Obama's VP Pick: My top 50 list
So, here's a little weekend discussion for BlueOregon, inspired by an extraordinary conversation happening at TPM Cafe.
Who should Obama pick as his vice-president? And what should be the criteria?
Traditionally, VPs are picked for balance - regional ideological, generational. Think Kennedy/Johnson, Carter/Mondale, Dukakis/Bentsen. The idea is to shore up a weakness.
But in 1992, Bill Clinton broke with tradition and decided to double-down on the campaign's brand. He was a young moderate Southerner - and he picked another young moderate Southerner in Al Gore. It emphasized the brand. Rather than shoring up a weakness, the Gore pick emphasized his strengths.
So, what should Barack Obama do? Should he balance the ticket by picking a foreign policy or defense guru? Or by picking an experienced Washington insider? Should he pick a Southerner or a Westerner? Or perhaps someone from a swing state like Michigan, Ohio, or Florida? Or (gasp!) maybe a Republican?
Or should he double-down on his brand by picking someone from outside Washington, someone young and dynamic, maybe a woman or a person of color?
Is it possible to both balance the ticket and emphasize strengths at the same time?
Or should he scrap all the strategery and just pick Hillary Clinton?
The only constitutional rule: Whoever he picks has to be eligible for the presidency (age 35, natural-born citizen) - and can't be from Illinois.
Of course, all the theory is interesting - but it'll come down to a single pick. Based on the TPM Cafe chatter and my own ruminations, I've assembled a Top 50 list.
Ponder the names. Let's talk about 'em.
Senators | Governors & Others |
|
May 30, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (148 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Murphy | May 30, 2008 7:16:40 AM
Sam Nunn -- a southern, conservative democrat with a military background, it also forces McCain to spend resources to defend what ought to be a safe portion of the country. Plus think of the wonderful symbolism of a white southerner running with Obama less than fifty years after the end of Jim Crow.
This is all about winning.
Posted by: Eric Parker | May 30, 2008 7:18:30 AM
Richardson from New Mexico. He is the only US political person the North Koreans would actually talk to in person without the North Koreans throwing a fit over the US even suggesting to have anyone talk to them.
Posted by: Nate Currie | May 30, 2008 7:33:45 AM
I like a number of possibilities, and I'll say a brief bit about each. In no particular order:
John Edwards: Duh. Yes, a lot of that is due to name recognition, but building name costs money and time and here it wouldn't be necessary. Plus I think Edwards actually compliments Obama and they seem to get along well.
Jim Webb: Webb isn't just a ticket-balancer on issues of the military and foreign policy (though there is that). He's also a fellow "outsider" who, like Obama, hasn't spent enough time in Washington to be poisoned by too much inside-the-beltway attitude or conventional wisdom.
Bill Richardson: Governor, Ambassador, Latino. A little corporate for my tastes (and possibly Obama's) but a solid politician and foreign policy whiz. Unfortunately does sometimes open mouth before engaging brain which worries me more than anything else.
Claire McGaskill: Was one of Obama's earliest supporters. I've heard they're great together onstage and compliment each other well. Obviously could be helpful in regaining the support of Democratic women. Jay Nixon (D) looks likely to win the MO gov race so he would be able to appoint a Democratic replacement.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 30, 2008 7:39:10 AM
I like Jim Webb a lot, too... but there appears to be a growing backlash against the idea of picking him as VP, referenced by quite a few folks at TPM Cafe.
Most of the backlash is coming from this post at The Atlantic.
I wonder what the Webb fans think about all that.
Posted by: TomK | May 30, 2008 8:12:06 AM
Brian Schweitzer. He's a good-old-boy westerner. The complete opposite of Obama.
Webb would be good for the ticket, but terrible at the job. See James Fallows' column on the subject: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/belated_comment_on_jim_webb_as.php
Posted by: Dan | May 30, 2008 8:12:37 AM
I think if he goes the "outsider" route it will be either Brian Schweitzer or Kathleen Sebelius (who may be the favorite).
I have a feeling it won't be Richardson either, though he seems destined for a top level cabinet post.
Ultimately though, I can't shake the feeling it will be Jim Webb.
Posted by: Ben | May 30, 2008 8:19:52 AM
I agree with Chris Bowers' (of Open Left) idea and the concept of reinforcement.
