Just thinking about VP's for the Dems

[poughies]

In 2004, John Kerry decided to pick John Edwards as his vice presidential candidate. In retrospect, I would argue (as I think most others would) that decision was a mistake. Not only did John Edwards fail to deliver one state in the south, he also failed in my opinion to be a good ambassador for the ticket as evidence by a lack luster performance in the debate with Dick Cheney.
In 2000, Al gore decided to pick Joe Lieberman as his vice presidential candidate. Though not as self-evident in my opinion as Edwards, this decision was also a mistake. Lieberman failed to deliver the one state he was supposed to (Florida, or maybe he did that argument for another time). At the same time, he also (surprisingly to some) did not deliver a great debate performance.

Hindsight tells us that Al Gore was a great choice for the ticket (did fairly in the debates, especially against Quayle). He also reinforced the southern image, and he did experience in DC, while at the same time seeming young.


NOW with that out of the way......
I've been thinking who the best VP would be. IMHO, it isn't one size fits all.

With Obama, you probably want someone who has experience. Obama is a very energetic figure who will have a lot limelight on him. You probably want a nice quiet person. I would think you would probably want a liberal. I really think Dodd might be an option. HOWEVER, I might think that you might want to reinforce that young image. Someone with Washington experience. This next candidate would definitely reinforce young while reinforcing minority (well in the political world anyway) status: Blanche Lincoln. 10 years in the senate with 4 years in the house. If you want a "young" centrist, Bayh certainly has experience.

I really don't think either would a "liability" on the ticket.

As for Hillary, I think Richardson would be best. Gives the ticket a more likable ring. Most Democrats want her for experience, he reinforces (and for those who don't think she is experienced enough, he certainly is).

I don't know this is all speculation.........

What do u guys think?

[TomC]

Yes, Richardson...for anybody.

[Verily]

I'm not so certain about Richardson for anyone's VP any more. His debate performances have been nothing short of disastrous. Obama (and Edwards) will want a "safe pair of hands" VP: an older, very experienced politician who can appear statesmanlike. Richardson may look the part on paper, but his debate performances destroy that sentiment.

I am now of the opinion that Janet Napolitano would be the best Democratic VP candidate for anyone but Clinton. Mark Warner would probably be best for Clinton.

[Boris]

Richardson needs to improve upon his TV skills before he can be considered for the VP slot.

Obama or Clinton should go for someone popular from a swing state. Vilsack, Warner, Napolitano, Feingold, (Strickland, maybe?), etc. VP candidates don't really have a national effect, so you might as well choose someone that can assure electoral votes.

[minionofmidas]

Brian Schweitzer.

[Likely Voter]

warner or richardson

moderate governors who could help deliver states.

[bbt]

The 2008 Democratic ticket shall be Al Gore/ Barack Obama

[WalterMitty]

bill ritter.

[Mr. Morden]

I still don't see Obama, who will have served just four years in the U.S. Senate by the end of 2008, picking a governor with zero Washington experience and zero foreign policy experience to be his VP.  Not in an election in which foreign policy is likely to be a major issue.  I know many people are suggesting he (or any other nominee) pick someone who could help deliver a swing state, but I see scant evidence that presidential nominees use that as a big factor in picking their running mates these days.  The most recent major party VP nominees came from North Carolina, Connecticut, Wyoming, and New York.  It seems to be far more common for them to pick running mates who they think will have more national appeal, or else will fill a particular niche with their personality or record that isn't filled by the presidential nominee himself.

Obama's greatest weakness as a candidate is lack of experience, so I would anticipate that he would go for, as Verily suggests, "a "safe pair of hands" VP: an older, very experienced politician who can appear statesmanlike" regardless of that person's home state.

[poughies]

I think it was AB Stoddard (i honestly cannot remember) mentioned Dodd for Hillary as well as Vilsack....

I keep thinking she wants someone hip or youthful (an intelligent Dan Quayle).... if u want the governor angle then why not Schweitzer.... something new...

[YRABNNRM]

For some reason I'm really sure...well maybe not sure but perhaps "confident" that Vilsack or Richardson will be Clinton's running mate, more so Vilsack though.

I'm thinking that Bayh would be a good choice for Obama. He's got gubernatorial and senatorial experience and keeps the sense of youth and "the future" on the ticket without taking the spotlight off of Obama. The only problems are that he comes from Indiana, which won't vote for Obama, and he'd give the GOP a senate seat.

[Kevin]

I think it was AB Stoddard (i honestly cannot remember) mentioned Dodd for Hillary as well as Vilsack....

I keep thinking she wants someone hip or youthful (an intelligent Dan Quayle).... if u want the governor angle then why not Schweitzer.... something new...

Hoe about Martin O'Malley?

[poughies]

i always thought Richardson (though debate performances awful)... If nothing else his campaign has managed to create a sense of momentum as noted by Chuck Todd and Marc Ambinder.....

and bayh might not give the GOP a senate seat (governor is up for re-election and the state is known to elect dems to the senate (well not known, but not like Kansas or something)).

I like O'Malley.... truthfully... experience might be a problem, but I like him.