The potential VP analysis thread.

[TheWraith]

Inspired by the thread here, discussing VP shortlists:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6282180

I thought it might be enlightening to talk about the pros and cons of various major choices. I started out with this list, culled from the most obvious selections on that list:

Fmr. Gen. Wesley Clark
Fmr. NC Sen. John Edwards
KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius
VA Sen. Jim Webb
Fmr. Gen. Anthony Zinni

Here's how I see the pros and cons.

Clark has incredible military and diplomatic credibility, unmatched by pretty much anyone else. "Supreme Commander, NATO Allied Forces Europe" is a great trump card. Downside is that picking him might, might be seen as overcompensating, creating a perception that the Obama camp thinks they're weak on foreign policy.

Edwards is savvy, eloquent, and capable of doing the "attack dog" mode if and when he wants to, but doesn't necessarily bring a state or states with him, nor either military or governing experience.

Sebelius has administrative experience, and has demonstrated solid red-state appeal while still maintaining a clearly Democratic platform. She might be seen, though, as a "token" female to try and recapture angry Clinton supporters.

Webb seems like an obvious pick, at least to me: he's from a swing state, has both military experience and a strongly pro-veteran record without being too flashy about it. He's a former Republican with ties to the Reagan administration, which means a lot in this era when moderate Republicans and Reagan Democrats are fleeing our way in droves. The only downside I can think of is ticket balance, having two Senators on the slate.

Zinni has military credibility, as well as having been against the war from the start, though I don't think he has as much name recognition as Clark.

One minor issue with Clark, Sebelius, Webb, and Zinni: all are in their early 60s, meaning that after two terms as VP they'd be less than fresh to try and hold the White House on their own. Less an issue for Sebelius (the youngest of the four at 60), and Webb (who seems to have a "Picture of Dorian Gray" thing going for him).

Anyone else have thoughts?

[Thrill]

1. Better add Sam Nunn

[iamjoy]

2. Other Concerns

Clark is none too savvy politically.

Edwards is just not that effective as "attack dog." He has a bit of baggage, too.

Sebelius has very little personality.

Webb will drive the females away. Many of them already feel scorned about Hillary being defeated, Obama doesn't need a running mate who wrote an article "women can't fight."

[TheWraith]

7. Re: Clark, I don't think he needs to be the greatest politician.

We've already got somebody with as much political skill as you could ask for.

Webb, for what it's worth, has apologized and said he was wrong when he wrote that.

[papau]

3. half the party doesn't give a damn unless Hillary is VP -but the "unifier" will wait for your advice

[TheWraith]

6. Actually no, very few people really feel that way. Watch.

If Hillary thinks those 17 million voters are really going to hold their breath until she gets the VP nod, she's mistaken. Two thirds of them are probably already gone, the rest are packing.

[cynatnite]

4. I'd like to see Clark as Secretary of State...

I can't see Edwards wanting the VP slot.

[patrice]

5. Also!! Richardson. nt

[cloudythescribbler]

8. Barbara Boxer -- my first choice; MI Sen Stabenow, Brian Schweitzer, Bob Graham ---

NONE OF THESE EVER SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION WHEN IT WAS POPULAR.

Remember how the press is going to give Obama a hard time if he nominates ANYONE who EVER supported IWR.

Plus, it reflects good judgment, at least not being an ADVENTURIST imperialist