Although I keep coming back to Bill Richardson or Kathleen Sebelius. She's a distant relative of mine, you know...
Posted by: Jefffrane | May 30, 2008 8:32:00 AM
I think it's absolutely critical that Obama select a VP that is appealing to the Clinton supporters who believe the Party has turned its back on women and I also think it's critical not to choose another senator. Sebelius seems like a great choice for a number of reasons.
Posted by: Mike | May 30, 2008 8:37:41 AM
I can't believe you left out Maria Shiver!
She's a uniter!
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 30, 2008 8:39:11 AM
OK Kari,
I'll take a stab at it.
Re: Affirmative Action, you couldn't slide a thin playing card between Webb and Obama's position. This viewpoint, (that affirmative action is properly directed at any group victimized by gummint policy) leads to a re-shuffling of victimology away from racial grouping and toward economic groupings.
George Bush's cynical interperetation of this concept was the first public airing by a major politician, and he promptly subverted it to mean help no one. Bush's interperetation doesn't mean that both Obama and Webb are wrong on this.
Re: Past myopic sexism (especially with regard to women in the military), particularly demonstrated by his early defense of the male midshipmen enmasse' re the Tailhook scandal, and the culturally spawned chivalry argument against service in Vietnam. Inexcusable positions for the new millenium, but again, if Webb has grown out of the stance that he took in '79 when he wrote the now infamous Washingtonian article "Women Can't Fight", we should acknowledge the growth and it does appear that such growth has occurred. One compelling piece of evidence of Webb's evolution is that by the end of his tenure as SecNavy, women were serving in all areas except Navy Special forces (SEALS).
Back to the bottom line. Obama's specific approach in trying to move past the welter of affinity groups using the argument that they are artifical, and ultimately exclusive, is precisely the point that Webb and his Appalachian culture have held instinctively if not intellectually since the rifts of the late 60s.
Finally, Webb, in Born Fighting addresses these issues by proposing that there is a hell of a lot more commonality between various groups at the bottom (including marginalized white cultures), than there are differences. In short, we've lost sight of the central fact that the war has always been a Class War and that efforts by both Do-Gooders and cynical Wealthy Elites to frame it as a race or ethnic problem have distracted us from focus on the actual enemy.
We Webb supporters feel that his insider status with the military/Appalachian white culture and his ability to express Obama's message in terms that they can uderstand make him ideal for the slot.
Posted by: Jim H | May 30, 2008 8:39:15 AM
I know a lot of people keep touting Sebelius, but I have to say I was totally unimpressed with her SOTU rebuttal. I haven't paid much attention to Kansas politics of course, so maybe that wasn't her best moment.
I do think he has to pick a woman and it should be someone he wants to be his successor. As the VP, that person will be the automatic front-runner in 2016. He shouldn't choose a VP based only on winning this one election, but of course he does need to make sure he wins it. Not alienating the millions of women who are gung-ho for Hillary is very important.
My vote would be for Napolitano.
Posted by: Marc Abrams | May 30, 2008 8:40:50 AM
Obama needs to focus on the election by taking someone who gets those cohorts of votes he's had problems with -- poor, older White working class. Edwards is the clear first choice to me. Gov. Strickland of Ohio the second. Regardless, the person should reassure people by having the skills to back up a relatively inexperienced nominee yet not overshadow him (Al Gore would get an exemption from me here, but I know that's a fantasy). I don't think names like Sebelius or Schweitzer do anything. You're not carrying Kansas (and she's dull on TV) and Montana's 3 electoral votes (I don't think you need him in the Pacific West and he's not going to get you Wyoming or any other state). Webb's novels would be fodder all the way to November. Richardson should be slotted for Staet, not VP. He failed to excite on the stump. Nunn's everybody's trot out the Southerner, but he's 68 and makes a better match at Defense. I haven't heard McCaskill, but she is an intriguing choice. But, ultimately, twist John Edward's arm for one more run...
Posted by: Grant Schott | May 30, 2008 8:41:39 AM
Tom Daschle would be the best because he was an early friend, ally and endorser of Obama's, so they would have a great working relationship. Daschle can help him a lot of Capitol Hill, and he won repeately in a red state, despite a norrow loss in '04
Gephardt would have similar strengths even though he endorsed Clinton.
