CNN is reporting that McCain plans to take a few months to reduce his 20-ish name veep list to the finalists. Of course, they also say he wants to have it decided on by the start of the Republican convention. Well, duh!
U.S. News & World Report is running a story that former Ohio Rep. Rob Portman is moving up the GOP veep list. It's being suggested that Portman could help McCain carry Ohio. That is certainly a possibility, but Portman is not well known in the state outside of the Cincinnati area. An Ohio politician who could truly affect the state is current Governor Ted Strickland, who is an ardent Clinton supporter. But bloggers have been reporting on and off that Obama is also considering him. That seems far-fetched to me, though.
Also on the Democratic side, John Edwards has just said that he wouldn't accept the veep slot again. No surprise there, it would be sort of insulting to play #2 twice in a row, especially after the difficult 2004 race.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Romney question
Now that Mitt Romney has endorsed John McCain (I think a bit of a surprise that he chose to do it at this particular time), does that mean that Romney has a chance to be named as veep, for a McCain-Romney ticket?
Some bloggers seem to be indicating so (http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2008/02/romney-to-endorse-mccain-today-3pm-in.asp), but I'm not sure that he's particularly on McCain's radar. After Romney's news conference announcing his endorsement, the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/15/romney_throws_his_support_to_erstwhile_foe/) reported that neither man answered questions about whether they'd run together.
Realistically, McCain would win the nomination even without Romney's support. So, this measure of uniting the Republican party is probably more with an eye on Romney running in 2012 or beyond.
Some bloggers seem to be indicating so (http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2008/02/romney-to-endorse-mccain-today-3pm-in.asp), but I'm not sure that he's particularly on McCain's radar. After Romney's news conference announcing his endorsement, the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/15/romney_throws_his_support_to_erstwhile_foe/) reported that neither man answered questions about whether they'd run together.
Realistically, McCain would win the nomination even without Romney's support. So, this measure of uniting the Republican party is probably more with an eye on Romney running in 2012 or beyond.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Crossing the line
In this crazy election year, would it be possible or likely for cross-party tickets? Some people are at least discussing the notion, including a McCain-Lieberman ticket (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/27/2007-12-27_yes_lieberman_helps_mccain__but_not_how_.html) and an Obama-Powell ticket (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/10/215731/343/331/454278).
While the discussions have centered on McCain picking a conservative running mate, if he matches up against Obama, McCain might be swayed to select someone from "across the aisle" ... that would effectively negate voters' fascination with the idea with Obama alone could bring the two parties together.
Of course, it's still a possibility that either side could woo New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, should be pass up a potential independent run for the presidency (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/obama_gets_his_morning_coffee.php) and (http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/eng/86893/).
While the discussions have centered on McCain picking a conservative running mate, if he matches up against Obama, McCain might be swayed to select someone from "across the aisle" ... that would effectively negate voters' fascination with the idea with Obama alone could bring the two parties together.
Of course, it's still a possibility that either side could woo New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, should be pass up a potential independent run for the presidency (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/obama_gets_his_morning_coffee.php) and (http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/eng/86893/).
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Don't expect a decision soon
If recent history is any indication, we have quite a while to wait and ponder the veepstakes for both parties. The Democrats convene in Denver on August 25th and the Republicans hold their convention on September 1st in Minneapolis. Let's take a look at the last handful of VP candidates, along with the approximate day they were announced and (in parenthesis) the first date of their party's convention that year.
2004: Kerry announces Edwards on July 6 (July 26)
2000: Bush announces Cheney on July 25 (July 31)
2000: Gore announces Lieberman on August 8 (August 14)
1996: Dole announces Kemp on August 11 (August 12)
1992: Clinton announces Gore on July 9 (July 13)
1988: Bush announces Quayle on August 16 (August 15)
1988: Dukakis announces Bentsen on July 12 (July 18)
1984: Mondale announces Ferraro on July 12 (July 16)
Doing some quick math, that's an average of 6 days before the convention. Thus, should we expect a Democratic veep to be unveiled about August 19th and a Republican veep about August 26th? Well, nothing's certain, but here are a few thoughts ...
The GOP
If Clinton and Obama go down to the proverbial wire, and McCain eventually begins to suffer from a lack of news in say, June and July, it's possible that he may do the "maverick" thing and pick his veep early. That would certainly generate some (he'd hope) positive press, especially if the Democrats start the name calling again.
And beyond that ... even though all the talk is now about him focusing on a conservative candidate who is strong in econonic matters, maybe he'd stay away from the more frequently mentioned names to cause more of a splash and draw attention from the potentially fascinating prospect of a brokered Democratic Convention. Maybe he'll go for a female or minority candidate, to dampen the excitement of a Democratic ticket that features one or both of those aspects. Perhaps Carly Fiorina, the former chairwoma of Hewlett-Packard? Or Christine Todd Whitman, former NJ governor? I've even heard JC Watts' name mentioned, the popular former congressman from Oklahoma. Sarah Palin, the attractive, young Republican governor of Alaska would also make an interesting choice.
The Dems
The Clinton-Obama race is so tight, it's impossible to say how this will affect the timing. If the two candidate are still scrapping for the nomination in June, we could very well go into Denver not knowing who the nominee will be. In that sort of scenario, we'd have to wait and figure out if the loser would be granted the veep position as a consolation prize, or if it would be someone entirely different. Both candidates would have to have their top choices secretly vetted out by then, though, in case they had the opportunity to make that decision with little time left at the convention.
Another intriguing scenario would be for one of the candidates to announce their veep pick before the convention. This could certainly backfire, but in a close race, maybe the choice of a popular and electrifying veep candidate would be enough to draw enough superdelegates over to one candidate's side. But again, this would be a risky move, and it would take a lot of chutzpah.
2004: Kerry announces Edwards on July 6 (July 26)
2000: Bush announces Cheney on July 25 (July 31)
2000: Gore announces Lieberman on August 8 (August 14)
1996: Dole announces Kemp on August 11 (August 12)
1992: Clinton announces Gore on July 9 (July 13)
1988: Bush announces Quayle on August 16 (August 15)
1988: Dukakis announces Bentsen on July 12 (July 18)
1984: Mondale announces Ferraro on July 12 (July 16)
Doing some quick math, that's an average of 6 days before the convention. Thus, should we expect a Democratic veep to be unveiled about August 19th and a Republican veep about August 26th? Well, nothing's certain, but here are a few thoughts ...
The GOP
If Clinton and Obama go down to the proverbial wire, and McCain eventually begins to suffer from a lack of news in say, June and July, it's possible that he may do the "maverick" thing and pick his veep early. That would certainly generate some (he'd hope) positive press, especially if the Democrats start the name calling again.
And beyond that ... even though all the talk is now about him focusing on a conservative candidate who is strong in econonic matters, maybe he'd stay away from the more frequently mentioned names to cause more of a splash and draw attention from the potentially fascinating prospect of a brokered Democratic Convention. Maybe he'll go for a female or minority candidate, to dampen the excitement of a Democratic ticket that features one or both of those aspects. Perhaps Carly Fiorina, the former chairwoma of Hewlett-Packard? Or Christine Todd Whitman, former NJ governor? I've even heard JC Watts' name mentioned, the popular former congressman from Oklahoma. Sarah Palin, the attractive, young Republican governor of Alaska would also make an interesting choice.
The Dems
The Clinton-Obama race is so tight, it's impossible to say how this will affect the timing. If the two candidate are still scrapping for the nomination in June, we could very well go into Denver not knowing who the nominee will be. In that sort of scenario, we'd have to wait and figure out if the loser would be granted the veep position as a consolation prize, or if it would be someone entirely different. Both candidates would have to have their top choices secretly vetted out by then, though, in case they had the opportunity to make that decision with little time left at the convention.
Another intriguing scenario would be for one of the candidates to announce their veep pick before the convention. This could certainly backfire, but in a close race, maybe the choice of a popular and electrifying veep candidate would be enough to draw enough superdelegates over to one candidate's side. But again, this would be a risky move, and it would take a lot of chutzpah.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Huckabee angling for a spot
Mike Huckabee seems to be doing everything right, if his goal is to be John McCain's selection as vice presidential nominee (http://phosnorkapages.blogspot.com/2008/02/huckabees-veep-gambit.html and http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/02/03/huck-tackles-romney-team-mccain). Huckabee's campaign through Super Tuesday did a masterful job of essentially taking Mitt Romney out of the race. Social conservatives largely split between the two, giving McCain wins in most areas of the country ... not to mention a huge leads in delegates won.
For the most part, Romney's withdrawal today is the final straw in the Republican campaign, and it is hard to imagine McCain not winning the nomination.
The idea of McCain selecting Huckabee works on a few fronts. Huckabee is certainly a candidate who would satisfy many conservatives. He could potentially help McCain across the deep South (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/02/huckabee_as_veep.html).
And the two men seems to get along better than most primary candidates this year (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/huckabee_and_mccain_playing_it.html).
McCain certainly has other interesting choices. He's been pal-ling around with Jack Kemp (), and some say that he also needs a veep with a lot of economic know-how, as that is an area he lacks in (http://www.vicepresidents.com/search-mccain-s-economic-veep). I think Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would be a fascinating choice ... as does Newt Gingrich (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/02/07/newt-likes-crist-or-huckabee-for-veep.html?s_cid=rss:newt-likes-crist-or-huckabee-for-veep.html). Others have mentioned Joe Lieberman ... so what is it lately with recycled vp candidates?! Maybe this has some connection to the ongoing writer's strike ...
For the most part, Romney's withdrawal today is the final straw in the Republican campaign, and it is hard to imagine McCain not winning the nomination.
The idea of McCain selecting Huckabee works on a few fronts. Huckabee is certainly a candidate who would satisfy many conservatives. He could potentially help McCain across the deep South (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/02/huckabee_as_veep.html).
And the two men seems to get along better than most primary candidates this year (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/huckabee_and_mccain_playing_it.html).
McCain certainly has other interesting choices. He's been pal-ling around with Jack Kemp (), and some say that he also needs a veep with a lot of economic know-how, as that is an area he lacks in (http://www.vicepresidents.com/search-mccain-s-economic-veep). I think Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would be a fascinating choice ... as does Newt Gingrich (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/02/07/newt-likes-crist-or-huckabee-for-veep.html?s_cid=rss:newt-likes-crist-or-huckabee-for-veep.html). Others have mentioned Joe Lieberman ... so what is it lately with recycled vp candidates?! Maybe this has some connection to the ongoing writer's strike ...
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The year of the attack veep?
Although both of the races are far from finished, there is a reasonably good chance that we'll see a Clinton-McCain or an Obama-MaCain race this Fall. As of late, pundits have been commenting on how relatively friendly Clinton and McCain are, and the candidates themselves have even promised that they'd run a civil race, should they match up against each other. See: http://www.topix.com/news/2008-presidential-election/2008/01/bill-clinton-john-mccain-and-hillary-are-very-close
While Obama may not be on as friendly ground with McCain, Obama has tried to run a different style of campaign and may also want it to appear that he's above the politics of the past.
This all leads me to wonder: will both sides end up picking vice presidential candidates at least partly based on how good they can attack the other side?
If so, this may be an advantage for Joe Biden on the Democratic side and Fred Thompson on the Republican side. Biden is great in this role, and would add foreign policy experience to an Obama ticket. However, he's made comments in the past about not wanting to play third fiddle to Bill Clinton in a Hillary Clinton White House. Thompson's old school style would also serve him well in attack dog mode, and would also help McCain with the conservative base.
Others? Edwards would seem to lose points in the whole attach dog scenario. In 2004, some Kerry campaign advisors seemed disappointed in Edwards' overly cheerful demeanor, while V.P. Dick Cheney hammered away at the Dems (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DA1F30F935A2575AC0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2). I could also easily see Giuliani in full attack mode, as well as Romney, Evan Bayh, and Wesley Clark.
There are plenty of options ... but it remains a strong possibility that whoever this year's veep picks are, they'll have "attack dog" as one of their primary responsibilities.
While Obama may not be on as friendly ground with McCain, Obama has tried to run a different style of campaign and may also want it to appear that he's above the politics of the past.
This all leads me to wonder: will both sides end up picking vice presidential candidates at least partly based on how good they can attack the other side?
If so, this may be an advantage for Joe Biden on the Democratic side and Fred Thompson on the Republican side. Biden is great in this role, and would add foreign policy experience to an Obama ticket. However, he's made comments in the past about not wanting to play third fiddle to Bill Clinton in a Hillary Clinton White House. Thompson's old school style would also serve him well in attack dog mode, and would also help McCain with the conservative base.
Others? Edwards would seem to lose points in the whole attach dog scenario. In 2004, some Kerry campaign advisors seemed disappointed in Edwards' overly cheerful demeanor, while V.P. Dick Cheney hammered away at the Dems (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DA1F30F935A2575AC0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2). I could also easily see Giuliani in full attack mode, as well as Romney, Evan Bayh, and Wesley Clark.
There are plenty of options ... but it remains a strong possibility that whoever this year's veep picks are, they'll have "attack dog" as one of their primary responsibilities.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton?
In opening ...
Welcome to Veepstakes! This blog will follow the fascinating speculation on one of America's oddest contests. One that could potentially propel an unknown into a position a heartbeat from the presidency. One that is a mystery to almost everyone. One that you can't run for. And in fact, one that, if you so much as state that you are interested in it, you're practically disqualified from consideration.
I plan to present my opinions along with links to what other others are saying about both the Democratic and Republican hopefuls. Hopefully, you readers will share your thoughts, rebuttals, perspectives and hopes. And here, on the eve of Super Tuesday, I think it's an appropriate time to start this fascinating conversation. Thanks for reading.
The Hillary and Obama question
There's a good chance that tomorrow's contests will not propel either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama into an unsurmountable lead for the Democratic nomination. But voters will eventually settle on one or the other, and that begs the question: If Hillary wins the nomination, would she consider Obama as her veep? And if Obama wins, would he consider Hillary?
After some of the things that have happened (especially before this somewhat peaceful week) during this campaign, it may be hard to imagine the two of them together on a Democratic ticket this Fall. But to those who are new to the veepstakes, a look to history may be in order. Even in somewhat recent history, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had a sometimes contentious 1980 primary campaign, and John Kerry and John Edwards had their moments in 2004. Making up in the name of party unity is not uncommon.
This year presents an interesting situation on the Democratic side among the frontrunners. At this stage, it appears that a victorious Hillary Clinton might need Barack Obama on her ticket more than he would need her, should he be the primary season's victor.
Particularly if John McCain gets the Republican nod, Hillary might need Obama, if she wins the Democratic nod. McCain could attract a large percentage of the independent-leaning voters, and there may be pressure on Hillary to counter this by infusing her general campaign with the energy and passion that the Kennedyesque Obama (and his supporters) would bring. Certainly, she has other interesting options, such as retired General Wesley Clark, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Ohio governor Ted Strickland, former Virginia governor Mark Warner, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack and others. (We'll discuss these other options in future posts.)
But on the flip side of the coin, what if Obama wins the Democratic nomination? Would there be any pressure -- internal or external -- for him to select Hillary as his vice president? It's harder to see such a scenario. For one thing, my gut feeling is that Hillary would decline such an offer, even if it were made. And if the underdog Obama manages to surpass Clinton in the primary, it's likely that he would prefer to put her behind him and stay away from the massive attacks that the Republicans would level at her as his veep. The primary job of any V.P. is to do no harm, and this may not be Hillary's strong suit.
Last Fall, Roger Simon of Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6005.html) wrote that Hillary wouldn't pick Obama, because he might overshadow her and he might be uncontrollable. While I agree with his postulation that these are two unbreakable rules for selecting a veep, it seems more appropo to describe a potential Obama/Clinton ticket.
