Virginia Sen. Jim Webb just issued a statement from his Senate office saying that -- "[u]nder no circumstances" -- does he want to be considered as Obama's veep. "Last week I communicated to Sen. Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for vice president.But it's interesting to see whose stock is trading upward at Intrade as a result of Jim Webb's Sherman Statement today. These people have gained ground:
Bayh +2.0
Schweitzer +1.9
Reid +1.9
Warner +1.7
Hagel +1.7
Biden +1.3
Kaine +1.3
Edwards +1.0
Sebelius +0.6
Clinton +0.5
...about an even mix of Moderate White Dude and Foreign Policy Tough Dude, with a few Virginia Is For Lovers candidates thrown in. Webb crossed over all three constituencies, which is why he seemed like such an obvious name for the short list.And yes, that's Harry Reid, which ought to put to bed any notion about the efficiency of betting markets. Maybe some overseas punters heard some buzz about Jack Reed and got the two confused? I cannot explain this one away.
The overall favorites for the Democrats' VP slot according to Intrade, translated loosely to Vegas-style odds, are as follows:
Clinton 9-2
Sebelius 9-1
Bayh 10-1
Hagel 10-1
Rendell 12-1
Richardson 12-1
Biden 12-1
McCaskill 15-1
Edwards 15-1
Kaine 15-1
Reed (RI) 20-1
Schweitzer 20-1
Clark 20-1
Gephardt 20-1
Gore 20-1
Nunn 20-1
Bloomberg 25-1
Webb 30-1
Zinni 30-1
Warner 35-1
Reid (NV) 50-1
Jones 60-1
Wexler 80-1
Nelson 100-1
Napolitano 100-1
Daschle 100-1
Easley 100-1
Field 40-1
Has a VP field ever been so completely wide open? And I don't have too many betting tips for you, but in general find it easier to identify people who I'd want to short (Gore, Hagel) than long (Bill Nelson is intriguing at those odds, and Tim Kaine probably is too).Update: You know who else I might long? Evan Bayh. Bayh would certainly not be my first choice, but that's not what matters here. I'm trying to think about this from the standpoint of the Obama campaign's paradigm, and in general the Obama campaign has tended to be very risk-averse. Bayh is polished, if not overly articulate; he's a brand name, but not one that will overshadow the nominee, and he would be acceptable to most moderates as well as most ex-Clinton supporters. There's a bit of an always-a-bridesmaid concern about Bayh that can become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy -- if he wasn't good enough for Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry, what makes him good enough now? -- but then again, Indiana has never before been a swing state, nor has the Midwest in general been so important.
94 comments
I'm shorting Clinton and Gore. All of the others either have a non-negligible chance of getting the nod, or aren't worth shorting (ie their odds are too low). If I was just slightly less conservative (in betting terms, that is, not politically), I'd short Sebelius as well; and until this afternoon Clark was also on my thumbs-down list, but I decided to cash in some profits.
I still think Obama and Klobuchar look great together.
Anyway, the markets are not predictive. At all. They just follow the latest news and rumors.
I'm sure it's gonna be Edwards~take that to the bank and cash it!
I'd short all of the pro-lifers:
Bayh
Hagel
Nunn
and Bloomberg (because serious sexual harassment allegations don't play well in a general).
And, long the "field." I'm somewhat surprised there isn't more conversation about Sharrod Brown.
It should be noted that that Reid's movement was a bump from 0.1% to 2.0% and the volume over the last few hours has been fairly low. So I think it's fairly reasonable that "penny stocks" like that are going to be less reliable so it's unfair to focus on that.
It's gonna be a governor, not another Senator, and especially not a high-profile Senator. We've got a lot of legislation to jam through in the next four or eight years and we need all the good Senators we can get.
I'd bet on Schweitzer, Sebelius, or Kaine, roughly in that order, with John Edwards a good possibility mainly contingent on whether he got the job.
Al Gore 20-1? Yeah, I'll short that, too. Czar of Environment and Energy, maybe. Veep again? Nope.
I read a piece a while back on Reid possibly getting Veep. Theory was he's get the number 2 spot as compensation for losing the Senate majority leader spot to Hillary. Hillary would get that spot as an alternative to being VP.
The piece went on to argue that Reid would deliver Nevada and help secure states in the Southwest.
I think Nelson is out as a member of the New Democratic Coalition/DLC. I don't think the VP slot goes to an actual member of the NDC/DLC because of internal party politics. Howard Dean and Obama have been working too hard wrestling control of the party from them to hand the VP slot and presumptive nomination after the Obama administration back to the DLC.
On top of it I don't think they give up Bill Nelson's senate seat. Gov Christ is a Republican and once the special election comes around it's a tough race for a non incumbent Democrat here in Florida.
NDC/DLC politicians will end up in the cabinet and in other high ranking positions in the administration, so long as any Senate seat is safe.
