Barack Obama's Vice President

[Noble Ire]

With the Democratic Convention only a month and a half away, the identity of the presumptive nominee's vice-president is still unknown; even the composition of any "shortlist" is little more than fodder for speculation by political pundits. Nevertheless, there are plenty of high-profile names floating about the media circuit and tagging along with Obama on the campaign trail, and most of them have their own particular advantage to offer a potential ticket. So, let's say that, as part of a new PR stunt, Obama pulls your name out of a giant hat and gives the choice to you: who do you think should be his running mate?

Obviously, picking on the basis of bolstering electability is the most politically practical move, but there are other dimensions to be considered.

[Gandalf]

A VP should be picked based on where the nominee is weak.

Who's least likely to vote for Obama, but still reachable by the Dems?

[Glocksman]

For a 'safe' choice, I'd say Richardson or Webb as they'd shore Obama up where he's weakest, with Clark being a close third.

As a 'double down' choice, Chuck Hagel would make it interesting if for no other reason than to watch the Repubs who love 'Holy Joe' Lieberman melt down when one of their own crosses over becaue of Mr. Bush's War.

[Darth Wong]

Zombie George Carlin.

[Elfdart]

My first choice for Pres. was John Edwards, so I think he'd make a good VP, too. Otherwise, I think someone from the Plains or Southwest would be best. Either Gov. Sebelius from Kansas, Tom Harkin from Iowa or Bill Richardson from New Mexico.

[Guardsman Bass]

Jim Webb gave a "no" on this at least a week ago, IIRC (although it wasn't as firm as Governor Strickland's no, so he may still potentially be open).

Clinton, of course, would be the "compromise" candidate, although you get all the baggage of the Clintons as well as their campaign debt. It's not an unknown thing, though; Kennedy offered Johnson the VP nod in 1960, and Kerry offered John Edwards the nod in 2004 (same with Reagan and Bush Sr. in 1980).

Edwards is probably a no-go - he has fairly little pull with any particular group of the electorate, couldn't pull a state for Kerry in 2004 (although who knows? Obama is competing in North Carolina, so maybe it would help him), and has pretty low public exposure. He doesn't bring much on the "policy" side as well; he was only a one-term senator with no major bills to his name (although he co-sponsored some stuff).

Bill Richardson and Joe Biden would be "policy" candidates; they don't exactly have a lot of specific pull with a voting bloc or important state, but they have experience that would probably be helpful for Obama if he wins, and the experience might help dampen some problems with experience in the General Election.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Kathleen Sebellius, Kansas's governor. She seems like the kind of person Obama would want for a VP: experienced mid-western Democratic governor from a "red state" who also happens to be a woman. Of course, I don't know whether she has officially denied any desire for the position, like Strickland did, or not, so she may already be off a potential ticket.

[Guardsman Bass]

EDIT: Change my "Edwards" section. He would probably bring some pull with working class whites, although it didn't help Kerry in 2004 (but then, not much probably could). Also, I think he's co-sponsored some stuff, so it's probably not fair to say he has no major bills to his name.

[CaptainZoidberg]

As far as who would help most in the White House: I'd say Bill Richardson, maybe Joe Biden. Having a real energy expert close to the president could do a lot of good.

In terms of winning the election, Obama has good chances of taking Republican territory in the southwest, Virginia, and North Carolina. Arguably Edwards might make Barack Obama an easier pill to swallow for for conservative southerners.

Richardson might be able to help win the Southwest, which is close enough that he could pull the states for Obama.

[Vympel]

Zombie George Carlin.

"FUCKEN' BRAINNNNSSSSSSS!" he screams as he eats Dick Cheney's head.

I like John Edwards.

[LMSx]

Schweitzer seems like a great candidate for 2012. He's on his first term as Montana Governor right now, and (I know I know, Barack Obama) I think it'd do him good to get a solid/lengthy executive track record under his feet. Another complication is that Schweitzer's currently running for re-election so plucking him would leave a gaping spot in the Montana Democratic Party.

On the plus side though, he has experience working in the Middle East for agriculture, has approval ratings in the 70s, and on a superficial note the guy is a hell of a great speaker. It's hard to know where he stands on a lot of issues because brianschweitzer.com is devoted to Montana issues, but he definitely sounds good- in the future.

He's got to get a real tie, though.

I've heard that Sebelius has a great track record as Kansas governor, is term limited, and is already supporting the Obama team. That would be my first choice for 2008.

[Mayabird]

The media goes on a lot about how Obama supposedly is weak for Hispanic voters, and Richardson might be able to help with that if it's true. Though I wouldn't bank on that as a main reason; I'd go for him for his energy and environmental policies and knowledge, and if he pulls in Hispanic voters who'd otherwise be undecided or stay at home or something, that's a plus.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

The media goes on a lot about how Obama supposedly is weak for Hispanic voters, and Richardson might be able to help with that if it's true. Though I wouldn't bank on that as a main reason; I'd go for him for his energy and environmental policies and knowledge, and if he pulls in Hispanic voters who'd otherwise be undecided or stay at home or something, that's a plus.

Gallup says that Obama has a thirty-point edge among Hispanics, although "Obama has a problem with Hispanics/Jews/Blue Collar Workers/People Named "Steve"/People Allergic To Mold" is a media meme we'll probably hear until November regardless of whether or not it is true.

I'm going to say that Edwards is overrated as a VP pick, as far as attracting votes in the region they're from goes. He didn't help John Kerry much, and I was under the impression that Obama's campaign strategy for Southern states was "increase voter turnout among blacks and young people, and try winning over some Evangelicals", something Edwards really wouldn't fit into.

[Guardsman Bass]

I didn't read the OP clearly enough. My choice is Sebellius, although if I have to pick someone off the list it's going to be Bill Richardson (a healthy mix of domestic and international political experience, as well as apparently being a very genial guy, or so said one of my professors a while back).

[CaptainZoidberg]

Why Sebellius? What could she bring to the administration that Richardson wouldn't?

[Mayabird]

The media goes on a lot about how Obama supposedly is weak for Hispanic voters, and Richardson might be able to help with that if it's true. Though I wouldn't bank on that as a main reason; I'd go for him for his energy and environmental policies and knowledge, and if he pulls in Hispanic voters who'd otherwise be undecided or stay at home or something, that's a plus.

Gallup says that Obama has a thirty-point edge among Hispanics, although "Obama has a problem with Hispanics/Jews/Blue Collar Workers/People Named "Steve"/People Allergic To Mold" is a media meme we'll probably hear until November regardless of whether or not it is true.

Hence why I said "supposedly." Wow. That's a pretty big edge there.

Something I forgot yesterday and might as well say while I'm here. I've heard people say that Richardson is a public servant of the old style that isn't seen much these days, the kind that works his butt off for the public good. To people who are more knowledgeable about him: true, exaggeration, explanations?

[Knife]

Biden or perhaps Richards. Either would be a good vp choice, both strong on policy and good administrators.

[Cecelia5578]

Why Sebellius? What could she bring to the administration that Richardson wouldn't?

There have been rumours going around about Richardson relating to...I'm not sure, but there are minuses with him. Especially around the time of the primary debates, liberal pundits kept mentioning some rumours about his personal life, though for the life of me I don't know what they are.

[Darth Raptor]

Why Sebellius? What could she bring to the administration that Richardson wouldn't?

Honky tonk.

[Glocksman]

Why Sebellius? What could she bring to the administration that Richardson wouldn't?

There have been rumours going around about Richardson relating to...I'm not sure, but there are minuses with him. Especially around the time of the primary debates, liberal pundits kept mentioning some rumours about his personal life, though for the life of me I don't know what they are.

IIRC, they involved extramarital affairs but I'm not certain of that so don't take it as gospel.

[Anguirus]

Sebellius sounds good. Richardson has always been my favored veep. Clinton would be...tolerable. Webb is a Confederate fetishist, so I have a hard time buying him on the ticket.

However, I voted McCain/Tarkin. Tarkin would promptly have McCain killed in a clandestine fashion, and bring our pathetic planet into the Empire.

[CmdrWilkens]

A VP should be picked based on where the nominee is weak.

Who's least likely to vote for Obama, but still reachable by the Dems?

Honeslty Obama is strong all over in every demographic that he needs 9he is winning women, blacks, latinos, the educated, the middle age, and pretty much every demo except older white conservative men) Right now there are states which are ompetitive which haven't been since 1932 so I don't think a VP pick should be for any reason of getting elected. I'm of the opinion now (which I will admit is a change from several months earlier when Obama's general election strength wasn't as obvious) that you pick the VP who will best be able to operate both as an XO within the Executive Departmet and is best qualified to take over as CiC i and when you get shot...that's the ultimate job qualification for VP (the later much moreso than the former). I think of the choices out there Richardson provides the best possible choice in terms of executive experience, magnaminity of persona, and ability to run the government apparatus. Moreover with DOE under his belt he would be an excellent person to have onboard given the likely energy crises we will be facing in concurrence with climate change.

If I had my druthers:

VP: Richardson
State: Dodd
Treasury: Arthur Levitt
Defense: Clark
AG: Edwards
and
EPA on the Cabinet and headed by Gore

[Elfdart]

Why Sebellius? What could she bring to the administration that Richardson wouldn't?

She has more executive experience and would be more popular in Kansas and adjoining states. Remember: If Kerry had done just slightly better in Missouri and Iowa, he would have won. Sebelius could help in that department.

[Guardsman Bass]

Why Sebellius? What could she bring to the administration that Richardson wouldn't?

She has more executive experience and would be more popular in Kansas and adjoining states. Remember: If Kerry had done just slightly better in Missouri and Iowa, he would have won. Sebelius could help in that department.

That's what I mean; if you are just looking at good-looking political qualifications and domestic experience with executive positions, Sebellius is pretty fantastic. I don't know whether I'd count her as competent as some other possibilities, but the political benefits would probably be enormous (assuming there aren't some "quirks", like being a slightly too blunt public speaker or the like. That's what broke the back of the Biden campaign in 1988).

[Durandal]

His idiotic vote on FISA changed the VP game entirely, in my opinion. If he wants to regain any shred of credibility with the disillusioned portion of his base, he should pick a senator who voted against it or another official who vocally and unequivocally denounced it. So as much as I hate to say it, Clinton is becoming more appealing.

Before that, I would've said Jim Webb, but he's already said he's not interested in being the guy who waits around for the president to die. And I've always liked Richardson as a VP candidate. He's very statesman-like, has a laundry list of foreign policy credentials (including hostage negotiation), experience managing the budget of a state, and he was the Secretary of Energy under Clinton. Even better, he's Latino, but that doesn't seem to matter much anymore, since Obama's Latino problem turned out to be a myth based on racial stereotypes perpetuated by the media.

[Anguirus]

His idiotic vote on FISA changed the VP game entirely, in my opinion. If he wants to regain any shred of credibility with the disillusioned portion of his base, he should pick a senator who voted against it or another official who vocally and unequivocally denounced it. So as much as I hate to say it, Clinton is becoming more appealing.

I'm forced to agree on this, that's the first thing Clinton's done that I liked in over a year.