Biden is VP --- But What Now?

Barack Obama made the right choice.  I know what I've said before about potential veeps for Obama, but Biden was the best choice out there.  Biden brings experience, enthusiasm, and possibly most important of all, an absolutely captivating background story.  Obama, in addition to needing someone to bring experience and blue collar workers to the Democratic ticket, needed someone to play the role of the "attack dog".  We all know that the Republicans are going to go after Obama head on, holding nothing back.  Biden is uniquely positioned to hit back on John McCain and to do it with a smile.  I believe that I speak for millions of Americans when I say that I am truly looking forward to seeing Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the White House. 

But now what for Obama?  He's named his VP and the convention is coming up.  But what else can he do to assure voters that he should be the next President of the United States?  I have a suggestion.  Barack Obama should come out and name who his Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General will be.  Not only would it assure some uneasy voters if Obama makes the right picks, but it will also give Obama four more high profile surrogates and campaigners.  Let's look at some suggestions for these four positions:

Secretary of State: If anyone but Biden was named VP, then Biden would have to be the frontrunner for this position.  But since Biden was rightfully named the VP nominee, Bill Richardson has to now be the considered the leading candidate for Secretary of State.  In addition to Richardson's experience in foreign affairs, Richardson, if named by Obama to be his Secretary of State should he win, would be able to almost certainly deliver New Mexico, and possibly Colorado, for the Democrats.

Secretary of Defense: This is yet another position where naming the right person could help Obama immeasurably.  Who would I name?  General Wesley Clark.  Clark, despite the ridiculous attack on him by the media a few months ago, has earned the respect and trust of the American people.  Wes Clark could be yet another surrogate to go talk to white voters uneasy about Obama in Appalachia.  

Secretary of the Treasury and Attorney General: I'm not sure who would be considered a frontrunner for these two positions.  Surely John Edwards was a leading contender for Attorney General before his scandal.  Now, however, I'm not sure.  As far as the Treasury Secretary is concerned, someone like a Mike Bloomberg, who is well versed on economics, could bolster Obama's poll numbers on this election's number one issue. 

Again, why stop at the Vice-President?  Let's show the American voters true transparency by letting them vote not just on the President/VP, but the next administration as a whole.  As I've said, if Obama makes the right choice for cabinet members, he can more easily win this election.  

Choosing a Vice-President (Democrats)

Well, two of my favorite candidates for Vice-President have already taken their name out of running: Gov. Strickland of Ohio and Sen. Webb of Virginia.  With those two once potential veeps no longer potentials, I'm going to run down those who are considered to be in the top tier of choices as well as those who I think would bring the most to the ticket.

1) Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  No, no, no...and again...no.  I don't know how to be any more clear than that.  Don't get me wrong, I like her.  She's been a great, bi-partisan governor who has helped raise the profile of Democrats in one of the reddest states in America.  With that being said, however, she is boring.  She's not exactly someone who could hold her own in a town-hall meeting or a rally.  She doesn't even come across that great when being interviewed on television.  And the truth is, what more does she bring to the ticket?  Even with Sebelius, Obama is not going to win Kansas.  And it's not exactly like she has appeal in any other states.

2) Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia.  I just don't see Tim as ready for the national spot light yet.  He appears messy on camera and I don't think we've seen enough of him to know if he could be a good campaigner.  Again, a good governor, but not right for Vice-President.

3) Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.  I used to be very high on Judas...I mean...Bill Richardson.  He has everything Obama lacks: executive experience, foreign policy credentials, popularity among Hispanics (although Obama has made great in roads), from a state in a swing region, the Southwest, etc.  But after the betrayal of Sen. Clinton and the bitter taste he left in the mouthes of all her supporters, Sen. Obama would not (or at least, should not) dare put Richardson on the ticket.  If you think Obama has a problem consolidating the support of Hillary's supporters and fundraisers now, just think what it would be like if Richardson was on the ticket.  

4) Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.  The Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Sam Nunn route is the wrong way to go for Obama.  Don't get me wrong, I like Joe Biden, but he adds nothing to the ticket.  Obama is going to win every state in the Northeast and Biden wouldn't help in any other region.  The main consideration for Biden, of course, is his foreign policy experience.  But Biden, along with Dodd and Nunn and all their foreign policy credentials, would be a boring choice.  Barack Obama is a rockstar.  He needs someone who doesn't drag down the ticket. In other words, I just can't picture Obama and Biden standing next to each other.  I can't picture Biden rallying up supporters.  I just don't see it.    

5) Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.  Now here's one of my favorite choices.  Bayh fits the Vice-Presidential checklist to a "T". He has executive experience, he's from a critical swing state, he's a centrist who has proven to have huge appeal to Republicans and independent voters, he's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Select Intelligence Committee and therefore has national security credentials, and plus, he has the look of a President, or in the case, Vice-President.  He's still very young (52) yet has extensive experience.  I like this guy a lot and if Obama doesn't pick my #6, he should take Bayh.  

6) Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.  Plain and simple: Hillary should be Vice-President.  She's earned it.  Hell, she received more votes in the primaries than Barack Obama.  Plus, she ensures party unity, which seems to be on a rocky roadat the moment (with polls still showing as much as 35% of Hillary supporters backing McCain or not voting at all).  More importantly however, Hillary has strong pull in swing states.  As Chris Matthews wisely pointed out a week ago, Barack Obama might want to expand the map, which is all well and good, but all he has to do to win the White House is hold Kerry's states and win Ohio. And, to continue what Matthews said, Obama can win Ohio today by picking Hillary as VP.  In addition to Ohio, Clinton also helps Obama expand his map by making states such as Arkansas and even Kentucky and Tennessee more competitive.  And if basically guaranteeing Obama the White House wasn't enough of a reason to pick Hillary as VP, she also brings her foreign policy experience and her ability to connect with working class "Reagan Democrats" in a way few politicians ever have.  

The Daily Dose---2/23

Nader '08?

Tomorrow morning on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader, who ran for President in 2000 and 2004, is expected to announce a bid for the Presidency this year as well.  Quite frankly, this man sickens me.  He runs year after year for nothing more than an ego trip.  When will he realize that all he does is take votes away from the Democrats, whom he is much more in line with than the Republicans?  Seriously, who would have done more to advance the causes that Nader supposedly cares about----Al Gore or George W. Bush.  We know that answer.  That brings me to the conclusion that if Nader really cared about the issues that he says he does, he would not only support the Democratic nominee, but campaign for him/her. All he does by running, is make it easier for a Republican, in this case, John McCain, to win the White House.  

Here's a great video that an "anonymous" person posted on the internet concerning a possible 2008 Nader candidacy:

Democratic Veeps

There has been a lot of buzz on the net concerning who Barack Obama might choose as his Vice-President.  Frankly, I don't want to rule out Sen. Clinton, but it does appear that Obama will be the nominee.  So, who will he choose?  Many are suggesting Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  I like Gov. Sebelius, but she's not right to balance out the ticket. Obama needs someone with foreign policy experience first and foremost, and Sebelius does not have that right now. Many though, are adamant that Obama should choose a female running mate, to pacify the women who would be disgruntled if Sen. Clinton does not win.  I'm not saying she's the right person, but Sen. Barbara Boxer is probably the only female, besides Sen. Clinton of course, who is young enough, yet has enough foreign policy credentials to be on the Presidential ticket (Sen. Feinstein would be other, but she is too old).  The problem with Boxer is that California is going to go for Obama regardless of whether or not she is on the ticket.  My suggestion for Obama would be someone like Bill Richardson. Richardson has executive experience, unparalleled foreign policy experience, and would do a great deal to bring Latinos on to the Obama campaign.  And although I don't think Richardson is that exciting or was that great of a candidate in his own right, he might be the best choice out there for Obama.  Any other thoughts? 

ABC's Republican and Democratic Debates

The back to back Republican and Democratic debates in New Hampshire demonstrated to the American people that their choice for the next president really does matter.  The Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, would continue the same policies of George Bush and are still quoting Ronald Reagan nonstop.  Rudy Giuliani still talks about a reduced government role like Reagan, but he is clearly not in command of the facts.  As George Will wrote a long time ago, the federal government grew and spending increased on Reagan's watch. 

