Perfect VP for Obama?

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Does anyone else think that, should Obama get the nomination, he should choose a female govenor as VP?

It would cement the loyalty of woman who are currently supporting Hillary, (to gurantee that they don't stay home in protest) and also gurantee that the current change, ie historical firsts, dosn't end with Obama, (One could say Obama is a once in a generation politician which means that it will be another 20 years before a non-white male becomes pres).

Besides that, there is also the fact that it would add experience to the ticket, as well as make history on two fronts. This would help to really energize the dems to turn out, while the republican base is holding their nose over McCain or staying home.

And while Hillary as VP would spur the republicans to action, a different female candidate would not cause the same reaction.

So I have checked Wikipedia for a list of current female govenors, there are 7.

Of these, 5 are democrats. Here they are:

Janet Napolitano, Arizona, 51, named one of top 5 govenors by Time magazine in 2005, has endorsed Obama and is term limited out in 2010, offers geographic diversity and an overall strong choice.

Ruth Ann Minner Deleware, 73, known for non-partisan style of governing, overall a bit too old to run for pres after 8 years of Obama, (she would be 81 while running in 2016 and would leave office at 90)

Kathleen Sebelius Kansas, 60, has endorsed Obama, became first democrat to win state insurance commissioner job in 100 years. Brought commission out from under thumb of insurance industry and stopped the merger of Blue Cross Blue Shield with Indiana based firm. In other words, actually believes that gov regulators should regulate the industries they are responsible for, not just role over and do as they are told.

Solid choice

Jennifer Granholm Michigan, 49, former attorney general of Michigan, unfortunately born in Finland so could never run for pres, so basically disqualified for that reason.

Christine Gregoire Washington, 61, former Washington Director of Ecology and Attorney General, led the state in sueing tobacco industry in 1990, won state $4.5 billion.




So, basically there are 4 eligible female govenors for Obama to choose from, 3 of which have endoresed him, Napalitano, Sebelius and Gregoire.

Minner from Deleware is too old to run for president after Obama's 8 years and so that leaves the 3 woman above to choose from.

So, who would most help the ticket in 08, and then be likely to win in 2016 and 2020?

Well Napalitano has been a very succesfull and popular gov, and does give hope of winning Arizona in 08.

But Sebelius offers a visceral, "heartland" feel to the ticket.

On the other hand, Gregoire is the most photogenic, which might fit better with the youthful image that Obama is portraying.

In terms of experience all 3 are good, with Gregoir's AG experience probably being the most impressive of the 3.

I would dare say that Obama should consider only these 3 as VP because all 3 add experience to the ticket and increase the historical nature of the election, which brings with it incredible excitement and high turnout for dems.

Of course, Govenor Richardson would also make a fantastic choice, just because of his mile long resume of accomplishments, (State Senator, US Congressman, Diplomat, US Energy Secretary of Energy, Govenor of NM and Nobel Peace Prize Nominee).

With Richardson you might lose some of the woman vote but would cement the hispanic vote, so I think Richardson is no better or worse a candiate than the three candidates mentioned above in terms of winning over constituencies.

So what do you think? Which of the 4 govenors would make the best VP candidate? Who would most exite the electorate with a sense of history in the making? In other words who would most help Obama win in 08, 2012, and then be most likely to win in 2016 and 2020?

< Third Way Not So Bad | Calling All Facebook Members >
 Display:
So here is my opinion about which of the 4 govenors is best.

First of all, I think that exitement and the high turnout that goes with it, is a huge advantage for dems this year. On that note a woman is the obvious choice, because it would provide a larger sense of history than Obama/Richardson, at least in my opinion.

Second, take a look at these approval numbers, (granted from 2005, but all 5 US Femal Dem Govenors where in office at the time.)

http://www.surveyusa.com/50 State2005/50StateGovernorAp proval0905SortedbyState.htm

As you can see Gregoire and Minner are below 50%, but Napalitano is at 60% and Sebelius is at 59%. Overall Sebelius has 2% lower negatives so she has a 25% net positive approval while Napalitano has 24% net positive approval, (meaning 24% more people think she is doing a good job than people who think she is doing a poor job).

