Marc Ambinder's scoop is that Jim Webb withdrew his name from contention from the VP job once the Obama campaign let him know about the specifics of their apparently fairly rigorous vetting process. This is interesting in light of some of the earlier rumors that one reason Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be the choice is that Bill Clinton doesn't want to fully open his kimono on aspects like Clinton Library donations.
I recently had a friend who applied for a job -- unlike many jobs these days, the materials had to be submitted by snail mail. This was a job in the design industry meaning that a portfolio is required, making the process relatively cumbersome.
To set up a hurdle where you require some minimum level of seriousness such that people need to get up off their lazy asses and go to Kinko's ... you'd think this would not be too much to ask of someone applying for a very good job in a down economy. But a few days later, the company mentioned that the application deadline had been extended by two weeks.
I'll bet that they get a better hire as a result, though. If you skip directly to the interview process after some loose scan of resumes, the excitement of the moment can take over, and it almost becomes a matter of luck as to who catches you in the right mood on the right day.
Where I'm going with this is that the purpose of making it be known that you'll have an onerous vetting process is not necessarily to prevent another Thomas Eagleton; many of these candidates have been exceptionally well vetted, including Webb, who survived one of the nastiest and most expensive Senate campaigns of the last cycle. Rather, it's to prevent another John Edwards, whose lukewarmness toward the ticket was unhelpful to John Kerry's chances. You want to make a candidate jump through hoops for you now, because that's what they're going to need to do for you for four months on the campaign trail and then four years in the White House. Jim Webb ain't that kind of guy, apparently, which should surprise absolutely nobody who knows anything about him -- but better to discover that a moment too soon than a moment too late.
7.07.2008
The Virtue of Vetting
by Nate Silver @ 6:49 PM...see also edwards, obama, vice president
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

86 comments
Interesting analysis, Nate.
I understand your point Nate, but Eagleton would never happen today. All McGovern's campaign did to vet Eagleton was call up a bunch of reporters -- who all knew about Eagleton's having been committed but were DAMNED if they were going to be the one to say anything about it.
As Hunter Thompson put it "the reporter who torpedoes a Senator's chance of becoming VP can forget about ever doing another interview."
That disaster is why nobody relies on reporters today.
Everything is investigated. I would imagine that a lot of potential candidates won't submit to such rigorous screening and Obama might find it difficult to get really good candidates.
But, the alternative is to have something blow up during the campaign. They are being ultra-careful, knowing that the media will never forgive them for the slightest slip-up, given how in the tank the nodding-heads of the MSM are for McCain.
It is an interesting analysis. Given how thorough the Obama campaign has been, I have a feeling that any speculation as to who is up and who is down could be entirely off the mark.
I hope so, at any rate, given that your list of supposed frontrunners in the post below leaves one ... uninspired. But I suppose that a VP pick does not necessarily need to be inspiring, just competent. And committed.
(My own darkhorse is Bob Graham -- just as white male moderate and just as foreign policy tough guy, but has some advantages some of the others don't -- both a gov and a sen, still popular in Florida, and was f*%!cking right on Iraq, and tried to tell anybody who would listen that he'd seen the intelligence, and knew BushCo. had nothing.)
-- Stu
P.S. I suppose with the holiday weekend not going to have been many state polls -- what's a poll junkie to do over the next day or so?
Stu: I'm as close to a native Floridian as you're going to find these days and you know what? I think you're dead on. Bob Graham is The Man here in Florida. He's got the popularity, the smarts, and people loved him. Oh, and he's got the desire for national politics. My only concern is his health. I recall he had some heart issues, but then, that doesn't seem to be a disqualification these days.
Nate, the more I red your blog and site the more I appreciate your thoughtful and fact driven approach to this election.
Edwards was a disaster 4 years ago simply running for himself for 2008.
I agree with another post that the names you hear are not the ones in the mix.
Bill Richardson is so seldom mentioned and so obvious as someone that Barack likes, has the international experience, is a Governor and oh by the way is hispanic and would bring NM, NV, CO closer to blue and help tremendously in CA, TX and in a number of major southern urban areas like Atlanta, Charlotte, N. VA and others...
He is still my obvious choice...though a feisty and honest Joe Biden is good as well...
Nate - do you have hispanic numbers for some of these cities to look at??
Bob Graham also has some weird quirky things that kept him off Gore's ticket - like he writes down everything (literally, EVERYTHING..color of his socks, time he ate breakfast etc etc) in daily diaries and has for his whole adult life - it's too OCD for a national race
Graham makes a good choice on paper, but I wonder about his energy level. He was never a particularly dynamic speaker or campaigner. Also, his penchant for diarizing every moment of his life comes off as pretty weird.
He *might* put Florida into play, but I don't see him giving Obama more than a 1-1.5 point bump, and if Obama's that close in FL, he's won Ohio and some other key states.
Don't get me wrong - I like Graham, and I've been a Florida Democrat for 32 years. (OK, registered for 27, damn that pesky 18-year-old voting requirement). But I think Obama will want to double down on his "change" message and go with someone younger. I'm kind of partial to Schweitzer myself.
I'm suprised we don't hear more about Wexler. He's a charismatic Senator from Florida, and he's tight enough with Obama that the campaign tabbed him to represent Obama's case for the Florida delegate compromise.
Wexler's not a Senator yet, though he's fairly widely expected to run against Mel Martinez in 2010.
