Who do you THINK Hillary will pick as vp if she wins the dem nomination?

[AngelFromKansas]

A real toughie i think.

i will go with Evan bayh now...though vilsack could just nail iowa, wisconsin and minnesota into the dem column.

is bayh necessary to carry ohio for clinton?

[phk]

Bayh or Vilsack.

Richardson has a good shot.

[Mr. Morden]

I still think Webb is more likely than Clark, as the latter has a worse case of "foot in mouth" disease.

[M]

I think Bayh... but Richardson would not shock me.

[MODU]

Sheeee's baaaaack!  (must be Halloween)

Anyway, I would have to say Richardson.  There is no way Clark gets selected, and I think there will be too much bad blood between her and Obama following the primaries.  Bayh and Vilsack are unknowns in the general voter population, so she doesn't gain anything except for support in their home states.  Richardson can pull in a national block due to his heritage.

[gorkay]

Well, much depends on whom the Republican nominee is. Wes Clark would be a strong candidate, but if Huckabee gets the GOP nomination, he'll probably be a lock to carry Arkansas, and Clark looks less appealing. Vilsack's not a bad candidate either. Michael Tomasky had a good piece in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books about the Democrats' prospects next year, and he named Jim Webb and Ohio governor Strickland as two of the best prospects. As a Virginian, I know a lot more about Webb. He has some plusses on his side: he's a fairly conservative Democrat with military and foreign-policy experience, and he has shown he can win a race in what has historically been a tough state for Democrats to win national elections. His minuses are his relative lack of elective-office experience and his reputation for being something of a loose cannon. If he were to get nominated and elected, the matter of who would succeed him in the Senate would be interesting. Tim Kaine, the current governor, whose term expires in 2009, would be the most logical choice, but there would be no graceful way for him to appoint himself.

I don't think there's any chance that Hillary would select anyone other than a male WASP, which leaves out Richardson and Obama.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think there's any chance that Hillary would select anyone other than a male WASP, which leaves out Richardson and Obama.

Vilsack isn't a WASP.  He's Catholic.

[Harry]

Obama if she needs to, otherwise Richardson.

[motomonkey]

No way is it Obama.  This will be all about winning the general election and making Hillary the star.  The people who won't be happy with her are the Democratic Party faithful. 

Look for someone who can make Hillary look warm, caring, personable by contrast.  The VP historically is the "hatchet guy" or the "impersonable technician" who makes the President look good.  Think Johnson to Kennedy, Agnew to Nixon, Bush to Reagan or even Gore to Clinton. 

My guess is Joseph Biden.  Biden with Hillary make great in roads into the independants and switchable Republicans.  He brings credibility and quiets the accusations of the "far left is taking over."  This is classic "triangulation" by taking away or neutralizing many of the issues of your enemies. 

 

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Probably some pro war hack. If she wanted a shot at my vote she would pick Russ Feingold.

[MODU]

Probably some pro war hack. If she wanted a shot at my vote she would pick Russ Feingold.

I think that would be a poison ticket, and ensure a GOP victory.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Bayh would be a great VP, plus that opens up the door for him in 2016

[afleitch]

Clinton can win Ohio without anyone's help. Her best bet is Richardson for strategic reasons

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Clinton can win Ohio without anyone's help. Her best bet is Richardson for strategic reasons

There is an undercurrent of subtle, anti-Mexican, anti-hispanic racism in this country amongst certain segments of the population (especially with the whole issue involving illegal immigration), and for that reason alone Richardson is not a very good strategic choice.  Epecially with someone like Hillary at the helm.

And whoever mentioned Jim Webb on this thread needs to be slapped upside the head.  He's been in the Senate for, what, 10 whole months now? 

[Mr. Morden]

And whoever mentioned Jim Webb on this thread needs to be slapped upside the head.  He's been in the Senate for, what, 10 whole months now? 

Yes, but he's also a former Secretary of the Navy.  Anyway, my only point was that he's a more likely choice than Clark (who has zero experience in elective office), though Clark seems to get mentioned more frequently as a possible VP candidate (and was included in the poll in this thread).

[Kushahontas]

her best bet would be richardson. idk i think he'd probably net her the greatest number of ev's as opposed to barack or vilsack or bayh.

although part of me fears that she'll shut out edwards and obama from the job and thus, pulls another 1988. that would be terrible. the leading democrat shutting out the 2nd most popular....that could spell disaster

[JohnnyLongtorso]

She will either pick a sitting Governor from the Midwest or South (Brad Henry and Mike Easley spring to mind), or Evan Bayh.

[WalterMitty]

joe manchin

[Ogre Mage]

Evan Bayh would be the safe, cautious choice.  He brings a great deal of political experience as a 2-term Governor and Senator.   He has a background in military affairs from his work on the Senate Armed Services committee.  Bayh would not move blood-red Indiana into Hillary's column, but he might be a reassuring, moderate presence in swing states in the Midwest.  The leftmost flank of the Democratic Party would grumble if he was chosen, but he probably would be acceptable if it was handled correctly.  However, Bayh is a terrible speaker.  Both times I listened to him I felt like he could cure insomnia.

The other senator likely to be chosen is Barack Obama.  This choice would be as risky as Bayh is safe.  Much will be determined by what happens during the Democratic Primary.  If Obama runs a strong second to Hillary, she may have little choice but to choose him.  If Obama bombs out, there is no chance he will be chosen.  The two do not appear to compliment each other well -- both Senators, both from blue states the other would win anyway.  But there are undeniable advantages.  Unlike Bayh, Obama brings real wattage and strong oratorical skills into the race.  Clinton/Obama would rev up the Democratic base and start a media frenzy (which could be good if handled skillfully).  Finally, one of the biggest surprises has been how Obama has been able to match Clinton dollar for dollar in fundraising.  If they pooled their money it would be a TITANIC advantage.

