So I sort of (not really) have a chance to sit down and craft a serious blog post. Go me! And with Obama having unofficially won the Democratic primary, John Edwards endorsing, and Hillary Clinton seemingly maneuvering to try and get on the ticket still, I thought it best to devote this post to Democratic vice president options.

You may remember my post on John McCain and the Republican’s options back here. I stand by it quite solidly. Turning attention the the Democrats, we have an as hotly contested race, if not more so. You see, Barack Obama is in a precarious position. He is campaigning for change, and his best asset is that he hasn’t been ‘tainted’ by D.C. yet. A great skew, and a good leg-up on McCain. But, it brings into question his experience (which he has) and his ability to ‘get things done’. Obama’s V.P. thus could be someone who brings a fair bit of experience to the ticket. Senator Joe Biden, a former primary candidate, is 65 years old and has more foreign policy experience than even John McCain. Biden is the current chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations - and has been 3 times prior for a total of 4 years. He also, interestingly enough, serves on the current committee with Obama, who chairs the subcommittee on European Affairs. Biden has been part of this committee since 1997, which is big experience.

More previous experience? Biden has it. He was chair of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary for 8 years, is the senior senator from Delaware and has held his post for 35 years, and was part of the United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control.

And the biggest problem for Biden? That he has all this experience. He is significantly older than Obama, has a bit of a renegade reputation among Democrats, and can be painted as having supported President Bush’s foreign policy decisions in the early stages of the Iraq War. While not true, he has been supportive of some of Bush’s policies, and this is a big lose for Obama who needs to basket McCain and Bush as much as he can. Also, Biden has said he doesn’t want the position.

Wesley Clark, who brings massive military experience, has the problem that he is off-side with a few of the ranking generals in the army currently, that he has no real political experience, and he was an early and vocal advocate of Hillary Clinton’s. Not holding that last bit against him, the first two points mean that he won’t get the job.

Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania, and Evan Bayh, Governor of Indiana, would be two real options if they weren’t, again, early and vocal advocates of Clinton. Bayh was Clinton’s first endorsement. Rendell was her most seen one for a whole month, as the primary race lead into Pennsylvania with no break for a month. While Bayh comes from (generally) Republican Indiana, Rendell comes from one of the most expensive swing states in a general election. Pennsylvania holds 21 electoral college votes, and there are few scenarios that don’t include Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Florida in the path to victory. Rendell would have been a viable option, and probably the frontrunner at the moment if he hadn’t been so gung-ho about backing the “inevitable” candidate. These two fellows also get negative marks because they were surrogate Clinton attackers. If Clinton needed to attack Obama before she started doing it herself, or needed someone to say something controversial that would kill her if she said it, one of these two said it. As a result, these two are probably on the list, but lower than what they might have been should that have waited to watch the election unfold.

John Edwards, who has stated he will not serve as a VP, was always a name that was going to be on the VP list. I, personally, think that it was the most overrated name to get a figure, but it did nonetheless. He had national recognition - something that a vast majority of the other names lacked. He is somewhat (though not overwhelmingly) popular among white, working class voters. He’s a failed VP candidate already, under Kerry, and didn’t prove to be a serious problem for the Republicans to handle during that race in 2004. Similarly, his home state of North Carolina will be in play when it’s Obama vs. McCain because Obama has pulled it into the swing column. Edwards and Kerry lost it by double-digits in 2004, so he isn’t helping much there it looks like. Edwards, like Clinton, has had disagreements with Obama, and attacked him over his health care policy. And on the front of the Iraq War (which Edwards voted for) and military and foreign experience (which Edwards has none of), he contributes nothing, and Obama needs a candidate who does. And, finally, Edwards fails to bring the ‘experience’ to the ticket. Edwards is a senator, like Obama, who only has executive experience as much as a primary run gives you, like Obama. Edwards is probably still on the list, but not a serious chance.

Hillary Clinton … moving one …

And we come to the only serious possibilities. I’ll list them in no particular order first: Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas; Chet Culver, Governor of Iowa; Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia; Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico; Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia; Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio, and; Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri. How did I get to these names?