Others claim that (http://countenance.wordpress.com/2007/01/04/who-will-be-hillarys-running-mate/) Obama would mostly help with the African-American vote, which the Clintons would normally gobble up anyways. But I think that's shortsighted, as Obama's shown that he can attract votes from all sorts of ethnic groups, like whites in Iowa and N.H. and Latinos in Nevada.
And, interestingly, George Stephanopoulos and others are calling either combination a dream ticket now: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/02/01/abc-champions-clinton-obama-or-obama-clinton-dream-ticket
A recent Bloomberg poll (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aFyomYmSL6To&refer=home) had 60% of both candidates' supporters saying that if their candidate wins, they want him/her to pick the other as veep.
Your thoughts?
Welcome to Veepstakes! This blog will follow the fascinating speculation on one of America's oddest contests. One that could potentially propel an unknown into a position a heartbeat from the presidency. One that is a mystery to almost everyone. One that you can't run for. And in fact, one that, if you so much as state that you are interested in it, you're practically disqualified from consideration.
I plan to present my opinions along with links to what other others are saying about both the Democratic and Republican hopefuls. Hopefully, you readers will share your thoughts, rebuttals, perspectives and hopes. And here, on the eve of Super Tuesday, I think it's an appropriate time to start this fascinating conversation. Thanks for reading.
The Hillary and Obama question
There's a good chance that tomorrow's contests will not propel either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama into an unsurmountable lead for the Democratic nomination. But voters will eventually settle on one or the other, and that begs the question: If Hillary wins the nomination, would she consider Obama as her veep? And if Obama wins, would he consider Hillary?
After some of the things that have happened (especially before this somewhat peaceful week) during this campaign, it may be hard to imagine the two of them together on a Democratic ticket this Fall. But to those who are new to the veepstakes, a look to history may be in order. Even in somewhat recent history, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had a sometimes contentious 1980 primary campaign, and John Kerry and John Edwards had their moments in 2004. Making up in the name of party unity is not uncommon.
This year presents an interesting situation on the Democratic side among the frontrunners. At this stage, it appears that a victorious Hillary Clinton might need Barack Obama on her ticket more than he would need her, should he be the primary season's victor.
Particularly if John McCain gets the Republican nod, Hillary might need Obama, if she wins the Democratic nod. McCain could attract a large percentage of the independent-leaning voters, and there may be pressure on Hillary to counter this by infusing her general campaign with the energy and passion that the Kennedyesque Obama (and his supporters) would bring. Certainly, she has other interesting options, such as retired General Wesley Clark, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Ohio governor Ted Strickland, former Virginia governor Mark Warner, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack and others. (We'll discuss these other options in future posts.)
But on the flip side of the coin, what if Obama wins the Democratic nomination? Would there be any pressure -- internal or external -- for him to select Hillary as his vice president? It's harder to see such a scenario. For one thing, my gut feeling is that Hillary would decline such an offer, even if it were made. And if the underdog Obama manages to surpass Clinton in the primary, it's likely that he would prefer to put her behind him and stay away from the massive attacks that the Republicans would level at her as his veep. The primary job of any V.P. is to do no harm, and this may not be Hillary's strong suit.
Last Fall, Roger Simon of Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6005.html) wrote that Hillary wouldn't pick Obama, because he might overshadow her and he might be uncontrollable. While I agree with his postulation that these are two unbreakable rules for selecting a veep, it seems more appropo to describe a potential Obama/Clinton ticket.
Others claim that (http://countenance.wordpress.com/2007/01/04/who-will-be-hillarys-running-mate/) Obama would mostly help with the African-American vote, which the Clintons would normally gobble up anyways. But I think that's shortsighted, as Obama's shown that he can attract votes from all sorts of ethnic groups, like whites in Iowa and N.H. and Latinos in Nevada.
And, interestingly, George Stephanopoulos and others are calling either combination a dream ticket now: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/02/01/abc-champions-clinton-obama-or-obama-clinton-dream-ticket
A recent Bloomberg poll (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aFyomYmSL6To&refer=home) had 60% of both candidates' supporters saying that if their candidate wins, they want him/her to pick the other as veep.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
