Vetting the Veeps
I try my darndest to not agree with Arianna Huffington all that often. But here's one of the saner outliers she's commented on Larry King last night ...
KING: Arianna who does Obama have to pick if it's him?
HUFFINGTON: He would have to pick someone that agrees with him on Iraq. That's critical. That's going to be the main issue running against John McCain. He's been the main cheer leader of the war and the surge. He has to pick someone that will close the divide between those that have and have not. Someone that agrees with him.
Indeed. Since a big part of Obama's rationale is that you have to have the judgment from day one to be President, I don't see how he can pick someone who either voted for or supported the Iraq war. Politico's Ben Smith lists a few possibilities:
Joe Biden
Bill Richardson
Mike Bloomberg
Tim Roemer
Sam Nunn
Tim Kaine
Janet Napolitano
Colin Powell
Mark Warner
Jim Webb
Tom Daschle
Hillary Clinton
The most glaring omission from this list, to me, is Gov. Sebelius, who would be my preference for Obama. Of Smith's list, I only see Webb as a positive fit and maybe Richardson as well. The rest, I either don't see happening or don't see it helping. Does anyone want to endure a full fall campaign with Joe Biden hitting the talk show circuit? Napolitano would be a good fit if it weren't for the fact that McCain's nomination sews up Arizona. Picking her would be a pale imitation of Dukakis picking Bentsen in 1988. It's clear to me that Daschle is among those angling for the gig. But it'd be a curious argument to hear Obama explain why he (or half the list for that matter) would be fit to be President when they cast a vote for the Iraq war - a point he's currently running against rather strongly.
As for Hillary's options, here's Smith's list:
Ted Strickland
Tom Vilsack
Evan Bayh
Barack Obama
Bill Nelson
Wes Clark
My instinct is that Hill would have to pick Obama to minimize any defections/anger issues by the far left. But I'm not sure how likely that is (that is, how likely is Obama to accept the gig). I think Hill'd be a fool to at least not offer it to him quickly. Among the rest of the list, the only two that don't bore me are Strickland and Nelson.
So where does that put my preferences:
» Obama-Sebelius ... demonstrates his hope of altering the map; picks up someone who fits the competence>partisanship mold; adds a chick to the ticket.
» Obama-Webb ... two smart guys; lets Webb talk about switching parties on a national level {hint!}; credible foreign policy experience balanced out with Obama.
» Clinton-Strickland ... Kerry+Ohio ... you do the math; Strickland brings some strength in rural appeal; reclaims some politically moderate Christian voters torn between two parties (that's Rev. Strickland, btw!)
» Clinton-Obama ... together at last. Roll the dice on the electoral calculus.
I'll be a bit disappointed if one of those isn't the ticket.
I agree with you about all your comments.
The only thing I would add is that the Clinton picks also work for Obama, even if they are now supporting Clinton. Vice versa I suppose, but I don't see how she makes it to the top of the ticket.
Many of these choices would bore most people. I would not be surprised if some kind of deal with Reid isn't worked out where Hillary moves to Senate Majority leader as consolation unity ticket prize.
I think that McCain might continue his tradition of ignoring the GOP base to reach out for the middle and the East Coast mass media and pick Lieberman as his running mate. I heard a minor Houston GOP operative also say that he ranked that as McCain's most likely pick, to my surprise.
Aside from that list think about this...
For the sake of Party unity Obama would likely pick a Clinton loyalist who is a WD50. Throw in early opposition to the War, and someone unafraid to challenge the GOP as a classic attack dog--Wes Clark. He is the obvious choice. Gray beard and War Hero who has also been vetted as a candidate.
Its Economy and change--Go with a paradigm shifting candidate with real business/economic experience who like Obama is post partisan--Bloomberg