I agree with both Stu and mc. Senator Graham is an excellent candidate. He is highly respected and enjoys much support by Floridians. He will certainly help Obama carry the state.
Lourdes C.
Interesting analysis indeed.
I also see this kind of vetting as not just vetting a VP candidate's background, or vetting their commitment level, but also vetting a VP candidate's drama level. The Obama camp is known for not wanting any drama in the campaign, and I would only expect that Obama would value a VP candidate and a VP that would add to his campaign by not bringing any drama to the campaign. Webb, Clark, and Clinton (via Bill) all bring too much drama to the campaign to be good choices.
To John Nail, Richardson actually has been mentioned quite a bit as a Veep possibility. Problem is that he also has a rep for being a bit overly frisky around women. Although he would be a great fit in other areas, I'm guessing that would torpedo his chances here.
FWIW, Richardson was my "obvious" choice for VP back in February. Now I'm as much at sea as anyone else, other than being almost positive that it won't be Hillary.
IMHO Graham's keeping a detailed diary should no more be a factor than whether or not Gore should have worn more earth tones. (I was not a supporter of his short-lived campaign in 2004, nor was I yet a Floridian, but it annoyed me how much play it seemed to get.)
But given, as Atrios likes to say, the hideously stupid state of our national political discourse, there's no doubt that the SCLM will give his journal far more play than, say, his eight years as governor or his eighteen as senator, or his recently having founded a center for public service at the University of Florida, or his principled stand against the Iraq war, or his sharp mind, or his continued popularity in Florida. Not when they have the shiny bauble of his journal on which to fixate their ADD sensibilities.
Nate, it seems you saw this coming with Webb? I know you have opinions on this...Though it's not exactly your style, as the process is fairly secretive and polls on this are rare and unreliable, who are your favorites for VP? (Both who you think Obama and McCain will pick, and who you think their best choices are.)
I don't have much information on this...But I'm thinking Richardson (my preference) or possibly Hagel (wildcard; the bipartisan/moderate appeal) for Obama, and Crist for McCain.
The Vp will have to be someone who helps translates Obama's words into deeds, right- how would schweitzer, graham or wexler or any other of these numpties do that? Bill Richardson will not be picked as VP - unless there is a great alienate-the-whole-white-working-class-masterplan afoot. Why risk it? Webb didn't even get around to endorsing Obama - he really wasn't in the running so very easy for him to pull out. Nunn and Biden look and sound old- double no-no. Clinton -all her vices she conveniently laid out in the primary season in case you were sleeping. Hagel - no chance - why risk alienating the 18 million Clinton supporters. Any Clinton backer is ruled out automatically - backed the wrong horse big time (Clark, Rendell, Bayh: auf wiedersehen). Edwards like Richardson - endorsed too late to matter. The same could be said for Gore (but I would bet an overheated earth that he has already ruled himself out privately -unless he thinks the planet 'needs' him). Bloomberg hasn't endorsed either which rules him out plus he is a numpty. This leaves Sebelius and McCaskill. McCaskill undermines Obama's skinny look. Hence, Sebelius: the least worst VP. (she might even be competent at her job)
steve -- your point about Graham's relative lack of charisma (and, yes, his age and energy level) is well taken, and probably the more likely reason why the Obama campaign would not choose him.
But then, who among the likely choices would be another "change" candidate?
Crist is a "down-low" brother (tho obviously white) - he won't be on McCain's ticket under any scenario and what does it say to non-kool aid drinking dems to pick a republican? pro-gun, anti-gay, pro-life nonetheless. Hagel is not seriously on the short list - and neither is Crist although he could end up in a McCain cabinet - (maybe HHS or EPA)
Something that's been bugging me a while is Richardson's so-called reputation as a womanizer. It seems to me we didn't hear much about this until after he dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Obama. I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but wonder if these rumors, which I've never seen substantiated in any concrete way at all, were just started by vindictive Clinton staffers who didn't want "Judas" to collect his 30 pieces of silver.
I'm not a Clinton-basher - I think she'd make a good, if not perfect, choice. I'm just frustrated by how quickly people discount Richardson's potential value to the ticket.
This method of vetting candidates is so typical of Obama's campaign: methodical and cautious with a keen eye on the big picture.
I don't think it's necessarily indicative of the person, but the fact that Obama has ostensibly unlimited resources in both man power and money. To his credit, Obama's jumping on every advantage his resources make available.
Crist is shooting for EPA in a McCain admin - he just signed a huge deal to buy back almost all the land from the largest domestic sugar company in order to restore the everglades - he's like Christie Todd Whitman - (maybe even a batman/bruce waybe thing)
I don't know if Richardson is a womanizer or not, but the stories about him getting to touchy with the ladies (including his own Lt. Gov.) have been public for years.
You didn't hear much about Richardson's "womanizing" during the campaign because he was never a serious candidate. But Obama can make him a serious candidate just like that, by picking him as VP.
Sorry if this publishes twice.
Boy, I can't tell you how happy I am that Webb disqualified himself because he couldn't meet the requirements. I always found him to be too dull.
I'll be pleased with Edwards, Biden, Sebelius, Hillary, Gore or Richardson. But I'm puting my money that it's going to be Hillary.
I was never a supporter of hers, but I have a sense that she's a nice woman who's terribly misunderstood. I would bet anyone a hundred bucks that she's going to be Obama's veep. Unless she too removes herself for similar reasons.