Claire McC would be good to reach out to women, and she is from a swing state.
Clark, Webb and Edwards would be good politically, but clearly have their own ambitious agendas and wouldn't be trusted or full partners.
He shouldn't pick Hillary, they would never work well together.
He shouldn't pick Richardson, who proved that he isn't ready for prime time, and who has more baggage than the underbelly of a 747.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 30, 2008 9:41:14 AM
Hillary Clinton, and hold the stupid jokes about food tasters.
I have been critical of the campaign that Senator Clinton has run up to this point, even though I favored her at one point before switching to Obama. But she will work her heart out on the general-election campaign, she has a deep well of supporters across the US, and she definitely meets the requirement of being able to step into the president's shoes should the need arise.
I think the fear and loathing of some Obama supporters for Clinton is not matched by either Barack Obama himself or his top advisers. They may resent some things she has done in the primary campaign, but they recognize her talents.
Sam Nunn? Good gawd, get me a Valium.
Webb? Smart guy who switched from the GOP about 2 years ago, I think, and who has a very unfortunate record on issues relating to gender equality.
I hate to say it, but whenever I read an argument about how Nunn or Webb would draw in "military types", I cringe: it feels exactly like the GOP-Lite thinking of recent years.
Posted by: roxanne bruns | May 30, 2008 9:42:48 AM
Two words: Al Gore.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 30, 2008 9:43:35 AM
italics off, I hope:-)
I'm absolutely serious about Clinton, BTW.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 30, 2008 9:45:36 AM
OFF!
Posted by: Coho | May 30, 2008 9:57:13 AM
Being an activist Democrat, I have to say seeing activist D's get together and discuss their favorite pol's is always a little depressing. Most of the folks mentioned have the charisma of wet toast (which has been the norm for Dem's in the last decade, especially so here in Oregon). Obama's meteoric rise is due in large part to him breaking that mold (and I wish the Clinton die-hards could wrap their heads around that).
Gephardt? Sebelius? Richardson? Yikes! Why not just select a sack of potatoes? Edwards? Anyone recall his rather underwhelming campaign performance in 2004? If McCain is going to go after Obama on lack of experience, an even less experienced VP pick doesn't help the ticket very much.
Webb has lots of baggage, but the long knives people have out for Webb seem to me to be more motivated by his conservative/Republican history than anything else. Yah, he said some stupid things in the 70's and 80's. So did a lot of other politicians.
Obama needs a charismatic, non-traditional VP pick who balances the ticket with foreign policy experience, and preferably some military experience, and a conservative streak on at least some social issues to balance Obama's liberalism. Given the slim pickings in the Dem field, he could do a lot worse than someone like Webb or even Wesley Clark. Hell, if I were him I'd be buddying up to Colin Powell.
Posted by: backbeat, woman | May 30, 2008 10:02:47 AM
Gephardt and Daschle went along with the illegal "war". No!!!
Obama needs to focus on the election by taking someone who gets those cohorts of votes he's had problems with -- poor, older White working class.
lol
Can't believe you are buying the corporate media/HRC camp spin. No, Obama has a problem with Appalacia.
Webb might have been a good choice if the Clinton supporters wouldn't have gotten all worked up about sexism. His past just rubs salt into the wound.
Posted by: backbeat, woman | May 30, 2008 10:10:18 AM
Hell, if I were him I'd be buddying up to Colin Powell.
The guy that should be in prison for pushing an illegal, immoral invasion of an innocent country? And you are an activist Democrat? Man, we are still in deep, deep shit as a country if we are willing to let people like this have any positive status at all.
No justice, no peace.
Where is the justice?
Why isn't Powell in prison?
Posted by: John Calhoun | May 30, 2008 10:14:10 AM
Sebelius. It helps heal the wounds of Hillary supporters and brings in a Westerner who has succeeded in a Red state without a lot of polarization. So she didn't give a great speech at the State of the Union. Don't people remember that Bill Clinton gave the most boring speech possible at the Democratic Convention in '88. He became one of the most charismatic speakers in the country in the 90's.
We need a VP that will work well with Obama, not someone who just fits a profile.
Posted by: Jim H | May 30, 2008 10:17:59 AM
Don't people remember that Bill Clinton gave the most boring speech possible at the Democratic Convention in '88.
No, but I guess that proves your point... :)
Posted by: Douglas K. | May 30, 2008 10:18:30 AM
The only constitutional rule: Whoever he picks has to be eligible for the presidency (age 35, natural-born citizen) - and can't be from Illinois.
Of course the running mate can be from Illinois. He/she just needs to camp out in some other state (such as Wyoming) long enough to establish residency before the electoral college meets. Or, stay in Illinois and hope there are enough electoral votes that he/she won't need Illinois. If he/she comes up short of a majority, Illinois electors can write in some other name, and then let the (Democratically controlled) Senate pick the veep. (12th Amendment).
Posted by: Urban Planning Overlord | May 30, 2008 10:24:16 AM
Where's Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan? Is she political toast?
I'm betting that Obama will feel the need to pick another woman for the job other than HRC. And he can't pick a loony left or intellectually challenged (or both) woman, so that excludes Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Murray (D-WA). I don't know much about the other female Senators on the list above. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) would be excellent, but she is 75. That leaves a female Governor.
My "Dark Horse?" Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.
Posted by: Jim H | May 30, 2008 10:28:37 AM
Where's Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan? Is she political toast?
She's actually from Canada, so not eligible to be President.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | May 30, 2008 10:29:45 AM
Seems to me Nunn, Schweitzer, Sebelius, John Edwards or Sherrod Brown would be good choices, depending on what regions or states Obama wants to shore up support in.
Seems to me, we need Webb to stay in the Senate, holding onto a swing Senate seat and shoring up Democratic street cred on military issues. Webb doesn't seem like an enthusiastic and effective campaigner outside his home state.
Richardson would be better served in a cabinet post. He's gaffe-prone, and an all-minority ticket might not be the wisest choice. Also, richardson's biggest strengths are in regions where Obama already leads comfortably (CA, NM, CO), or where Obama probably won't win anyhow (TX, AZ). Could be he puts Nevada over the edge, but are those five EVs enough to really influence the choice of running mate?
Posted by: mkd | May 30, 2008 10:31:28 AM
I basically penciled in Richardson for the VP slot back in January and still think he's the most logical choice. He fits perfect with Obama's focus on the Rocky Mountain West, speaks Spanish (thus addressing a touchy- but very real vulnerability), and is qualified to be president. Those factors have hogged up all my attention, but as the time comes to pick I am starting to have some pre-buyer's remorse. I worry about skeletons in Richardson’s closet, particularly unsavory corporate ties and whatever harassment issues are out there.
So if not Richardson, then who?
Cross off anyone who was in Congress during the run up to war- they would immediately negate Obama's whole change/judgment thing.
Cross off anyone who has their own cult of personality. The VP must be subordinate to Obama and some people out there might have a hard time marching under the yolk. I'm looking at you Edwards, Clarke, Gore, Dean.
Cross off the Senators. We need our new-Blue Senate intact. I love McCaskill, am ambivalent toward Webb and really really love Tester- but they all won narrow victories in red/purple states. We scraped those seats by the skin of our teeth; let's keep ‘em for awhile. Incumbency rules!
Cross off the women- harsh I know, but I really think Hillary has made it impossible for Obama to pick a woman without everyone reading way too much into it.
Cross off Hillary Clinton.
Which brings me back to the swing state governors- Strickland, Rendell, Richardson, Kaine. If you think Obama’s got a Farrakhan problem now wait’ll you see what Rendell brings to the table and Tim Kaine is a totally lightweight.
This leaves Strickland and Richardson- and Strickland doesn’t want the job.
Dear Bill,
Please don’t f this up.
Sincerely,
mkd
ps. I’d love to double down on the brand- but where the hell are we gonna find another Barack Obama? Young, dynamic, post-racial master orators don’t exactly grow on trees.
Posted by: backbeat, woman | May 30, 2008 10:34:36 AM
mkd, like your analysis but sadly, we aren't going to have two brown guys on the ticket.
Posted by: JG | May 30, 2008 10:34:44 AM
I say it will be Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas' Govenor). She has experience and she's a rising star. And she'd help with the idea that the Democratic party is moving westward. In addition, it wouldn't dilute Obama's Washington outsider change message.
