Friday Veepstakes - the Party Leaders edition!

The LA Times offers a list of potential Obama running mates this week, and Politico gives a glimpse into VP vetting and selection process and why we obsess over it.

Zeroing in on Party Leaders this week.  The list is limited to those who may not have been previously mentioned.  As always, very interested in reader feedback.

So, without further ado, awaaaaaay we go...

5.  Bob Graham, Florida. Retired Governor and Senator from the Sunshine state.  Has executive experience, a familiarity with the federal system and the Senate, and...helps in Florida.    But he's been on the shortlist both in 1992 and in 2000 and didn't make the ticket.

4.  Harry Reid, Nevada.  Current Senate Majority Leader, and from Nevada - a battleground state.  He has national name recognition and is a moderate Democrat which could alter any perception that an Obama ticket is too liberal.  Also - Reid joing the ticket could compel him to vacate his leadership role in the Senate, creating room for Clinton to become Senate Leader.  But Reid is pro-life which may not go over well many in the Party.

3.  David Bonior, Michigan.  Former U.S. House Democratic Whip.  Also was part of John Edwards' 2008 management team for President.  Bonior has strong ties with the labor community, but his committment to pro-choice issues is questionable.

2.  Tom Daschle, South Dakota. Former Senate Minority Leader.  Still prominent in Washington circles and has been active in Obama's campaign.  He brings experience and credentials well suited for the office of Vice President which presides over the Senate, and his soft spoken demeanor isn't going to overshadow that of the presumptive nominee.  He could put South Dakota in play but perhaps more importantly he can help with outreach to rural voters in other states.  Note: Obama also has quite a few former Daschle staffers on his roster.  Hmm...

1.  Dick Gephardt, Missouri. Former Congressman, Democratic House of Representatives leader.  Well known and respected in Washington, and has an interest in the executive branch: he's run for President both in 1988 and in 2004.  Has tight ties with labor groups, voted against NAFTA, and is pro-choice.  He is also a Clinton ally by way of Terry McAuliffe so offers unity to the tickt.  Plus: he's from Missouri - a key swing state in November.

Comments

[Chris O.]

Have you ever seen Reid speak in public? Guy's barely audible and clearly hates doing it. That alone should rule him out.

All of these names strike me as very unlikely anyway, except for maybe Daschle, but I see him more as Obama staff than Obama's VP.

[Mr Super]

Maybe Daschle as Obama Chief of Staff. Well, these lists are never to try to predict who will be the VP nominee as much as they are to get people thinking. I do think Gephardt and Graham are the most intriguing of the bunch.

[Blame]

None of this lot excites me.
I hope you forgive me. I am reposting this from last weeks Friday Veepstakes. I posted it so late there that I doubt anybody read it.
Interesting poll for MI here:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=52d98ca6-6c14-4f4a-9180-4e7f1fce8a1a
It gives results for potential Obama Vs McCain/Romney with different choices of Democratic Vice, including Clinton!
Obama/Clinton looses by 5 points
Obama/Edwards looses by 3 points.
It turns out that Hillary gains 2% of women, who with Edwards are undecided, but Edwards Gains 4% of males directly from McCain.
Or Hillary gains 4% of Democrats, half from undecided but looses 8% from Independents and all going to McCain.

If this poll proves typical Obama will have little reason to choose Hillary. So much for the dream team. It unifies the Democrats slightly, but at the expense of appeal to independents. Given that the Party can be expected to rally around Obama anyway,It is a poor trade that can only get poorer.
Then there is my favourite team:
Obama/Sebelius looses by 16%
Ouch! That’s what happens when you poll a vice nobody has heard of. Then again, looking at polls never stopped Obama before. If she has what it takes, he can sell her to the public. It worked for him. If Obama picks Sebelius we still can’t be sure his Presidency will bring Hope or Change, but you can bank on Audacity.

[Lorenzo S.]

Both Daschle and Gephardt bring a sense of gravitas to the ticket that will help nationally, without attracting a lot of enemies. Reid doesn't -- he just represents the current Democratic Congress that's polling even worse that Bush! That's the last thing that Obama wants on his ticket.

By the way, the same problems would apply to Pelosi (but why is she never mentioned on the women's lists?)

Graham would help in Florida, but I can't see him helping much anywhere else.

The strongest of the five is Gephardt, by far.

[Diamond E.]

Four Words:

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

[suekzoo]

I've been a little fascinated with the Phil Bredesen, Governor of TN, from last week's list of possibilities. He's got an extensive background in healthcare, and may resonate with the blue collar vote. Thoughts anyone?

[adams]

I hate to be so negative, but other than Bonior (whom I have never seen speak), these are all among the least charismatic politicians in the Deomcratic party. I like Daschle, Reid, and Graham (not so much Gephardt) but they don't always show signs of life in front of the cameras.

[Sensible Person]

Grahm would be great, except for one thing: He's as old as McCain, and has a past history of heart problems. Besides that, though, he's everything Obama needs... relative outsider image (or at least not too polarizing)... Governing Experience, Voted against the Iraq War, no senate seat to worry about losing... From the South... He could afford to have a bit more rural image, though.

Daschle = Defeated for re-election = not good VP. Good Chief of Staff, but bad VP.

Reid = Too polarizing, and we'd need to worry about retaining his seat.

Bonior = Never heard of the guy. And as a major politico, I don't think most people have, either. From my quick reading up on him, though, I'm not sure he's worth it. The only thing he has going for him is that he's from the rust belt.

You may have the right idea, here, though... retired party leaders who have been mostly off the scene during the bush years who had minimal direct ties to Bill Clinton.

Gephart would be better if not for Iraq. And, while I'm think his changes of heart on some issues are more legitimate and much much nobler than Romney's, it might give Romney political cover to be a McCain Veep, which, as someone from Massachusetts who utterly detests that political Con-man for his utter lack of any consistent values beyond self-promotion, (He's been running for President since at least 1992, if not earlier -perhaps longer than some voters have been alive), that makes me cringe. His background / image is great, though.

On a more general note, I developed a list of what I think makes or breaks a good VP:

Plusses:
National Stature
Either relatively new on national stage or with outsider image.
(Popular) Governor, especially of a large or swing state.
Foreign policy creds
Sitting senator or senatorial candidate from a swing state.
From the rustbelt, midwest, or interior west.
Sothern Drawl
Rural, Working-Class cred
Religious cred
Hunter / Gun cultural cred
Post-Partisan Cred
Netroots appeal

Minuses:
Seen as a major part of the political establishment (not someone who might overshadow Obama)
Cotroversy / polarizing/ gaffe prone, seen as a partisan symbol (no drama allowed!).
Rich (The “elitist” charge won’t stick unless he does something to reinforce it.)
“Urban poltician” image
Hostile Immigration stance (He should do fine among hispanics unless he does something to alienate them)

Wildcards:
Female
Hispanic
(However, either one is definitely bad if they attribute their electoral problems to their gender / race. It may be true, but it won't convince any of the bigots to vote for them, and looks like whining to a lot of people. They need to take the Obama Approach: avoid talk of their Gender / Race as much as they possibly can (especially in relation to prejudice against them) without looking utterly delusional, and when they do have to talk about it, try to minimize it's importance and avoid sounding too accusing. That avoids reinforcing the negative stereotypes that borderline bigots have, and may shake up some of the stereotypes a few of the more hardcore bigots have.)

[Truth]

This list isn't even worth talking about. Mr. Super should try to set up something like what MSNBC has for the McCain VP tournament. Create VP blog rounds with each post being only Yes or No with winners moving up each round. I will try not to hit the wrong button.

[Sabutai]

There's a reason four of those guys have "former" in their title. Gephardt's main accomplishment was to open the door for Newt Gingrich, and Tom Daschle couldn't even win re-election to his own seat. Graham's a nice but ultimately forgettable person, and Bonoir...ech.

I notice Howard Dean isn't listed as a party leader in your estimation.

[Gretchen]

Definitely lackluster list [though I do respect Graham--note--Graham was the one, I believe--who asked Clinton to read the NIE BEFORE she cast her vote for authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq--and she didn't read it]

How about Webb?

[Truth]

I'm tired of Hillary's vote being slanderously mischaraterized as a vote for war. Hans Blis (the UN inspector) was frustrated that the UN would not provide the threat of military consequences for not allowing the inspectors to do their work. When the UN wouldn't do it (problem of big 5 veto), the USA provided that. It was supposed to bolster the inspections, not bypass them. Bush's administration bears sole responsibility for not following the vote which held Bush to the UN standard for Iraq's violation of the inspections.

Clinton gave a big speech right before her vote that it was not a vote to go to war (as did others). Obama even said in his October 2002 speech that he supports the inspectors. Voting against the resolution would mean he wasn't giving the inspectors the support they required. If you actually read the UN reports, violations were found so there was no reason to believe Saddam had destroyed the WMD found when he had kicked them out in the late 90s. Bill Clinton sent Saddam a message with some missiles and he was accused of wagging the dog (along with his missile attack on Sudan bin Laden). It just shows how pathetic selective memory can be.

Castro already made the fool of Obama when Obama reneged on his 2004 Cuba embargo lifting talk. It has been made crystal clear Obama is making this up with generalizations and ambiguous talk. Obama is the one that is playing off our fear of a Bush 3rd term and I’ve had enough of it. Let’s stop being so simplistic.

[Sensible Person.]

"Truth," That's BS. If all they wanted to do was show that they meant business, they didn't have to authorize use of Military force in Iraq. All they had to do was pass a resolution stating their intent to use military force if Saddam did not comply with inspections. I'd have more respect for Senator Clinton if she admitted that her war vote was a mistake, instead of trying to make excuses for it.

[Truth]

“Sensible” Person, answer these two questions:
On March 20, 2003 did the USA
1) have to defend the national security of the USA against Iraq?
2) could no longer enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq?

A clause signaling forceful action in case of non-compliance is valuable. Iraq did not move without forceful, sustained pressure, and it simply shrugged off economic sanctions.

[Same As It Ever Was]

Bob Graham would be an outstanding choice. He is a hawkish Dem who was against the Iraq war, great foreign policy cred, and does well with working class voters. Most importantly, he can and would deliver Florida.