Anon: you can delete posts you know. Nate: what is 'Kinko''s? A strip club? Is that where Richardson spends his time 'governing'? I think we should be told.
kinko's is a commercial photo-copying place
Put McCaskill and Schweitzer in the "needed right where they are" category, and Sebelius in the "not ready for prime time" category (anyone see her response to the State of the Union address?).
As for Graham, I remain unconvinced of a Veep's ability to "deliver" a state. It would make more sense to make a "Cheney" (ok, everybody shudder and let it go) style choice: a running mate that complements the front-runner's perceived weakness without overshadowing him.
In that vein, I like Richardson, followed by Clark or Biden (I don't think having been a Clinton supporter is a disqualifier).
No big loss with Webb off the ticket. I like him personally, but I feared that he would carry too much baggage and have too much potential to introduce drama to the campaign. Since Obama is such a departure from those whom many people normally find comfortable, I think it best for him to choose a candidate with a squeaky-clean record.
The person doesn't need to be exciting at all -- Obama is exciting enough as it is for most people, in either a positive or uncomfortable direction. In a way, it almost seems that his having to choose a VP is almost always a net negative (and most polls I've seen reflect this). I think it best to minimize the potential for conflict (AKA Republican attacks) by choosing someone with a slow steady hand but with a solid record that matches Obama's plans for the future.
This is the reason why I'm pulling for Sebellius, but the obvious concern is whether or not Clinton supporters would react negatively. My gut tells me that they would generally be all right with it, but I have no hard data to back that up.
Oh c'mon Diamond - hillary:a nice woman who is terribly misunderstood?? I don't think so!
Graham maybe, but Bayh fits the bill. Richardson's womanising may or may not be real but the mere possibility must make the Obama organisers wary.
And my gut tells me: no Hillary, no woman. To put any woman other than Hillary into the potential President slot is a no-no.
Anon at 8.18: no naughty photocopying allowed I hope. Not that Bill Richardson would. No sirree.
robby: it being a Clinton supporter would be a disqualifier for Obama if not for you - the guy had to fight like mad for the democratic nomination - not something he's likely to forgive and forget about- unless he were to slip dramatically and alarmingly in the polls - in which extreme and unlikely case only Clinton herself would probably do. That's as I see it.
The vetting process works both ways. I figured out a long time ago that if somebody didn't want to hire a casually dressed long-hair, I didn't want to work for them. And forget about the piss tests. I'm good enough at what I do that I can find someone who respects me, and work for them. So far my life has been adequate money and low stress, which suits me fine.
Oh, on topic: Webb is a fine Senator, but he doesn't strike me as second fiddle to anyone. He's better where he is, making up his own mind how best to serve Virginia and the country. My own top three choices for Obama are Biden, Clark, and Schweitzer.
Mark Warner. The Senate is important, but the VP is more so. Warner is just about the only VP candidate that can actually deliver a state. And an important state. By my reckoning, Obama is pretty certain to get to 259, but getting to 270 is going to be tough without Ohio or VA. Warner delivers one of those. (Yeah I know, there is the CO and NM tandem, but I think McCain will recover in the mounatin west. It's his turf).
BTW, those of you who like Richardson must have forgotten this meltdown.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2585
My assessment of the veep contenders:
Jim Webb--Loose cannon, moot point as he has disqualified himself from consideration.
Bill Richardson--E Tu Brute
John Edwards--Been there/done that
Al Gore--Ditto
Evan Bayh--Will someone please light my fire.
Jack Reed--Who?
Michael Bloomberg--I'm a democrat, wait, I am a republican, wait I am an independent. Can't decide what I am.
Wesley Clarke--Umbilical cord to Billary.
Kathleen Sebelius--Strong contender, but won't sit well with the Clintonistas, who are already threatening to sit this one out. Would be hard to justify Sebilius over Clinton.
Tom Daschle--Couldn't even get re-elected in home state, even though he was the Senate minority/majority leader. Comes from a small state with 3 electoral votes, with no chance of ending up in the democratic column.
Anthony Zinni--Military and politics make strange bedfellows.
Sam Nunn--Says it all.
Joe Biden--experienced, but too establishment, and too sarcastic. Tendency to misspeak.
Chuck Hagel--Ideology issue. More compatible with McCain than Obama.
Hillary Clinton--Love her or hate her, she is still a force to contend with. It would be unwise to categorically dismiss her. So, there is a lot of water under the bridge between Hillary and Obama. Who cares, the name of the game is "WIN". Besides, there was no love lost between Kennedy/Johnson and Reagan/Bush Sr. In the end, it was political expediency that ruled the day.
Bob Graham--Should be given serious consideration. Popular former Governor AND Senator from Florida--where have I heard that state mentioned before?--He was "spot on" on the issue of invading Iraq--An ideological match made in heaven with Obama. Graham would also lend national security and foreign policy (Obama's weak points) expertise to the ticket. However, at age 72, he might be too old for consideration; especially since age is an issue for McCain, who coincidentally is also 72.
I think Webb's comments might be better taken more literally -- he just went through a brutal, nail-biting campaign and doesn't want to go through another one only 2 years later; and wants to finish the term he promised his voters. He likes Obama but wants to stay put.
The reason it comes out now, perhaps, is because this is the first time he's really been seriously talked to about it and he's essentially saying "don't go to the trouble, I don't want the job".
I think most of the remaining strong Veep candidates for Obama are Bayh and several really impressive governors -- Sebelius, Schweitzer, Kaine, and Easley. I don't think having ties to Clinton is a bad thing at all (e.g. in Easley's case).