Clinton atracts a lot of optomists. There are times when I remember how knowledgable she is and how loyal her supporters and I sort of think maybe. But not a chance. She is too agresive for Obama and as for Bill - He could never keep zipped at ether end. Sell.
Sebelius & Obama are soul mates. Buy.
Ooooh, a VP guessing game. I'll throw in my wild speculation as to who it will be without providing any justification.
I'd bet on Sebelius or Kaine.
I'd definitely 100% short on Clinton, Hagel, Rendell, Bloombeg, and Gore.
@such sweet thunder:
What makes you say Bayh is "pro-life?"
From Wikipedia (admittedly not a perfect source, but still...)
Abortion
Bayh is generally supportive of the pro-choice position. He ultimately voted in favor of banning partial-birth abortions in 2003, but he did vote for substitute measures supported by Democrats. His stance on other issues relating to abortion have been mixed also. He voted with mainly Democrats against Laci and Conner's Law, but voted with mainly Republicans in 2006 to crack down on abortions performed on minors that involve crossing state lines.
The "Field" contract is trading at 30.3 though. Doesn't that make it closer to 2-1 odds than 40-1?
My money ( if i had any ) would be on Bill Richardson, because he's got a resume twice as long as anyone else... congressman, energy secretary, governor ( of a swing state ), U.N. Ambassador.
Executive experience? Check
Foreign Policy Experience? Check
Energy Experience? Check
I'm also not aware of any serious dirt on him, besides that James Carville compared him to Judas, which may actually play well in the general.
"Has a VP field ever been so completely wide open?"
I dunno, it seems to me that the difference is more that people have some idea of the possibilities. Arguably it was more "wide open" in 2000, for example, when nobody had much of a clue who Gore would pick.
We've gone from the era where the VP was an important political alliance (the smoke-filled-room era) through an era where the VP made almost no difference electorally or in office (the early 'primary' era), and are now in an era where it's presumed that the VP will have some serious duties (based on Gore & Cheney) and thus there's actually a reason to care.
If intrade took credit cards, which it doesn't apparently because the cc companies think its gambling and so ... ya... anyway if they did, i'd have bet a few weeks ago on...
Brian Schweitzer.
I went onto youtube and watched his speeches, and his charlie rose interview.... very interesting man.
*NRA actually endorsed him, so he could defuse the NRA's $40M plans against obama.
*A liberal who managed to become the governor of red Montana.
*He's a scientist. a soil scientist to be exact. he spent almost a decade working in Saudi Arabia to teach them how to farm, and now for the first time, they don't need to import so much grain.
*he speaks arabic, from being over there, and understands a people who will be part of our future, like it or not.
*he has a lot of very interesting alternate energy ideas.
*he understands that only 15% of the population, the "low info" voters, are really the ones who make the decisions, in most elections, and he knows how to talk to them.
He just seems to FIT with Obama more than the others. correct me if you think i'm wrong.
Anon@5:23,
I like Richardson too, in a lot of ways, but there is this little gem:
"In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson, a man said to have presidential aspirations, suffered a political setback last December when Lt. Gov. Diane D. Denish told an Albuquerque Journal reporter that she tried to avoid him at events because: “He pokes me. He pinches my neck. He touches my hip, my thigh, sort of the side of my leg.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/fashion/sundaystyles/23touch.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I'm sure we'd all hear more about that one if Richardson were chosen -- it's the sort of mini-scandal that even journalists understand!
@ Gavin.
Oddly, there are two different sets of VP contracts in Intrade, one that has a "Field" slot but lists fewer candidates and one "new" version with many names listed. I'm going off the new list.
Anon said: "My money ( if i had any ) would be on Bill Richardson, because he's got a resume twice as long as anyone else... congressman, energy secretary, governor ( of a swing state ), U.N. Ambassador.
Executive experience? Check
Foreign Policy Experience? Check
Energy Experience? Check"
Add: Womanizer? Better check.
I would agree about Richardson if he had been a stronger campaigner in the primaries and hadn't demonstrated foot-in-mouth problems quite so often. There are persistent rumors of past problems with women, but I don't know if there's anything serious there. But just from a campaign skills perspective, I'd put him as more likely for Secretary of State (possibly announced in advance of the election) than VP. But I wouldn't rule it out entirely.
I do not see under any circumstance Obama picking Clinton. Her supporters are doing their all to make it happen, but their guilt trip won't fly for Obama, and I respect him for that.
But this will be tough for Obama, a lot of these names will further bring out the conservative base for McCain, esp. if he picks a Gore or Reid or Daschle. I don't see Hagel having much impact on this race even if he were chosen.
McCain has some likable people to pick that sit well with his base, but right now I am happy I am not Obama, he has one hell of a decision to make here...
Nate,
I would argue that the inefficiency in the predictive markets for VP are a result of the opacity of the process.