In other words, both Napalitano and Sebelius are super popular and would thus improve the chance of winning their state.

Since Arizona is a larger state than Kansas, I would lean towards Napalitano as my running mate. Though it can be said that McCain running at the top of his ticket might hold more sway compared to Napalitano at the bottom of the dem ticket.

If that were true then Sebelius may offer a better bet at winning Kansas, especially with evangelicals in that state not likely to come out in large numbers for McCain.

However, based on the 2000 and 2004 pres elections, in which Arizona was a swing state and Kansas was overwhelmingly red, I would advise Obama choose Napalitano to be his running mate, since she might be able to offer the final push, when combined with Obama's passion, to take AZ into the blue column in 08.

Your thoughts?

by adamg on 02/17/2008 04:38:11 AM EST


She came to a conference at ND to talk about immigration issues.  She's a good Democrat, VERY good at budgets.  She's almost frighteningly competent in every respect.  Barack could do a lot worse than picking her.

She gets the official Jarett Stamp of Approval(TM)

by jarett on 02/17/2008 04:45:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Though it can be said that McCain running at the top of his ticket might hold more sway compared to Napalitano at the bottom of the dem ticket."

Yeah, that and the fact that Mexican-Americans have not been voting for Obama.


by KenTX on 02/17/2008 05:00:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Look at the date on your governor approval data. It's from 1995. It lists George Pataki as NY's governor. It's Eliot Spitzer, thank you very much.

by toosinbeymen on 02/17/2008 07:47:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So, I guess you are saying that if Obama wins the nomination, Hillary Clinton is toast, right? Unless of course Obama screws up royally and opens the door for her in 2012. Outside of that, it will be the last of the Clintons, at least until Chelsea runs. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. Would server her right. Hillary can go back to NY and be a real resident and a real senator for them.

by mijoh on 02/18/2008 04:39:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the way she won the recount up here in washington was suspect as hell.  she's a decent governor, and hell of a lot better than the republican she ran against, but she didn't come into office with a legitimate win.  they had to count the votes 3 times and she lost in 2 of them.

the last thing obama needs is controversial baggage.  personally, i think he should run with marion barry, to reinforce that not only is he black, he's street.

by mathcore on 02/17/2008 05:02:59 AM EST


"Marion Barry for VP." That suggestion is hilarious.

Here's a photo of the two Barry’s (Marion and Obama) smoking crack together in 1990.
Barry and Barry

Obama later told the story to some high school kids.

by KenTX on 02/17/2008 05:14:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I know he's supporting Hillary Clinton now, but General Wesley Clark would be an outstanding choice. If a candidate can pick the rival candidate when the campaign is done, there's nothing that stops him from picking a surrogate.

Obama could try to unite Democrats by choosing Clinton, but I don't think she wants it (even though she would make history as the first female VP and would be better poised to make history as president in 2012 or 2016). Clark would help draw disappointed Clinton backers.

He's smart and experience, with an impeccable military record and foreign policy experience, and would ease worries about Obama's experience deficits. Having led the military in our previous war (the one without a single US fatality), Obama could let VP Clark manage the war while he focuses on the shambles Bush has made of the economy.

And he's southern, with strong support in the South, where he could help Obama in Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and maybe even Florida. To win, Clinton or Obama will need to carry at least one more state than the Dems carried in 2000 and 2004. And Wesley Clark Sr. apprears to be the best person to do that.

by Dogger on 02/17/2008 05:04:50 AM EST


The general has to have a message from God (or something) that tells him he was wrong to support Hillary.

And yes, right or wrong, an old, southern white guy (you know, the type that has normally become president in our modern history for some ridiculous reason)&nbs p;with great military experience/credibility probably *is* the perfect person to help Obama win the general.

I mean, isn't Obama's biggest General Election weakness that he's inexperienced?  Specifically inexperienced WRT foreign policy? 

by ihavenobias on 02/17/2008 11:30:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dogger, I must respectfully disagree most vociferously.

Clark may be a good choice in the military experience aspect of the race, but I fear that many female Clinton supporters may be so pissed if Obama gets the nomination, that they may stay home.