Warner has already said no. If you want someone from Virginia Kaine is just as good. Although his surprise at being asked implies he wasn't on the short list (you could say the same of Sebelius).
Richardson and Clark are both a bit too much baggage and provide too much drama at this point. Nunn and Graham are too old.
Giving up a senator is expensive, especially if its in a state where you can't just win it back. So generally I'd rather see a governor than a senator, unless they're retiring anyway, or, like Lieberman, can't win another election -- in which case how much help can they possible be?
Hagel would be a good choice for either candidate to pick, which is why neither one will. Hagel has expressed willingness to be Obama's veep, which is interesting, but I don't think he's serious about the job.
I think there is still some chance of picking Hillary as veep, but I doubt that's the best use of her abilities. If she's not insisting on being the veep, picking Sebelius should be OK, though I do agree picking another woman would be a bad idea withouth Hillary's concurrence.
Have there really been no polls since July 2? That's what your chart says.
McCain has taken the lead
thank god !
:-)
(i was a bit worried)
I don't understand why anyone thinks that any woman other than Hillary Clinton is automatically excluded, or that picking any other woman would be automatically considered a slap at Hillary. You think that people who supported a presidential campaign of a woman would be happier with a male VP candidate than a female one? Where's the logic in that? And besides, Hillary supports Obama's presidential campaign now and will certainly concur with whomever he picks for VP. And I would be very surprised if Obama picks HRC for VP, for all the reasons everyone has posted about before.
Naomi: meltdown? How can a strongly heterosexual man (indeed, a veritable babe-magnet) like Richardson -or Asmodeus for that matter- be comfortable talking about homosexuality? That link you provide makes me like him more. And nobody 'brings states' -it never happens. Please understand that simple point.
Taimuri: you are worried about upsetting 'Clintonistas' with Sebelius?!- they were complaining about sexism - so your solution is to pick a male -just to be on the safe side? Go figure.
i like the list of democratic VP possibilities over at wikipedia best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_vice_presidential_candidates%2C_2008
of those, i think the following are strong V.P. choices, all governors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ritter
there are also some generals on the list, like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Jones
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni
who would make fine choices if the chemistry is right with obama, and horrible choices if the chemistry isn't there.
i think sebelius is the best choice though. a boring executive to nicely counterbalance a charismatic legislator.
@ YES WE WILL
Um...McCain's in the lead? News to me...CNN and RCP both have Obama +6, this site has him beating McCain literally two-thirds of the time.
Where, exactly, are you getting your data?
Asmodeus: I was not suggesting that Obama pick a male running mate as a compromise. What I said/meant was that IF he picks a female, it should be HRC. She would be more of an asset than a liability as many of these posts suggest. Afterall, she was the choice of 50% of those who voted in the democratic primaries. Who cares if it is a lovefest or not? If, however, he decides to select a male, I was suggesting someone like Bob Graham who would be an ideological match, especially in regards to Iraq. And his expertise on National Security issues and Foreign Policy issues would negate the neophyte image Obama has when it comes to foreign affaires.
Michael,
It ironically stems from a gender stereotype that picking anyone but Hillary is like shunning one's date at the prom for someone else, or at least the pundits have reported it using that type of analogy before. Something along the lines of 'all women have experienced being dumped by for someone else', and are too fragile to handle that happening to their candidate.
Gotta love Pundits.
It is ironic that Obama could not pass his own vetting crucible -- what with his outspoken wife and his connections to William Ayers, Father Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko, not to mention his admitted coke use and his parents being a Muslim and an atheist.
Bayh is Obama's soundest choice with Jack Reed a darkhorse candidate. Sibelius would cost him the election just as Fiorina would doom Mccain.
Order Ritalin Online.Generic ritalin
Buy Flonase online.Purchase Flonase
Buy Glipizide.Order Glipizide.
Buy Cheap Imitrex.Discount Imitrex
Buy Inderal.Order Inderal.Purchase inderal
Cheap Flexeril.Order Flexeril
Purchase Flagyl.Buy Flagyl 500
Order Flomax.Cheap Flomax.Buy Flomax
Order Fosamax.Purchase Fosamax
Purchase Glucophage.Buy Glucophage
On National Security debate, Obama's best talking point is that his judgment about the hazards of the war have proven to be sound. And that good judgment is better for a president than experience and bad judgment.
I then think it's problematic to have a VP who voted for the war or at least it's not as clean. This bumps off John Edwards, Evan Bayh. I can see possible exceptions for Hillary or Biden since they've argued their vote was meant to strengthen the president's hand for diplomacy. Biden even worked with Carl Levin to amend the resolution and restrain the president's authority. So HIllary and Biden are not perfectly clean but do-able.
Less muddy choices who all opposed Iraq invasion (and who don't cost a Senator seat):
Bob Graham, Al Gore, Bill Bradley
All older though Gore is still an energetic 60. I'm not convinced Gore wouldn't do it.
Or Sebelius, Kaine and Schweitzer- though Sebelius is a good choice to try to take Brownback's senate seat in 2 years.
Philip, thanks for explaining that. I don't agree with that stereotype, which I consider silly.
Having read all the comments, Sen. Obama's choices seem dismal, ranging from the old and the weird to women who look bad on camera.
I have to wonder what Obama's top priority will be. Is it someone who beefs up his campaign — either a telegenic, sharp speaker or someone who appeals to specific blocs, such as center/right voters, Catholics, Scots-Irish, etc.? Or will Obama pick someone who beefs up his governing by being close to him ideologically, having solid military/foreign policy experience and is capable of leading the party should the VP ever become president?
As much as I like Gov. Schweitzer over all other choices, this is the only site or publication I know of that ever talks about him. He's more likely to be energy secretary after he finishes his next term in Montana, it would seem.
Obama needs a running mate who instantly strikes voters as a good, strong choice with no possibility for news-cycle-hikacking problems of any kind, and who reliably presents well on camera. That leads me to believe it will probably have to be a veteran senator. Even hot-tempered Biden might be a little too rough around the edges.
I don't know why there isn't more talk about Sen. Dodd. He was a strong campaigner in his presidential run, and he's a principled leader in the Senate. He seems to cover all the major requirements for a solid VP pick. Dodd's not a sexy or exciting choice, but he won't overshadow Obama.
A strictly campaign-oriented choice, since she offers little executive or foreign policy experience, would be Sen. McCaskill. She's smart, cheerful and down to earth, and she does represent a critical swing state that is swinging back and forth quite a bit. I don't agree that she's a bad visual at all — she looks motherly and is a nice antidote to Hillary's hardened pants-suit persona.
Obama will have two principal concerns when selecting his VP. He will want someone with executive experience and someone who will help to reassure the white working class men and women who will decide the election. For that latter reason, I don't think he would risk picking a woman (Sebelius, Clinton, McCaskill) or a Hispanic (Richardon) or another African American (Colin Powell). The VP will be a white male with outreach to moderates and former Clinton supporters. For that reason I think he will either go for a very safe option like Nunn or a slightly more adventurous option in Evan Bayh. Personally I would go for Bayh who has had executive experience as Governor in a Republican leaning state, Indiana, who supported Clinton (without attacking Obama) and who has appeal to moderate voters. The only downside is that he is also relatively young. My first choice would have been Strickland but he has ruled himself out.
As for McCain he obviously would like to go for a moderate like Tom Ridge but the homophobic jihadist wing of the GOP won't let him pick anyone who thinks that a woman should have the right to choose or that a gay person is a human being. For the same reason he will avoid Crist whose last minute sham marriage isn't fooling anyone and he will avoid Romney whose Mormon background makes him unpalatable to the Christian (sic) right. For that reason I have a feeling he will go against his better judgment and go for a right wing candidate like Huckabee to shore up the GOP base.
I have found something that just might be evidence for Kathleen Sebelius.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/07/the-politics-of.html
This is a bit conveluted but Obama has just defined his position on post-viability abortion. I think he did a rather good job of it.
He has his own reasons for clearly drawing the line (and that might be the only reason), but so does Kathleen. They are both vulnerable to attack for supporting late abortions.
Had they paired up before defusing this atack you could expect some rather nasty accusations about intfantside.
If Sebelius is the one expect her to issue a statment agreeing with Obama.
Again, stick to the data! This 'analysis' is flawed on so many levels.
First, the 'vetting' process is what led to John Edwards. It's not designed to keep people like Edwards away. He survived the exact same vetting process being conducted now in 2004. If you think he is lukewarm, it is probably because he was the only one left standing after 'vetting.' The inability for nominees to take risks can lead to an Edwards nomination, where the nominee isn't really offensive and yet doesn't help at the end of the day.
Sebelius reminds me of Edwards. Nothing really wrong with her, but her lukewarmness probably won't help Obama at all.
Second, the Clinton library nugget you included is just a rumor. We have no solid reporting on whether this is true or not. In my view, if Clinton is not the nominee, it is just a red herring that is being circulated to explain why not.
Third, the 'vetting' is in part to stop another Eagleton.
It is funny how much more vetted the VP is than the Presidential candidate.
Hillary is entirely unvettable. Obama has a whole folder of sludge (including her involvement in questionable pardons in 2000-01) that he never had to use, but sure doesn't want to defend.
Sebelius has done some amazing things. Standing up to Bush on National Guard materiel depletion. Squashing a for-profit takeover of the non-profit Kansas Blue Cross as Kansas Insurance Commissioner. Vetoing a coal-fired power plant (Colorado approved a ballot initiative for 15% of power to be renewable, so the sprawl industry tried to build a coal plant in Kansas with 90% of the power going to Colorado).
That all appeals to the wonks. And, it's more accomplishment than Hillary or a whole lot of the other options. But, can she win? Winning repeatedly as a Democrat in Kansas is impressive (certainly over jetting to the safest seat possible). But, I'm not sure how that translates to the national stage.
Regarding those throwing different names out there, this is who the VP pick will be: Hillary Clinton OR someone who is not named Hillary Clinton, but that Clinton supporters and the media won't immediately NEGATIVELY compare to Hillary Clinton.
Because she won so many votes and it was such a close primary with lots of dream ticket speculation, Obama very well may just suprise us and pick Hillary Clinton.
If he doesn't, his choice has to make sense as 'better' than her. This limits a lot of the people currently under consideration. You don't want the Dan Quayle effect if you are Obama (the media saying, why'd he go w/ someone like Quayle when NAME, who is much more qualified, was available?).
The same will go for Hillary Clinton. Polls are still showing a solid 30% of Clinton primary supporters voting for McCain or undecided. It is possible that many of these voters will be ANGRY if she is not picked, and he could alienate some Clinton supporters who are behind Obama now if he picks someone much worse than her in perceived qualifications (e.g., a Claire McCaskill or even a Sebelius). And imagine the field day the media will have with the question "Why wasn't it Clinton?"