Contrariwise, I believe that the predictive markets are much better at pricing the general election, since it is a transparent market, with enough objective information for rational traders to price risk accordingly.
The same factors that support your building a robust model for the general election support an "efficient markets" hypothesis for predictive markets and the general election. Since it is impossible to construct any model to accurately appraise either Obama's or McCain's VP choice, the VP markets are about as efficient as betting on the outcome of the Super Bowl coin toss.
Since I cannot make any rational calculations about VP, I will instead blow my extra cash on my next tank of gas.
Corzine?
are the pro-lifers like Sebelius (she reluctantly upholds the prochoice laws but is personally pro-life) and Schweitzer REALLY in the running? and if he picks someone that far out of the mainstream of Dems, will that cause problems? Also how does the foreign policy angle play for these kinds of choices?
Ah well - so much for the $50 I
I put on Webb at 6-1.
I agree with Nate - Evan Bayh fits the bill perfectly.
"nor has the Midwest in general been so important."
---Big understatement. If you look at the map, It all comes down to IN-OH-PA-MI. Ohio, specifically. The odds of McCain winning without Ohio: 6.47%. Without OH and MI: 0.98%.
Strickland was my first choice but he has removed himself. The thing that we know about Bayh is: He is very good at winning industrial midwest swing voters.
That Indiana is a swing state is beside the point. I see zero possibility of Obama losing MI and OH and winning IN. If he's already won OH/MI, Indiana hardly matters.
The point is that Indiana is like a redder version of Ohio and Michigan. Its OH/MI without the large urban areas. Bayh has been very successful with these voters. He can win them in OH/MI as well.
What about a certain female Senator from Arkansas---
No, the other one...Blanche Lincoln.
She isn't even listed, but she is a reasonably good dark horse candidate.
Where's our daily poll numbers? I'm having withdrawals.
"I'm also not aware of any serious dirt on [Richardson]"
Wen Ho Lee
Perhaps it would be good for the Democrats, because it is an example of being incredibly hawkish on national security, but I think that it would come up again and really piss off the liberal base. Also as an example of extreme racial profiling, it would somewhat undercut the good vibes of a double minority ticket.
My guess is that if Richardson is a serious possibility, Obama's people will be closely watching how Americans watch the Beijing Olympics. If hostilities are up against China, Lee won't hold Richardson back. If we get warm feelings towards China, they might.
"On top of it I don't think they give up Bill Nelson's senate seat. Gov Christ is a Republican and once the special election comes around it's a tough race for a non incumbent Democrat here in Florida."
Why on God's earth would a governor of a major state like Florida give up being Governor to become a U.S. Senator?
The obvious path to the White House is through the governor's mansion, NOT the U.S. Senate! Name the last U.S. President to be a Senator before running for office. John F. Kennedy.
This year we have two Senators going after each other, which is fortunate for Obama since governors tend to have a built-in advantage in having actually RUN something. If it's a big state like Florida, Texas or California they have a bigger advantage.
If I were advising Christ, I'd say sit tight, watch McCain lose, then position yourself as the odds-on candidate for the GOP nomination in 2012. He's popular in Florida and in the South generally, so he'd have a big advantage that McCain doesn't have.
Almost certainly after this election we're going to see a lot more governors and fewer Senators as nominees. Governors get to sign bills. Senators are at best part of a caucus of 99 other egos and can do nothing without a committee. It's really hard to stand out as both McCain and Obama are finding out.
McCain basically inherited the GOP nod because Republicans couldn't find anybody better and he was the 2nd or 3rd choice of most of them.
Obama won because he was a charismatic figure in the Democratic party, and because he took the right position on the war at a time when Democrats were looking for an anti-war progressive candidate to run against the Bush agenda. Hillary refused to repudiate her vote for the war or apologize for it, which automatically eliminated her and left an opening for Obama.
But, overall Governors have a much easier time running for President than Senators and history proves they are more successful.
"are the pro-lifers like Sebelius (she reluctantly upholds the prochoice laws but is personally pro-life) and Schweitzer REALLY in the running?"
You're reading way too much into Sebelius' quote. She has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood in each of her races. She has never done anything that borders on stopping a women's right to choose.
I'd say that a politician calling themselves "personally pro-life but protecting a women's right to choose" is in the mainstream. You won't find many Dems willing to stand up and say "I love abortions, I think you shouldn't use a condom. You should get pregnant and then have one just for the fun of it". Its far more mainstream to say I don't like them but I support a women's right to choose.
I would also note that Sebelius' pro-choice stance is extremely unpopular in conservative Kansas, the home of Operation Rescue and the pro-life movement. She has shown a lot of grit and personal resolve not to waver, even though wavering would probably help to get her votes.
"The point is that Indiana is like a redder version of Ohio and Michigan. Its OH/MI without the large urban areas. Bayh has been very successful with these voters. He can win them in OH/MI as well."
Can you think of an election when the Vice-Presidential nominee actually won a state for the ticket? I think the last time was Lyndon Johnson helping JFK win Texas, but that was back in 1960.
With every VP there's talk of how that candidate will help the ticket in certain states-- and there's just zero evidence I've seen in the last 40 years that it has any effect at all.
Think Lloyd Bensten v. little Danny Quayle in the '88 debates. Didn't make a bit of difference. Lloyd didn't do anything to help win Texas either.
I'm not sure he meant Crist would appoint himself. I think he meant that as a Rep, Crist would appoint another Republican. That is undeniably true. From a Democratic perspective, we don't really care who Crist appoints. All we care about is that if he has the power to appoint anyone, we lose a seat.
Richardson is definitely a gamble, which is not something the Obama campaign does very often. He is not a great campaigner and has "zipper issues", but this choice would turn NM and NV blue, and make AZ and TX possibilities.
Personally, my money is on Schweitzer. It would flip MT and ND, probably lock up CO, and I think he would play well in NC and "appalachia".
I'd long Lee Hamilton and George Mitchell. These guys have 1) incredibly integrity (even people on the right think so), 2) huge respect in Congress (and we'll need them to help us get major legislation passed), 3) incredible foreign policy experience (Northern Ireland peace and the 9/11 commission report, among others) and 4) they're ready to be President now.
Point #4 might be the most important factor. I think people will want someone with Obama who brings a sense of security--sort of like Cheney was for Bush (but Mitchell and Hamilton wouldn't have the agenda or divisiveness).
I'd short Hagel (you don't hand the VP to the other party), Richardson (rumors of sexual harassment and he wasn't that strong a campaigner) and McCaskill (not ready to be President now). The other person I'd short, big time, is Wesley Clark. The same day that Obama makes a spectacular speech on patriotism, Clark has to go out there and criticize (or be seen to be criticizing) McCain's war record. No matter how right he was, it shows his lack of political savvy. Without Wes Clark, that speech on patriotism would have gotten far more attention; it was as strong as the race speech.
Nunn's also out after Barney Frank's comments. No way Obama is going to alienate the GLBT community. I think Biden is a real possibility for the reasons I stated above.
Lee Hamilton is my choice.
That commenter 'Juris' is right -I heard too that Richardson fancies women - the sordid fiend! Bayh-the-Bayh, I think it's obvious Obama values loyalty to his cause over political expediency. Hence, Sebelius. Unless Gore really wants to bore the world.
Cugel@6:18
I didn't take the comment about the mid-west to mean (at least not exclusively) that Bayh would be good because people in IN, OH, MI & PA would say, "He's from around here; let's vote for the ticket." I think the (hypothetical) selection of Bayh sends a statement about the kinds of decisions Obama would make as President and that the quality would appeal to voters in those critical states. Of xoxurse, I may be a bit biased, since he would be one of my choices. (Biden and Hamilton being the other two leaders.)
Short: Clinton, Reid, Hagel, Edwards, Reed, Clark, Gephart, and Gore.
Buy: Sebelius, Bayh, Richardson, McKaskill, Kaine, and Schweitzer (all from red or purple states and perceived as pragmatic centrists)
Bayh would be my most likely predicted pick for the precise reasons Nate notes.
You're right. "The VP wins home state" argument is way overstated. The media report it very often and its not nearly as true as portrayed.
The fact is that relatively few pres candidates have even tried it recently. If you look at the list, most VP candidates aren't from swing states. Here are the VPs and whether their states were swing states when they were selected. I define a swing state as a reasonable chance to swing the election, not close in that election. For example, NY was not a swing state in 1984, even though it was actually relatively close and went red. If Mondale had won the whole election, NY wouldn't have been close.
Edwards-NC-no
Cheney-WY-no
Lieberman-CT-no
Kemp-NY-no
Gore-TN-yes
Quayle-IN-no
Bentsen-TX-no
Ferraro-NY-no
Bush-TX-yes
Mondale-MN-no
Dole-KS-no
Shriver-MD-yes
Agnew-MD-yes
As you see, Gore was the only one in the last 28 years with a reasonable shot of swinging his home state. I think a VP candidate can help win the state, but it has to be reasonably close to start with.
I also think its important that the person represents what the voters in the state are looking for. I don't think anybody in Manhattan woke up in 1996 and said "Jack Kemp is a congressman from Buffalo, hey thats the same state as me, I'm voting for him". I do think that Bayh has a record of going after blue collar industrial white midwestern swing voters. They vote for Republicans for president in IN but they vote for him. He is clearly able to connect with on-the-fence voters in a way that makes them change their minds. That could prove very helpful.
Evan Bayh pronounces "nuclear" the same way George W. Bush does. Not a deal breaker,...just an observation.
I know that people think of Bentsen as someone intended to swing Texas and then say "hey it didn't work". I don't think Dukakis thought of him that way. For one thing, Bush Sr was from Texas. I think Dukakis always knew Texas was out of reach. I think Bentsen was thought of the same way as most VP candidates...this guy has a serious reputation and will help me with candidates nationwide.
It really is notable that despite the fact that the media always reports "VPs come from swing states", the vast majority of the time, they don't.
I used to think Richardson was a lead pipe cinch, but as others have commented, he, like his good buddy Bill Clinton, apparently has a bit of a "problem" around females. Too bad, because otherwise he fits perfectly (helps in SW and maybe even Texas with the Latino vote, scads of experience, not a very charismatic campaigner but it ain't like an Obama ticket is short on charisma).
'twere me, I'd short Hillary like nobody's business. I'm mixed on Sebelius and don't like those odds. Bayh, mebbe, something doesn't ring right for me there. Kaine and Schweitzer would be interesting. I think Schweitzer could do very well on a national stage and would REALLY help build the party in the Mountain West, as well as work to remove the image of Democrats as effete egghead "limousine liberals" from big look-down-their-nose northern or west coast cities.
I'd short Bloomberg and Clark aggressively. Bloomberg ain't gonna be Veep, and Clark SHOULDN'T be veep if the Obama camp has any brains. So far his campaign has shown a proclivity for having brains, so it won't happen.
Allegedly the Republicans have been gameplanning against an Obama-Gephardt ticket. I'm not a fan, but it does have possibilities. Still, I see Gephardt as an old Unionist Dem Warrior whose time has passed him by.
Thanks for the correction Judas Priest. I trust wikipedia, with all of its flaws, more than the fifteen minutes I spent three months ago trying to figure out Bayh's stance. It's actually quite difficult to figure out abortion stances for many politicians, with gray policy votes and parties on both sides of the issue ready to spin.
Obama's David Plouffe has said that the VP should be someone ready to be president, and with whom Obama could govern. Lee Hamilton, Tom Daschle, Mike Bloomberg fit the bill. Tim Kaine? I think so, and he's a Harvard Law man, governor of Virginia. Kathleen Sebelius--not ready to be president.
Just a side note: Can folks posting here (heck, wherever), please stop spelling Governor Charlie Crist's name incorrectly? He may be a nice guy, but he is not "Christ".
Now, carry on!
People keep saying "Sebelius--not ready to be president." without elaboration.
She is a two term governor of a state, and has won wide praise for her governing. She has done a great job uniting Kansas and won reelection in a landslide. Governing as a center-left woman in a far right wing state is tough to do, but she has done it. I think part of the "not ready to be president" thing comes from discrimination against Kansas. Yes it is a small state. But its got the same population as Arkansas and people were generally pleased with the Clinton presidency--even if they got annoyed with Clinton's personality quirks. If Bill Clinton was ready to be president, why isn't Sebelius?
Such sweet thunder:
It's relatively easy to get a rough feel for a federal office holder's postion on a variety of issues. Votesmart,org has a lot of information on most issues, or you can go to the website of an organization that rates people. NARAL gave Bayh a 100% for lat year, while logar got 40%. Natiopnal Right-to-life gave Bayh 25% and Lugar 75%.
JeffC: I'd be utterly unsurprised if 'not ready' was code for 'lacks a Y chromosome'.
Announce Richardson as the Sec'y of State in an Obama cabinet - just before the R convention, and Schweitzer as the sidekick, even if he did wait until the end to endorse. O's campaign had already hinted that geography would not be the reason for the running mate.
Picking any female candidate other than Hillary would be salt in the wound to her most loyals; and Hillary brings co-president Bill along for the ride - who's in charge?. So I would be surprised at picking Sibelius, et al.
I would long Evan Bayh for all the reasons Nate mentioned. Bayh's resume has a unique advantage over the competition because he's both a Senator with foreign policy cred and a former governor -- someone who can run something and someone who passes the commander-in-chief test.
Plus I get a really good feeling about Bayh's ability to work well with Obama. If Bill Clinton picked Al Gore from neighboring Tennessee, maybe the man from Illinois will pick a Hoosier.
for what it's worth, Edwards seems to really help Obama in all those survey usa state poll matchups. I do agree with a previous poster that any female OTHER than Hillary would be whipped up by the MSM and PUMAS as a dis on her. Schweitzer is intriguing, since Obama is making a play for the rocky mountain states. Richardson has great creds and is Latino, but it could be a bridge to far for the "low-information" voters to have an Af-AM and a latino on the same ticket.
I would short Clinton, Gore and Sebelius and long Schweitzer
Regarding VP selection, here's what I believe Obama will and won't do:
1) He won't choose a Senator from a red state. Senators are valuable commodities and popular ones like Evan Bayh are irreplacable. A President Obama will need a Democratic Senate to help pass his agenda.
