Why Sarah Palin, why Dan Quayle?

A basic question I've asked, as you may as well: why is it that the Republicans have twice foisted on the nation two VP candidates who are physically attractive idiots? Sarah Palin is cut from the same mold as Dan Quayle, except that - just as Bush II made Bush I look good, so now I have to defend Quayle from this comparison even before I get to make it. Quayle was clearly an unworthy dim-wit, like Palin, but he was also in the Senate for 8 years before his nomination, and before that 2 terms in the House. And before that, 6 years in various state offices. Yes, yes, this is how far we've fallen, that Quayle is a heavyweight compared to the ignorant tabloid train-wreck of Sarah Palin.

But, for those who are too young to remember, the nation was stricken with great fear when Bush nominated Quayle in '88. There appeared to be no reason for it. Dukakis was a disastrous candidate - who nonetheless did what you're supposed to do, and nominated a true heavyweight as his #2 - Lloyd Bentsen (a Texas Democrat, in the House from 1948-1955 and Senate from 1971). There just seemed to be no reason to give us a terrible VP candidate, who we knew at the time would be part of the winning ticket.

The theory at the time, which I basically held until Palin's arrival, was that Bush has such low-self-esteem that he needed someone even wimpier, and more losery, that himself. It made sense at the time because Bush was a pretty bad candidate (and president).

But now we have a repeat. It's the same pattern, no? Except that McCain doesn't strike me as having low self-esteem. Quite the opposite really. So what gives?

Well, here's my theory/prediction and a number of other people (who I can't find right now to link to) seem to support this. The pattern is the same, but not the pattern I first thought it was. To complete the picture, though, we need to add another strange VP choice: Richard Nixon in 1952.

Republican Party Low Self Esteem

While I know all about the internal weaknesses of the Democratic party (made less so after 8 horrific years under Bush II), the GOP has long suffered from it's own chasm between the moderates and the wacko-fringe. All three GOP candidates in our study share the common denominator of being from the moderate wing of the GOP. McCain we know about (he almost switched in 2002), and Bush was a classic Northeastern Republican. Eisenhower was not really much of a partisan of any stripe, and his views on many things seem to fit comfortably in the Democratic party of today.

All three men needed to shore up support on their right flank, and as such, their VPs were selected because they were all fire-breathing conservatives. Nixon was chosen by committee - which shows you that 'smoke filled room' decisions were as fraught with 'identity politics' as the primaries today. But Quayle, like Palin, while unknown to most of America, was a darling of the wacko right.

But here's the Styx kicker: the other common denominator among Nixon-Quayle-Palin is that they were all obvious lightweights. Bush I was a smart guy, Eisenhower as well - they had no respect for their VPs; but these men (and the '52 committee by extension) had no respect for the lunatic fringe - they just needed the loonies to come out and vote. So by choosing a *purposeful* lightweight, these moderate Republicans would get the conservative votes while simultaneously having an ineffectual conservative VP.

That's my theory. But Ike was a robust 62 at election and Bush I 64. McCain is a cancer-surviving 72. The risk taken by the previous two moderates pales in comparison to the selfish risk of McCain.

First pic from here, second from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Biden v. Palin

When I last commented about Biden it was my claiming that his choice would be a mistake: "I think Biden would be a mistake. While he's a fierce partisan fighter, he's also a gaffe-prone goofball. Nonetheless, it won't be a disaster." And I had no follow up, so here it is: my analysis back in August was on the basis of politics and not governance. Biden is a mistake for politics - he makes gaffes, his state isn't helpful - and all the other choices were for electoral reasons only: Sebelius (woman, Midwest), Bayh (moderate, boring WASP, Midwest), Kaine (governor, swing-state).

But once Obama chose Biden I was quite happy with the choice and because it was the electorally poor choice. It showed me that Obama was (a) confident enough in the election, and in himself, that he was concentrating on being an executive and not the Permanent Campaign (the hallmark of the Clinton and W.Bush years), (b) that Obama chose someone who was fierce, independent and a contrary thinker, emphasizing the 'cabinet of rivals' model of Lincoln, (c) and ultimately, because Biden is the best sitting Democratic senator for both defense issues (chair of Foreign Relations) and Domestic/Legal (chair of Judiciary) it showed that Obama cares more for good governance than good politics.

If Obama had gone for the electoral/politics route - chosen the three above or Hillary Ugh - then I would have accepted the situation as reflective of a weak coalition or a difficult election road. Instead, by choosing Biden, Obama showed confidence, competence, and seriousness. It made me feel better for my support of Obama, presence as a Democrat, and hope for the country.

Then we get Sarah Palin. Who is the exact opposite. Chosen for purely partisan and electoral reasons. My feeling about Biden - which I had talked to people about but alas didn't blog about, so you'll have to believe me - shows the reason why I reacted so negatively towards Palin, even before I knew just how horrible she was.

But if I needed to use a shorthand to describe the difference, it would be Politics or Governance. And the GOP has shown that over the GWB years, they have placed governance and policy as the lowest of priorities, while for teh Democrats it has long been the highest priority - often to our detriment.

This argument about governance/politics is seen in this Sept 14 essay by Alex Massie, about why McCain chose Palin. Massie basically states what did you expect McCain to do? He needed electoral help! He was *forced* to choose an unqualified nutjob!

Massie is wrong about the order, though. McCain's current scorched-earth campaign - and the subsequent trouble he's in - comes as a direct result of the choice of Palin. If McCain chose a moderate (Lieberman, Ridge) or a friendly talented person (Graham, Crist), then McCain would be able to run in 2008 like he did in 2000. However, even through downright cowardice or doddering incompetence, McCain surrendered to the Rove Crew and decided to run like GWB in 2000 & 2004 - through fraud, fear, and polarization.

Can you imagine what a McCain-Lieberman vs. Obama-Biden election would look like? That would have been enviable. The last time we had two decent tickets was 1996 (and before that 1964). But McCain was threatened by the freakazoids of the gnarled GOP base that there'd be a floor-fight if Lieberman - McCain's first choice (whose vibes I somehow intuitively picked up) - were chosen. McCain, when threatened by the GOP base, blinked (in the argot of the GOP chickenhawks). He pooped his pants, he ran away from principles and good judgment and into the waiting arms of the Karl Rove Machine.

Why should McCain fear the floor fight? Because it'd make him look weak? Remind us of 1968 (similar times ya know)? I think it's because ultimately McCain is a weenie who cares more for winning than for honor. He's a disgrace.

But I digress. By choosing Palin, McCain decided on a campaign of fear and intimidation - because she has nothing else to offer but red-meat to the partisans. And any candidate that has to run to the extremes in the general election, is doomed.

Which leads us to the paradigms of VPs. I've discussed this at length, but I think I can make the binary chakira of VPs of Politics (VPP) and VPs of Governance (VPG). And both of these categories are part of the vagaries of how the VP is chosen. As opposed to the old days (pre-12th Amendment) and especially in post-1968 times, the VP is directly chosen by the Presidential nominee. While beforehand he was nominated at the convention just like the President, and as such could reflect a balanced perspective of the party, the modern VP choice is the sole decision of the Presidential nominee. And while the Pres Candidate needed to weather an often expensive, debilitating, pummelling primary campaign, the VP candidate is allowed to just waltz right in. The Pres. candidate needs millions of people to choose him/her, the VP needs only 1.

As such, the VP provides an opportunity not only for the electorate to evaluate the judgement and sagacity of the Pres. nominee, it also gives the nominee (and to some extent the whole party) a chance to nominate someone who could never get past the gauntlet of the primary campaign.

And this is where the Politics/Governance split comes in. Sometimes the VP couldn't get through the primaries because they are talented at governance but have no electoral appeal (cf. George HW Bush in 1980, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, Al Gore in 1992, Jack Kemp in 1996, Joe Lieberman & Dick Cheney in 2000). Or the VP is a token ethnic/ideology that's to 'out there' to be acceptable by the primary voters, but is considered necessary for the general election (cf. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, Dan Quayle in 1988, and Sarah Palin in 2008).

This is one reason why the electorate was so angry about Palin... here's a woman who could not survive a month of a primary campaign allowed to just shtup her way into the (second) most powerful job in the world. Dan Quayle in lipstick, as it were. I remember how angry I was, and the country was, after Quayle was chosen. This is worse. Yet this is why I'm happy about Biden and was happy about Lieberman - two men who would be good at governance but who are just too nutty or boring to survive the primaries. So it works both ways.

One thing Massie says that I very much agree with, and felt intuitively, which I will quote in entirety:

there's an argument you can make that the Vice-Presidential candidate needs to be more, not less qualified to be President than the chap at the top of the ticket. Why? Because a VP can only become President in an emergency and so needs to be able to start governing immediately. A President - eg, Clinton - can learn on the job even if this costs capital and credibility; a Veep does not enjoy that luxury. Of course, if Palin were to become President in, say, 2011, that would be one thing, but the potential for her to in the Oval Office next year is quite another. Biden could do the job next year, Palin probably couldn't. That's an unfortunate truth that her boosters just look silly trying to deny

Yes. The reason why most smart people think that the VP should be highly qualified - ironically, even more qualified that the President - is because of this intuitive understanding of the historical role of the VP: to step in when disaster strikes. Moreover, as I explained above, because of the unique opportunity to be able to easily place a person in line for the presidency who has high qualifications but could not otherwise make it through the primary, also depicts the feeling of lost opportunity when it comes to Palin... when Obama had to sneak someone into the White House, it was someone who conceivably could walk in on his own merit. When McCain chose, it was to sneak it some crypto-crazy Christianist hillbilly.

Times: Conservative Ire Pushed McCain From Lieberman

As you recall, just a day or two ago, when I was predicting (as I do) the possible McCain VPs, I - like everyone else - did not even include Palin as a possibility. And while it looks like she will be a creeping disaster, I was most afraid of a Lieberman nomination (mainly because I like him personally and I didn't want him to be the most hated man in America).

So it turns out that my fears were not unfounded. According to the Times (Conservative Ire Pushed McCain From Lieberman):

"For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored."

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-03.

Palin Reaction Roundup

Just some good pieces about Palin from around the net. First, an opinion piece. I usually don't read the Huffpo (it often crashes my browser) but Robert J. Elisberg (who?) sums up a lot of my ideas well: The Worst Vice-Presidential Nominee in U.S. History.

And two news stories:

1. Republican backlash as it emerges John McCain only met his beauty queen running mate once from the (UK) Mail Online
   
2. Palins' child diagnosed with Down syndrome

Backpost finished on 2009-12-03.

Sarah Palin?!

All the news reports are saying McCain's VP pick is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. How does a 44 year old governor of a non-contiguous, and largely frozen, state pass the "commander in chief" threshold that McCain boasts about? Answer: because she's a republican.

She's the perfect GOP woman too: young, pretty, and anti-abortion. She was almost Miss Alaska, and that is how Republicans see women, no?

How is this a winner for McCain? Because he looks edgy? She's pro-life so most women won't flock to her (but it does explain all the weird pro-Hillary commercials McCain has been running). In fact, that must be the strategy: to use the groundwork of animosity and scorched-earth performed by Hillary to win over the largest block of disgruntled Democrats and Independents (PUMA/women). I really can't imagine it will work, but that must be the thought.

And she has no foreign policy experience what-so-ever, which means McCain took away his main line of attack against Obama. So the disgruntled Hillaryites is all he's done. McCain's kept the base happy by keeping it anti-abortion, so whoopie, but they must be in some strange echo-chamber if they think this will help.

To reiterate: McCain has been mocking Obama, and the Democrats, by saying we nominated a vapid pretty-boy who resembles Brittney Spears. And now McCain has actually nominated a young, inexperienced pretty-girl. Whoa.

McCain VP Speculation

I am on record believing it will be SC Senator Lindsey Graham. My brother points out that it's not possible because the man, uh, may be gay. Why say that? Well, he's a never-married in his 50s (and the fact that his name is "Lindsey" and his father's name, according to the Wiki was Florence. No joke.) Anyway, I still believe McCain doesn't care, but he's also a not-so-bright geriatric hothead, so anything can happen.

What worries me is Joe Lieberman. I've claimed that he won't accept the Republican nomination, but, like McCain, he's barely mentally competent nowadays, so I have lost my confidence.

Recent stories suggest that he won't remove himself from contention (see
here from Politico.com: "Rove tried to kill Lieberman VP pick.") It worries me as a pick not because I think it will be a formidable combo - quite the opposite - but because of the residual effects:

1. Lieberman will become the most hated man in America, second only to anyone involved in the current Executive branch: I like the man personally. He's the most prominent Orthodox Jew in America, possibly the world; and to have him a hated/reviled figure is a bad thing for him and a bad thing for all Jews.

2. The Democrats will lose the Senate: If Lieberman becomes the GOP nominee, I assume he'll leave the Democratic caucus and we'll then lose the Senate.

It won't be a good ticket because Lieberman is so hated by Democrats that - if he joins the GOP - he will become the Hillary Clinton type; Democats will flock to destroy him, the traitor. And he's not charismatic or likeable anymore.

Don't do it Joe.

Obama's VP Possibilities

As you may have noticed, I've not been bloggin' much about politics over the past month or two. One reason has been the imminent move and all that entailed. But also it's because the bruising primary was - in my mind - the only real contest. Once Obama trounced Hillary, the election choice is clear. I've lost interest because I've made up my mind (were it Hillary/McCain, I'd be in a quandary wrapped up in an enigma wrapped up in a pickle; I'd still vote Democratic - because of the Supreme Court - but I'd really hate doing it).

Anyway, I will try to give more commentary after the conventions, but the first big deal coming up will be the potential VP pick. I stand by my prediction for McCain - Senator Lindsey "I'm Not A Girl Despite My First Name and General Waifish Demeanor" Graham of South Carolina.

For Obama, the Times reported that there are three clear front runners: Sen. Biden (DE), Sen. Bayh (IN), and Gov. Kaine (VA). My favorite, Gov. Sebelius (KS), is considered less than likely.

I think Biden would be a mistake. While he's a fierce partisan fighter, he's also a gaffe-prone goofball. Nonetheless, it won't be a disaster; he's good on foreign policy; while he's not a veteran, his son (DE's current AG) is and will soon be deployed to Iraq. Bayh is the safest choice possible - he's a bland career/legacy politician from a red state with a good resume. If Obama chooses Bayh, that means he's being as risk averse as possible.

Of the top 3, Kaine is most likely. I'm averse to Kaine (and Bayh) on strategic party grounds - i.e. if either leaves office, they will be replaced by a Republican. This is not such a loss in a state house (who cares about 1 state), but can be a disaster in the Senate where the national stakes are high. Note, Biden and Sebelius would be replaced by Democrats.

Kaine's most likely because - based on what I've read - he's close to Obama and they trust each other. Virgina's an important swing state, and Obama may want to have a governor as #2 so to bolster the executive profile of the ticket (something which also applies to Sebelius). Kaine however is 10 years younger than Sebelius, 50 to her 60, and that may be the clincher. It's stronger to have a 58 year old run in 2016 than a 68 year old (even if it's an actuarially positive female).

In any case, here's an awesome spoof (via Sullivan) of all four candidates from 23/6 News:(WARNING very profane language): If they IM'd: Obama's VP Prospects.

Wes Clark for VP?

There was much blog-praise for this article by Matt Stoller on Open Left entitled and arguing for The Unifying Choice: Wes Clark for VP.

SPOILER ALERT
It's a good article but not as good as this one by Lawrence O’Donnell from NY Magazine; O’Donnell was a West Wing writer and he describes, in West Wing theatrical fashion, what could have happened in the convention were neither candidate were to have reached the necessary number of delegates. It's a great great read and thank God it won't come to pass.
/SPOILER ALERT

Stoller's point has been made by others, and I could be resisting the allure of Clark because a colleague of mine - whom I think is wrong on everything - was advocating Clark while I was advocating Daschle. I just don't want to be wrong to that guy.

Anyway, the reason why I he thinks Clark is necessary is (a) Clark is a full-bore Clintonite and it would heal the wounds of the primary, (b) Clark is a talented and successful wartime general and brings that foreign policy/military credibility to the ticket, (c) Clark has run for president and has that experience.

Ironically I reject Clark for those reasons and a few more: (a) any connection to the Clintons should be seen as poison right now. The only way the Clintons will be mollified is if Obama were killed by a scandal (or, who knows, a bullet). Even having her as VP won't calm them down (and, as someone wrote, if he does pick her as VP he also better hire a food-taster).

(b) Obama actually has all the foreign policy credibility he desires right now - he opposed the Iraq War, McCain loves that war, and the Americans hate the war. All Obama needs for credibility is to have surrogates (Webb, Nunn etc) do the military talking to rebut McCain. Moreover, as many have pointed out, to admit you need a military man on the ticket is to admit you aren't military enough. Look at Bill Clinton in '92 - he had far less foreign policy experience than Obama (he was a governor of a land-locked state and a draft-dodger) and he picked a virtual clone as his VP (who, admittedly, had been in the Senate for 8 years).

(c) Clark's presidential run was a joke. And he has never won an election! OK, he won the 2004 Oklahoma primary, whatever. Stoller argues that since '04, Clark has a highly requested speaker: "In 2006, Jon Soltz of Votevets tells me, Clark was the single most requested surrogate in the country, with the possible exceptions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton." Whatever. While I think he is an impressive person (four star general, Rhodes scholar, military Democrat) I don't think he's been nearly tested enough in politics. Make him Secretary of Defense, or NSA, let him be a politician for a while.

I still back the idea of Sebelius.

Why McCain Doesn't Need a Woman/Black VP

Because if he goes with a standard white male VP he'll totally capture the disgruntled racist vote - which may be substantial. What does he gain by putting a black/woman on the ticket? Cutting into the Democratic base? He has enough trouble getting his own base!

VP, Cabinet Watch, part 2: Cabinet

Part 1, VPs, here.

Like with VP, the cabinet doesn't do as much work as provide famous faces of the party, helping define the political persona of the president. Bill Clinton chose many of his advisers from the campaign, and then had certain 'token' slots: Hillary insisted (so I've read) on a female in the top 4 slots (AG, State, Treasury, Defense) and got AG (and eventually State as well). Blacks and Latins were important, as well as a Republican in Defense. Bush also did this with his cabinet: his AG was a sop to the rabid conservatives, his Defense was to be a signal for realism and experience (cough cough cough), his State was a fine choice despite it being a token point (but also to be a hearkening back to his daddy's days) and treasury also went to a competent old timer (who was quickly fired after he proved too competent). A good cabinet official is a former senator or governor who wants to get back in the game, or a geezer who wants to retire with dignity (cf. Lloyd Bentsen, Clinton's first Treasury Sec.).

My analysis will be about the big names from the campaign supporters. I'll stick with the big four, plus any other notables - especially for the Democrats who are choosing largely from the same pool.

1. Obama:
   
   I've put the most thought into this of all the 3. Here's a list of Obama's top endorsers that I will generally be working with. And, note, for Obama, based on their close relationship and has experience in government, I think former Senate majority leader Daschle can ask and get whatever cabinet position he wants. So that's a wild card. Also, I am going to apply the Purple Rule (i.e. restrict the appointment of any sitting officeholder in a swing state. Another caveat, I don't think Sen. Kennedy (MA) will pull a Bentsen. He's too powerful and useful in the Senate. However, if he can arrange for a proper replacement, maybe he will so he can control both a cabinet spot and Massachusetts.
   
   1. State: Gov. Richardson (NM), if he shows that he can pull in Hispanic voters in November. His resume alone qualifies him for this job and he's perfect as the affable airhead that State has often been.
      
   2. Defense: Former Senator (GA) Sam Nunn. I hope.
      
   3. Attorney General: John Edwards' name was bounced around but he hasn't endorsed and since today's his primary in NC he's lost most of the effectiveness, so I see him (at best) getting HUD, Interior or Labor. The two best of the top people would be either Senator Feingold (WI) (sending a clear civil liberties message), or Sen Kerry (MA). I like Kerry because he was a former AG in Mass, he came out early and strongly for Obama, and it would take him out of the Senate, giving some more deserving people a shot.
      
   4. Treasury: Nobody special right now; could be Fmr Sec Robert Reich; Or even a Bloomberg would be nice. Of the other top endorsers there's Fmr NJ Sen Bradley (general gravitas), or better yet: Fmr Commerce Sec Daley (Chicago machine politician, Commerce Sec under Clinton, CEO of huge corporations).
      
   5. Others: Former Clinton cabinet members are a nice touch, to reassure voters that there's some heft after an 8 year absence from power (like, l'havdil, GWB did with GHWB people): Reich, Daley, Fmr NSA Anthony Lake, Fmr Sec Pena, and a nice group of former military leaders.
   
   
2. Hillary:
   
   Haven't given as much thought (ugh), but here's her endorsers:
   1. Defense: Wes Clark. This is off to an easy start.
      
   2. Treasury: I'm putting Paul Krugman here because he has turned into such a distgusting hack, that this must be his reward.
      
   3. State: Probably Mark Penn. He's so smooth.
      
   4. Attorney General: Webster Hubbell? Jim McDougal? Fmr Sec Cisneros? Or any of these fine fellows. Ooh, howzibout former Solicitor General Starr? He has lotsa experience.
      
   5. Others: Really, since Hillary is promising a 90s Nostalgia Administration, she'll basically choose whatever people are left over from her husband's administration. Basta.
   
   
   
3. John McCain:
   
   Here's a list of his endorsements. This a tougher list to compile because McCain needs to find people who have not been tainted by the second Bush administration or the scandals of the DeLay Congress. It's not only because both entities are electoral poison, it's because they are largely incompetent hacks who won't inspire confidence in what will be a dispirited an angry electorate [given what the landscape must look like for McCain to be victorious]. It's one of the tragedies for the GOP - that usually a decade in power will train a new generation of leaders; as it is, the GOP actively tranished and attacked leaders, training hacks and goobers instead. Bravo Karl Rove.
   1. Attorney General: I'll start here because I think that's where Lieberman will end up. I think after '08 his power in congress will have been eliminated by a massive Democratic pickup (even with a McCain win, just one more Democrat and Joe is moot).
      
   2. Others: Rather than go through the offices like I did with Obama, I'll just list some notables that may end up in power: Schwarzenegger will get something, because McCain owes him *big* for delivering California. Same goes with Crist for delivering Florida. Since those big states were winner-take-all, McCain needs to give payback. Schwarzenegger maybe for State (since he may the only Republican who speaks another language). And, if I'm right about Graham for VP, McCain may also want some prominant also-rans who can build up a real GOP leadership team: Romney could be in there, as well as Jeb Bush.
      

Well, that's all for now. Let's see what happens in Indiana and No Carolina. Go tar heels!

VP, Cabinet Watch, part 1: VP

I've discussed different ideas for VP, especially for Obama (who I most care about) here, here, and here. To recap these issues, for all three candidates, and to expand into a discussion of major cabinet officials.

Vice President:

1. Hillary
   Don't know why I care, but I still think it's going to be Evan Bayh.
   
   
2. Obama:
   I used to believe that he'd need some old white ex-Senator to offset his foreign policy credential problems, but over this long primary I think new pressures have arisen. First, his war-cred has been bolstered by new supporters like Sam Nunn. And since McCain is a warrior, there's no good way to offset that advantage except, possibly, with your own warrior (cue: Clark or Webb), but even then I'm not sure how much that will help. But, bottom line, while '04 was a "war" election, '08 is about the economy. Getting a warrior may be irrelevant; Obama needs managerial help. Ironically Bloomberg would be good for that, but as I've said before, the VP is about votes and perception not actual talent.
   
   In the past few weeks, many have stated that Hillary's polarizing presence is almost forcing that she be put on the ticket. Even Sullivan has floated the idea, but (as I emailed him), this idea is daft and to suggest it means that Hillary has managed to get into your head. It is what she wants right now, but it would add all of her negatives with the only positive coming from her disgruntled supporters and surrogates who, I must reiterate, are die-hard Democrats. The people who support her because they can't vote for a 46 year old, and/or an African American, won't vote for Obama just because Hillary is there. If so, who needs her to offset the young/race biases... anybody and everybody would help.
   
   Moreover, a lot of her support comes from people who want to vote for 4 more years of Bill Clinton. Why else would the guns-and-church crackers, who think that Obama is a crack smoking Muslim terrorist, support the pantsuit posterchild of feminism?! It's because she's married to "the Big Dog" who is a card-carrying member of the Good Ol' Boy Klub. And you won't get 4 years of Bill again unless she's in the #1 slot; because if she's #2, then what more influence does the VP's spouse have over policy than he would if he were on his own? Billy C will be able to advise Obama better as a freelancer (no government oversight if he's just called three times a day) as opposed to being in the executive branch again.
   
   Bottom line, I'm sticking with my analysis from here - the only bloc that will leave the party if Hillary ain't on the ticket are the over-50s women. And they can be mollified with a woman VP. I'm sticking with Sebelius or Napolitano.
   
   
3. McCain
   I haven't thought about this as much recently. I thought he'd need a die-hard conservative, but that looks less likely. It does depend on who is the Democrat. I used to think Brownback; recently people have floated as the top 2: Pawlenty (Gov. MN) or Crist (Gov. FL). Some even have suggested Sec. of State Rice. However knowing McCain as well I do (we shot skeet back in the 1960s), and reading a bunch of articles, I think these things are clear: McCain is a military man through-and-through; he will want a veteran and a strong national-security ticket. This rules out anybody who doesn't have decent war experience. Christ and Pawlenty aren't veterans. And Rice? While it's great for pundits and predictors, I think it's D.O.A. Because for all of McCain's lack of general knowledge, I think he's smart enough to know that Rice is a total Bush-toady and incompetent. Anybody from the Bush cabinet will be poison in '08 (doing to McCain what Hillary would do to Obama) and Rice is one of the worst: responsible for both 9/11 and Iraq. Yipe.
   
   To my eyes the favorite for VP would be McCain's senate foxhole buddy Lindsey Graham (Sen. SC). The two are connected at the hip; both are "mavericks" in the GOP (meaning they are all bluster, no action) and I think McCain's going to go for comfort over electoral math. Graham is 53, a veteran, as true-red conservative as McCain (which is considerable, in the old sense). I'd put money on this.
   
   
4. If I'm wrong, and I will likely be wrong, I think the two tickets should at least be Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain-Jeb Bush, just to drive the anti-legacy corps crazy!

Part 2 will discuss the cabinet.

Women Veeps

Background: Back on Jan 9th, I was giving my ideas for Obama's possible VP, and said that he may have enough political capital to select a woman instead of a wrinkly white male. Since then, 3 months, I now think it would make even more sense to choose a woman; because the horse-race has gone on so long, and Hillary's supporters - many of them as stupid and deranged as W's pod-people - have gotten so cognitive dissonanty that they may stay home in November if Obama gets the nomination in a fashion that doesn't give proper obeisance to the altar of Her Highness Hillary I.

Hillary's support comes from four distinct groups:

1. Women over 30
   
2. Anyone over 50 (each year older increases the ardor for Hillary based on the hatred of a president being younger)
   
3. Low information voters who go on name recognition alone (and who vaguely remember that Clinton=Good President)
   
4. Racists (who also presume that they're actually voting for a third term of Bill)

Group 2, the old people, will split depending on how loyal they are to the party; many old people only feel comfortable with other old people. And McCain is the AARP poster child (especially now that Charlton Heston [Rabbeinu] has died). Group 3 will vote for whichever Democrat is on the ticket, unless the negative campaigning from Hillary, and soon the GOP, will convince them to enter into category 4 (e.g. that Obama is a coke-selling Muslim who hates America).

This leaves us with group 1, the women. Many women - and I've talked to a bunch - are voting for her out of the same, laudable, blind-loyalty that I expect yellow dog Democrats to have. The same loyalty that drives people to vote for whomever the Jew on the ticket is, even when the guy's a scumbag (exhibit a: Spitzer). These crazy women will be hopping mad if Hillary is 'forced' to concede the election. Because, as I've heard and read many times, it's just like the male phallus-oppressors to demand women to take second place to a man.

Setting aside the fact that Hillary has as much to do with honest feminism as Betty Crocker, when you have someone like Chris Dodd asking her to drop out - a guy who ran against her, who has more experience in public office than her, yet who already dropped out - then it's not about man/woman. But the Valkyries won't see that logic. Just as bullet-headed W supporters think that he'll be vindicated by history (much as James Buchanan and Warren Harding have), so type-1 Hillary supporters consider every slight to be one of gender.

And, yes, I do claim that there are those who are against Obama because they are racists. My claim is not the same thing as the Hillary claim. Why? Because I'm applying it to only a segment of his opposition, not the totality. And because I am not an idiot.

Anyway, the Valkyries can be mollified if Obama chooses a viable female VP. No mouth-breathing non-entities from useless states (paging Representative Ferraro). Obama would need a competent purple/red state Senator/Governor; preferably one who can run in '16. And since women live way longer than men, I think he can skew older than I suspect he could with male candidates.

OK, enough background. Now to the original post, back from Jan 9:

The Analysis:
For my list of current and former office holders, I'm using this Rutgers site, and any relevant Wiki sites (there's nothing comprehensive... maybe I'll make it). Also, I went through a list of women a few weeks ago, which I will reproduce as well. Following is their name, state, year first elected into office, and age.

Governors

1. Christine Gregoire (Washington, 2004, 61)
   
2. Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas, 2002, 60)
   
3. Janet Napolitano (Arizona, 2002, 51)
   
4. Ruth Ann Minner (Delaware, 2001, 73)
   
5. Jennifer Granholm (Michigan, 2002, 49)

Former Governors

1. Kathleen Blanco (Lousiana, 2004-2007, 66)
   
2. Jeanne Shaheen (New Hamp, 1997-2003, 61)

Senators

1. Barbara Boxer of California
   
2. Dianne Feinstein (California)
   
3. Amy Klobuchar Minnesota
   
4. Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas 1998, 48)
   
5. Claire McCaskill Missouri
   
6. Barbara Mikulski Maryland
   
7. Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House

Quick Analysis -

• Sebelius - in House from 86-94, Chair of Democratic Governors Association. Moderate but pro-choice, anti-death penalty.
  
• Napolitano - named one of the 5 best governors; US Atty for AZ under Clinton, former chair of Gov. Assoc.
  
• Gregoire - Atty Gen. of Wash from 1993-2005
  
• Blanco - In disgrace after Katrina mismanagement.
  
• Granholm - not a U.S. citizen (she's Canadaian)
  
• Minner - too old (73)
  
• Shaheen - pal of Hillary, will run for Senator of NH (which is more important for the party)

Now back to 4-7-08
I have a soft-spot for Blanche Lincoln. She's young, so she can run in '16, she Southern, and she has the great last name. If Obama really wants to channel the Abraham Lincoln vibe, what better way than to actually have one on the ticket. Yeah, Blanche has (after 1/9/08) endorsed Hillary, but whoop-de-doo. However, to get the older group, I think Napolitano or Sebelius. Napolitano is term limited so she'd be a good shot - and she can maybe embarrass the GOP by taking McCain's home state into the Democrats. Sebelius is also term limited and has a more strategic region/state (even if the Democrats can't win KS, we can maybe get a lot of the Midwest with two of them on the ticket).

Because of the regionalism - and her experience in the House as well as governor - I think Sebelius is the best pick for Obama.

Finished 4/7/08 11:48 PM, began January 9th, 2008. Honest.

Obama Veep, part 2

To fill out more of the analysis from before, I suggested these names: Chris Dodd, Evan Bayh, Chuck Robb, Bill Bradley, Lincoln Chafee.

Two more issues. 1. It depends if Obama needs to tack left or jog right. If left, then he will choose (the likes of) Dodd or Bradley. If right then Bayh, Robb, Chafee, Breaux, etc. And if he wants the best ticket of all, he should choose Dale Bumpers. Who could resist "Obama-Bumpers '08!"

2. If Obama gets enough political capital, then he may not need to choose a white-male, he could choose a white-female. I wrote notes for that idea before the NH primary results, and it was based on a Obama victory (i.e. his capital being high). Now I want him to do it just to stick it to Hillary. Grrr.

I'll find a list of possible women soon.

Obama's Veepstakes

Note, see part 1 for the other dudes.

Here we go. Obama is going to need someone who will balance his shortcomings, so he'll need a white male with a lot of DC government experience. Which means old white senators only. Which rules out Edwards. Hillary is also out (wrong gender, no actual experience, and she will melt when exposed to water or sunlight). However Dodd or Biden would fit the bill.

I think Biden is a poor choice because he's a dingbat. With a loose tongue. He'll become a quick liability (but he could carry Delaware! Wooo!). Dodd would be a smart choice - old-school white-as-hell long-time-Senator. The biggest liability would be that Dodd's state (mine) has a Republican governor and if he wins then that will hurt the delicate Senate ratio. One solution would be for Dodd to make his allegiance early, say he's resigning from the Senate, and then allow for Democrat to run in CT in '08.

Outside of the current candidates (and Dodd's the only one viable), the next question is: does Obama care if the VP is someone who had already endorsed Hillary? Almost all of the old guard has done so already. Will those dudes mind (I think not, because they probably signed up with her because they feared what would be her iron grip on their gonads that would come with her Inevitable Victory... they cheered on the insect overlords and may not have their hearts into it; and Obama seems to have the talent of turning enemies into friends, so maybe they'll go along with that).

So, if Obama can accept people who have endorsed Hillary, then Bayh would be a good guy. Maybe Vilsack, if Hillary hasn't already eaten his heart with fava beans and a nice chianti. Bob Kerrey was always in the back of my mind as a tough customer (Medal of Honor Navy SEAL), but his recent Obama smear tarred him as (1) a schmuck, (2) unfriendly to Obama, and (3) a fruit-loop.

Casting a wider net, I had thought someone like Sam Nunn would be good. But Nunn has established that he wants to be in the weirdo Bloomburgian third-party (the Everyone Else is Partisan But Not Us Because We're Otherwise Out of A Job Party) and only as the Presidential slot. So up his.

Someone suggested Bob Graham - former Governor and Senator from Florida. That sounds ideal - swing state, old time white guy - except that he was born in 1936 (72 years old?!) and that's just too old.

But swing state former Senators is a good start. What about Chuck Robb? Even though I'd have liked to see, on purely poetic grounds, a Dodd-Robb ticket, Robb is a former governor and Senator from Virginia who lost to George Allen in 2000. He'd be a great choice.

If Obama wants all of the above issues (white, senator etc) and also more moderate support, then maybe people from the Democratic Leadership Council, or the New Democrat Coalition, or my beloved Blue Dogs. True, there's almost complete overlap in the three groups, but that's fine for this.

The DLC (which brought us Bill Cliton, Al Gore, and Joe Lieberman - all winners in their elections), had Vilsack, Bayh, Nunn, and Robb (above) as leaders. Another DLC and NDC leader is John Breaux - a popular former Senator from Louisiana. I like Robb better.

Before I decide on Robb (and then send that suggestion to the bloggers I read), I'll check this handy list of currently alive former Democratic senators, which is divided up by state and gives the ages, how nice. I will see who is under 70:

• Whoa, Dale Bumpers is still alive! OK, not him, but kol ha-kavod to his doctors.
  
• There's Max Cleland (D-GA), but I met him in person and I wasn't so impressed. And he had only one term, not so good for the 'DC experience'
  
• Wyche Fowler (D-GA) - Rep. for 10 years, Senator for 1 term, then Clinton's ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Eh.
  
• Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL). Just kidding.
  
• Bill Bradley (D-NJ) - Now that's interesting. Born in '43. Hmm
  
• David Boren (D-OK) - Oklahoma, another Governor-Senator deal. I just don't believe a Democrat can win over a deep-red state no matter who the running mate is. The best VP picks, I believe, will be popular swing state guys.
  
• Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) - yeah, I know I said Democrats, but Chafee was pretty liberal, has recently changed his party affiliation to Independent, and that could really help a bipartisan push. And if Obama really wants to channel the Abraham Lincoln vibe, what a better way to remind people?
  
• Tom Daschle (D-SD) - see Braun above.
  
• Al Gore (D-TN) - ahem. Too bad. Did ya know, he's not even 60 yet?!

And that's it. Well, from my list above, the best choices would be:

1. Chris Dodd (current Senator, CT)
   
2. Evan Bayh (current Senator, IN)
   
3. Chuck Robb (former Senator, VA)
   
4. Bill Bradley (former Senator, NJ)
   
5. Lincoln Chafee (former Senator, RI)

That's it for now. I will send my list to appropriate time-wasters.

GOP: It now looks like Romney

While there may be no real GOP front-runner, it's becoming more of Romney's game now. Giuliani, while a strong candidate because of his 9-11 halo, has some insane skeletons in his closet. The most recent is Shag-Gate (TPM has done great work on this) wherein Rudy spent millions of my tax money to have the police walk his then mistress' dog. While this is run-of-the-mill New York City graft, that doesn't play well outside the cynical world of Nu-yawk. The scandals (and there are now quite a lot) plus his disastrous personal life (which echo each other) plus his liberal policies on abortion, guns, immigrants and Da Gays, may be enough to sink Giuliani for good.

And on Tuesday Romney got a crucial endorsement by National Review. That endorsement, plus his successful speech the other night defending his right to be a religious whackjob, has established him as the candidate of the GOP establishment. Combine that with his money, and with his movie-star looks and persona, and I think he's the guy. Unless he makes some spectacular gaffe, his money and acceptance by the GOP machine politics should get him the nomination.

While I don't discount Huckabee's success in Iowa is impressive, Huck doesn't have the money, the support of local GOP machine politicians, the policy-knowledge, or the staff to make it much farther. Being a media darling is great, being a populist is great, but it's hard to defeat the candidate of The Money and The Machine (note, this is why I still haven't ruled out Hillary... but, like above, her current wounds are all self-inflicted and gaffes can kill anybody).

If it is Romney, then I am worried about who his Veep pick would be. TNR has said a few times now that the rest of the candidtaes hate him and won't work with him. Will that matter if he offers them the VP slot?

I believe Romney will choose a rock-ribbed conservative as his running mate; I believe it will be Rick Santorum. By doing that, even when Romney flops over to the center-left in general election (which he is guaranteed to do), he can thus pander his true centist bona-fides while winking at the cultural conservatives with Santorum.

Silvestre Reyes in 2002

Found on TNR's The Plank: Silvestre Reyes during the October 2002 debate over Iraq:

Every one of us understands that we are a nation of laws, that we lead the world by example, that we have a great respect for process and to protect the rights of everyone. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly today rise in opposition against this resolution, because I think that the president has not made a case as to why Iraq and why attack Saddam Hussein. As a member of the Intelligence Committee I have asked consistently the questions to those that have come before us with information, I've said -- I've asked the question of what is the connection between 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam Hussein? None. What is the connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda? Very little, if any.

There were smart guys back then. Reyes is one person I've suggested to be a VP for Obama - Representative from Texas, Hispanic, decorated veteran, head of the House Intelligence Committee.

Backpost finished 4/10/08, 11:50 PM. Had just the link and the full quote. It speaks for itself.