Ever since the endorsement, Bill Richardson’s name has been thrown about more times than Clinton really. Then polling data started getting released alongside number-crunching from states. And I’ll be honest with you, in an ideal world they are both promising. An Obama/Richardson ticket started polling very well in both red and blue states. And, of all states to come into play, Texas did. There is no way the Republicans can win the White House back without Texas. No way in the world. So when the figure came out that 47% of Texas was either African-American or Hispanic, the state came into play. Why? Because Obama is (shock and awe!) black, and Richardson has Latino heritage. Not only that, but Richardson was polling an ‘Obama number’ (85%+) among Hispanic and Latino voters before he pulled out. The sorts of numbers that were being generated around Texas, with this ticket, was very exciting. It looked like a real chance. Oh, and he is nationally recognisable, having run in the primaries, which is a big plus at the moment.

But let’s be honest here. A party ticket with two ‘minority’ candidates does not stand as good a chance with Obama running with a white man. Richardson, for as great a politician and man as he is, might actually encourage ’scared’ white voters to vote Republican. Also, Richardson has a tendency to say things he shouldn’t. And, finally, he can be painted as a primary failure for not even winning a single state, hardly any (if any?) delegates, and pulling out after a disappointing performance. Richardson is on the list, and should be, and probably is tied for first spot with …

Tim Kaine. You’ll notice that all bar Richardson have been white men so far. There’s a reason for this: America is ripe for change, but not change shot out a cannon. As disappointing as it is, Obama probably needs a white man to balance the ticket. I hope the U.S. proves me wrong (with either a Hispanic or a woman winning office with a black man), but I don’t think they will. This is where Kaine comes in. He’s got executive experience as governor, is quite popular in his electorate, and he comes from a swing state that will be crucial for a win. Virginia, and 13 electoral college votes, is going to be in the game plan (which I will get to later). He is young at 50, and hasn’t been ‘tainted’ by D.C. either. Thus, he is also a ‘change’ candidate. He is representative of the working class vote that Obama has been struggling with and is a ‘Southern’ politician, and balances out Obama’s Northern-ness.

Problems? He isn’t really know well outside of Virginia or the Potomac area. National recognition is going to be very important for the Democrat’s VP. And while he might be popular in a swing state, there is no guarantee that he will deliver it. His position on abortion might hurt with the Democratic base who, while they will come out in force for a really good ticket, might lag a little here. There was also a rather expensive bungle with an airport in his state, which will come into the focus when the Democrats go hard on McCain’s serious lack of knowledge on the economy. But these things can be rectified (mostly) in a long campaign, like the one we are about to get. So that’s why I expect Tim Kaine to be tied for first with Richardson.

I also want to point out that I’ve been saying Time Kaine for months now, well before other people (other than myself) were even saying Obama would win the nomination. Could I go two-for-two with early calls?

Kathleen Sebelius is someone I’ve umm’d and ahh’d about for a while now. When her name was first brought to my attention (by Mr. Rabbit, no less), Clinton hadn’t gone on her ‘kitchen sink’ attack yet, and her and Obama had a working relationship that could have been turned into a ‘dream ticket’ with a bit of work. So I disregarded her, saying that if Obama was going to run with a women, he might as well run with Clinton. Then Clinton … well … went insane, and Sebelius shot up the list I expect. She’s got executive experience and is another option that isn’t ‘tainted’ by D.C., thus another ‘change’ candidate. She balances out the ticket as a Southern Democrat, coming from Kansas, and is liked well enough (as is Obama here) that it might bring the state into play. Her views on same-sex marriage are good for independent voters, and voters of the swing states.

However, she’s aged 60. Being the change candidate requires to a bit younger I feel. Obama can pull it off, Kaine can (aged 50 next January), Bill Richardson will struggle because he will be 61 next January, and Sebelius will be 60. Now, I’m not being ‘age-ist’ (I am usually, but not at this very moment), but to build the best platform and argument that Obama can get, you have more options with a 50 year old. While coming from a red state, and being able to bring the state into play, it only has 6 electoral votes, and putting her on the ticket doesn’t swing any other states into play. So she might only be worth 6 electoral college votes, rather than someone like Kaine who brings a possible 13+, or Richardson who could bring in 5++.

Claire McCaskill, another possible female candidate, but very slim on experience. She’s a serving senator, but was only sworn in in 2007. She has a purported 20 year political career, but it will be called into question. However, she ranks because she comes from the bellweather state (much like Eden-Monaro), having gone to every president since 1904 except once (in 1956), of Missouri. It has 11 electoral votes, and thus ranks as reasonably important. Another problem though is that she isn’t overwhelmingly popular in her state …

Actually, the more and more I’m reading about her, the more I’m sure she isn’t going to get the spot. Send her to the top of the post, along with the rest of the duds!

Jim Webb is an interesting option. He has good benefits. He’s a white man, but he also has some good executive experience, as well as great military experience. He was U.S Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan for a year, was a Republican until 2006, when he swapped to be a Democrat and won one of Virginia’s senate seats in 2006. He has a long and decorated military service. He speaks out against the Iraq War, and was one of the first public figures  to predict a long, drawn out, guerrilla war, rather than the quick victory everyone was expecting. He holds moderate positions, which will appeal to independent voters, and his military service might also swing those moderate Republicans who are looking for change.

Problems: His experience is patchy. He had a run as head of the Navy, and then nothing politically until 2006, and now only has a year and a half’s experience. He wasn’t the most popular Navy chief either. Also, he only just won his senate seat, and in that context, Tim Kaine is a much better option. I don’t think you realise how close that race was - he won by less than half 1%, or 9,329 votes. In a statewide election, that’s next to nothing. And, by all accounts, if his seat went to another election, it would be a hard-fought battle that the Democrats are not guaranteed to win. And the Democrats want all the seats they can get to try and attain the magic 60 seat majority to be able to employ The Cloture Rule. The Democrats really want those 60 seats, and don’t want to risk any especially if they are going to have a Democratic president who wants to push some serious change through the Senate. So running Webb as the VP is not the best move strategically.

Chet Culver, of Iowa, is the last option that I put forward. He comes from Iowa, is reasonably popular in the state, and could deliver it. Now an informed reader might be up in arms that I might give Culver a better chance than Sebelius because his state has 1 whole electoral vote more than Kansas. It’s not just that though. When I sat down one night, long ago, and figured out the sort of race and outcome that I believed would happen, I kept having the race come down to a handful of states every time: Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada. Every time I thought out a plan, two or more of these states would decide the entire outcome. Months later, I read that these states (along with Missouri) have been listed as ‘decider states’ - that a combination of three of these will give one candidate the win. This is even after Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (the big 3 swing states) have been decided one way or the other. I’ll map out my theory in a later post, but suffice to say, if Obama could choose a candidate that could deliver one of these states, he
is two steps in the right direction.

Big problem: Culver has, well, a year and a half’s experience. He was sworn in as governor in 2007. Untainted, young (42 at the swearing in), and a white male just doesn’t make up for no experience. But I have a feeling he will rank in at number 10 on the VP list.

Ted Strickland I haven’t followed much because his name hasn’t been spoken a whole lot. He is very Republican on gun control (he was even endorsed by the NRA!), but is Democratic on abortion, health care, and capital punishment. While white and a man, he will be far from young - 66 in next January. Yet, he is very popular among his state, and has a very long history of experience: A House member for 12 year, and governor for a year and a half. He has good Republican appeal (340 Republican endorsements!), and will swing moderate Republicans looking for a change in a flash. I could write more (quite easily, as he is a very viable candidate), but the clincher for a top 5 finish is that he comes from one of the big three swing states of Ohio. If he could deliver that (and there’s a good chance he might, or would at least keep it competitive if Rob Portman is McCain’s VP (also from Ohio)) then he should be on the ticket.

So in the end, what is my list? Here it is, complete with cross-outs of the candidates who have flat-out said they don’t want the job (Edwards, Biden), who lack experience to do anything for the ticket (Culver, Webb), or were too pro-Clinton (Bayh):

1: Tim Kaine
2: Bill Richardson
3: Kathleen Sebelius
4: Ted Strickland
5: John Edwards
6: Ed Rendell
7: Joe Biden
8: Chet Culver
9: Jim Webb
10: Evan Bayh

I am loathe to leave Rendell there (because he is such a Clintonite), but the fact is he probably does actually round out the top 5 list. I stick with Kaine, acknowledge Richardson, and consider Strickland the dark-horse. But Obama/Kaine 08 are the signs I am predicting we see.

Thomas.

Apologies. This post is awfully constructed, the ‘voice’ isn’t there, and I haven’t done any referencing other than Wiki. I get across everything I want to say, but in a very ugly way. Again, apologies.