2) He won't pick a military man. Why? Obama has said so himself. He feels he's strong enough on foreign policy. Besides, shoring up a perceived weakness never actually works. It only ends up validating it as a weakness. This precludes Wesley Clark, Anthony Zinni, etc.
3) He'll pick a strong supporter of his. I don't think it makes sense to pick someone who endorsed Clinton or endorsed him lukewarmly.
There are many candidates who fit these criteria, although I personally feel it will either be Sebelius or Kaine because he happens to mesh well with them.
I think Biden would be the best VP for Obama. He is a kick-as$ debater and if Romney is McCain's VP, he will destroy Romney in the VP debate (not that anyone will watch that)
Recently, I'm shifting toward Sebelius (both in likelihood and personal choice). Obama has been taking a more centrist tone, and that leaves him open to charges that he's saying whatever it takes to get elected. Personally, I think the centrist is the "real" Obama.
It's crucial he takes control of that narrative. One way to do that is with Sebelius. No one would mistake her for a safe choice--she doesn't bring a state, for instance. They seem comfortable together, and it would be clearly an Obama choice, rather than one assembled by campaign consultants.
My boyfriend is a very reasonable and amiable guy who used to work at a fancy Washington DC restaurant that caters to politicians.
He frequently had the misfortune of waiting on Evan Bayh, who he tells me is one of the most pompous pricks he ever had to deal with. Snarky comments and an arrogant attitude-- not a good person.
Wes Clark lands on the "nice guy" list, but he won't be picked after the whole McCain experience fiasco.
Though Schweitzer calls talk about his VP prospects ridiculous and folk like me who have championed his cause for months nut jobs, I get this wierd intuition that Obama has not crossed him off the list. Barack is a (careful) gambler. Schweitzer is one of the few folk who might mature into a good President, extending the Obama economic restoration (Schweitzer's term) to 12-16 years. And I'll tell you the kicker. Schweitzer is odds on the best Bad Cop out there. He can kill with a smile and leave the McCains of the world littering the roads of the west like mule deer.
In jest but only slightly: Sen. Barbara Mikulski of MD. She's kick-ass, great campaigner, blue-collar backround, probably Catholic, female, older, white, and in my view, would be able to be president and have a good time, too. Oh, and smart. And has been around DC forever.
Biden for VP
OK, OK, I will back away from my earlier neutrality (it doesn't suit me, anyway).
If Brian Schweitzer has no major skeletons in his closet, then he probably would be the best selection. He ran on a ticket with a Republican; how much more bi-partisan can you get? That may be the best way for Obama to reach out to disaffected independents.
His positions on the issues appear to be centrist, which would also balance the perceived ideology of Obama. His rhetorical skills are excellent, and his more "plain-spoken" approach would complement Obama's oratorical skills nicely.
He has business experience (running a cattle ranch), which may also be important in stressing a politics of "change." If the goal of VP is to provide "balance" on the ticket, then Schweitzer looks like a good bet.
If I don't need that tank of gas this week, perhaps I will go long on a Schweitzer for VP contract.
To Jason_M:
Barbara Mikulski is indeed a Catholic, of Polish descent. Interesting outside-the-box option. I've followed her career, and from my viewpoint, she's a good liberal senator who speaks forcefully for what she believes is right. Another helpful fact is that she voted against the resolutions authorizing the attack on Iraq in 2002; however, she also voted against authorizing Operation Desert Storm in 1991, which she would presumably be attacked for. My perception is that she is more liberal than Obama, and she comes from a state that is guaranteed to vote Democratic, barring a very unlikely huge landslide for McCain. I would say that she is much more liberal than Hillary Clinton, for example, whom she endorsed (but I don't agree with people who think that having endorsed Clinton disqualifies anyone from consideration). So while as a left-winger, I love Mikulski, I question what she would bring to Obama's campaign, except for forcefulness, a substantial record as a senator, and the questionable presumption that picking a woman would by itself get votes from women. There have also been ugly rumors about her sexual orientation, which we could definitely expect the Republicans to revive and use in a whispering campaign. So while on an ideological basis, I'd be really pleased with a choice of Mikulski, I'd be surprised if that happens.
Gore's the one name on that list that controls his own destiny. If he wants it, he's got it. He's vetted, completely deflates McCain's attempts to steal ground on climate issues, reminds of good Clinton economy, and has experience.
To say the least, he's a much, much less obvious short than Rendell of all people
I've been a bit alrarmed with some of the choices Obama has already been making, James Johnson among them. I'd be especially alarmed if Lee Hamilton were the VP choice, as he's the one who is always brought in to sweep the dirt under the rug, as he did with Iran/contra. Biden has that old palgiarism history, besides being a bit of a loose cannon, as is Clark. I don't mind a centrist on some issues, but on the Iraq war, Obama needs someone who is compatible with getting us out of there.