Obama needs to pick Clinton. Or he needs to pick someone where the answer to that question, 'Why wasn't it Clinton?' is non-controversial to both Clinton supporters and the media.
Any thoughts? It narrows the pool dramatically.
I think Obama will make a safe and conventional choice that will not cast any sort of shadow over his historic campaign and distract from the cult of personality that has propelled him thus far.
This rules out party luminaries such as HRC and Al Gore.
Similarly, Joe Biden has too much of an ego and too much personal ambition and stature on the national stage to be trustworthy as second fiddle.
I honestly don’t see Sam Nunn wanting to bother and he is such an ancient relic in Democratic politics that to bring him out of mothballs probably would not do much for the ticket other than to highlight Obama's youth and inexperience.
Richardson is too ethnic and will only create further barriers to winning the working class white vote, which seems to be the crucial swing group. While Obama may have a problem in the Hispanic community (the polls don't show it, but the primaries indicated the risk), whatever he may gain with Richardson will be lost elsewhere.
Evan Bayh is a bland choice who could presumably help in the heartland but he is pro-life and I think that may be a bridge too far for the left wing that controls the party and its big ticket donors, especially in light of Hillary having lost so narrowly and their being so many bruised feelings among the feminists.
That brings us to any woman but Hillary. That cannot happen. It would only be seen as a further repudiation of the party's feminist icon and the Clinton legacy.
On the short list that leaves Wesley Clark. Clark certainly would bring balance to the ticket from an experience and national security perspective, but just about anybody would, considering Obama’s thin resume. The recent dust up over McCain’s war service and military experience did not seem to help his candidacy, but did burnish his credentials as an attack dog, a necessary role. The downside, of course, is that if military experience and judgment is what you are looking for, it plays into McCain’s hand and makes him look all the more attractive.
psmith:
Personally I would go for Bayh who has had executive experience as Governor in a Republican leaning state, Indiana, who supported Clinton (without attacking Obama) and who has appeal to moderate voters. The only downside is that he is also relatively young.
Bayh is 52, for chrissake!
Has American politics become so geriatric that 52 is now considered irredeemably youthful?
Granted, Bayh LOOKS much younger than 52.
The downside, of course, is that if military experience and judgment is what you are looking for, it plays into McCain’s hand and makes him look all the more attractive.
Oh? Did Grampa McCain go to a mortician?
If anyone has any actual data as to what percentage of "white working class" voters in New Mexico elected Richardson governor, please, please let's see it. Why just assume that this demographic will never vote for anyone non-white? (Yes I know that argument got floated during the primaries, but I thought it got debunked pretty thoroughly and turned out to be more of a regional effect in Appalachia.) New Mexico may be a diverse state, but I don't believe you could get elected in it without at least some white, working-class/lower-middle-class votes.
Besides, there's no evidence that he would in fact scare everyone in this group. Although I haven't seen Richardson in person, in photos he sure does not look different than many white guys with dark hair, and generally wears suits. Some posters are talking about him as though he were the Frito Bandito.
SG:
I don't understand your "mortician" comment. It certainly does not appear to elevate the level of discourse here or in the Obama campaign in general, of which, like it or not, you are a reflection.
That said, why did you ignore my comment concering Bayh's pro-life stance? How do you think the Democratic base will react to that sort of further apostasy from their candidate?
SelenesMom:
I am sure that in the abstract Richardson under the right circumstances can attract white, working class voters. My obervation would be that his Hispanic heritage coupled with Obama's African-American/Muslim background creates a ticket that is too ethnically extreme to win over those white voters who have so far been resistant to Obama's charms. To win a candidate must generally get 50% plus percent in enough states to get elected.
Bayh is not pro-life, he is simply a not pro-choice purist. That won't bother anyone in the Democratic coalition except the extreme pro-abortion/NARAL faction.
I think an Obama-Bayh ticket would be a force to be reckoned with compared with McCain and whatever dinosaur he chooses as his running mate.
As I said above I agree entirely that Obama-Bayh would be one of the best options. The whole point of Obama's appeal is that he does not play the game of "you're either with us or against us" and it would send all the right signals to have someone with a more conservative view on social issues on the ticket. He was also an early supporter of Clinton so his nomination would be warmly received by her supporters and also by independent voters and soft Republicans.
My apologies for calling him 'young'. I was trying to express what the media criticism of the joint ticket might be. Personally I think he would be an excellent choice for VP.
Note, I have not sought to argue that his selection puts Indiana in play. While it would undoubtedly help to put Indiana in play, Obama will have won in a landslide already if Indiana is even close. The selection of VP should be based on a broader strategy not putting individual states in play. After all, Edwards couldn't deliver North Carolina and as President, Gore couldn't deliver Tennessee.
SG said...
"Bayh is not pro-life, he is simply a not pro-choice purist"
In fact the National Right to Life Committee gave him only a 25% rating.
Isn't Obama actively seeking (or has already received) the NARAL and NRLC endorsements? I think Bayh's selection would outrage the Democratic party faithful especially in its already disenchanted feminist wing.
To P Smith's point, Obama must first prove that he is a man of principle and all this moving to the right to make himself more electable cannot continue to be disguised as "new politics" or "not playing the game".
Very powerful influences have annointed Obama (George Soros, MoveOn.Org) and they together with the opinion leaders in the liberal blogosphere which is the keeper of the message may be hungry for a victory, but they want vindication of liberalism along with it.
Thier embrace of Bill Clinton did nothing to advance the progressive cause. They will not let Obama off his leash lightly.
Anonymous at 7:25 said:
Something that's been bugging me a while is Richardson's so-called reputation as a womanizer. It seems to me we didn't hear much about this until after he dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Obama. I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but wonder if these rumors, which I've never seen substantiated in any concrete way at all, were just started by vindictive Clinton staffers who didn't want "Judas" to collect his 30 pieces of silver.
My spouse has worked in politics for almost thirty years. Believe me, those rumors about Richardson are nothing new. Don't blame the Clintons for this one.
P Kent - I'm not entirely sure what your point is on this though I agreed with much of your original post as to why other candidates would not be chosen. Whether you believe Obama or not about his desire to unite left and right, my point is that he will want to appear to do so in making his choice for VP. You mentioned Bayh's pro life slant and I simply pointed out that that offered balance to the ticket.
As for your implicit criticism of Obama's policy changes, you can't have it both ways. If he does nothing, some will call him the most liberal senator since Lenin and beholden to Soros/MoveOn and if he modifies his position he is an unprincipled flip flopper. To any objective observer, both candidates have modified their positions though there is still plenty of difference between them for this election to be meaningful.
Personally I think all of this media driven froth about flip flopping and nuance misses the point completely. On any representation of the candidates' words, there are stark differences between the two candidates; on Iraq, on tax cuts, on health, on the environment etc. It's a shame that the media spend so little time examining the substance of those differences rather than playing to the tit for tat drivel that both campaign's attack dogs spew out at their daily conference calls.
PSmith
I think McCain can get away with changing his positions better than Obama can b/c he is much more a known quantity and his reputaion as a moderate conservative is more established than Obama's as a centrist.
With Obama you must examine his admittedly scant record and life history to get a true impression of what his core values are. Much of that seems antithetical to this rightward tilt of late and exposes him to charges of being a chameleon, driven only by ambition to be President.
As far as Bayh goes, I agree than in the abstract he offers balance to the ticket, but given that he fails on one of the litmos tests of party fidelity among national Democrats his nomnination as VEEP would be problematical. Especially given that so much of the left wing establishment is already up in arms over his recent tacking to the right.
Pete:
I don't think there's anyone in the Democratic Party who seriously believes that Bayh would use a VP slot to push a pro-life agenda. And if anyone in the party DOES believe such a thing, then they're so stupid that they really ought to be Republicans.
There's a big difference between someone who is personally pro-life and has reservations about late-term abotions and someone who would like to take away abortion rights altogether (eg. McCain).
I'm somewhat confused by your statement...you say Obama wants the endorsement of NARAL *and* Right To Life? What?
SG:
I appologize, I mistyped and did not mean to lump in NRLC with Obama's endorsements. He'd never get that.
I don't think that Bayh would be allowed to puruse a pro-life agenda. I just think the party will seek much more a purist on the issue. He has a reputation as being weak on abortion rights. The way I handicap the VEEPstakes that's a deficiency for him.
i love what sg said: "I don't think there's anyone in the Democratic Party who seriously believes that Bayh would use a VP slot to push a pro-life agenda. And if anyone in the party DOES believe such a thing, then they're so stupid that they really ought to be Republicans."
well done. i think something we don't think about much is how this ticket will look. the ideal to me was clinton/gore - they looked dynamic, young, good looking and ready to take on the world. the generational change from bush 1 and bob dole was unmistakable and a plus. bush/cheney looked more like a punk with his grumpy uncle.
the list of venerable foreign policy men - clark, nunn, biden, graham may have a little of that odd couple look as well. i don't think its a big deal but it is something. i think biden is in the top 5 and he should be.
i've come around to thinking that bayh is the guy. indiana is one of two tossup states right now (VA is the other) and obama is expending energy/$ there. his combo of exec and foreign policy experience is superb. he has tremendeous campaign experience. he is beloved by his state. and let's be honest: they would look like a perfect team - especially compared to mccain and whoever he chooses.
i don't discount clinton or sebelius, but their experience doesn't seem quite the perfect fit. clinton as vp might be the best surrogate a campaign ever had, though.
As a social conservative right leaning independant, I would consider voting for Evan Bayh, too bad Obama would still be on top of the ticket. I like him and find him genuine. His stance on abortion is rational, although pro-choice leaning. He has shown he understands economics of government and can balance a budget. I still would never vote for Obama, but there are probably a lot of people in the middle of Indiana with similar views to mine, that would if Bayh was on the ticket.
Would never consider Clinton or Richardson, I agree there is too much baggage. Bob Graham has its upside and downside. His age would both clearly show Obama is not "attacking" McCain on age, but having many years of the wrong type of experience. However, it also diminishes the impact of BO's age and desire to change, when you bring someone on just as old and with as much inside experience as JM.
Overall very interesting discussions. Obama is wrong for America, which makes finding a similar person to join him all the harder to do. If holding Obama's extreme views and lack of experience is required I cannot think of a single person who would fit the bill. Every person you have mentioned has lots more experience than good ole BO, with the exception maybe of a couple unknown governors.
I think the big advantage for Bayh is his 'checkmarks'. Governor? Check. Helps 'bring home a red state'? Check.
I don't think he really helps the ticket, but he has absolutely nothing that hurts the ticket. I can't imagine anybody, anywhere, voting against Obama because he picked Bayh as his veep (unless they were always going to vote against Obama unless he picked their personal favorite for veep, such as Hillary). If Obama thinks he has it in the bag unless he does something stupid, then Bayh is obvious. He just screams "safe choice".
A guy like Richardson is a risky choice. He could be enormously helpful- having a guy who's been a cabinet member, senator, and governor, who's negotiated POW releases, has the most foreign policy experience of anybody short of Condeleeza Rice, and Hispanic. He could also be enormously harmful- womanizer, sometimes puts his foot in his mouth (though not as bad as Biden), and Hispanic, though his English name, face, and accent means that lots of people wouldn't even know it.
So my vote is:
Risky (need Veep to win it): Richardson.
Center (want small boost): Sebelius
Safe (just don't hurt the ticket): Bayh
So in many ways, I don't consider the veep pick just a pick of the next possible Vice President, but also how confident Obama is of winning the campaign.
Sibelius's biggest negatives are the fact that some die-hard Clinton supporters may view her selection as a slap in the face because she's a woman (which in my opinion is an extension of the rigid gender ideology that drove me nuts during the primary) and that she needs a couple days of coaching on appearing less robotic reading off a teleprompter (see: SOTU) - but she does at least as well as Clinton or Edwards in front of crowds.
Her personal positives are that she has an excellent managerial track record (I would trust her to hammer out a path out of our current budget debacle after her success in Kansas), sky-high favorables among constituents of all parties, emphasizes Obama's change/outsider/post-partisan message as he is trying to move to the center, has proven herself to be a tireless campaigner, and is charismatic and reassuring in person. On a more shallow note, I think the white hair is a nice counterbalance to Obama's youthful appearance without her appearing frumpy like Biden or Napolitano, and she might help a bit with MO and OH due to her ties. Obama seems to praise her effusively every time he gets the chance.
One more point, and it's the same logic I used to settle on Obama almost eighteen months ago. I think you put the most talented, telegenic, and (subtly) tough person in the slot and let them grow into the job and I believe that person to be Sibelius.
Plus her family goes to Jazzfest every year. How cool is that?
One of the issues Obama has is that
We know what he claimed to believe while in the Illinois state house;
We know what he claimed to believe in his Year and half or so as a Senator;
We know what he claimed to believe back in February through early June when running for the Democratic nomination;
We know what he claims to believe today;
But we have no idea what he actually believes, or what he will believe come November 2008 or January 2009.
That is the scary part, each of the very brief parts of his political existence have had drastically different records and sets of beliefs upon which he campaigns.
Higglytown:
Obama isn't wrong for America. He's wrong for YOU and your Neanderthal ways.
I'm sick of right-wing Republicans thinking that their "values" represent those of America.
You're no more American than the rest of us. Or Obama.
Pete Kent:
Thanks for your opinion, which is expressed clearly. What I was addressing, though, was the current lack of data to support it -- or at least data available to me.
I am hoping that someone will be able to point us in the right direction and we will find out something relevant. For example, what demographics went strongly for and against Richardson when he was elected governor of New Mexico.
Without evidence, all the opinionating on earth isn't going to accomplish anything.
Is Chris Dodd out of the running? He seems like the best choice to me for broadening Obama's appeal, and he endorsed early after dropping his own bid for the WH.
Regina @ 7:18 "Obama needs to pick Clinton. Or he needs to pick someone where the answer to that question, 'Why wasn't it Clinton?' is non-controversial to both Clinton supporters and the media."
From the end of the Primary to now hasn't been very long, but if I was Sen. Obama and had decided to pick Sen. Clinton for VP, I would wait for some time before announcing it, that's for sure. Time to let the crowds on each side to settle down a bit.
Not saying this is happening, though it fits my "wait a month or two before announcing" theory. And hey, if he'd had someone in mind already (don't know why anyone wouldn't believe that to be true), why wouldn't he have announced right away?
Side note to Higglytown:
"each of the very brief parts of his political existence have had drastically different records and sets of beliefs upon which he campaigns."
You may want to recheck your postings, every word about the constant flip-flopping is right on the mark to be sure, but you've mistakenly written "Obama" instead of "McCain".
Don't worry though, from the descriptions, we know who you meant. ;-)
Except for the pick of Agnew (which should have told us something!) has a President ever been elected (post 12th Amendment or in last hundred years) who didn't win both his own state as well as the state of the VP?
Should that rule out some really bad idea "Southern" choices.
Jerry Brown for Veep. catholic, governor, mayor, AG, worked with Mother Theresa, called Democratic Party on corrupting influence of big money by resigned from chair of CA DEM Party, saw the environment as an important issue twenty years in advance, an attack dog to blast McCain, a great name for OH.
I'd like to suggest a simple proposition: a vice-presidential pick isn't going to GAIN you votes. Nobody is going to vote for Obama because the running mate is from state X, charismatic, etc.
All the VP can do is LOSE you votes.
So both candidates should be picking the most boring, noncontroversial VP possible.
Period.
No drama queens. No polarizing figures like Hillary. No one even more inexperienced than Obama. (Bye-bye McCaskill...) No gaffe machines like Richardson and Biden.
Dick Gephardt perhaps?
JDK: "Except for the pick of Agnew (which should have told us something!) has a President ever been elected (post 12th Amendment or in last hundred years) who didn't win both his own state as well as the state of the VP?"
I guess that all depends on which of the many states Daddy Bush (41) claimed as home: Texas, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts.
For electoral college purposes GHWB was from Texas.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment