There have been some GREAT entries. I appreciate all of the enthusiasm. Keep those comments coming. Deadline for entry is midnight tomorrow night.
See Update Below –
You only need to supply 2 answers to these 2 questions. There is no bridge of death. You can enter as many times as you want.
If Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination who would be her best running mate and why? Part 2 – If Barack Obama wins the nomination who would his best running mate and why?
Please post your thoughts in the comment section. If I pick your comment as the winner, you will receive a $100 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If I pick your comment as second place you will receive a $50 gift certificate. If you are third place, I’ll mention you in a post. What do you want, I’m shelling out of my own pocket? 😉
I will admit that my choice will be subjective. None of my long time (more that an hour or so) friends can enter. If you won my last contest, you will need to wait for 6 months before re-entering a Where’s the Outrage? contest. Entries will be closed on February 15, 2008 @ midnight (EST). Winners will be announced by February 18, 2008.
Update: There have been some GREAT answers to this question. There are a couple of things that I would mention. Usually, a running mate is chosen because he or she can carry a very important state. He or she balances the ticket. Keep those comments coming.
Update II: Comments are closed. I’ll announce the winners no later than Monday, February 18th. Thanks to everyone who commented. I really appreciate it. Quickly reviewing the comments, most were very thoughtful. Some were funny. Some were out in left field. No one suggested that Hillary Clinton chose David Schuster or Chris Matthews. I appreciate you holding those back. No one suggested Bill O’Reilly for Barack Obama. I look forward to announcing the winners soon.
Senator Christopher Dodd would be the best running mate for Obama. It would create a balanced ticket. The best running mate for Hillary is Obama.
I know I will not win anything but I have to agree with David. Christopher Dodd would add experience and gravitas to the ticket. Wesley Clark would be another great choice.
Obama as Hillary’s running mate would unite the party and energize people.
Chris –
You never know. The last winner almost fainted. He said that he had never won anything and that money was tight.
You never know.
Thanks for your comment.
Enjoy my blog.
Russ Feingold for both, that way there will be at least one liberal on the ticket.
I don’t think Hillary or Barack wants to be either persons VP.It would be disastrous for Obama either way.Team Clinton would make it very difficult for him every step of the way.Neither team Clinton nor Obama could survive a bad presidential term with either of them at the helm. John Edwards would be a good VP for either of them. He’s likeable, respected, and easy to work with…he’s got VP written all over him. He’s also hoping to be the VP. If someone is a breakaway winner Super Tuesday, expect Edwards to give his endorsement to that person.
For Obama- Jim Webb. He is a self styled redneck, decorated hero with a son in Iraq, former Secy of the Navy, pugnacious as hell and he has made his living as a writer. He fills in all Obama’s gaps (excspt for the writing. Obams’s second book has now been on the best seller list for 47 weeks)
Bill Richardson for either obama or CLinton would help win the west, plus increase credibility for Obama in foreign policy and international relations. Plus, richardson is such an unreformed, unabashed politico, it would help to offset Obama’s perceived naiveté in the political world.
Hillary should pick Rush Limbaugh because he wouldn’t turn it down, and it would get him off the air during the campaign and after they won. It’s probably the only thing that would shut him up — and he hates McCain.
Obama should pick Angelina Jolie. She’s got the foreign diplomacy experience he lacks, she’s as anti-war as he is, just as articulate, and they’d be such a gorgeous ticket. Who could resist?
If Hillary wins I think Barak Obama would be the best VP candidate simply because he can bring in mor votes for the ticket as a whole. I also like him and think he is thoughtful mostly trustworthy person.
If Sen. Obama wins, I think Sen. Jim Webb from Virginia would be a good running mate to counter McCain “I’m-the-only-military-guy-who-can-defend-you” crapola.
I second (third?) Jim Webb for Obama. He’s pretty populist economically, and has the security and military cred, and has advocated strongly for regional diplomacy in Iraq, so he fits Obama’s policies perfectly. He also puts VA in play. Since McCain will probably pick Crist and give up FL, we definitely need to pick off a few purple states.
Edwards… for both. Both clinton and obama need Edwards to give them legitimacy within the Democratic voting base. He would be able to articulate the need for Universal health care, something that obama has, up to now, eschewed. With clinton he can assure the voters that clinton will “go after” the bush extremes. Without Edwards neither candidate will have any legitimacy.
for Clinton: Obama
for Obama: Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia
Here’s my try at winning that gift card.
Barack’s best running mate = Wesley Clark:
1) He gives his ticket the foreign policy experience to counter McCain’s War On Terror rhetoric he is sure to emphasize
2) He’s not a senator so doesn’t have a record to be easily distorted
3) Not a career politician, he re-inforces Obama’s status as an outsider candidate
4) Gives fence-sitters uneasy with an untraditional (read: not a white male) candidate some comfort
5) Helps with the Southern and Midwestern vote which is crucial to the Democrats’ chances of winning
Hillary’s best running mate = Bill Richardson:
1) He reinforces Hillary’s message of going back to the success of the Clinton era
2) He’s not a senator so he doesn’t have a record to be easily distorted
3) He reinforces Hillary’s “experience” message
4) Gives fence-sitters uneasy with an untraditional (read: female) candidate some comfort
5) Helps her with the Western and Latino votes which could be crucial to her chances
Or, they could try to get a top tier Democrat from either Ohio or Florida on the ticket, to ensure that they carry one of those two crucial states. Florida’s got a Dem Senator in Bill Nelson, and Ohio now has one, too, in Sherrod Brown, as well as their newly-minted Democratic Governor in Ted Strickland. Both of the Ohioans, however, ascended to their current office in 2006, so they wouldn’t play well with Barack if he wants to balance his ticket with more experience, and picking Nelson would put two Senators on the ticket which isn’t necessarily a winning combo (see: 2004 election results).
Strickland might work for Hillary, on the other hand, despite his lack of tenure in his current position. But he was a longtime Congressman, so he would have a record to defend, although his district leans Republican, so he does have cross-over appeal. I think, for Hillary, she would be served equally well by either Strickland or Richardson on the ticket.
Obama would be better served by Clark, possibly Richardson, or some other non-legislator with more experience than himself. Successful Dem governors of Red States would probably be his best bet, such as Phil Bredesen of TN, Brad Henry of OK, Mike Easley of NC, or Brian Schweitzer of MT.
Obama:
Al Gore
yes, that guy. Times have changed. Although polarizing to some, he is wildly popular anywhere else, and remember, he carried the popular vote in 2000. Although he’s thrown his passion in climate change, he is quite experienced, clean, knows Beltway games, worldly connected, is from the South, hates the Clintons.
Bill RIchardson
Old political hand, UN/diplomacy experience that will translate Obama’s vision thing well.
—
H. Clinton
Bill Richardson
For reasons cited above, plus he has experience with the Clintons
John Edwards
He may not like her, but he can bide his time until his due. Unlikely, but more likely to say yes than Gore. Edwards is popular, help carry the South, clean.
Mike Easley, NC Governor
Started his career young, popular as far as re-election, Southern, and he’s an NC native son!
If Hillary is the nominee, Chris Dodd would be the best VP candidate. The democratic base doesn’t trust Hillary, they see her as too corporate, triangulating, and associate her with her husband’s betrayals of liberal values (NAFTA, Communications act, welfare reform, etc.). Chris Dodd, with his open defense of the rule of law re: FISA, would reassure the base, and as a mature white male would balance the “female” factor.
Barack Obama’s “weaknesses”, on the other hand, are his lack of experience, especially in foreign policy. Bill Richardson would be an ideal VP candidate for his ticket. Richardson has great credentials in foreign relations, alternative energy legislation, and as a governor, budgets, etc. He also helps bring in the Hispanic and Western vote which could be very valuable.
RE: my choice of Gore above:
would like to add: The country has spoken, and demanding change with more centrist sensibilities of late. That is why we have McCain, who gets the green thing, and Dems’ early recognition of energy independence/greening connection.
The hostility with Gore has died down some, with extremists more marginalized.
One more reason: Gore is a political animal, and surely wants to return to politics.
Edwards for both. He’ll be a fine president later on.
For Hillary……Bayh of Indiana or Strickland of Ohio.
For Barack…….Dodd of Connecticut or Bayh of Indiana
Bob –
Bayh. Great choice. Many progressives wanted him to run for president. He had the smarts but didn’t have any name recognition.
Alan –
Edwards? Doesn’t anyone think that John Edwards would play second fiddle? Especially after being on Kerry’s ticket? I don’t know. I know that I like Edwards. He is a true progressive. I’m sorry that his campaign didn’t get more traction.
Others –
Several people have mentioned Wes Clark. Interesting choice. Jim Webb. very strong choice. Al Gore, I think that’s a pipe dream. I don’t think that Al has any desire to be VP again. Bill Richardson has been mentioned along with Mike Easley.
Keep those great ideas coming!
ecthompson:
I maintain Richardson would be better than Edwards, for purely political reasons, for either candidate. I wanted Edwards to stay in the race, and he would have done well here in CO. But I think Obama picking RIchardson gives him that foreign-policy and expertise angle (and helps with the west) and for Clinton he brings back the feeling of the “good old days”.
Frankly, I would have preferred an Edwards/Kucinich ticket 🙂
[…] forget to check out my contest and weigh in on who you think would be the best […]
Obama should pick Jim Webb of VA. He has the right foreign policy and military chops to kick McCain in the teeth. I would love an Obama / Webb ticket.
For Hillary, Brian Schweitzer, the current Governor of Montana: he’s an executive, he’s from a mountain state but has international experience, and he’s a liberal who can win in a “red” state. Plus, he was a winner in ’04, one of the few bright spots when the GOP still had a lock on national elections. His victory was an inspiration for ’06. More on Schweitzer,
http://governor.mt.gov/governor/govbio.asp
(Possibly she could give the nod to Wes Clark, but he has zero Congressional experience and it could be seen as little more than a payoff for longtime loyalty. Dodd is no good because he holds the same office and in a neighboring state.)
For Obama, Joe Lieberman: this hawkish end-run around the Clinton machine would scoop Joe back in to the Democratic Party (where he rightly belongs), it would give Obama pro-military, willing-to-employ street-cred any C-in-C has to have (right now he has zero), and Joe is better seasoned than even Wes Clark for the campaign (having run for both pres and veep). Someone just said Jim Webb; Joe Lieberman, while admittedly less likely to get the nod, is even better.
Jeremiah –
Wins the award for the boldest move. Lieberman!!?!?!? I love it! That would clearly be the definition of inclusive!
Wesley Clark is very close with the Clintons and was widely seen as the “stalking horse” candidate for the the Clintons in 2004. He doesn’t represent the change Obama is looking for. For Obama a good choice would be Kathleen Sebelius, a Kansas governor in a Red State. Senator Clinton might plump for Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, because he could bring in the Ohio vote.
VP if hillary wins….probably Obama
VP when Obama wins…Gov Sebelius of Kansas
Joe Biden, DE #1
Bill Richardson, NM #2 choice
both I would be happy as vp for Obama…
I dont even want to think about the other option…
Scott…
If you need an explanation on the above for the contest it is b/c of the knowledge and diplomatic abilities of each individual. They both would ballance Obama and if Richardson is chosen it would help with the latino vote (I suspect)
Disadvantage of Biden is his being in the Senate but he has been about a strong military and strong foriegn policy Pluses for the right leaning D’s.
Richardson is a govenor and out of the “DC” radar. Also a draw for the right leaning D’s
I like Biden as I am origionally from DE where the people vote not soley on R v D but on the individual(Think Roth as in Roth IRA and Biden) both long term with wide state support.
VP’s?
Tough call…
But from the top of my head… the leading candidates for the Dems would have to be (in no particular order):
*Evan Bayh
*Tom Vilsack
*John Edwards
*Mark Warner
*Bill Richardson
*Joe Biden
*Russell “Russ” Feingold
*Wesley Clark
*Christopher Dodd
*Tim Kaine
*John Kerry
Governor Strickland of OH would be the best running mate for either Clinton or Obama because he’s widely popular in OH, he’s a baptist minister which will be huge for the christian right, especially against McCain and because we all know the importance of winning Ohio in the general election. If you guys want to win he’ll be the best VP for that.
for the GOP I’d say McCain needs a staunch republican. someone who will rally the base and who is trusted by the base. Rick Santorum can win McCain the south and rally the GOP base to actually get out and vote and they trust Santorum w/ his stance on judges and on social issues. I think promising tax cuts will be enough in terms of substance (or lack of it depending on your point of view) for economic policy.
WOW…
Well, lets says Hillary is placed, I mean, ends up going all the way…..she would have to pick Obama.
Obama has Oprah, which I havent heard much of lately, and he automatically has the black “vote”, and with Oprah, she brings in the woman “vote”…
Honestly, this speculation being made is going no-where, who ever will be in office, will keep the tradition of lying to the public going…
nothing will change….so lets just see what happens next…
K –
Let’s hope that no matter what happens the lying to the public stops. I think that’s the minimum that the American people expect.
A number of people have mentioned Wes Clark and Jim Webb as Obama VPs. I don’t think that either are likely: Wesley Clark has thrown his lot in with the Clintons, and while he does fulfill the foreign policy aspect of Obama’s weaknesses, he’s not a politician, and he’s not well known. I don’t think that’s a great choice. Jim Webb also has the foreign policy cred, but I don’t think he’s an experienced enough politician to be chosen for VP. It’s possible that in the GE Obama will want to run as an outsider (for instance, if against McCain) but I don’t see that as a VP priority right now.
Steve Crickmore:For Obama … Kathleen Sebelius…
Senator Clinton …Governor Ted Strickland …
They both sound pretty logical to me. I think Sebelius would be a great selection to really energise the GE electorate about the diversity of the ticket, and she’s apparently a great politician. My pick (for contest purposes) is Napolitano. I think she offers political experience (or the appearance of it), and she’s a southwesterner.
For Clinton I think Sebelius would be a great choice, as she needs somebody clean, fresh on the scene and midwestern. Similarly, I think that Janet Napolitano would be good. However, they would never choose a woman as her VP– Chris Matthews and the sexist chattering class wouldn’t allow it. Strickland sound pretty good for Clinton.
Vote Obama Webb = VOW!; both lawyers, junior senators, and writers they will have a lot common ground = but Webb as a military man who was against the Iraq war is the best counter to McCain; need Richardson as Sec State to round out foreign policy team – since he won’t take Hillary then he can’t take another women w/o offending Clintons; Webb as a new senator fits Obama’s change message; not a Washington inside -Webb served w/ Reagan but quit!
[…] Errington Thompson is holding a blog-comment contest to pick the best running mates for Obama and Clinton, respectively. « It’s Just Like The BCS […]
Things have changed. Here’s another stab at the contest:
Obama
Edwards – same reasons cited in my previous entry, although I am disappointed he didn’t endorse Obama as soon as he withdrew.
Bill Richardson – popular, foreign policy experience, “outsider” status (outside the Beltway), help carry Hispanic vote
H. Clinton
Needs someone VERY popular and male to balance perception of her image:
–Edwards (but I don’t think he will do it)
–Colin Powell (ready to cross the aisle and endorse independent /Dem/ or another moderate.
Hillary: I think her best running mate would be Wes Clark, to cover the military bases against McCain. He got us out of one mess in Bosnia, he can get us out of another mess in Iraq (that’s what the ads will say, not necessarily what I think will happen). He is used to working with both Clintons, so the comfort level is there. She doesn’t need him to be political; that’s her expertise. Plus they go back a long ways, to Arkansas. I do not think she and Obama would make a good team: I don’t think she’d ever pick him, and I don’t think he’d ever take it.
Obama: For some reason Jim Webb has still not endorsed him, even though VA gov. Tim Kaine has (early and often). They look good together on paper, but Webb is not a good campaigner. Although perhaps all Webb would have to do is appear in the commercials. I’m going with my heart on this one: I think Obama will pick Tim Kaine. They work great together, Kaine knows how to bring Rs and Ds together to get things done, and is enthusiastic about Obama, a great campaigner, and fluent in Spanish (to help outreach with Latinos). Plus Kaine is Catholic. Regardless of whom he picks as VP, Obama is going to carry VA. The trend lines are all in his favor.
I can’t imagine why anyone, but especially Obama, would willingly be “Deputy” vice president to VP Bill Clinton. So, while Obama might be a good choice – right brain to her left brain – it’s never gonna happen.
Wesley Clark would be an excellent VP choice for anybody, even though he is closely aligned with the Clintons. Especially good for Obama, who’s got the brains but lacks the actual foreign policy resume.
Whoever is chosen, becomes the presumptive successor. I vote for John Edwards for either Clinton or Obama. Plus, he is completely veted. We do not need a VP candidate who might become an issue/embarrassment.
Obama- Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine
Clinton- Wes Clark
McCain will chose Gov. Crist of Florida to win that state. Crist is following McCain around the country and is standing behind him in most of the photo’s I see on the news. For that reason, Obama will need to ensure he wins Virginia, so Jim Webb would be the choice. Clinton will need to get Obama on her ticket or she will not be able to win the GE. Obama supporters would stay home in November without him on the ticket.
Jim Webb’s a brilliant choice for Obama: and notice how often he was mentioned by BHO when he spoke in Virginia. I bet he’s thinking of it.
I think Edwards is holding out for Attorney General, so he can be the trustbuster of the 21st century….
For Obama, Jim Webb, for a lot of reasons that other commenters have already listed. He’s anti-war yet brings military creditials to the ticket. He’s also well suited for the usual attack dog role of the VP candidate leaving Obama plenty of room to be Mr. Sunshine versus McCain’s pro-military tough guy persona. Virginia’s ready to turn blue and Webb would definately help.
For Clinton, I think Bill Richardson. It puts a westerer on the ticket and the west is ripe for Dem pickups. It also shores up the hispanic vote. But I have to admit I think he’d be a lousy attack dog, but there’s always Bill Clinton to fill that role. Not that that’s worked out so well during the primaries.
Obama Warner 2008! Mark Warner should have run for president, that’s why.
MKE –
I love that. The because I said so reasoning. 🙂
Right, do I have to narrow it down to one each? Ah well, okay, here we go.
Hillary Clinton I’ve not spent much time considering mainly because I’m seriously hoping she doesn’t win the nomination. Now I know Wesley Clark is supposedly on the short list, but that seems like a heavy non-starter to me, Wes Clark isn’t a rising star, politically, he’s an also ran with a military background.
I would like Biden, but there’s no regional advantages to be had there. Still, I would say that he should be at the top of the list for a single reason. After spending much of the primaries touting experience, when Hillary Clinton steps up to the plate against someone who really does have decades of experience to show, she may need someone in her corner to combat that. So Joe stays on the shortlist.
I read above someone said Richardson should be the pick. I couldn’t disagree more. He’s got lots of experience, but he’s proven to be a clumsy politician at best, and definitely not disciplined enough nor politically talented enough to be anything beyond a drag on the ticket. Dodd gets similar treatment here as well.
Dodd’s not clumsy, but as much as I thank my stars we got someone as dedicated to the constitution in the Senate, he’s simply just not the kinda guy you want as a running mate. If you could pull a bait and switch and sneak him in as the Veep, yeah, let’s do that, but otherwise, if you put him on the ticket, it’s not going to end well.
So, so far, we only got Joe, a party elder to run in case Hillary wants to go toe to toe with McCain on experience. If she wants to shoot in the other direction, there’s only one choice.
I’m going to pick Barack Obama, but not because he’s my horse in this race. I’m picking him because I’ve heard more than once that Hillary’s not going to be able to win without him, and I think that’s about right. The big deal here is the youth vote, and really just the overall energy of the vote completely. Obama’s proven that he can get the youth vote out unlike any other politician we’ve seen in decades, he draws the biggest crowds, and with Obama at her side, Hillary can switch from an experience argument to a change argument which I think would be more effective with McCain.
So, and since you said enter as often as you like and I’m not interested in writing multiple posts, I’m going to lump them all together. With Hillary I think if you want to work the experience angle (which I think would be silly for her), you pick Biden who’s got the fire and the bona fides to pull it off. If you want the change angle (smarter), go with Obama who’s going to bring massive amounts of voters and energy and organization with him.
If Obama wins, I can think of about three I would want on my shortlist, and I would have a preference.
1) Kathleen Sebelius. Three words, Kansas Turns Blue. Seriously. Apparently Obama is looked upon as a favorite son in Kansas thanks to his grandparents, and Sebelius is a rising star in the party who manages to win in deep red country.
2) Jim Webb, and I saw someone else put him up and they pretty much have it right. Military creds, anti war, great performance in the Senate, and he hails from Virginia which is a red state (though I would have to say purple now), and a Southern state. He would make an excellent attack dog, and he could neautralize much of McCain’s military creds with the exception of the POW stuff.
3) My third choice is probably the weakest one on paper, but my preferred for a simple reason. Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia. Like Webb, we got a popular Democratic governor of a red Southern state who, like Kathleen, is also a rising star in the party. Plus, as we say in the Potomac primary, he has more than enough organization in Virginia to not only make it purple, but guarantee it turns blue.
But here’s the game maker here. I’ve seen Kaine and Obama work together twice now. Once in 05 when Obama campaigned for Kaine when he was running for Governor, and just a week ago when Kaine and Obama packed the Va Beach Convention Center with 18000 people.
You can just tell they work on the same page. They have very similar political philosophies and styles, and where they may differ is exactly to Kaine’s advantage in being the VP pick. When Kaine ran against Kilgore in 2005, he did what Kerry failed to do. Every attack ad that Kilgore or a 527 ran, Kaine had a comeback. I mean, I kid you not, in the same commercial break, you would get an anti-Kaine ad, and then the Kaine rebuttal.
But he never got into the negative himself. He never once flung a speck of mud, and that’s where Kaine and Obama are really alike. Kaine’s got Obama’s positive campaigning thing down, he just puts a harder edge to it to prevent any kind of attack from sticking.
In this way, Kaine would be the perfect attack dog VP slot for the kind of campaign Obama would run. He would never actually attack, but you wouldn’t see a single attack stick on Obama thanks to him.
Finally, he’s got the oratory skills to do the job of running mate. Obama’s good, probably one of the best of our generation, but Kaine can hang with him, and that alone is an impressive attribute.
Now, I know some may say Hillary should be on the list, but let’s be honest, neither candidate is on each other’s shortlist. The only way they would end up as running mates is if Howard Dean really does step in and broker a deal this spring. Barring that, Obama doesn’t need Hillary.
Anyway, that’s about the end of that.
Thanks.