Running Mate Predictions?
The NY Times thinks Obama has chosen a running mate, and could release a name as early as Wednesday morning.
I'm no Election Wizard, and I realize the question is becoming a bit of a yawn these days, but after kicking around the Times website, I couldn't help but hope for the most trusted man in America . . .
Any other (more realistic) predictions?
I'm no Election Wizard, and I realize the question is becoming a bit of a yawn these days, but after kicking around the Times website, I couldn't help but hope for the most trusted man in America . . .
Any other (more realistic) predictions?
Labels: Elections
posted by Patrick Bageant at 10:51 PM
21 Comments:
Am I committing online sepuku if I say Jon Stewart has become tired and unfunny?
The relentless mugging for the camera, the faux breathlessness, the terrible (two) voices, the feigned outrage -- it's all just a little....painful to watch.
For my money, Stephen Colbert is about 100x funnier -- more biting, more savage, more un-PC, more relentless. No comedian today more precisely skewers modern conservatism -- its anger, emptiness, and ignorance. And his White House Correspondent's Dinner speech will go down as one of the ur-texts of the W era. So yeah, I vote for 11:30 PM as VP, not 11 PM.
Anyway, I think it's Biden and I think he'd be a great pick. (Just keep him away from British MP speeches).
Damn, EW. That didn't take long:
"Did someone say 'election'? Did I hear 'election'?"
Could your problem with Stewart be not that he is un-funny, but that the current targets are too easy? Maybe you would like him again if he was forced to work a little harder to stay in business by making fun of Dems?
I mean, when he accused Obama of perpetually posing for a coin, I fell from my chair. And thinking about it still cracks me up.
Wow, I was thinking of writing a post handicapping the players. First, I agree with E-Dub on Colbert. Second, here are my bookie's picks.
Biden 5:2
Clark 3:1
Bayh 6:1
Kaine 6:1
Reed 9:1
Sibelius 12:1
HRC/Hagel 20:1
Someone else 15:1
OK. I'll just put it out there.
Clinton.
I wouldn't have thought so a month ago -- not in a million years.
But a lot has changed. And from where I sit, she makes a lot of sense right now.
I think, strategically, Clark is a slightly wiser choice than Bayh.
Bayh: 1.) he is senator of Indiana, a swing state where Obama trails ever so slightly (according to the Pollster.com composite), 2.) while Senator's don't have as much pull in delivering their state for their candidate, Governor's do, and he is also the ex-Governor of Indiana, and 3.) he was a prominent Clinton supporter, and this move will supposedly help unite the disgruntled Clinton supporters (which I doubt).
Clark: he single-handedly trumps everything McCain brings to the table. He WON a war, he has tons of executive military experience (while McCain has none), he was first in his class at WestPoint (whereas McCain was 894/899 at the Naval Academy), and he was also a prominent Clinton supporter (a wash with Bayh, but I still don't think it's a big deal). Most importantly, he helps the most to diminish the "Obama doesn't have experience" argument.
Smart money, bookies aside: Clark.
I wrote an article four years ago lauding Clark for the same reasons and trashing the Edwards pick for Kerry...and if I do say so myself, I've been vindicated. Toney is right that he makes a helluva contrast. The problem is, Clark just isn't a very good politician.
On the other hand, people vastly overstate the importance of the VP pick -- the value is basically in reinforcing an existing (winning) narrative: witness Clinton's brilliant pick of Gore in 92. Everyone said Clinton needed "balance" -- and Clinton did the exact opposite: he found himself another young, white, Southern Democratic moderate -- and it was genius.
Problem is, I don't think there's anyone out there who really doubles-down on the Obama narrative. How could they? Webb was the closest, and I shed a tear the day he withdrew.
But it's become increasingly apparent McCain is going to try to win this on some combination of the 40-year-old GOP strategy of "Democrats hate real Americans!" + "Democrats are soft on communists/dictators/terrorists!"
The genius, therefore, of the Biden pick is simple: no Democratic politician today better understands, thinks about, writes about, or speaks about foreign policy better than Joe Biden. And he can play the pit bull better than anyone.
So when McCain and Romney (please God, please let it be Romney), start spouting off lies about Democratic foreign policy and (once again) confusing Shia and Sunni, Joe Biden will rip them apart sinew by sinew. And with Obama threatening to transubstantiate into a cloud of pure shimmering energy, an attack dog is exactly what Dems need right now.
I think it's Biden, but only because I've been thinking about how annoying Obama-Bayh would sound for the next couple months. I mean, just say it. Obama-Bayh. Yuck.
I agree that Biden is probably a decent pick to deal with Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, but he has a real problem with message control. I would be a little worried that he might say something stupid given his previous comments about 711s and Obama being "clean" and "articulate".
Clark has some of the same issues. He is not a seasoned politician and also has the potential to say off-message things. Just a couple weeks ago he said, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” That was a pretty unfortunate thing to say and just drew more attention to the fact that Obama has even less experience. It will be interesting to see who he picks.
On a side note, I was looking at Mccain's background and it turns out that both his father and grandfather went to Annapolis and also pulled dismal grades. His grandfather was deputy chief of naval operations for air with the rank of vice admiral and was crucial in the defeat of Japan during WWII. Grades can be a good indicator of potential success, but they aren't everything. I don't think John McCain is as dumb as George Bush. At least I hope not, because he looks like he has a solid chance at winning.
Revising Clark, 100:1
While certainly not a front runner, I really think that Sibelius would be an interesting choice. Mostly because she has a way getting center republicans to vote for Democrats.
For those who don't understand KS politics there really are 3 parties in the state: the Dems, the fiscal Republicans, and the social Republicans. She's really helped lay the way for the Dems to draw some of moderates. See http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/13/nation/na-kansas13; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801679.html
DE for Veep ... that would be "doubling down" on the Obama narrative!
But seriously, I think Joe Biden is great.
That's too bad. I actually liked that he would shoot his mouth off. It's so nice when things that people don't want you to question (ie how POW status is equivalent to executive military experience) are questioned (when Clark asked how POW status is equivalent to executive military experience).
Biden is similarly quick-quipped, though a bit sharper at what is couth and what isn't, so my hope is now for Biden over Bayh et al.
I'm starting to like Evan Bayh here. Biden seems like way too much of an beltway-insider for a change campaign narrative, and he would probably be better as Secretary of State, anyway.
Bayh, while another beltway-insider, is less so than Biden and would really help to appease Clintonians and to deliver Indiana.
This Kaine guy in Virginia is a bit of a darkhorse though. I think what it boils down to is that the campaign looks at Virginia and Indiana and asks where the bump would be more useful.
Kaine seems like he might double-down on the bad parts of the Obama-narrative, though (too much change, too much inexperience, etc.), and he looks a bit too much like Rush Limbaugh for my comfort.
But who knows, maybe they decide they need the bump in Virginia more than Indiana.
Biden's out. Too bad.
To be honest, I STILL think it's Biden. And the reason for this is because I don't think Biden even knows whether he is the VP pick or not.
Chuck Todd was on Countdown tonight, and he read follow up quotes by Biden, who said "I just don't know, you guys know as well as I do."
My theory on what is going on here is that the Obama campaign doesn't want to get scooped by the media, so they are keeping it secret as long as possible. I'd be willing to bet that the VP pick doesn't know they are the VP pick yet. Which is why my money is still on Biden.
Off topic..but any idea when interview schedules will be available tomorrow?
"Phase 1 interview schedules will be available for viewing and cancelling [sic] beginning on Wednesday, August 20 at 9:00 a.m."
I see that the Chronicle staff have a similar umm hobby.
I was wrong again.
Post-game stat sheet:
EW: +2
Armen: +2
Toney: -1
Matt: -1
Anons: +1
Patrick: Deep left field.
Post a Comment
<< Home