Progressives should weigh in now on the vice-presidential choices facing Barack Obama. If all progressives are united for or against a particular candidate, we can be a factor in the mix ahead. The choice needs to be someone who [a] wins a state or two that Obama might not win on his own, [b] wins over the Clinton voter constituency, and [c] can placate traditional party leaders. But from a progressive perspective, the choice also should be someone with Obama's instinct for organizing a majority progressive movement, not someone who revives the fading pro-business, pro-war DLC. The ticket should excite even more people around Obama's vision of a reclaimed democracy from below, not someone who will dampen the enthusiasm.
To cast your preference and convey your thinking, just type progressives/obama/blogspot into Google, and you will get there.
Here are my thoughts, to initiate this discussion:
* 1. Bill Richardson -- Could help win New Mexico and Colorado, and increase overall Obama turnout among Latinos. Good credentials. Good on issues. Able to ensure that the Obama administration pays attention to Latin America. Needs to be vetted further. Conventional wisdom is that a "two-fer" [black and brown] won't work. Go for it unless the vetting turns up problems, otherwise give him a Cabinet post.
* 2. James Webb -- Good credentials: military, former Republican, Navy Secretary under Reagan. Relatively good on issues like war, economy, outsider and independent. Might mean losing Virginia Senate seat in future. But if he guarantees Virginia for Obama and helps in Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, take the chance.
* 3. John Edwards -- Attorney General, not VP.
* 4. Hillary Clinton -- While she has to be on the short list, and while weird bedfellows are not unusual, this is to be avoided if at all possible. The incompatibilities are too great, and the turnoff factor would be a problem. It is not clear that she would bring a state that Obama couldn't capture on his own, assuming that many Hillary voters turn to McCain. She might prefer her independence in the Senate.
* Proposed Clinton surrogates include Ted Strickland Evan Bayh, and Wesley Clark, shadows of the DLC. See the report on them in Sunday's Washington Post. But WEBB might do as well as Strickland in Ohio. Bayh is not likely to carry Indiana. Clark brings military credentials and has close relationship with Obama's former advisor Samantha Power, but will he carry Arkansas or any other state? Ed Rendell and Bob Casey should be added, though neither is on the Clinton camp's list reported in the Post. Rendell is the popular Pennsylvania governor who sadly pushed for the execution of Mumia, and led Clinton's successful campaign in that state. Casey is the anti-abortion Democrat who campaigned for Obama. Both certainly deserve a look, given Pennsylvania's importance. None of these candidates convey the image of a new politics, the standard suggested by Ted Kennedy last week.
will appear so if he chooses a VP with Progressive credentials?
There is certainly a risk in pursuing this fantasy, but if it's true,
then Dennis Kucinich is the obvious choice. Would this make
the ticket more electable, I wonder. Personally, I think he will
go with 'electability' as the main criterion.
He's Rested & Ready & a Friend o'Bama!
And he's finishing up his Senate term!
??????!
Sadly? Is it suddenly progressive to condone the murder of police officers? Public servants who put their lives on the line (and sometimes lose them) deserve better than to have their killers publicly lamented by ridiculous eggheads like you, Tom Hayden.
Or is it just that people incline to become enraptured by the story of one black man with a sorry tale will line up behind ANY black man with a sorry tale?
IMO, Obama should choose either Jim Webb or Wesley Clark to counter McInsane's miliary record.
Jim Webb has a better previous public service history, and would probably would be the best choice for VP.
If Obama is making a progressive choice for VP, he would have to pick Kucinich. And, as we know, a progressive VP choice means little about whether the ticket will govern in a progressive manner. We can do a seance with Henry Wallace to find out for sure.
Sibelius for VP, that's my pick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkQ04Tk7dTk
Let Karl Rove pick the 2012 vice president.
The American Renneisance is at hand !!!!
I don't believe he'd pick someone who couldn't help him do both.
I think Hillary could help him win, but she's clearly THE archtype of the old politics, and couldn't help him govern. Plus, having a randy, impeached ex-president floating around for 8 years, giving his unsolicited opinions and potentially distracting the president with his soap opera life.
Several of the people mentioned by others simply don't have long experience as elected officials - and that's Barack's weak suit. That's why Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb and Sherrod Brown really aren't great choices.
Ex-military choices - as helpful as they are for giving Barack extra security and foreign policy gravitas to combat McCain's strong suit - don't help with the "ready on day one to be President" test. On the other hand, they're not part of the old school style of Washington politics.
Several governors could fit the bill - a number of governors are experienced and strong administrators, and aren't particularly tainted with Washington politics. Two are women, and one (Richardson) has deep foreign policy credentials. Picking a governor also doesn't put any senate seats at risk - a real issue when it comes to passing legislation or appointing supreme court justices.
2nd: Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Will help bring discouraged females back into the Dem. fold and put her in position to be first female Pres. in 2016.
3rd: Sen. Hillary Clinton. Will do more to unify the party than Richardson or Sebelius, but will taint the Obama brand.
4th: Sen. Jim Webb. Great credentials, but may not add as much electorally as some think. Plus, his heart doesn't seem to be in it.