She's also a Democratic governor in a Republican state, so her image reinforces the image of Obama as someone that can put red states (ie: Iowa, Virginia, North Carolina) in play. Plus, she's not controversial among the DNC leadership. In fact, they picked her to deliver the Party's televised rebuttal to Bush's last state of the union address.
In addition, I think it will help him somewhat with women. Young women Obama already does pretty well with, but older (lets so over 35 or 40) women have tended to back Clinton. And the older the voter (in general) the worse Obama does with them. Putting a woman on the ticket might make older women less likely to break for McCain in the fall, and might be an easy way for Obama to avoid picking Clinton if he does not want to.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | May 30, 2008 10:34:51 AM
Where's Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan? Is she political toast?
She's originally Canadian so she doesn't qualify.
Posted by: Eric Parker | May 30, 2008 11:06:26 AM
"I really think Hillary has made it impossible for Obama to pick a woman without everyone reading way too much into it."
Argeed. Plus, her makeup in attitude may cause her to decline any offer for VP simply because it could be thought of as a "consolation prize" for running 2nd and Hillary has shown she would be too proud to accept a prize for being a "runner up".
Also, this quote from mkd shows just a part of how an uptight person acts (everyone reading way too much into it). I belive on another thread, some asked me about being uptight.
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | May 30, 2008 11:12:25 AM
SOME Senators don't need to be crossed off--the ones in states where another Democrat would be appointed or win easily. Of course, in most cases, it's hard to see why someone from a State that's sure to go to Obama anyway would be a good VP choice. But Sherrod Brown, who might make a difference in Ohio, would work. So would Rockefeller or Blanche Lincoln.
We should cross off Governors who will be needed in office to stave off Republican gerrymanders during post-2010 redistricting. Ted Strickland must remain in Ohio, for example. So should the Governors of Tennessee, Arizona and Oklahoma. Kaine is limited to one term in Virginia, and Easley is leaving office after this year, so they should at least stay in contention. In fact, now that I think of it, Easley really should be near the top of the short list. Put North Carolina in play, and McAncient has no chance at all.
If Hillary Clinton is Obama's VP, then Obama will not complete his term of office. Something will happen that mysteriously forces him to step down.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 30, 2008 11:13:30 AM
If I were a gambling/gaming person I would give odds of 20 to 1 it has to be a woman. There appears to be a large number of women, probably enough to swing the vote, who could only see Hillary's gender and were blind to her massive warts. Obama most likely needs a woman to get that group.
I can't believe anyone claiming to be a progressive commenting on Blue Oregon would propose some of the names in the opening list. George Mitchell? Now selling out for Big Tobacco. Patty Murray? Same for Boeing. Jay Rockefeller? He was given intelligence that was evidence Bush and Co. were lying about Iraq, but the pathetic wretch still voted for the war. Joe Biden? Windbag extraordinaire. Ted Kulongoski? Can anyone imagine this person stepping into the presidency after his wimpy start in Oregon? Tom Brokaw? What a joke especially with the recent publicity about how the media sold out in the run up to the Iraq war and being mouthpieces for the Bush Administration ever since.
I don't know that much about them, but from what little I know I would consider looking at governors Kathleen Sibelius and Janet Napolitano.
Posted by: Kristin | May 30, 2008 11:24:41 AM
Well, there's who I want -- Sebelius -- and who I think he'll pick in order to ensure victory --Rendell or Strickland. And then there's Edwards, who fits into both categories. I see Richardson in a Cabinet job of some sort, perhaps Sec. of State.
Sebelius, in some ways, is a way to double down on a brand in the sense that she is a nontraditional candidate and she has worked very, very well with Republicans, highlighting Obama's bipartisan stance. She was so good at it that she convinced a Republican businessman John E. Moore to switch parties and run with her as lieutenant governor in 2002. Four years later, she did it again, convincing the then-chair of the Kansas Republican Party, Mark Parkinson, to become a Democrat and run for the seat Moore was vacating.
Sebelius also recently vetoed legislation that would have allowed for a coal-fired power plant in the state -- she's got serious enviro cred.
Edwards is also great -- great according to current polls, amazing on policy issues, young, dynamic, with perhaps the most awesome political wife in the universe. Talk about a two for one special. And, I'm sorry, but the idea of a plethora of young kids running around the White House gets me giddy.