It's also is very possible that Clinton could reach outside of the Beltway for her VP.  Bill Richardson would be the obvious choice.  On paper they compliment each other perfectly -- a Senator from the Northeast and a Governor from the Southwest.  Richardson adds strength in a region that Hillary is currently doing poorly in and his foreign policy experience is a definite plus.  But after watching Richardson's gaffe-filled performances in the debates and on Meet The Press, one wonders if he is really cut out for the heat of a national race.  Somehow I don't see Clinton choosing Tom Vilsack, although he actually might push a state into her column (Iowa).  But he has no background in foreign policy, is an unexciting speaker and lacks Bayh and Obama's telegenic qualities.  I think he is more likely to be chosen for a job in Clinton's cabinet.  If Hillary was looking for a quick electoral fix she might consider Ohio Governor Ted Strickland.  But Strickland would be only two years into his first term and age 67 besides.  It is unlikely he could succeed Clinton.

Wes Clark?  Maybe if Clinton felt her foreign policy credentials needed shoring up.  After 15 years in national politics and 5 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee that seems unlikely.  Clark would be a stronger VP choice for Barack Obama.

If Obama tanks in the primary I would say either Bayh or Richardson are the most likely choices.

[Verily]

Missing some above, notably Joe Manchin, Jay Rockefeller and Phil Bredesen (the last not all that likely, I admit).

[So the Heroes Fall]

I've asked this question a million times, and have yet to get an answer:

What does Bayh bring to the ticket that would be worth losing his Senate seat?

[Ogre Mage]

Missing some above, notably Joe Manchin, Jay Rockefeller and Phil Bredesen (the last not all that likely, I admit).

I don't think Hillary can choose a pro-life running mate (Manchin).  The base would revolt.

I've asked this question a million times, and have yet to get an answer:

What does Bayh bring to the ticket that would be worth losing his Senate seat?

That is a good point and a stumbling block for Bayh.  I bet he is frustrated over that fact.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I give

Thumbs up to Clark

Thumbs down to Bayh and Rockfeller (too much warmonger in the first, two much big Telecom in the 2nd). Obviously Manchin and Bredesen would be problematic, too.

[Cubby]

Bill Richardson- He helps her win the Southwest, and he was in her husband's administration.

I've never understood some people's fascination with Evan Bayh. He's a bland, almost unknown Senator from a mid-sized state. Lots of Democrats get elected in Republican Dominated States (Ben Nelson, Bob Kerrey, Conrad, Dorgan, etc. etc.) What makes Bayh so special?

I agree that at this point there is probably too much bad blood between her and Obama for her to pick him. But he'd be a great choice.

Does anyone think a Clinton/Richardson (Female/Hispanic) ticket would be too "exotic" for parts of the country?

[Erc]

Why Bayh?  Because, really, she doesn't have too many other choices.

Hillary needs to pick a man as VP, and it's probably best if he's white and not from the northeast.

The Southern Democratic bench is pretty lacking:
Mark Pryor: is uninspiring, will piss off the base, and may put too much Arkansas on the ticket.
Bill Nelson: generally lackluster, Florida isn't really southern.  A possibility though.
Jim Webb:  far too junior, & would probably bring too much attention to the pick.  Also has a few liabilities that may simply outweigh the benefits.
Rockefeller: too old, bad name.
Mike Easley: wouldn't accept the spot, and would be a slap in the face to Edwards.
John Edwards: already tried & it didn't work
Bredesen: barely a Democrat
Manchin: as mentioned, pro-life.
Warner is otherwise engaged.

An alternative would be a Westerner (an area in which Hillary appears to be struggling).  However, the Democrats also don't have very many good candidates in the Plains or Mountain West (that have been in office more than three years).
Bingaman & the Dakota Senators have nothing that really appeals.
Neither does Max Baucus, for that matter.
Schweitzer is an outside possibility...but probably simply doesn't have enough experience under his belt.
Harry Reid is unpopular and is busy in the Senate.
Clinton/Kulongoski does not make an interesting ticket.
There's nothing wrong with Ron Wyden (I wouldn't mind), but there's nothing interesting in the ticket, either.

Which leaves the Midwest, where we have Vilsack, Bayh, & Obama, of course.
Picking Durbin (or, to a lesser extent, Blagojevich) would be a slap in the face to Obama.
Levin is too old.
Feingold might be a good pick to appeal to the base, but may simply be too liberal for the general election.

Which leaves the usual suspects:  Bayh, Obama, Vilsack, Richardson, & Biden.

Obama is one of those choices that could work wonderfully, or could go terribly terribly wrong.  Clinton might just want to avoid him and pick a safer bet...but she might be forced to pick Obama if he puts up a strong race during the primaries.
Biden has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth.
The same with Richardson, but to a lesser extent.  He really hasn't been impressing in the debates, and picking a fourth-place finisher might piss off those who were supporting Edwards & Obama.  He'd be a good choice, though, if he shapes up & Clinton feels like concentrating on the West.
Vilsack doesn't have anything Bayh doesn't have already.

Bayh is a good moderate (though not too moderate) Democrat, with good experience in the Senate (and, critically, as a Governor), isn't currently running for President, is a fresh face, and is moderately charismatic.  Plus, he's already endorsed Hillary.

The only possible problem is a Dan Quayle comparison (another unknown Senator from Indiana?), especially if he ends up being on the uncharismatic side.