It's over

Tue, 06/03/2008 - 6:55pm

EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

Following a steady drumbeat of undecided superdelegates declaring for Barack Obama, the Associated Press declares that the Illinois senator has "effectively clinched" the Democratic nomination for president, and reports that Hillary Clinton is "open" to being his running mate.

Since it won't be long before the veep speculation gets wildly out of control, allow me to jump the gun with some guesses.

  1. Hillary Clinton. Sure, Obama would be leery of having such a powerful, independent figure on the ticket. But she's got major leverage in the form of 17 million primary supporters. If she demands the job, it will be tough for him to turn her down.
  2. Bill Richardson. New Mexico's governor has a lot going for him: He's relatively young; he's half Hispanic; he's not a senator, he's got foreign-policy cred; he's charismatic; and he supported Obama at a key time, at the height of the Reverend Wright blowup.
  3. Joseph Biden. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wouldn't be able to help much with the electoral map. An effective attack dog, Biden could catch some javelins for Obama on foreign policy.
  4. Kathleen Sebelius. The Kansas governor was an early Obama backer in a business where loyalty counts. She brings outsider credibility, reinforcing Obama's anti-Washington message, and hails from one of those red states he's always talking about. But outside of Kansans and political junkies, how many people have even heard of her?
  5. Sam Nunn. At 70, the former Georgia senator is a long shot. But his security bona fides are undeniable, especially on a nuclear proliferation, and he's a safer choice than the unpredictable Jim Webb and the Clinton-supporting Wes Clark.

Those are the obvious picks, and of course there are the media fantasy choices to consider as well: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and outgoing Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, both centrist Republicans. But it's highly questionable whether either of those two choices would resonate outside the confines of New York and Washington. Nor are two of the other oft-mooted choices very realistic: Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and his Pennsylvania colleague Ed Rendell. Both were Clinton backers, and as old-school, established politicians they would probably confuse the brand and dilute the "change" message.

Readers, what do you think Obama will or should do?

Blake Hounshell | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

I'm not so sure that he

by RSPorter on Tue, 06/03/2008 - 6:21pm

I'm not so sure that he would pick him, but I'd love to see Bill Richardson.

Veep candidates

by Traxton on Tue, 06/03/2008 - 7:22pm

I'd love to see Bill Richardson as well but I'm not opposed to having Hilary there. Her organization will hopefully help the democratic party come back together. No one is going to change their mind on Obama if he takes her. Also, it'd be a great insurance policy; no one who'd want to assassinate Obama would want Hillary in charge.

Billy and the Majic Bean

by Sam on Tue, 06/03/2008 - 7:26pm

I have been all for Bill too, he, after all he was the best democratic nominee among all 8 when it comes to successful executive experience, but Bill has the same problems as the other Bill, and also the joint ticket would become too dark in color and that makes some people feel patriotic!

My Vote

by RufusJSquirrel on Tue, 06/03/2008 - 8:47pm

Is for Jim Webb. Yes - he blusters and clearly has a McCain-esque temper - but he's a no-nonsense former SecDef with a kid in Iraq and the foreign policy cred that so many accuse Obama of lacking. He would be a more-than-qualified hatchet man for the job and, above all else, I just like the guy.

Dude,

by hiffy on Tue, 06/03/2008 - 10:12pm

Clinton. Totally.

I still really want to see Bush Clinton Bush Clinton, even if she's just the veep.

2 Americas

by TomR on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 4:43am

I know he's said he doesn't want it, but I'd still most like to see John Edwards as the VP. His two Americas campaign is the closest whisp of real change I've heard in politics this campaign.

He may not be the best for the campaign though, while he's demographically good for the ticket, he doesn't help in the age/experience or foreign policy areas.

Someone

by Lure D. Lou on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 10:18am

who is respected by the miltary, would appeal to reasonable working class democrats and hasn't been branded a flaming liberal by the Republican mongrels. Actually that sounds like Colin Powell...now wouldn't THAT be something? George Wallace and Strom Thurmond would have a hoedown in hell over that one.

Unfortunately, Powell lost

by dangermusic on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 11:50am

Unfortunately, Powell lost all credibility with the people who are arguably Obama's "base," due to his (Powell's) role in the Iraq war sell.
I like Richardson best myself, but from a purely electoral strategy viewpoint, Edwards might be a better choice. (I think he's a weasel pure politician personally, but oh well.)

Of course, David Brooks thinks the VP slot doesn't make any difference at all in electability of a pres. candidate.

I'm actually incredibly

by sashenka on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 2:35pm

I'm actually incredibly interested in the thought process behind those supporting an HRC veep on this ticket. Who really thinks that HRC wants to sit back in a VP situation and let Obama run the country? Being Obama's VP would entail one of 2 options: trying to co-run the country with him, disagreeing with him publicly, etc. on the foundation of her primary mandate or 2) sitting back, and supporting a healthcare plan, a foreign policy, and campaign finance reform/lobbyist reform she has vocally decried. Neither of these should appear to be attractive options to either HRC or Obama. Indeed, she'll maintain a much stronger position in the Senate, where she can continue to carve out a niche, disagree publicly, but with less acrimony, with the president, and have an integral hand in drafting the health care legislation.

If Bill can keep his rumoured womanizing out of the limelight, and minimize the public gaffs, he's definitely the strongest candidate. He complements most all areas where Obama is considered week: foreign policy/diplomatic experience; the hispanic vote; and executive experience. Edwards could also be effective at claiming more centrist independents and blue collar workers with his poverty creds, enthusiasm, and, frankly, southern while male charm (for those conciously or subconciously harboring a little racism).

hmmmm

by kidzib on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 6:01pm

downsides:

clinton: PROS: might help unify the party. CONS: it's clinton. samantha power said it right: she's a monster. she and bill are serious baggage that would prove to be competition for power and serious distraction in the white house.

richardson: PROS: will guarentee that the dems carry NM. will help with colorado. will peel latino voters away from mccain who has a good relationship with them. has awesome foreign policy creds. CONS: he's brown. is america ready for this much melanin? it's a serious question. it's the dave chapelle comedy duo made real. also, richardson isn't the greatest public speaker.

biden: PROS: foreign policy cred. "experience." CONS: fat mouth. doesn't help much with the demographics.

sebelius: PROS: female. bipartisan magic maker. CONS: not a great speaker. many clinton supporters would feel very insulted that a woman other than clinton was put on the ticket. doesn't make kansas competitive.

nunn: PROS: foreign policy cred, "experience," would make georgia highly competitive. CONS: he's super old. he won't set the dems up for 2016 if obama wins two terms. took the lead on don't ask don't tell.

i go with richardson, and i sincerely hope independents aren't bigotted to the point of not voting for a black/mexican ticket. to win the presidency, the democrats only have to carry the kerry states + iowa, new mexico, and colorado. obama is already running really strong in iowa, and richardson almost makes new mexico and colorado a done deal. obama is also weak with latinos while mccain is strong. richardson neutralizes this weakness and sets up democrats for future success with this key demographic. it's a no-brainer for me.

oh, and what is with all the jim webb supporters? do u realize this man once authored a paper titled 'Women can't fight' and is a raging misogynist? that'll go over REAL well with all the heartbroken older feminists who just had their dreams crushed by clinton's loss. stop talking about this option please!