Rendell and Strickland would be a choice for those who think it's important to include Clinton supporters on the ticket and to ensure that the Dems win Pennsylvania or Ohio. Boring, but strategic.
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | May 30, 2008 11:30:12 AM
Okay, I'll say it - Steve Novick - A little feller with a hard left hook. He'd add a lot of sense to an Obama campaign.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 30, 2008 11:33:21 AM
Can we please take Rendell out of this mix? He is the personification of the corrupt ward heel politician, and represents the very core contituency that Obama is fighting against. The guy even looks and sounds the part. He might as well have Tammany tattooed across his forehead.
Obam's got long enough odds on accompishing the change he wants without having this hack on the inside.
Posted by: selenesmom | May 30, 2008 11:37:01 AM
I am dismayed that anyone would seriously put forward arguments to the effect that "Obama will feel pressure to choose a woman"/"Clinton supporters will want a woman." For me -- and it could just be a generational thing, I'm mid-forties -- one of the greatest things about HRC's campaign was that no one seriously floated arguments about how being a woman would affect her performance (whether claiming that she was intellectually/emotionally incapable, or claiming that women are naturally nurturing and nicer people). That was really refreshing, and I hoped it had laid some of this kind of stuff to rest. But now we get silly stuff about how this or that Senator or Governor ought to get the nod because "we need a woman." Didn't that already not work once with Ferraro? Why would anyone assume that all or most female Clinton supporters (of whom I'm not one) want a woman, any woman, even if it's Condoleeza Rice? (OK I exaggerate, but I hope that made my point.)
That said, I do also think Webb's bazillion public pronouncements on women in the military and on Tailhook are a deal-breaker. No need to go out of your way to find the one candidate for whom women's fitness to perform is a documented blind spot.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 30, 2008 11:45:25 AM
Can someone explain the Rendell Farrakhan reference?
Posted by: Barry | May 30, 2008 11:47:21 AM
Bloomberg - balances the ticket with a moderate/centrist/former-republican. As a proven executive of a large city, blunts the argument that the ticket has no experience running a government. And, it help fixes the "Isreal problem" Obama has in some quarters.
Saw Webb on Letterman - nervous, tentative, no spark, no charisma. Not impressed.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 30, 2008 12:03:55 PM
Barack Obama & John Hagee
vs.
John McCain and Jeremy Wright
Posted by: torridjoe | May 30, 2008 12:04:04 PM
I'm of the same mind as Kos--like big state endorsers, VP choice effects on geography are minimal. Note the KS polling yesterday; Sebelius barely helps. That said, a woman from the Midwest or west would be a solid choice. Sebelius, Napolitano or McCaskill.
What about Cantwell or even Mikulski?
Posted by: Kristin | May 30, 2008 12:08:56 PM
Joel,
Now that I get your sense of humor, I'm totally loving it.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 30, 2008 12:09:49 PM
Joel, I think you mean Jeremiah Wright, not Jeremy Wright, campaign manager for the Vote-by-Mail campaign and long-time Timbers fanatic.
Posted by: Eric Parker | May 30, 2008 12:18:01 PM
"John McCain and Jeremy Wright"
Nice try...It will more than likely be Mitt Romney. But that's for them to decide.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | May 30, 2008 12:27:26 PM
I have not written much positive about Hillary Clinton here in the past few years, but she seems the best choice for VP. She has received almost as much support as Obama, and many of her supporters are quite passionate in their support. It would make the ticket doubly historic. The VP has little power that the president does not confer - unless the Senate is evenly split.
And just think of the great opportunity for a contemporary-set production of Macbeth with the officers of NOW as the Weird Sisters.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | May 30, 2008 12:29:34 PM
John McCain should try the double-down strategy and pick Jeb Bush.... That would work, wouldn't it? McCain-Bush in 2008?
Okay, maybe not.
Sebelius works for me although I agree - that was one dull speech she gave.
Post a comment
Posted by: Matthew Sutton | May 30, 2008 7:07:09 AM
If he can double down on his "brand" and do it successfully, of course I am all for it. Not sure how you can forecast or predict the success though.
So my gut tells me that he should instead take "balance the ticket" approach and pick someone with military background like Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia.