Veep Thoughts: Stick to Basics

Kate Sheppard adduces some pretty good reasons to think that putting Condoleezza Rice on the ticket could be a smart move for John McCain. I think there's a lot of truth to what she says, but at the end of the day one needs to return to the fundamentals. It'd be hard for the incumbent party to hold onto the White House amidst serious economic problems and an unpopular war. McCain's viability as a candidate rests on him not being seen as four more years of Bush. That means you don't want a Bush cabinet official on your ticket, and certainly not a Bush cabinet official well-known for her close personal relationship with the President.

I have a similar reaction to Marc Ambinder's suggestion of Joe Biden for Barack Obama. Biden's a sometimes maddening figure, but he's been impressive lately and there's a lot to be said on his behalf. But putting someone who voted for the war, even someone who did so half-heartedly and after making a quasi-promising effort to restrain Bush, seems to muddy way too much of the argument Obama is making.

Comments

I'd bet big on Gov. Sebelius of Kansas. She's got no ties to the Iraq War, she reinforces Obama's pragmatic 'let's work together' message (she flipped a bunch of Republicans to Democrat in KS), her choice as VP will go a long way towards bringing Hillary's women voters back into the fold, she solidifies the Midwest, she's a leader on clean energy, and oh-by-the-way her father used to be Governor of Ohio and Ohio is important in elections.

I'd give even money on Sebelius vs. the field as Obama's choice for VP.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 9, 2008 1:46 PM

Biden would be the perfect choice for Obama and is likely at the top of his list. It would only muddy Obama's image slightly, and would more than make up for that in shoring up perceived experience and foreign policy weaknesses. Obama will choose Biden or somebody like Biden - maybe Chris Dodd or Jack Reed - because he needs a "safe" choice VP candidate. Book it.

Posted by blah | April 9, 2008 1:48 PM

jim webb!!!!! it's the only option.

Posted by nonono | April 9, 2008 1:48 PM

So you think putting a black women on the ticket represents too much of "more of the same"?

Hmmm.

Posted by Mark | April 9, 2008 1:49 PM

McCain shouldn't pick Rice for VP, Obama shouldn't pick Biden for VP, but it would make for one hell of a VP debate.

Posted by rob! | April 9, 2008 1:50 PM

I think it's clear that McBush needs someone to shore up his domestic cred, not his foreign-policy cred. McBush, Obama and Hillary also all need someone with real executive experience. True, Condy's been a cabinet secretary, but that's just not like being a governor or a CEO. I think that McBush and Obama would both go that route. Only Hillary will need to break the mold and go to Obama, if she's the nominee, because she needs his enthusiastic support and his donors' money more than she needs anything else.

Posted by Egypt Steve | April 9, 2008 1:55 PM

I am sure Biden would comment on how articulate Rice is.

Although, actually she really isn't. She would be horrible in a debate, she stumbles over words, lots of ers, etc. I think she is exceptionally smart, but she would also be tied to 9/11 and the OBL determined memo, her failure as national security advisor to Bush, etc.

Actually, I don't think there is a viable VP pick for McCain. Too far right, and he loses independents, too central he loses the far right.

Posted by john m | April 9, 2008 1:55 PM

Why wouldn't Moneybags Mitt be a good choice for McCain?

Posted by blah | April 9, 2008 1:58 PM

Yes, you really need to overthink it in order to conclude that putting the Secretary of State of an unpopular President during an unpopular war is a reasonable proposal.

Biden has never been able to keep his mouth shut when it would be smart to do so, which is not a trait to be desired in choosing a vp candidate to run with. He would almost guarantee that Obama would have to spend time, energy, and money, on at least a few occasions, talking about what his running mate said. What is most necessary in a vp candidate is discipline, and Biden may be a lot of things, but disciplined ain't one of them.

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 2:00 PM

I understand why you think Biden works againt the Obama brand in the sense that it's an "anti-war" brand. But it's also a "conciliator" brand and Obama will be looking to moderate his stance on the war as he enters the general election. Biden on the ticket allows him to invite war-supporters into his fold, make the argument that regardless of our errors in getting in, we can be united in getting out.

Which is not to say my money's on Biden, just that there's a counterargument to yours that's at least as convincing.

Posted by Seth | April 9, 2008 2:02 PM

Re Mark's "So you think putting a black women on the ticket represents too much of "more of the same"?"
-------------
Yes.

When it's a black woman who protected special interests after Sept 11 by going to the CEOs of the US TV networks and twisting their arms to not air Bin Laden broadcasts -- thereby preventing the American people from discovering why the attack occurred and who provoked it.

Thereby also allowing George Bush to promote his deceitful "they attacked us because they hate our FREEDOM" bullshit.

Which lie has crippled our attempts as a people to suppress the Al Qaeda insurgency -- because it has prevented our political system from also suppressing those US special interests whose actions are feeding the growth of Al Qaeda.

Plus , of course, National Security Advisor Condi Rice Aided and abetted the unnecessary Iraq War.

A war which has been a disaster for America but which will greatly benefit the Chevron which one named one of its oil tankers after Condi:
http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm

Posted by Don Williams | April 9, 2008 2:04 PM

Tina Fey once dubbed her Conda-Lies-A-Lot, and for good reason.

No way could McCain survive the press examining Rice's incendiary statements leading up to the Iraq War, where she repeatedly said stuff like, "if we don't topple Saddam there will be a mushroom cloud over America."

She is an incompetent, and a liar.

Posted by Bubblegoose | April 9, 2008 2:06 PM

I honestly don't see Condi tainted that much. In my experience, when ticked-off-Dems go ranting about the awfulness of the institutional administration, she's usually the first one they'll yield as a reasonable pick, while a lot of GOP-by-tradition-but-hate-the-guy types see her as some sort of brilliant Machiavellian who would've saved everything if Cheney had let her.

Posted by Senescent | April 9, 2008 2:07 PM

Rice has never run for elective office -- remember how Wesley Clark embarrassed himself in his first campaign? She also adds no domestic expertise to McCain's foreign policy experience. She is black, but the GOP should have learned in 2006 that black Republican candidates don't attract enough crossover votes to win; Black Democrats will vote for the white Democrat over the black Republican in a general election.

McCain should go with Jindal for VP, for several reasons:

- He's young.
- His Ivy League/Rhodes Scholar background complements McCain's history of... impatience with book learning.
- His expertise on health care complements McCain's foreign policy expertise.
- His exotic background matches Obama's.
- His meteoric political rise matches Obama's.
- His enthusiastic assimilation contrasts with Obama's embrace of radicalism and flirtations with separatism.
- His Indian-American background could help solidify Indian-Americans as reliable Republicans; they could be to the GOP what Jews are to the Dems.

Posted by Fred | April 9, 2008 2:09 PM

The possible downside of Romney is that the far-right Christians may not come out and vote with a Mormon on the ticket, and McCain can't afford to for any more of them to stay home than will already be the case.

Pawlenty has had a knack in Minnesota of being able to keep the far right Christians energized, while also appealing to suburban moderates. He's a very disciplined political operator, and it would make the Democrats use more resources in Minnesota, and possibly Wisconsin as well, given how many western Wisconsin residents work in the Twin Cities or are within reach of the Twin Cities media market. He might have some extra appeal in Iowa as well, he worked hard for McCain in Minnesota, and is somewhat youthful in appearance. There is some logic to picking him.

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM

It may have escaped the attention of Condi for VP advocates that Secretary Rice is BLACK. We're talking about the REPUBLICAN ticket here, folks. Get real.

Posted by CJColucci | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM

How 'bout competence? From swimming freestyle:

"Prior to her tenure as Secretary of State, Ms. Rice served as National Security Advisor to President Bush from his inauguration until Colin Powell resigned in 2005. In other words, Ms. Rice was responsible to be the chief advisor to the President on all national security issues prior and subsequent to September 11, 2001. (Has anyone seen that "Al Qaeda Determined to Attack United States" memo?) If I were her, I might consider leaving this job off my resume."

http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Posted by Jay McDonough | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM

Obama needs an older white guy on the ticket. Just so the the older white guys who would not vote for a young black guy could say, 'well at least there's an old white guy backing him up'

Posted by Judson | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM

Condy Rice and Lucy Van Pelt, separated at birth. Is America ready for a fussbudget one heartbeat away from the oval Office?

http://www.beansouptimes.com/LucyandCondi.htm

Wait. Van Pelt, VP, Vice President...hmmm...

Posted by Cole Moore Odell | April 9, 2008 2:13 PM

It may have escaped the attention of Condi for VP advocates that Secretary Rice is BLACK. We're talking about the REPUBLICAN ticket here, folks. Get real.

Posted by CJColucci | April 9, 2008 2:14 PM

It may have escaped the attention of Condi for VP advocates that Secretary Rice is BLACK. We're talking about the REPUBLICAN ticket here, folks. Get real.

Posted by CJColucci | April 9, 2008 2:14 PM

am i wrong to think Obama/Hagel would solve almost all of Obama's (perceived) problems all at once?

Hagel would bring experience, age, race, a more moderate (to Hawks) view on the war, and it would help underscore/reinforce Obama's central message of crossing party lines.

Posted by rob! | April 9, 2008 2:18 PM

As a Dem, I would love it if Condi is McCain's VP choice. She saddles him with the baggage of her derelict career. And, her presence will deter some of the race baiting that McCain will inevitably resort to against Obama.

Posted by Grinch | April 9, 2008 2:18 PM

I heard that Ms. Rice is a very good ice skater and pianist and likes the NFL and shopping for shoes. She sounds like an ideal choice.

Posted by ed | April 9, 2008 2:21 PM

Re Fred's comment "His Indian-American background could help solidify Indian-Americans as reliable Republicans; they could be to the GOP what Jews are to the Dems. "
-----------------
Many Indians don't have any money, Fred. Great White Father's Interior Department done stole it all.

American Indians are one group who the Republicans have fucked worse than they have fucked the Afro-Americans.

Posted by Don Williams | April 9, 2008 2:21 PM

Great point, CJColucci (though making it once would have sufficed). Expecting REPUBLICANS to put someone BLACK on the ticket would be as crazy as expecting them to appoint the country's first two BLACK Secretaries of State.

Posted by Fred | April 9, 2008 2:22 PM

Fred is of course correct about prior campaign experience. Unless the guy's name is Dwight Eisenhower, and he has just sucessfully managed the largest military/diplomatic alliance in human history, during the greatest conflict in human history (along with the guys called Roosevelt and Marshall, of course) putting someone without campaign experience on the ticket, in either slot, is a very bad idea. Hell, even MacArthur was a disaster as a political candidate. Eisenhower is the exception that proves the rule. A Presidential campaign is no place to gain experience in electoral politics.

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 2:23 PM

Hagel would bring experience, age, race, a more moderate (to Hawks) view on the war, and it would help underscore/reinforce Obama's central message of crossing party lines.

The oft-repeated problem is that we'd be one bullet away from a conservative Republuca administration.

Posted by goethean | April 9, 2008 2:23 PM

Many Indians don't have any money, Fred. Great White Father's Interior Department done stole it all.
American Indians are one group who the Republicans have fucked worse than they have fucked the Afro-Americans.

Think subcontinental, not aboriginal.

Posted by Senescent | April 9, 2008 2:25 PM

I don't think the Republicans will do this. On the assumption that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, Republicans are going to be counting on the X% of American racists who simply can't accept a black president to put them over the top.

But if Rice is the VP nominee, then even if the racists vote Republican, they get a situation in which we are a John McCain stroke or heart attack away from getting a black president anyway. Given McCain's age, that means there is a very non-negligible actuarial probability of a black president.

In short, given McCain's age, choosing Rice as the VP candidate would cut deep into the Republican edge with racists. Thus, they won't do it.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 9, 2008 2:28 PM

"I have a similar reaction to Marc Ambinder's suggestion of Joe Biden for Barack Obama."

That anyone in the pundit cosmos would think that the Democrat most responsible for repealing bankruptcy protection for a middle class facing the worst debt crisis since the Great Depression should be anything but retired suggests a good deal about the values and priorities and just plain cluelessness of any number of these people.

Posted by Linus | April 9, 2008 2:28 PM

Condi is even more of a failing upwards example than is Bush. Suck as a professor? Get kicked up to administration before a tenure decision! Study an area that has little relevance in today's world? Become senior foreign policy adviser to a Republican campaign! Become the worst NSA in history? Get Secretary of State! Acheive nothing at State? Get mentioned as a VP candidate!

Posted by Rob | April 9, 2008 2:30 PM

Don @ 2:21 - Fred was referring to South Asians, not Native Americans.

Posted by Thlayli | April 9, 2008 2:32 PM

Uh, Don, Jindal is the sort of Indian whose ancestors lived in a land that contained elephants and tigers, not grizzly bears and bison.

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 2:33 PM

This logic also, of course, rules out MY for Obama's veep, as I believe he also supported the war back in 2002-3.

Honestly, as someone who did not support the war back then in 2002-3, I think most of us have accepted that very many smart people got the war wrong back then, for a variety of reasons. I for one, wouldn't consider it a non-starter in VP pick.

Posted by Matilde | April 9, 2008 2:34 PM

I understand why you think Biden works againt the Obama brand in the sense that it's an "anti-war" brand. But it's also a "conciliator" brand and Obama will be looking to moderate his stance on the war as he enters the general election. Biden on the ticket allows him to invite war-supporters into his fold, make the argument that regardless of our errors in getting in, we can be united in getting out. --Seth

I agree with this line of reasoning: you can't get elected with only people who opposed the war at the beginning. You need to govern with people who voted for the war, and govern with people who have been in Washington a long time--the idea that we're replacing Washington wholesale is a bit of supporter hyperbole. Making government more transparent and accountable needn't mean no more jobs for everyone who's been there a long time--we already saw deBaathification doesn't work.

Over time, most people will remember that they either opposed the war, or had serious reservations (as Biden is on record doing). Driving them out as impure would be disastrously stupid, and this campaign is not disastrously stupid.

Posted by Deborah | April 9, 2008 2:36 PM

Biden's a sometimes maddening figure, but he's been impressive lately and there's a lot to be said on his behalf.

"Lately". That's some solid thinking there. I hear Cheney hasn't shot anyone in the face for a couple of months now -- lately, the man's a saint!

For the rest of us, whose memories extend beyond the last two weeks, Biden's associated with such stellar law-making as the bankruptcy "reform" bill (one in a long list of favors to the financial industry), with the original war vote, with truly embarrassing and idiotic stuntsmanship during the Alito and Roberts "confirmation hearings". More recently, we goto watch Biden glom on to the MRAP "issue", and use it as a ploy for self-promotion that, even by Beltway standards, was astonishing.

Posted by sglover | April 9, 2008 2:36 PM

Rice isn't going to be McCain's VP pick because she's black, but not because Republicans "won't vote for a black person." The reality is that the Republicans don't want ANYONE to vote for a black person. Their necessary strategy this cycle requires embracing alienated white voters, not exciting black voters.

The Democratic nominee is going to be a black guy. That means the most powerful and important campaign tactic the GOP is going to have to use this cycle is the Ferraro-esque white anger issue. In other words, they're going to dog whistle that Obama is only where he is because he's black. They can't do that and then tell everyone "but vote for our black person."

It's racist, but the racism is secondary to general demographic strategy. McCain wants Hillary voters and midwestern white voters. He wants them angry, and he wants them to think the black guy doesn't deserve it.

Posted by August J. Pollak | April 9, 2008 2:40 PM

This is going to sound excessively Machiavellian, but Rove is apparently behind the scenes for McCain so nothing is impossible: McCain is fully in on the Condi VP run for the advantages outlined by Hertzberg and others, but must play dumb so as not to appear crassly triangulating in order to negate Obama´s minority candidacy ("two-fer! black and a woman- can pull the disgruntled Clinton supporters away from Obama"). Additionally, having McCain play dumb allows it to play through the punditry and blogosphere to see 1) if it´s actually a good idea, and 2) if it can generate enough buzz and momentum so that McCain can then pivot and say "well, my friends, if you feel so strongly about it then i will pick this fine patriot and warrior for Iraq, who also happens to be a black woman."

This maneuver allows McCain to preserve his maverick image while making a completely calculated choice. If it plays out this way it´s genius. Except that maybe it´s not- Matthew´s on to something- doubling down on the Iraq war may not be so good when the economy is tanking. Plus, something tells me Rice would be horrible at campaigning and debate.

Posted by Stephen | April 9, 2008 2:43 PM

Yeah, it's harder to demagogue the economy when the VP candidate helped usher in the worst piece of economic legislation of the current President's term, and one that likely hurts Democratic constituents more than Republican constituents.

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 2:44 PM

I hate to ask, but why does anyone think that Condoleeza Rice is smart? Judging from her public record, she's an utter damned fool - and an ignoramus to boot. That isn't particularly unusual among the powers that be, but still, she is what she does.

Posted by gcochran | April 9, 2008 2:46 PM

Agree with Fred about Rice being a disaster, but not his choice of Jindal. He ran saying he would make Louisiana a modern, less corrupt state, and he has only been in office a year. He needs time. He has high potential. So does Sara Palin of Alaska, but she has two years as Gov. Before that she was mayor of a town of 5500.

The diversity BINGO game players are keen to claim Obama "needs" a woman or a Hispanic, or that for McCain, it is "vital" that he have a minority so he will get all the identity politics voters.

Complete nonsense.

I am praying Obama feels he is forced to pick the bumbling Richardson, or a lesbian feminist...just as if I was a Democrat, I'd pray the Republicans parachute in an underqualified person like Rice.

****************
I like Romney. He would be a great backup to Mccain as energic, with good foreign policy knowledge and superb economic credentials to shore up McCain on domestic matters. By all accounts, he is enormously intelligent - more than Hillary Clinton, Obama, certainly McCain. Right wing Christians bitch he isn't "pure enough" but the Fundies failed to get their Pastor Huckleberry into the nomination and if they sabotage McCain out of spite, they have no one to blame but themselves and their stupid purity tests if they help elect President Obama and he names 3 hardcore feminists off the ACLU short list to replace SCOTUS justices.

Pawlenty wouldn't put other swing states in play like Romney could, nor help in the West, Rocky Mountain States. But if Mccain really hates Romney, he may go with that guy.

For Obama, I like Ed Rendell. Strong leader. Plenty of executive and legislative experience. He's a Jew, but an acceptable one of moderate politics, not an ACLU Jew, and white ethnics like Rendell a lot.
I wouldn't pick Hillary. How would you feel if you were Obama knowing that she knows she is just a single heartbeat from being back in the White House again.

Posted by chris ford | April 9, 2008 2:50 PM

Don:

http://shipbrook.com/jeff/ChiefWahoo/

Posted by blah | April 9, 2008 2:51 PM

For consideration as a VP, Sebelius needs to work at emoting. If the STOU reply was any indication of her public speaking skills, she hasn't a prayer.

Posted by cmholm | April 9, 2008 2:54 PM

Rice has been inept in government. But in any case, the mere fact of being single seems to disqualify anyone from presidential politics in the modern era. I think you have to go back to Buchanan in 1856 to find an unmarried president ? And especially in the TV age, a photogenic spouse and one or more children seems, fairly or not, to be regarded as an essential campaign prop.

She has never run for anything; she's never going to be elected to anything. Rice is going back to academia where her ineptitude will be less damaging and her private life can remain private.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 9, 2008 3:03 PM

Snow falls gently in hell as Chris Ford hypothesizes about a Jewish VP candidate...

If you want a white guy from the Mountain West without the Mormon baggage, why not Bill Owens, the guy National Review once called "America's Best Governor"?

Posted by Fred | April 9, 2008 3:06 PM

I don't understand the idea that a Veep pick needs to make up for some qualification the candidate lacks. The President will appoint a Secretary of State and a Secretary of Defense. There is no need for a second one as VP. Also, choosing a VP to "fill" this perceived need is a tacit admission that the candidate lacks the qualification. Instead, what is needed is someone the candidate believes to be the most qualified (excepting himself or herself) to be President.

Obama is claiming he is the most qualified because on the most important decision of our time, he had the proper judgment. He has repeatedly said that Clinton and McCain are not as qualified because they lacked that same judgment. There is no way Obama should choose a VP who also lacks that same judgment. This is also why it is ridiculous for Clinton to suggest she would choose Obama as a VP. If she's claiming he's not ready to be President she can't make him Vice-President.

I think Obama could choose Richardson if he wanted. Although Richardson supported the war, he was not in Congress at the time and to my knowledge did not have access to the NIE. It is therefore not a slight on his judgment since he did not have all the facts.

Posted by Galois | April 9, 2008 3:12 PM

Used to live in Kansas so maybe I can share some insight.

Two things going against Sebelius is she is loathed by the gun lovers for pocket vetoing a concealed carry law in Kansas.

She also used to be the insurance commissioner for 8 years. Combine with the really moderate reforms Obama wants to do with Healthcare and the "punditry" on the right can twist this into socialized medicine fervor.

----

Also Sebelius gain the govenorship not due to good campaigning on her part, but due to the fact the Republicans bloodied themselves in a big primary fight. The Wichita Mayor (largest city of Kansas) ran for governor after a term limit, him being a moderate, was hated by the Social Cons. Well the Social Cons beat him in the primary but put up a flawed candidate, and the moderates Rs didn't like this candidate so they went for the moderate D (whose running mate was a R who switched to be a D just to run with her).

Due to good governorship though Sebelius has become very popular. This combine with , bad conditions on the ground for Rs in Kansas, as well as bad conditions for Rs around the nation in allowed her to win a landslide election in 2006.

----

I like the women, she is sensible and reasonable, but she is lacking...whats the word... gravitas?

Posted by Ramza | April 9, 2008 3:14 PM

Even stipulating that Obama has to reach out to those who supported the war at first (and of course he does) he can't do it through the VP pick, for the simple reason that it negates his primary rationale for winning the "experience" argument against McCain. That is, in order to be seen as better qualified to be CinC than McCain, Obama has to rely to a large extent on his superior judgment, vision, foresight etc. in opposing the war from the start. Putting someone who voted for the war a heartbeat away from the presidency would make that argument seem entirely hypocritical.

McCain has a parallel problem: if he selects a charismatic running mate without national security experience (eg Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin), then the whole argument that Obama lacks sufficienct national security experience becomes a fraud. It may be worse for McCain given the greater actuarial possibility that his VP will get the big chair.

I don't thik either Obama or McCain can afford to "balance" the ticket in this way - they both have to reinforce their basic rationale (judgment or experience).

Posted by Kevin | April 9, 2008 3:14 PM

Your Bremer-style de-AUMFI-yea-vote-ification of the Veepstakes smells of witch hunting to me (though from what I have been reading, the candidate himself may be closer to your attitude than we might expect).

It seems to me that the cadidate sets the policy platform, and all VP positions flow purely from that. I don't thinkthe worry about message dilution outweighs the dramtically diminished field given by such a limitation.

Biden would be a major assett to the ticket, but Webb would bring all that Biden would and more. And he (like Obama) wasn't present to cast a vote on the Authorization.

I don't think either of these are likely picks n any case. Webb, amazingly, didn't even appear on Marc's list.

Posted by Mike | April 9, 2008 3:18 PM

I agree 100% with Kevin. I hadn't thought about the McCain side of things, but he is absolutely correct.

Posted by Galois | April 9, 2008 3:19 PM

How about RusS Feingold?

Posted by Micheline | April 9, 2008 3:20 PM

Can anyone shed light on whether Biden has repudiated his war vote? As long as he has not equivicated like Hillary, it would be no problem for Obama.

Posted by nathan | April 9, 2008 3:24 PM

The reality is that the Republicans don't want ANYONE to vote for a black person.

Good point... why choose a VP to imitate the other party's nominee? If someone is favorable to a certain characteristic in a candidate, why not vote for the party that has him or her at the top of the ticket rather than the bottom? Meanwhile, people who are opposed to a certain characteristic are likely to sit out the election rather than settle for the lesser of two evils. That's why I'm against Webb, Clark, Biden, Hagel for Obama's VP. Tell us why Obama is strong on foreign policy (which he is), don't give ground to McCain by conceding that association with the military or being in the Senate for four terms is in itself evidence of foreign policy strength.

Expecting REPUBLICANS to put someone BLACK on the ticket would be as crazy as expecting them to appoint the country's first two BLACK Secretaries of State.

Appointing someone and putting them on a national ticket are much different. The point isn't that blacks can only be successful as Democrats, it's that most voters who have qualms about voting for a black candidate tend to favor the GOP. They don't want to risk losing those votes in a close election.

Posted by ibid | April 9, 2008 3:31 PM

Bill Ritter, CO Gov, would be perfect if he wasn't pro-life. What about Dodd? I think he really outdid himself on the campaign trail; his main negative is that he's from CT and could be tied to the "Obama voters drink lattes" meme, but aside from that, he's a smart guy who would be excellent in the attack-dog role.

I think Webb and Rendell, while being interesting characters, would both end up saddling Obama with various liabilities, especially their big fat mouths.

Posted by Philly | April 9, 2008 3:38 PM

Bobby Jindal is too right-wing on social issues (opposes abortion even in cases of rape, incest, & threat to women's life, opposes stem cell research, supports teaching intelligent design) to be a viable VP candidate. I just see him scaring off some pro-choice, socially moderate voters, plus helping Obama woo back some of Hilary's alienated women supporters.

Posted by Peter H | April 9, 2008 3:48 PM

Why are the lefty bloggers, like Matt and Marc, so against Condi as VP? I think they believe that this will cause Obama to lose votes. I find their entire rationale flawed. GOP is a party that needs to address minority issues. GOP is an American Party, not some foreign govt. Why are you against GOP to have this dialogue? Who cares whether McCain/Rice wins or not. That is not relevant. You just do want to lose any votes to them. Thus, you are against them. I really find lefty bloggers incredibly biased and not very intellectually honest. Right-wing bloggers you can see their bias up-front. For left-wing bloggers, you have to read in-between their lines to spot their shamless bias. What a tangle web...

Posted by eorse | April 9, 2008 3:49 PM

McCain should pick Petreaus.

Also: "He's a Jew, but an acceptable one of moderate politics, not an ACLU Jew."

Yikes. What does one have to do to become an unacceptable Jew? Is Yglesias an ACLU Jew? Is this related to Kosher laws?

Posted by Sam L | April 9, 2008 3:51 PM

Actually, former governor Warner of Virginia would balance a ticket headed by either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton quite nicely and bring the State of Virginia into play.

Posted by SLC | April 9, 2008 4:09 PM

When I was at a DC think tank in 2000 I saw an informal poll of dozens of beltway conservatives on their favorite choice for president. The top four were JC Watts, Colin Powell, Alan Keyes and GW Bush. Many elite Republicans in DC are full of the "white guilt", eagerness to get past race, etc. and they would love to nominate and African American. The key question is why doesn't one of them (aside from nutters like Keyes) actually run? Watts is a nationally respected black conservative, a great pol, and he up and retired, to give the most striking example.

I honestly doesn't know the answer. Perhaps Condi, Powell and Watts are indeed conservative in many ways but know how the party works outside of DC, and don't like it. Or perhaps it's the reason I suspect Harry Reid (if he had the political chops) wouldn't want to run for pres.--it would be very hard for him to have so many Mormons hate him for his political views. If you had three well-respected black liberals with a great shot at the nomination you can bet one of them would have run.

There is no way that Condi is the VP choice (neither is Jindal). The right wing may seem to agree with Ferraro and say that being black is a great political asset, but they know it's not true. After the Rev. Wright episode, they have really seen how far race-baiting can take you against Obama.

Posted by Colatina | April 9, 2008 4:09 PM

Here's my left-field pick: McCain/Bush.

Jeb guarantee's Florida, and picks off a large segment of Hispanics that are hesitant to vote Obama. McCain is already saddled with the association, so having the name on the ticket isn't as much a liability as you think, plus which, it jump-starts the re-rehabilitation of the Bush name, which is sure to become a long-term goal of the Republican brand.

Posted by Chasm | April 9, 2008 4:14 PM

Re Chris Ford's comment ""He's a Jew, but an acceptable one of moderate politics, not an ACLU Jew."
------------
Sigh.

Let's see if the "Draft Rendell" movement has legs -- then I'll tell Chris a story about how Rendell and some wealthy ..er..patrons .. pulled off a multi-billion dollar art heist.

It will demonstrate Philly politics to lesser mortals.

Posted by Don Williams | April 9, 2008 4:14 PM

For Obama's VP, what about Lee Hamilton? A moderate, middle-of-the-road Midwesterner with impeccable foreign policy and national security credentials. He's also highly respected by the Beltway media establishment, which will help drive the narrative of the GE campaign. He's a little on the older side, but if you think about it, the GE campaign really only runs from late August to early November. That's what, 2.5 months? Certainly doable for a man his age.

Posted by Moonlight | April 9, 2008 4:15 PM

My vote is for Kathleen Sebelius. Obama won't win through the traditional "pick someome who will bring their homestate" strategy.

He needs to keep the excitement going and up the excitement level in EVERY state. Choosing a qualified, accomplished woman should do this.
Sebelius is basically Hillary without the negatives and baggage. And more appealing to women, Republicans and Independents than any other choice I've heard.

And her lack of gravitas is a strength in my book. The campaign has it's superstar. She needs to be stable and competent. The rest will take care of itself.

Posted by George | April 9, 2008 4:15 PM

My vote is for Kathleen Sebelius. Obama won't win through the traditional "pick someome who will bring their homestate" strategy.

He needs to keep the excitement going and up the excitement level in EVERY state. Choosing a qualified, accomplished woman should do this.
Sebelius is basically Hillary without the negatives and baggage. And more appealing to women, Republicans and Independents than any other choice I've heard.

And her lack of gravitas is a strength in my book. The campaign has it's superstar. She needs to be stable and competent. The rest will take care of itself.

Posted by George | April 9, 2008 4:18 PM

Obama has to realize he has some serious demographic weaknesses. Rendell and Jim Webb seem like good choices to help fill them.

Somebody earthy and ethnic or military, who helps you win a state.

Don't aim for perfection or excitement. Go for complementary and solid. But not so solid it makes everybody fall asleep -- such as Dodd.

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 9, 2008 4:38 PM

Obama has to realize he has some serious demographic weaknesses. Rendell and Jim Webb seem like good choices to help fill them.

Somebody earthy and ethnic or military, who helps you win a state.

Don't aim for perfection or excitement. Go for complementary and solid. But not so solid it makes everybody fall asleep -- such as Dodd.

Actually, why not Bob Casey?? Is the pro-life thing a deal killer?

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 9, 2008 4:39 PM

Biden IS DC. Obama (like all successful candidates) is running angainst DC. Biden`s vote for the AUMF is just one sign of this.

That said, Biden would be better than Webb, mostly because Webb doesnt know how to campaign. Webb would also be even harder to control than Biden, and wouldn`t have the latter`s positives in terms of charisma and electoral experience. Also, Webb is too far to the right on FISA, immigration, guns etc.

Sebelius would be good, but I kinda want her to take Brownback`s senate seat in 2010. And while she`s impressively liberal for a Kansas Democrat, it`s sometimes hard to judge ideology from a Governor`s tenure. I think having a confirmed liberal on the bottom of the ticket is important.

Feingold would be great, but his decision to curtail a run for the top job, mostly because he decided being President didn`t really interest him, makes me think he wouldn`t want to be VP. He`s also a really valuable senator who could probably do more good there then in the white house.

The answer that presents itself is then quite clearly Senator Jack Reed. Liberal stalwart and former Army Ranger, an expert on defense issues who voted against the war even though he was up for re-election the same year (in RI, admittedly). Really, a very good choice.

Posted by phensley | April 9, 2008 4:42 PM

Re: When it's a black woman who protected special interests after Sept 11 by going to the CEOs of the US TV networks and twisting their arms to not air Bin Laden broadcasts -- thereby preventing the American people from discovering why the attack occurred and who provoked it.

Do you think anyone to the right of Ward Churchill would have given a damn what bin Laden had to say on Sep 12? People are not notably rationmal in the aftermath of atrocities, and they are wildly unlikely to be convinced that those atrocities are justifiable by the say-so of those who commit them. Besides bin Laden has been given plenty of air time since so why does this matter.

Re: It may have escaped the attention of Condi for VP advocates that Secretary Rice is BLACK. We're talking about the REPUBLICAN ticket here, folks. Get real.

The GOP loves to run GOP blacks so they can pat themselves on the back and claim they aren't racist.

Re: He has high potential.

Agree. Jindal may have potential for the GOP in four, or eight, years. Right now he's way too new.

Re: Here's my left-field pick: McCain/Bush.

Think again. The bloom is long off Jeb Bush's rose. He left Florida a big old mess. Not to mention the "Bush" part is a huge turn off. The rising Florida star is its current governor, Charlie McCain, who's still too new for this election cycle, but may be back in four years for a national run.

Posted by JonF | April 9, 2008 5:00 PM

[I]She would be horrible in a debate, she stumbles over words, lots of ers, etc. I think she is exceptionally smart, but she would also be tied to 9/11 and the OBL determined memo, her failure as national security advisor to Bush, etc.[/I]

No kidding. All you need to do is re-watch her before the 9/11 Commission describe how a 'plan' wasn't rally a 'plan'. Painful. Condi is not going to happen. If McCain chose her, it would really highlight his bad decision making propensities.

As for Barack, I'm hesitant to believe he'll cut into his potential Senate majority by plucking a Democratic Senator out of the bunch. Of course, that depends on the party of the Gov in that state replacing him/her with another Democrat. Sad because I think Jim Webb would be perfect. Look for a someone older with administrative/military experience.

Posted by Joe | April 9, 2008 5:04 PM

Still holding out on Obama/Clark. "General Wesley Clark" is the perfect complement to "Barack Hussein Obama." More of a war hero than McCain, and unlike McCain, he's not clueless.

Posted by 55 | April 9, 2008 5:11 PM

Sad because I think Jim Webb would be perfect.

Actually, there's no downside to picking Jim Webb for VP. If an Obama-Webb ticket wins the election, then Virginia's Democratic governor (Tim Kaine) will choose the replacement--obviously another Democrat. If they lose, then Webb goes right back to the Senate, where he has 4 years remaining on his 1st term.

Posted by Moonlight | April 9, 2008 5:18 PM

I'm another Sebelius person.

If the Republicans try the Barack Obama=Affirmative Action gambit when he's got a far more experienced white guy on the ticket, it may just work. If Barack has Sebelius as VP, it'll create "Destiny Ticket" critical mass where support starts to balloon because nobody wants to deny the presidency to a black guy and a white woman.

There is no way two old white guys beat a black man and a white woman. This nation may be sexist and racist, but this nation also loves celebrity. And having two identity-politics picks on a ticket will create a gigantic fabulicious media orgy the likes of which not seen since Reagan. It's just too good a story for the media not to feed that cash cow.

Obama/Sebelius wins in a landslide. Especially against two old crotchety crackers like McCain/Lieberman/Crist/Sanford..

Posted by Abe | April 9, 2008 5:20 PM

ABE - There is no way two old white guys beat a black man and a white woman.

Right, because affirmative action BINGO was such a winning game in the last 43 Presidential elections against demon oppressor white men.

Posted by chris ford | April 9, 2008 5:35 PM

ABE - There is no way two old white guys beat a black man and a white woman.

Right, because affirmative action BINGO was such a winning game in the last 43 Presidential elections against demon oppressor white men.

Posted by chris ford | April 9, 2008 5:37 PM

"it's that most voters who have qualms about voting for a black candidate tend to favor the GOP"

The number of Americans who have qualms about voting for a black candidate because that candidate is black is exceedingly small and limited mainly to blue collar white Dems. A larger number of Americans are turned off by their doubts about Obama's radical politics and ideology (or, to be more precise, the disconnect between the radical politics of his parents and mentors versus his current claims that his views are in the mainstream). If America were as racist as liberal white Dems think it is, Oprah wouldn't be hugely popular, Colin Powell wouldn't have been a favorite pick to run for president in the 1990s, and Fox would have had horrible ratings for casting two black actors as presidents on 24.

Posted by Fred | April 9, 2008 5:47 PM

What happened to the little Charlie Crist for VP boomlet of a couple of weeks ago?

Posted by sherrold | April 9, 2008 6:02 PM

I should have also added that some non-trivial percentage of Hispanic voters would probably be against a black candidate simply because of ground-level black-Hispanic frictions and the zero-sum aspects of liberal identity politics.

Posted by Fred | April 9, 2008 6:27 PM

Oh Condi, why must you torment me so?

I know that she's been a very bad girl but there's something so mesmerizing about her, I think I have a crush! In fact, I think Condi has been a stealth liberal all these years, just waiting for Rummy and Cheney to screw things up badly enough so that she could have her chance to influence the DimWit. I know I should hate her because I'm a liberal and she's a liar, but...sigh...Oh Condi...you're so pretty...so dreamy! You have to admit she's better eye-candy than McCain...I think she's really sexy! But I'm a lesbo so I guess my view is a bit biased...

Anyhow, I think McCain needs to pick Lieberman or that gay-looking Christian guy from South Carolina, what's his name? It's evident that he in fact does need someone to always stand by him in case he has trouble remembering all those tricky little facts...you know, so many factions, so little time.
As for Obama, I think he should offer it to Hillary(under the theme of 'unity')...as much as I dislike her antics I still think the Billary contingent who don't follow as closely as us weirdos do will appreciate the gesture and hop on board the love train. Otherwise, Sibelius is a safe choice but a bit uninspiring based on her state of the union response. Maybe she's had finer moments...I dunno.

Posted by kristi | April 9, 2008 6:29 PM

This is painful to admit, but I also find Condi to be sexy. Because of that, I have always had a soft spot for her.

Posted by blah | April 9, 2008 6:36 PM

Doesn't Condi disprove some of the happy talk about how Obama's race would be a boon in foreign policy? Has anyone overseas been more amenable to American diplomacy because we had a black Secretary of State? It seems like we still need to rely on white guys for the tricky stuff, e.g., Christopher Hill for China and North Korea.

Posted by Fred | April 9, 2008 6:54 PM

If an Obama-Webb ticket wins the election, then Virginia's Democratic governor (Tim Kaine) will choose the replacement--obviously another Democrat.

Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure who was running that state without The Google.

Other downsides to Condi - not a politician, never ran for public office, pro-choice (Rush will LOVE that!), generally considered to be a bad NSA head, and an ineffective SoS.

It's just not a well thought out choice. Generally when I see someone pick her as a VP candidate, I consider it shallow analysis. Good sign of a lazy reporter looking for a bold headline.

Posted by joe | April 9, 2008 6:58 PM

I'm for Obama/Biden because Biden is a great attack dog and it would make my old dad happy.

About Condeleezza Rice, I fucking hate her, but no more than any other lying mass murderers.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 9, 2008 7:21 PM

Re Charlie Crist

The chance that the gay bashers in the Religious Right would accept a closet gay man like Charlie Crist is zero.

Posted by SLC | April 9, 2008 7:44 PM

Fred writes: "The number of Americans who have qualms about voting for a black candidate because that candidate is black is exceedingly small and limited mainly to blue collar white Dems."

If Fred thinks that there aren't huge numbers of white Republicans - particularly in the Bible Belt - who would never vote for a black candidate under any circumstances, then I wonder if he has ever actually lived in America.

The GOP's Southern Strategy still lives.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 9, 2008 9:03 PM

For the Dems, try Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

1. Respected Dem in the House on her way up
2. Young, with a family
3. Oh, did I say "woman"
4. Jewish
5. Liberal
6. Red State (FL)
7. Kinda cute (sorry, but it is relevant)

It all reinforces Obama's message

Posted by Joe S. | April 9, 2008 9:44 PM

Sailer has an interesting post about how Obama's foreign experience in Kenya and Indonesia -- and the anti-American, leftist attitudes of his mother and his Kenyan Kinsmen -- may have influenced Obama's ideology: Obama's Skewed Experience of the Third World".

Excerpt:

Obama's naive mom appears to have assumed when she moved to Indonesia in 1966 that it was still as leftist as it had been under Sukarno, who had been overthrown the year before. She was horrified to learn it wasn't the non-aligned utopia she had imagined. Indonesia had been a leftwing anti-American dictatorship when she had met her second husband Lolo in Hawaii, but by the time she and little Barack arrived in Jakarta, Indonesia was a rightwing pro-American dictatorship. When Lolo (who is just about the only character in Obama's memoirs that I'd like to have a beer with) got a nice job working in government relations for an American oil company, they would argue (p. 47 of Dreams from My Father):

"...about her refusal to attend his company dinner parties, where American businessmen from Texas and Louisiana would slap Lolo's back and boast about the palms they had greased to obtain the new offshore drilling rights, while their wives complained to my mother about the quality of Indonesian help. He would ask her how it would look for him to go alone, and remind her that these were her own people, and my mother's voice would rise almost a shout.

"They are not my people."

Such tensions paved the way for their divorce.

Similarly, Kenya's leader Jomo Kenyatta, who persecuted Obama's father for being a member of the Luo tribe, allowed an American naval base at Mombassa and encouraged capitalism -- among his Kikuyu tribesman. Thus, Obama's Luo relatives were, increasingly, enemies of Kenyatta's pro-Western policies. The Luo, under the leadership of Obama's kinsman Oginga Odinga (who sent his son Raila Odinga, the current Luo leader who claims to be Obama's cousin, to study in East Germany in 1965), thus were leftist and friendly toward the Soviets.

Posted by Fred | April 9, 2008 10:52 PM

Re Charlie Crist
The chance that the gay bashers in the Religious Right would accept a closet gay man like Charlie Crist is zero.
Posted by SLC

But if Crist were to marry Condi, they would both become more viable Veep choices. And they wouldn't have to do anything icky.

I think we have the makings of a brilliant sitcom here. My Two Veeps meets Three's Company, with John McCain as a sort of Mr Furley, making all sorts of inappropriate jokes about their hot sexlife..

Posted by Jim | April 9, 2008 10:53 PM

As a Republican from Kansas who really can't stand Obama, I would feel much, much more comfortable with his candidacy if Kathleen Sebelius were at his side. She lacks foreign policy experience and isn't the greatest speaker ever, but she'd be pure political gold for Obama.

Also, I think people forget that Condi still has quite good approval ratings. A lot of Democrats say they hate Condi and would hate McCain for picking her as his VP, but most people who feel that way about Rice wouldn't vote for her anyway. She would really energize the Republican base (which is not as racist as people imply, and I resent the implication a lot), and she wouldn't detract from McCain any more than his unfailing support of the war already does.

Posted by Jonas | April 10, 2008 1:28 AM

Even if Rice was a white man, him/her being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action would probably disqualify her, especially if Barr (anti-choice, pro-gun, pro-gay bashing) goes ahead with his third-party candidacy. Also, the idea that putting up a crazy person on the "let's go kill brown people 100 year war" ticket, especially a crazy person with extreme far-right views (to solidify a voting bloc, you need the younger voters in that bloc's loyalty and young Indian-Americans aren't exactly joining the Birch Society and often grow up in blue states like NJ, NY, CA, etc.) who converted to Catholicism and has abandoned his Indian name for a white name is going to win Indian loyalty to the GOP, you really don't know what you're talking about.

"This is painful to admit, but I also find Condi to be sexy. Because of that, I have always had a soft spot for her.

Posted by blah | April 9, 2008 6:36 PM"

This happens with me and Amy Holmes and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It would happen for Michelle Malkin if she wasn't so cuckoo for coco puffs.

Posted by Reality Man | April 10, 2008 1:56 AM

Yeah...I think if you're going to be lied to and or wonked to death in the policy weeds then you might as well be lied to by a pretty face. This is why I found Crocker's testimony so astonishing...to me he looked like a scared and trembling white bunny rabbit; not very confidence-inspiring, the poor fellow. Condi may lie but at least she does it with aplomb and charm.
I definitely think there's an under-utilized potential for women in politics to make use of their sexual attractiveness(to the extent that they have it). Maybe it's time to test the conventional wisdom that a female politician has to be staid and asexual in order to be respected?I think we underestimate the number of men who would really dig a smart AND hot female president(imagine someone like Queen Rania of Jordan); unfortunately, it's more likely catty women who might have a problem. That's why I think Hillary missed an opportunity with Cleavage-Gate; she should have played coy and clever as she's done in other situations, as long as she does it in drips and dribbles so it wouldn't oscur the 'message'.
Anyhow, I really think McCain is going to select Lindsay Graham as vp in order to please the religious conservatives...and then Lieberman will be Sec of Defense or State(my guess is he'll keep Gates around).

Posted by kristi | April 10, 2008 1:46 PM

Amy Holmes is quite attractive though she's not the strongest conservative debater on Real Time. That title has to go to Tony Snow, who effectively took on three liberals at once on that show.

Posted by Fred | April 10, 2008 5:45 PM

kristi -

Check out Yulia Tymoshenko, the Prime Minister of Ukraine. She is a total babe.

Posted by blah | April 10, 2008 6:02 PM

Yulia's not only a babe, she's tough and a fighter. But is she a Democrat or a Republican?

Really the most sensible ticket is McCain/Obama.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 11, 2008 11:17 AM

Will Allen:
re: Pawlenty. Have you forgotten about the bridge collapse last year already? That alone knocks Pawlenty out. My bet is Mark Sanford. He is a Governor(and not part of the Washington "bubble" .. even though I believe he was once a member of the House) and also the fundies love him.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 11, 2008 11:56 AM