![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
I'm not going to spend any time on Republicans because I still think Mitt Romney is the clear pick as I've said the entire time. Obviously, I have a very low opinion of Romney but in terms of who would be best for McCain, I think it's him. The economic and executive experience combined with his geographic help especially in Michigan and the Mountain West should be appealing to McCain.
As for Obama, I think things are much more fluid. The unfortunate thing is that the 2 people who are 1 and 2 on my list have apparently removed themselves from contention. Before I get to the list, I'll explain my thought process. Same as last time, Hillary Clinton is the first to go. As much as she might help by uniting the party and women around the ticket, there's a lot of harm done. She turns off Independents and would hurt Obama in a lot of the new states he's putting in play. In addition, it just makes no sense for Obama to pick Hillary Clinton in terms of campaign theme. If Hillary Clinton was worthy of being #2, then why did Obama run in the first place? If there is a "fierce urgency of now" and he's the only candidate who can truly do the job that America needs, how could the woman who would have been nominee had he not run be an acceptable alternative to replace him to the extent that he would pick her over all other choices? I'm not sure if this would become an issue if he picked her, but it certainly makes him look extremely selfish and dishonest if he did.
With Hillary Clinton out, that appears to eliminate all women from the spot. Unfortunately, the buzz is that if it's not Hillary, a lot of people are going to be really pissed if Obama picks a different woman since they don't comprehend or choose not to care about the argument I made in the last paragraph. As a result, picking another woman would start a negative furor which he doesn't need. Given that the only two choices are Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano and I don't think either one of them belongs in the top 5 anyway, I don't think it's a big deal to drop them from contention. Obama appears to like Sebelius a lot, but I can't judge their relationship, only externally visible factors.
Another unfortunate demographic elimination is Bill Richardson. There are already a number of people who are uncomfortable about Barack Obama and I think it would be a bad choice to pick another minority. It's not that it's "too much change for people to handle," it's that people have suspicions about Obama and him picking another minority would feed the suspicion that he's pulling some kind of revolution. It's stupid but I just think those subtle thoughts would sneak into people's minds. Like Sebelius and Napolitano, Richardson has some flaws that would keep him off the top of my list anyway so it's not so bad that he's cut by a trivial factor. This also eliminates Colin Powell, who never would have taken the spot anyway.
Last time, I also eliminated Republicans so that's the aforementioned Powell and Chuck Hagel. You can't pick Chuck Hagel just because he's against the war. It's a nice shock headline but he disagrees with Obama and most Democrats on so many things that you can't turn this into just an Iraq election. On that note, I'm sticking with my thought that he can't pick a retired general/foreign policy guru type. Sam Nunn, Wes Clark, and James Jones are among those who are basically 1 issue VPs and I think that's a bad idea. First of all, being the President is not just being the Commander-in-Chief. You have to manage the whole country and given the state of the economy, you need to be prepared on all the issues, not just one. Also, picking someone like that would actually work to McCain's benefit. By picking a foreign policy person, you're steering the debate toward foreign policy and suggesting that McCain is right that someone like him, who has a lot of foreign policy experience, is what is needed in a President. Foreign policy experience would be good, but not when it's such a blatant attempt to say "Look look I got an old military guy to help me with foreign policy."
Despite being high on other people's list, John Edwards remains off of mine. You can read back to my previous VP process of elimination to see why I oppose him as that hasn't changed.
That's the end of the automatic eliminations. On to the revised top 10....
10. Al Gore (Former Vice President, Former Senator from Tennessee, Probably not willing)
I don't think it would happen but there are certainly worse choices. I think Gore has built up a pretty good reputation among Independents and is probably viewed more favorably than he won in 2000. He carries the kind of gravitas that a name like Clinton does without all the baggage.
9. Brian Schweitzer (Current Governor of Montana, Willingness unknown)
He seems like an okay choice but it doesn't seem like he's too interested though I've heard very little. He looks like he's going to win re-election easily in Montana so it might not be a good idea to remove him from that spot. It also doesn't seem like he has a good relationship with Obama.
8. Chris Dodd (Current Senator from Connecticut, Probably willing but not sure)
I guess he suffers from the same problem as VP as he did running for President. There's just nothing about him to gain much traction. He did seem like a safe pick for a while but then that mortgage story came out about him and there's a danger that even though he's more of a "regular" guy, they'd turn him into the next John Kerry.