After all, if McCain wins in 08, Clinton is the presmptive nominee in 08, since Obama would have lost and thus been proven a loser. She would remain in the Senate and in the limelight for 4 years, critizing McCain and claiming, "I would have beaten the guy."

This is not only  a reason to try to appease female identity voters, (those who want to see the first female president) but also prevent Clinon from sabatoging the campaign from the inside, if she was the VP nominee.

If Napalitano was his VP nominee, then any female identity voter who stayed home or voted for McCain would be forced to consider this choice:

I can vote for Obama to lose and hope that Clinton can come back in 4 years against an incumbant McCain and win, or I vote for Obama/Napalitano and have a larger chance of seeing a female president after 8 years of an Obama president.

Now, since we are talking about democratic identity voters, they automatically lean away from McCain and don't want to see him win.

I am confident that Napalitano would push them over the edge and into the voting booth in Novemeber.

Besides that, on the policy front, as someone pointed out, Napalitano is a very competant govenor, well liked, and would add experience to the ticket, as well as potentially winning a swing state and voters from the south.

Dogger claimed that Clark would appease Clinton supporters, but I ask "why?"

How many loyal Clinton supporters are on that bandwagon because they actually love Clinton? How many are identity voters who see a rare chance to make history with the first female president?

I think there are more of the latter than the former, and even if there were many Clinton supporters who love the Clinton brand, why would Clark appease them?

Because he's from Arkansas? I just don't see him healing the divides that are being caused by this long primary season.

Also, one more thing to consider. I am not 100% sure on this, because the Republicans will try anything to win in 08, but I think a Napalitano VP would help insulate the ticket from McCain a bit, since he might not be able to go after the popular govenor of his own homestate.

Thoughts?

by adamg on 02/17/2008 12:42:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Clinton as VP would better serve the interests of party unity, in my opinion, but I was operating on the assumption she did not want it. The VP job is powerful when a boob holds the top job, but not worth much otherwise, except as a steppingstone to President.

Do any of the female governors even want the VP job? Being Governor is a better steppingstone to President than VP. And Governors have a lot of power.

Do female identity voters want to lose a female Governor (or Senator, for that matter)? It's likely anyone chosen for VP would turn her current job over to a man.

I too am worried that female Clinton supporters may stay home if Obama gets the nomination, but so far he is polling well in that demographic. Obama is hurting in the demos where Clark has appeal. And surely female identity voters don't want McCain judges deciding Roe v. Wade, or McCain keeping their children in Iraq for 100 years.


by Dogger on 02/17/2008 07:44:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Russ Feingold.

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:10:34 AM EST


Russ Feingold was my choice too. Not so sure the vp has to be a female to heal the country.


All Conservatives Are Liars- Mike Malloy

by Chinese Democracy on 02/17/2008 01:01:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I hate identity politics and VP choices based on race/gender!!!!  So you are going to pick a VP because the person is a female not because they're most qualified.  And Richardson - don't even take me there....

Don't pander to the people - let the people come to you by your actions!

by rev24 on 02/17/2008 01:48:29 PM EST


My vote is for Richardson.  He was my favorite at the beginning even though his campaign never got off the ground.  I think he fills the "experience" roll fine as well. 

My wife works for Jannet.  She likes her a lot, but I'm just not sure she'd be enough of a draw.  Also AZ is probably a lost cause as McCain is pretty popular here.  My biggest problem with her is that she is pushing to expand privatized photo traffic enforcement on all AZ highways!  I'm NOT ok with this at all!  We don't need to elect any Big Brother Democrats to replace the BB Republicans. 

I hadn't considered the Clark possibility but that is also a good idea.  Then again that might be the way Hillary is leaning.  Speaking of which, what about McCain going Colin Powell if Obama wins the nomination?  I think he'll go further right, but it's an intriging option. 

by alphasigmookie on 02/17/2008 02:23:40 PM EST


He needs JIM WEBBBBBBB or maybe
Wesley Clark. A mean looking white man who's got military experience is where it's at

by Perry on 02/17/2008 03:41:33 PM EST


That Jim Webb guy always strikes me as unhinged. Clark would be by far the best choice fror Obama.

by acroso on 02/17/2008 05:23:11 PM EST


will be McCain's running mate, not Obama's.

It's going to be a centrist/moderate ticket versus a far left, socialist, moonbat ticket.

by KenTX on 02/17/2008 07:55:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken, I'm afraid you've lost it, sir.

McCain's handlers are screaming in his ears that the base is going to desert him and he'll lose big-time if he doesn't run to the right.

No way is Jim Webb going to be his running mate.

by jarett on 02/17/2008 11:34:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Is his implication that Democrats are weak and would give in to the terrorists polite? Why are they allowed to be complete and utter assholes, but we're not allowed to call them out on it? Cenk

Maybe you could enlighten us as to where you came up with this information other than regurgitating Rush Limbaugh....

  • Dems think our troops are "Nazis" http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/10/25/21313 4/43/102#102
  • Dems are starting their vicious attack on American identity, national religion, taxpayers etc, http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/10/22/11525 /191/10#10
  • Voting for Democrats are at best like voting for street bums and at worst a lot like voting for terrorists.http://www.theyo ungturks.com/comments/2007/ 10/14/155517/23/33#33
  • Dems do want to take away our guns and they do want to limit our freedom of speech http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/6/20/13312/ 0705/3#3
  • La Raza is running and directing what the dems do http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/6/14/16394/ 1135/15#15
  • The dems desire to defeat the troops in Iraq and Afganistan. They want to impeach Bush because that is another way to victory in the war against the war (or another way to defeat the U.S., whichever way you look at it.) http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/4/11/112312 /588/9#9
  • Pelosi has set a date for surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, Pelosi has set a date for surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/4/11/112312 /588/2#2
  • the Terrorists and the Democrats have had a lot of success in their attempts to break the will to fight of the American people. http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/4/9/131553/ 4837/1#1
  • Many Americans have lsot the will to fight the terrorists after the non-stop rhetoric coming from the left and the L&S divisions of our campuses http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/4/9/131553/ 4837/1#1
  • The Dems mato is defeat. Common sense tells us they were going to surrender to the terrorists if they took power incongress.This defeatism means implementing dates for withdrawal and defunding the our troops. http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/3/28/102731 /281/11#11
  • Nancy hangs the troops out to dry to let the Americans know who the dems really are and to lets the Islamos know that your party supports them http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/3/23/14658/ 5848/1#1
  • Go complain to Harry Reid who is heading up the defeat our troopsbillhttp://www.theyou ngturks.com/comments/2007/3 /2/941/60818/2#2
  • the Dems support the troops by supporting their defeat. The dems can't be trusted on any matters of national security.http://www.theyoun gturks.com/comments/2007/2/ 25/61739/1922/63#63
  • I posted his closing speech in the effort to stop the Dems pro-Al Qaeda resolution.http://www.theyo ungturks.com/comments/2007/ 2/25/61739/1922/54#54
  • Dems ARE unpatriotic bafoons, and the republicans aren't. http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/2/16/13593/ 4879/2#2
  • Well if there is one thing the Dems don't do is " Caring about our country." They've been working on tearing apart the ideaof what it means to be American since way before the farewell speech of Reagan where he talked about the elimination of nationalpride and collective memory.http://www.theyoungt urks.com/comments/2007/2/17 /22318/8973/22#22
  • the Dem supported the troops by supporting their defeat in the 60s. Now they "support" the troops by supporting their defeatin the war on terror. It comes to reason that the Democrats DO NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS.http://www.theyoungt urks.com/comments/2007/2/15 /175041/565/41#41
  • How did they manage to trick the voters into this new hope ( Obama ed.) filled bipartisan agenda when the cooks are running their party?http://www.theyoungtu rks.com/comments/2007/2/6/1 1367/49130/2#2
  • Like I said, if it wasn't for the Democrats hindering the war effort, funding, and the troops we'd have won these years ago. What we need is a much larger standing army, more media control, and fewer rules. Unfortunately Al Qaeda has learned to game our media in order to dispirit the American people and the dems just act an amplifier for their message. http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/2/2/18320/2 3155/9#9
  • CNN can play the terrorists propaganda vids along side of the dem resolution supporting the terrorists.
  • Well I do know why the dems voted for General Patraeus and his plan for a surge along with giving funding to president Bush for the troops surge yet pass resolutions opposing what they just did\approved. It's all politics. Their rabid anti-American base demands that the dems politicize the war and pretend to not support the troop http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2006/5/3/12955/5 1892/8#8
  • the CNN sniper video of troops getting shot that was filmed by the terrorists in Iraq for propaganda. They want to break the American will so they give the tapes to the libs in our lib media who have like minded goals.  http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2007/1/5/19828/5 3784/2#2
  • The dems are invested in defeat, and cheer it on http://www.theyoungturks.co m/comments/2006/12/3/151518 /361/4#4

by MRFred on 02/17/2008 09:26:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Napalitano's term is up in 2010 and she is prevented by term limits from running again. So she would definetely take the VP spot if Obama offered.

As to the issue of identity politics, let me be honest.

I don't think one should choose a candidate just because of race or gender, but too say that one should not use it at all is also wrong.

No one can say that a certain % of Obama mania isn't because he would be the first black president, same goes for Hillary and her supporters.

As long as both candidates do have good policies, and as long as both don't pidgeon hole themselves by pointing to race or gender as a reason to vote for them, then I say use the added excitement to win.

Look at the facts. John McCain is a dull candidate who will attempt to win by bringing up the specter of terrorism. This is what Bush has done for 7 years and the country is tired of it.

Add to that the fact that social conservatives are loath to vote for him and you have the makings of really low turnout for McCain.

Now on the dem side we have record turnout because of the Phenomina of Barack.

That should make winning a lot easier. If there is a way to increase that excitement, such as with a female govenor VP, then what is the problem with that?

Sebelius and Napalitano would both add executive experience to the ticket, and both are very popular govenors who are very competant governing their respective states.

So it is with Richardson also. No one can say he lacks experience, of any kind.

So picking any one of these 3 isn't pandering, its choosing a good, experienced person to take over the role of pres if Obama is incapacitated for any reason.

If it also happens to pump up the dem electorate even more than an Obama/Clark ticket, well so be it. All the better to win in novemeber with.

And if it also happens to set up 16 years of potential democratic rule in the white house, in addition to nabbing 3 presidential firsts for the dems, that is a bonus as well.

The fact is that eventually every race of human will be president of the US, both male and female.

I think it would be beneficial for the dems, (with the demographic shifts being what they are) to try to lock up as many of them as possible.

For example, Barack in 08, 2012, Napalitano or Sebelius in 2016, 2020 and Richardson in 2024, 2028.

All 3 people are exceptionally bright, and well qualified for president.

And all 3 represent historic firsts in terms of presidential politics.

If one looks at the future of America, as well as its past, the demarcation is stark.

For the 08 race there were 10 republicans, 100% white males, for the Dems 8 candidates, 3/8 where either minorities or a female.

Which party shows the larger affinity for diversity? What will America's demographics look like in the future?

I am looking long term. It is definetly true that no candidate must be chosen just because they are a particular race or gender, because if they offer weak positions and lose it will do more harm than good.

But if a qualified candidate appears that can make history and in the process pump up exitement amoungst the electorate, then by all means help that candidate out. Give them the resouces to become a phenominon, such as Obama has and you have a formula for winning elections.

by adamg on 02/18/2008 12:45:44 AM EST


Not quite sure why anyone would think that women would be "pissed" and stay home on election day if Sen. Clinton is not nominated. We know we have too much to lose with a McCain presidency and it strikes me as a bit sexist to say that women are more likely to pout about a non--female Democratic candidate. Come on.
 
That said, I think Jim Webb would make a good VP candidate with Obama. He is a southerner, military family, has some backbone and is a strong and outspoken supporter of veterans.  All this would counter McCain's white male military support and improve the margin.

by Verified1 on 02/18/2008 06:18:58 PM EST


 Display: