#2, Revisited

I finally gave into picking up a copy of Bill Bishop's "The Big Sort" ... going so far as to pay full price and all. So I'm likely to devote the better part of this week toward it. While there may be a part of me that would prefer to wait until I've completed the book, I'm already convinced that there's enough debate material in the intro alone that warrants a longer-term debate.

All that to say, I'm squeezing in one non-Sort thought in this space since it could well be one of those points that loses saliency once each nominee picks an actual, living, breating VP nominee.

I've already committed a few stray thoughts over the last few weeks as to who Obama would be wise to pick. As a still-committed Clintonite, I have to say that I'm not fond of the "Dream Team" concept. While part of that may well be that it justifies my continued airing of grievances with the Obamanauts, the argument that nails it for me is that I think Obama is better served by picking someone who confirms his view that supporting the Iraq war was wrong in the first place. Not that political talking points really hold up that strongly, but I think there's something to this. Granted, there's also a very time-worn argument that says when the runner up gets something like 47-48% of the popular vote, including key constituencies that you might have trouble nailing down post-Convention, you just swallow it, pick said candidate, and move forward as best as possible. I'm not completely dismissive of that argument, but I also wouldn't want to claim it as a new type of politics, either.

Obviously, the best fit as I see it is Jim Webb. It might or might not help move Virginia into play, but that's somewhere below secondary in my mind. I'd place a bigger priority in seeing how well he does hitting the Appalachia circuit in Ohio & Pennsylvania to try stitching enough votes for a win there. Beyond that, it adds a pretty solid national security voice to our side of the debate. And that, to me, is the biggest issue-based plus.

Kathleen Sebelius is a runner-up in my mind - one that likely helps in some ways (welcome back, chick vote!) while hurting in others (Kathleen Who?). What little polling there is, and what should be believed of it, don't warrant a great case for Sebelius due to the complete absence of name ID. It's also worth noting that VP picks generally get far less attention on the national news stage. So beyond what improvement her Q-rating gets between now and a hypothetical pick as the nominee, it's literally all downhill from here.

Oddly enough, the same polling that shows Sebelius as a non-entity shows John Edwards as the leader of the pack. As a believer in the rational voter theory of Sam Popkin's, I'm at a complete loss to explain this one. Seriously, his name ID doesn't strike me as all that great. His appeal among Democrats obviously didn't do very much for him this time around (granted, he won four or five more counties than, say ... Chris Dodd).

Saw something today that suggested Mark Warner outting himself as being on the short list of potential picks. As one who'd just as soon see 60 Ds in the Senate, I'm going to have to reverse course from my very first choice of Warner. That objection aside, I think he's a decent fit for Obama and may actually do a bit more to put Virginia into play. For the life of me, I have a hard time really thinking Warner's on a really short list. But since it's Novak doing the "reporting," maybe I should be much more secure in thinking we've got one Senate seat locked up.

Who else is there for Obama? There's David Brooks' suggestion of either Tom Daschle or Sam Nunn. Daschle pretty much negates the Iraq war vote question, but the pick is somewhat reminiscent of Bush's selection of Cheney. Nunn, I'm down on more for his political judgment. Two in particular - the first being the decision to lead the way against a vote for the first Iraq war due to not much more than his desire to be a Presidential candidate and needing to atone for some of his more rightward leanings on other issues. The second being the whole John Tower fiasco. On that one, I'll side with John McCain for his side of the story.

I could go further down the list, but I figure I'd be scraping the barrel sooner rather than later. The bottom line is that it's hard to complement a rock star candidate with something a tad closer to your status quo politician profile.

Revisiting McCain's possible options, I'll be a bit brief since I approach it from the side of the opposition party (something that Brooks, Goldberg, and Novak should consider trying). I think Pawlenty would make a solid pick just because he reinforces a bit of the McCain mythology - someone not like your average, ordinary Republican. The second option, I think, is to pick someone who's selection is a one-day news story, letting McCain serve as the focal point for longer. There may be a number of possible options here, but I've got to think this mindset helps someone like Bob Portman more than most. McCain's advantage is that there is still some subset of voters who don't see him as Republican ... and for whom that's a good thing. To confuse that with the addition of someone who reinforces the reality that McCain has positioned himself as a hidebound Republican, it drags him down. According to the logic, better to pick someone who's as insignificant and non-newsworthy as possible in order to keep the klieg lights of Meet the Press aimed squarely at McCain himself ... and maybe Joe Lieberman. And what of Joe? I've said before that I'm not convinced and that still stands. Maybe that same subset of voters who thinks of McCain as Maverick still thinks of Joe as an ok Dem. But it puts Iraq as a central point of contention in this election ... and that's not gonna help McCain. But then again, it's not in my interest to help him.

So there ya go. No idea how soon we might see a pick. I'd have to think it helps McCain to wait as long as possible (again, minimize attention and focus it around the actual nomination - ala Dan Quayle). Obama, I'm wavering on. There's a case to be made for milking his own brand as much as possible and picking whoever around convetion-time. But there's another strong case that suggests getting on with the business of reinforcing that brand and building on it sooner rather than later. If the matter is resolved by the time I'm done arguing with Bill Bishop, I'll likely not complain one bit.