7. Jim Webb (Current Senator from Virginia, Claims he will not be VP)
He says he's off the list but all of the old reasons for including him remain. I think the big problem for him would be the sexism allegations because they play into the media's story about Obama appealing to women so they would probably pay even more attention to that stuff than it might normally get which would hurt Obama.
6. Tim Kaine (Current Governor of Virginia, Willingness unknown)
He's a solid pick but he would be replaced by a Republican Lieutenant Governor and the problem is that he's simply too new and doesn't have much of a track record. Obama has a State Senate record, his Iraq war opposition (which I consider to be a big deal), and his current Senate record. In addition, Obama has had all this time campaigning to display his judgment through debates and reactions to different events on the trail. Kaine would only have 2 or 3 months to convince me, and the general public, that he possesses the judgment to be President which is a tough task. It seems to me that if you're going to pick Tim Kaine, you might as well just pick Mark Warner since he's a better version of Kaine.
5. Russ Feingold (Current Senator from Wisconsin, Doesn't appear to be interested but willing if asked)
I think it's hard to argue he's not qualified. He's been a good member of the Senate for a while and is always willing to show his independent streak by saying and doing what he thinks not what the party wants. The bigger problem for him would be whether he would play electorally which I'm really not sure about.
4. Evan Bayh (Current Senator from Indiana, Former Governor of Indiana, Appears to be willing if asked)
I had him in 1st last time but I'm not a fan of the fact that he seems to be overly centrist. He still fits the do no harm principle and his experience is an asset so he's still in 4th but the fact that he's falling to the right on issues like Iran makes me question whether it's to the point where picking him is straying too much toward picking a VP like it's a game rather than picking the person you believe would be the best replacement. Also, currently, there is a Republican Governor so Bayh would be replaced by a Republican in the Senate most likely which isn't too good.
3. Joe Biden (Current Senator from Delaware, Claims he is not interested but would be VP if asked)
Last time I didn't even have Biden ranked because I pushed him with the foreign policy experts. It's true that foreign policy is his big thing but as a current Senator and former 2008 Presidential candidate, I should probably give him more credit. He's well versed on a lot of issues and I don't think there are many people who would dispute that he's qualified to be President. He makes some flubs on occasion but if that disqualified you, George W Bush would have never sniffed the White House. Biden does have a good candidate personality and would probably make some people who are on the fence more comfortable about Obama since they would convince themselves Biden would be around to help, especially on foreign policy. Obviously I don't think Obama needs any help but I'm not the general public. Biden was my 2nd choice for President when he was still running so I'd be perfectly happy to have my 1 and 2 become President and Vice President. On the campaign trail, Biden could be a good attack dog and could really go after McCain when he makes some of these ridiculous comments the way he tore into Rudy Giuliani. I think Biden has reached the point where he understands the conventional wisdom about him talking too much so he'd be able to stay away from that like he did last year in the debates. It's true that Biden probably wouldn't help carry any extra states but given Obama's current electoral map, he may not need to be concerned about geographical assets and consider that Biden can help in general by making a percentage of all voters more comfortable with Obama.
2. Ted Strickland (Current Governor of Ohio, Former Congressman from Ohio, Claims he will not be VP)
He says he won't be VP but if he's lying or is willing to change his mind, I think he's a good pick. Ohio should be an important state if this is a close election and Strickland looks very appealing as someone who was both a Congressman and a Governor and someone who voted against the war in Iraq.
1. Mark Warner (Former Governor of Virginia, Current Virginia Senate Candidate, Claims he will not be VP)
I laid out my case for Warner in previous posts and stand by it. Obviously the biggest potential flaw for Warner is the lack of foreign policy experience but given that he's essentially the good version of Mitt Romney and nobody seems to mind Romney's lack of foreign policy experience, I think he can get by on the fact that he has economic experience and accomplishments as well as a very popular term as Governor. McCain can try to pound the duo on foreign policy experience but as long as Obama displays his solid foreign policy knowledge at the debates then Warner would be a good complement for an ailing economy. Given how many Governors have been elected President with no foreign policy experience, I don't think it's a big problem. Warner is also pretty young so he could be the heir apparent looking down the road. Unfortunately it appears he prefers the safe Senate win so I don't think Warner will ultimately be chosen but he would add a lot to the ticket.
For more information you can read back to my previous VP posts where I gave more detailed summaries of a lot of these people. Given that Warner and Strickland have removed themselves from contention, I guess my top realistic pick right now is Joe Biden.
As for Obama, I think things are much more fluid. The unfortunate thing is that the 2 people who are 1 and 2 on my list have apparently removed themselves from contention. Before I get to the list, I'll explain my thought process. Same as last time, Hillary Clinton is the first to go. As much as she might help by uniting the party and women around the ticket, there's a lot of harm done. She turns off Independents and would hurt Obama in a lot of the new states he's putting in play. In addition, it just makes no sense for Obama to pick Hillary Clinton in terms of campaign theme. If Hillary Clinton was worthy of being #2, then why did Obama run in the first place? If there is a "fierce urgency of now" and he's the only candidate who can truly do the job that America needs, how could the woman who would have been nominee had he not run be an acceptable alternative to replace him to the extent that he would pick her over all other choices? I'm not sure if this would become an issue if he picked her, but it certainly makes him look extremely selfish and dishonest if he did.
With Hillary Clinton out, that appears to eliminate all women from the spot. Unfortunately, the buzz is that if it's not Hillary, a lot of people are going to be really pissed if Obama picks a different woman since they don't comprehend or choose not to care about the argument I made in the last paragraph. As a result, picking another woman would start a negative furor which he doesn't need. Given that the only two choices are Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano and I don't think either one of them belongs in the top 5 anyway, I don't think it's a big deal to drop them from contention. Obama appears to like Sebelius a lot, but I can't judge their relationship, only externally visible factors.
Another unfortunate demographic elimination is Bill Richardson. There are already a number of people who are uncomfortable about Barack Obama and I think it would be a bad choice to pick another minority. It's not that it's "too much change for people to handle," it's that people have suspicions about Obama and him picking another minority would feed the suspicion that he's pulling some kind of revolution. It's stupid but I just think those subtle thoughts would sneak into people's minds. Like Sebelius and Napolitano, Richardson has some flaws that would keep him off the top of my list anyway so it's not so bad that he's cut by a trivial factor. This also eliminates Colin Powell, who never would have taken the spot anyway.
Last time, I also eliminated Republicans so that's the aforementioned Powell and Chuck Hagel. You can't pick Chuck Hagel just because he's against the war. It's a nice shock headline but he disagrees with Obama and most Democrats on so many things that you can't turn this into just an Iraq election. On that note, I'm sticking with my thought that he can't pick a retired general/foreign policy guru type. Sam Nunn, Wes Clark, and James Jones are among those who are basically 1 issue VPs and I think that's a bad idea. First of all, being the President is not just being the Commander-in-Chief. You have to manage the whole country and given the state of the economy, you need to be prepared on all the issues, not just one. Also, picking someone like that would actually work to McCain's benefit. By picking a foreign policy person, you're steering the debate toward foreign policy and suggesting that McCain is right that someone like him, who has a lot of foreign policy experience, is what is needed in a President. Foreign policy experience would be good, but not when it's such a blatant attempt to say "Look look I got an old military guy to help me with foreign policy."
Despite being high on other people's list, John Edwards remains off of mine. You can read back to my previous VP process of elimination to see why I oppose him as that hasn't changed.
That's the end of the automatic eliminations. On to the revised top 10....
10. Al Gore (Former Vice President, Former Senator from Tennessee, Probably not willing)
I don't think it would happen but there are certainly worse choices. I think Gore has built up a pretty good reputation among Independents and is probably viewed more favorably than he won in 2000. He carries the kind of gravitas that a name like Clinton does without all the baggage.
9. Brian Schweitzer (Current Governor of Montana, Willingness unknown)
He seems like an okay choice but it doesn't seem like he's too interested though I've heard very little. He looks like he's going to win re-election easily in Montana so it might not be a good idea to remove him from that spot. It also doesn't seem like he has a good relationship with Obama.
8. Chris Dodd (Current Senator from Connecticut, Probably willing but not sure)
I guess he suffers from the same problem as VP as he did running for President. There's just nothing about him to gain much traction. He did seem like a safe pick for a while but then that mortgage story came out about him and there's a danger that even though he's more of a "regular" guy, they'd turn him into the next John Kerry.
7. Jim Webb (Current Senator from Virginia, Claims he will not be VP)
He says he's off the list but all of the old reasons for including him remain. I think the big problem for him would be the sexism allegations because they play into the media's story about Obama appealing to women so they would probably pay even more attention to that stuff than it might normally get which would hurt Obama.
6. Tim Kaine (Current Governor of Virginia, Willingness unknown)
He's a solid pick but he would be replaced by a Republican Lieutenant Governor and the problem is that he's simply too new and doesn't have much of a track record. Obama has a State Senate record, his Iraq war opposition (which I consider to be a big deal), and his current Senate record. In addition, Obama has had all this time campaigning to display his judgment through debates and reactions to different events on the trail. Kaine would only have 2 or 3 months to convince me, and the general public, that he possesses the judgment to be President which is a tough task. It seems to me that if you're going to pick Tim Kaine, you might as well just pick Mark Warner since he's a better version of Kaine.
5. Russ Feingold (Current Senator from Wisconsin, Doesn't appear to be interested but willing if asked)
I think it's hard to argue he's not qualified. He's been a good member of the Senate for a while and is always willing to show his independent streak by saying and doing what he thinks not what the party wants. The bigger problem for him would be whether he would play electorally which I'm really not sure about.
4. Evan Bayh (Current Senator from Indiana, Former Governor of Indiana, Appears to be willing if asked)
I had him in 1st last time but I'm not a fan of the fact that he seems to be overly centrist. He still fits the do no harm principle and his experience is an asset so he's still in 4th but the fact that he's falling to the right on issues like Iran makes me question whether it's to the point where picking him is straying too much toward picking a VP like it's a game rather than picking the person you believe would be the best replacement. Also, currently, there is a Republican Governor so Bayh would be replaced by a Republican in the Senate most likely which isn't too good.
3. Joe Biden (Current Senator from Delaware, Claims he is not interested but would be VP if asked)
Last time I didn't even have Biden ranked because I pushed him with the foreign policy experts. It's true that foreign policy is his big thing but as a current Senator and former 2008 Presidential candidate, I should probably give him more credit. He's well versed on a lot of issues and I don't think there are many people who would dispute that he's qualified to be President. He makes some flubs on occasion but if that disqualified you, George W Bush would have never sniffed the White House. Biden does have a good candidate personality and would probably make some people who are on the fence more comfortable about Obama since they would convince themselves Biden would be around to help, especially on foreign policy. Obviously I don't think Obama needs any help but I'm not the general public. Biden was my 2nd choice for President when he was still running so I'd be perfectly happy to have my 1 and 2 become President and Vice President. On the campaign trail, Biden could be a good attack dog and could really go after McCain when he makes some of these ridiculous comments the way he tore into Rudy Giuliani. I think Biden has reached the point where he understands the conventional wisdom about him talking too much so he'd be able to stay away from that like he did last year in the debates. It's true that Biden probably wouldn't help carry any extra states but given Obama's current electoral map, he may not need to be concerned about geographical assets and consider that Biden can help in general by making a percentage of all voters more comfortable with Obama.
2. Ted Strickland (Current Governor of Ohio, Former Congressman from Ohio, Claims he will not be VP)
He says he won't be VP but if he's lying or is willing to change his mind, I think he's a good pick. Ohio should be an important state if this is a close election and Strickland looks very appealing as someone who was both a Congressman and a Governor and someone who voted against the war in Iraq.
1. Mark Warner (Former Governor of Virginia, Current Virginia Senate Candidate, Claims he will not be VP)
I laid out my case for Warner in previous posts and stand by it. Obviously the biggest potential flaw for Warner is the lack of foreign policy experience but given that he's essentially the good version of Mitt Romney and nobody seems to mind Romney's lack of foreign policy experience, I think he can get by on the fact that he has economic experience and accomplishments as well as a very popular term as Governor. McCain can try to pound the duo on foreign policy experience but as long as Obama displays his solid foreign policy knowledge at the debates then Warner would be a good complement for an ailing economy. Given how many Governors have been elected President with no foreign policy experience, I don't think it's a big problem. Warner is also pretty young so he could be the heir apparent looking down the road. Unfortunately it appears he prefers the safe Senate win so I don't think Warner will ultimately be chosen but he would add a lot to the ticket.
For more information you can read back to my previous VP posts where I gave more detailed summaries of a lot of these people. Given that Warner and Strickland have removed themselves from contention, I guess my top realistic pick right now is Joe Biden.
5 comments | Leave a comment