Obama should reach across the aisle and select Bill Sali, District I rep from Idaho, as his running mate.
Lee Hamilton is a boring speaker and has been out of the House for some time. I'm sure his name recognition is very low with non-lobbyist/politician/political junkie types outside of Indiana. Plus, he represents an older style of bipartisanship (or sweeping dirt under the rug, if you prefer to go with Anonymous's description) and establishment thinking, not the new politics Obama claims to be representing. I don't see the up-side of picking him and would be very disappointed if he is picked.
If Obama picks a Republican as VP, there will be a revolt of his base that will seriously damage his chances. I can definitely see him having Republicans in his Cabinet, but NOT as VP. His VP has to be relatively ideologically compatible with him and his base.
Michael, I haven't heard the rumors re sexual orientation myself, but others point them out whenever I mention her. She is probably a Lesbian, to be blunt. Didn't realize she voted against Desert Storm -- that could be a problem, although a more liberal VP might work. I think having endorsed Clinton might be a plus, and at least not negative. Hamilton would be a bad choice for the reasons you mention.
I still like Clark and think he made a simple point, if a bit crudely: Heroic military service doesn't provide national security etc experience. But it's true that Clark is a little odd on the campaign trail; I backed him in 2004 until he self-destructed. He's more seasoned now.
Sweitzer. Know NOTHING about him!
LBJ became President after serving less than 3 years as president and made the calls on Vietnam. Harry Truman became president less than 3 months as VP. It fell to him to end World War II and decide whether to drop he bomb. The elder George Bush almost became president 2 months after being sworn in. No one wants to think about anything bad happening to Obama but it would irresponsible for him to think about anything besides who is his second choice to be president. If someone does harm in the election to the point of costing him votes, it's OK to rule them out. If he feels someone is going to be a nightmare to have in his administration, it's OK to rule them out. But other than that, someone who would be a good president would presumably be a good consiglieri. And as long as they do no harm, Obama can go out and win the election with his own appeal and his many surrogates backing him up.
Anyone heard any speculation about Carl Levin?
Military/Foreign Policy experience.
Michigan.
Well, having said without really knowing anything that Mikulski is probably a Lesbian, I did a little Internet research. Doesn't seem to be a lot there. The rap was that she supported defense of marriage acts in MD and nationally after an opponent said she was a Lesbian. Queer Nation is said to have outed her long ago, but didn't find more info. Another gay/lesbian blog seems to assume she's a sister, but no evidence.
I also see she was a social worker in her former life and has done some really good work.
So I don't know if she's Lesbian or not. But the issue would definitely resurface if she were the VP nominee.
No mention of Colin Powell ?
Discount Diovan.Cheap Diovan.Order Diovan
Cheap Elavil.Generic Elavil.Order Elavil
Buy Sertraline online.Discount Sertraline
Zoloft 25mg.Zoloft 50mg.Zoloft 100mg.Zoloft tablet
Discount Bontril.Order Bontril.Bontril 105 mg
Evan Bayh or Bob Schweitzer. Midwest or West.
Interstingly, an Obama-Bayh team would sort of be a 21st-century version of Clinton-Gore: two young(ish), articulate men from neighbouring states, exception in this case it would be a MidWestern team as opposed to Southern.
Oh...what about Tom Daschle?
True that he wouldn't be able to pull in South Dakota, but definitely some of the other, closer Western states!
15-1 on Kaine is a bargain.
He brings Virginia, Catholics, and has connections in Kansas and Missouri as well. He's also fluent in Spanish, and was "the first major Dem. official outside of Illinois to endorse Obama." He seems to love Obama (in a brotherly way). My fictitious money is on Kaine. That's my advice if anyone wants to put real money on it.
Colin Powell is a no. Had he resigned in protest after being put up to lie about Iraq, he might be more viable, but even so, he's been a loyal Republican. Even if he publicly endorses Obama, he should not and I strongly believe will not be picked for VP.
My short list -- all acceptable: Gore, Schweitzer, Sebelius.
Why on God's earth would a governor of a major state like Florida give up being Governor to become a U.S. Senator?
He wouldn't. But Gov. Crist would appoint Nelson's replacement, and since Crist is a Republican, so would be his pick. It would then be an incredibly difficult pickup for whoever the Florida Democratic Party could scare up to run for it.
Not like it would make much difference - Nelson has been a DINO for years anyway.
Obama should reach across the aisle and select Bill Sali, District I rep from Idaho, as his running mate.
No he should not.
If Obama gives the VP slot to any Republican, then his political judgment is a lot worse than I thought. Just imagine the possibility of Obama's own Vice President challenging him in the 2012 election . . . and Obama would have been the one to hand him all the advantages that such a high profile brings with it.
Even if that doesn't happen, you know Obama's VP will run in 2016. Why give any Republican a boost in that race?
"Reaching across the aisle" is awful tactically (it weakens the Democratic Party brand by saying, hey, we couldn't find a single qualified candidate for VP from within our own party) and insane from a strategic standpoint.
Cugel-
Governors do NOT have a particularly easier time becoming President. I think exactly one more governor than senator has become President, and obviously this year will re-tie the score.
A lot of this "senator vs. governor" stuff started because of Rush's blather in 2004 trying to assure his listeners that Bush was okay against Kerry. Do you know why more senators whiff on their run for President than governors? Because there are 100 senators and 50 governors. The math follow pretty simply from there.
-D
Please, anybody but Bloomberg.
What has he done except ride the coattails of Wall Street and the housing market?
Failed on congestion pricing, failed on the west side railyards, failed on the Olympics.
Nobody in politics gets more credit for doing less.
Rooting for Biden over here.
Bob Graham, anyone?
Foreign policy chops, former governor, popular in FL, and old white dude.
He's a little kooky, but what the heck. Is there a reason he isn't a member of that very long "short" list?
I'll throw out a real dark horse that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere. Gov. Bill Ritter of CO. Former DA, family man, 51, convention's home state, very popular Democrat in a changing purple state. It all seems to fit Obama's change message. The big missing item on the resume that the media will jump on is foreign policy experience.
such sweet thunder,
I'm definitely putting money on Sherrod Brown. Sexy liberal Ohio senator 34 years in elected office (yet he's only 56 and still a regular person). Judging by his senate election, he's ready to campaign until he's hoarse & withered. He arouses fear in the hearts of Republicans and other feelings in the hearts of voters. The only argument against him might be that he's too skeptical of free trade pacts and maybe he's seen as too valuable in the senate.
It is going to be Schweitzer. The polls are close in OH and NV and Obama will plan for the worst which is he loses those states. But as he is 'more comfortably' ahead in CO and NM and if he wins all Kerry states, splits ME and NE and if he wins MT he is at 270! He is ahead slightly in MT and picking Schweitzer will make it 'surer'.
Jerry Brown -- Catholic, Governor, Mayor, Attorney General who isn't a weirdo, worked with Mother Theresa, called the Calif. Democratic Party on corrupting influence of special interest money, saw the environment as issue well in advance, tough enough to be an attack dog and Brown is also a great name to have for anyone running in Ohio.
Thematically his is like Obama:
Visionary, Forward thinking, change, not Washington, reform candidate as opposed to establishment candidate.
Either Obama picks someone thematically like himself or he picks a respectable non-Southern Democrat who is mostly a non-factor, place holder, because this election is really about Obama and what he thematically stands for.
Had never heard of Brian Schweitzer until very recently. Had a look at a few clips of him on YouTube - impressive speaker, makes a good impression. Could seem Obama/Schweitzer really working. Does anyone know if they know each other or get on well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUr48lg9Ocs
It's Bill Richardson. Take that to the bank. I got this from an impeccable source on the ground. Obama has at least 5 promising combinations or permutations to get to 270. They think the quick and dirty way to get over the top without McCain not knowing what hit him is to go the Colorado-New Mexico-Iowa route and keep all states that Kerry carried . No states won by Kerry leans GOP at this time. It's consistent in all electoral college maps I have seen so far including this one: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content
/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential
_election/election_2008_electoral_college
_update
However, things might change if Romney is on the ticket because he might put Michigan in play. That may force Obama to look for another route including one through Florida.
About Bill Richardson being hispanic, will that really be a problem? The sort of low-information voter who would vote specifically against a Black/Hispanic ticket would also be hard to convince that someone with a name as gringo as "Bill Richardson" is hispanic in the first place.
I'd put a good money on Kaine. He's going to be the guy, I believe.
It seems to me that the VP would be from a State the Obama is highly likely to win, because aside from the crooks Nixon/Agnew, I don't think there is a case of a President being elected who didn't win both his home state and the state of the VP.
Richardson is disliked by scientists after his tenure at DOE, especially the Wen Ho Lee affair. His way of controlling nuclear waste (especially the really low-level, manageable stuff, which is the only stuff that anybody has gotten a good handle on anyway) was to turn it into mountains of paperwork. I suspect that the Obama campaign has its ear to that ground better than the press or intrade, so that alone might be a reason to short Richardson by a few points.
Worthwhile to remember that Obama has said the VP pick must be seen instantly as someone who could be President, by the broad public.
Tim Kaine may not fit that test.
Also, Obama needs to neutralize military and national security gap, and offer reassurance on experience.
Sen Bill Nelson of FL fits that test, and so does ex Sen Sam Nunn of Georgia. Such a pick could put both those states in play, where McCain would have to spend tons of time in those 2 states to defend them, thereby taking away precious time for McCain in OH, PA and MI.
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,
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