the church of Ethiopia, explicitly condemns abortion.
--Abortion was condemned universally by the early Church Fathers including Tertullian, St. Ambrose, etc. Tertullian equates it to murder.
--The date of Christmas was chosen to reflect the idea that Christ was conceived on Good Friday (and thus born on Christmas) to have exactly 33 years on earth. This means that life was viewed as beginning at conception.
--"I was a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me." Psalm 51:5
--"Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Jeremiah 1:5
--And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. Luke 1:41
-- The apocryphal 'Apocalypse of St. Peter' which was popular in the early church, although it never made it into the Bible, describes the vision of abortionists suffering in hell.

I'm a Democrat, by the way.

Posted by Hector | March 29, 2008 10:08 AM

I do not see Obama choosing Casey, he doesn't add much either geographically or ideologically. He's also anti-choice, which is of course, anathema. Glad he's supporting, but not VP for him. I really don't see Obama choosing another Senator, he'll want to marshall in some executive experience, most likely with a governor. Napolitano or Sebelius would be good choices, Richardson would be as well. In terms of wooing Clinton supporters - I don't think they're so much attached to Hillary herself as they are worried that it will be forever and a half before there's another viable female candidate. Obama could win them over by putting a female in the VP slot and in direct line to run for Pres with real, serious experience. Or if its Richardson, he could keep the Latino vote solid for Obama, as they are a constituency who has seen McCain put himself on the line for them in a very real way, there is some serious love for him there, and Richardson could steal it back.

Posted by onceler | March 29, 2008 11:05 AM

Hector,

Not everyone in this country is a Christian. Why should we outlaw a practice based on the beliefs of your religion?

Posted by Socrates | March 29, 2008 11:25 AM

Bloomberg or Hagel. You might not like it, but would be devastating against McCain. They would also act as political cover for progressive candidates in the other races (kind of a "Trojan Horse" effect).

Posted by DC | March 29, 2008 11:46 AM

Socrates,

The argument against abortion is not by necessity a Christian one. The pagan Greeks, the Jews, the Zoroastrians, and Sabaeans (Mandaeans) all condemned abortion as well. Moreover, abortion is condemned by natural reason and natural inclination as well. The natural inclination of a mother is to love her child, as the natural culmination of pregnancy is childbirth.

Posted by Hector | March 29, 2008 12:05 PM

I just read that Sebelius' son designed a video game called "Don't Drop the Soap" about dealing drugs and such in prison, and that she approved wholeheartedly.

Posted by Monster | March 29, 2008 12:17 PM

Hector,

What are your thoughts on Jindal's position on abortion? As I understand it, he's not against morning-after pills -- is this consistent with your (plural possessive in this case) religious doctrine?

Posted by Fred | March 29, 2008 5:00 PM

Moreover, abortion is condemned by natural reason and natural inclination as well. The natural inclination of a mother is to love her child, as the natural culmination of pregnancy is childbirth.

Oh, yuck. Really?

Posted by John | March 29, 2008 5:28 PM

Re Hector

I would like to point out to Mr. Hector that at one time, the Roman Catholic Church did not oppose abortions which took place before the time of quickening, per Saint Thomas Aquinas. I believe that this position was changed in the 19th century.

Re Obamabots

Obama might make a good vice-presidential candidate on a ticket headed by Al Gore.

Posted by SLC | March 29, 2008 6:04 PM

SLC,

I think Gore would rather become a billionaire standing in front of the tsunami of federal funding for 'green' technology.

Posted by Fred | March 29, 2008 6:23 PM

"What about Phil Bredesen, Gov. Tennessee?"

Is he the guy who shut down Tennessee's universal health care plan when it became too expensive?

Posted by Steve D. | March 29, 2008 6:29 PM

Hector,

Moreover, abortion is condemned by natural reason and natural inclination as well. The natural inclination of a mother is to love her child, as the natural culmination of pregnancy is childbirth.

Actually, natural reason (?definition) is pro-abortion. The natural culmination of fertilization is abortion (the majority of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted). And the natural culmination of a pregnancy is 1) spontaneous abortion, or 2) a pregnancy without a fetal component, or 3) various types of tumors, or 4) Fetal Death In Utero, or 5) childbirth.

As is [t]he natural inclination of a mother [] to love her child since a frequent reason cited for having an abortion is "childbearing completed/don't want another child at this time."

Not that any of this is, of course, relevant. The very point of medicine and medical procedures, like abortion, is to deal with natural occurrences, like disease and pregnancy, which increase our risk of morbidity and mortality.

[Sorry for the OT]

Posted by ema | March 29, 2008 10:56 PM

Fred,

I'm not a Republican, nor do I live in LA, so I don't know Jindal's position. I'm Anglican, not Catholic, so I'm not bound by the Catholic position on the morning after pill. I don't have a problem with it- I would define implantation rather than fertilization as the start of pregnancy, and anyway the intent of the morning after pill is contraceptive, not abortifacient. The morning after pill would probably prevent a lot of actual abortions. I think that it and other contraceptive methods are absolutely necessary aspects of tryng to lowe the abortion rate.

SLC,

If I recall correctly, St. Thomas Aquinas said that abortion was still a crime, he just didn't think it was murder. Anyway, the early Church _did_ think it was murder- see Tertullian, St. Ambrose, the Didache, the apocryphal sources, etc.

Posted by Hector | March 30, 2008 9:25 AM