 

As far as Republicans go, I thought Romney won the debate based on his answers to the questions.  People were able to understand what he was saying.  On the issue of healthcare, he knows more about the subject than his Republican opponents and explains it well.  I thought it odd that there were two questions that brought a good response but McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani were almost silent.  In fact, those three seemed to be detached at times.  The other Republicans are lost when Ron Paul talks about the fiscal disaster the Bush administration has put our country in.  They can't answer him because they bought into this fiscal disaster.

 

The Democrats debated issues that are more related to the problems facing the people.  Good thing Obama has his stump speech down pat on the campaign trail, because his answers in the debates are usually incoherent, off the mark, fragmented, and rarely, if ever, answer the question asked with any substance.  

 

John Edwards would get my vote for winning the first half of the debate, and Hillary Clinton for winning the second half.  Both of them gave answers to the questions that were good and could be understood.  Hillary was a little late getting started but she finished strong and well.  Obama talks about change, but he has yet to articulate how or what he would change.  Edwards and Clinton have done a much better job in that regard.

 

Richardson is a capable candidate, but lacks the ability to stay focused on the questions and the issues and therefore his answers are not easily absorbed.  He loses his chain of thought.  The biggest void in the debate was the absence of Biden and Dodd.  They are two people who know the issues and who can articulate what they would do if elected president.  A 20% turn out in the Iowa caucus eliminated them from the campaign.  Their valuable thoughts will be missed.

 

Edwards was the most inspired I thought and Hillary was able to make her point that you can't make change simply by talking about it.  I think the best thing that could come from the New Hampshire vote is a close race with no real winner.  That would bring out the best in the remaining candidates because they would all be forced to articulate their positions more sharply and then the people would really be able to make a decision based on some thing concrete rather than a stump speech.  Besides it would balance the sides because Obama is the darling of the news media and is getting all the positive attention.

 

It requires winning over 2000 delegates to win the Democratic nomination, so we have a long way to go.  I can not agree that a quick knock out in either party serves the American people well.  If a quick knock out occurs, then the issues will lay dormant.  That is not good for America.  We have seen that happen in the past.

The Democratic Candidates' major flaws

There are currently eight democrats with the hope of winning the 2008 Presidential Election. All eight have some great upsides and major pluses, but they also have some key flaws. These key flaws are what divides democrat's on who their nominee should be; there is no "perfect" or ideal candidate.

1. Hillary Clinton- Hillary's major flaw is her image. A lot of people picture Clinton as a cold, stiff person. In other words her appeal and favorability is believed to be limited and democrats don't want to go into a general election with a losing candidate again.

2. Barack Obama- Obama's main issue that he will have to overcome is his experience..or lack there of. With having only spent two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama is still seen as a rookie. The fact that he has had numerous slips and mess-ups in the debates, further speculation as to whether or not Obama is ready to run a general election campaign and ultimately run this country.

3. John Edwards- Edwards has become the populist candidate. He has taken a sharp turn to the left and is appearing to be more and more liberal each day. This might have appeal to the far-left faction of the democratic party, but to moderate democrats and the American people, Edwards is seen as just a little to "out there".

4. Bill Richardson- Bill's huge issue is getting a point across. He has performed horribly in the debates and whenever he makes a speech, he fails to get his message out there. In this day and age, ability to deliver a speech is a key asset needed to reach out and appeal to people. Richardson's inability to reach out to an audience greatly hurts him as people don't get to see Richardson's views adequately expressed.

5. Joe Biden- Joe Biden is the angry candidate. When you see him in the debates, he always seems angry. While a little force in your voice can be a plus, Joe takes it a little to far. His passion comes off as anger, and instead of people listening to what Biden is actually saying, all people hear is enraged yelling.

6. Chris Dodd- Chris has the exact opposite problem that Biden has. Dodd comes off as too sub-dued. His passion for this country fails to come out in his speeches and his debate performances are forgettable.

7. Dennis Kucinich- Dennis has very little appeal to main-stream democrats. He is by far the most far-left candidate in the race. He is the democrat who would do the worst in a general election, as his message just doesn't resinate with the majority of the American people.

8. Mike Gravel- The question for this guy is, "where were you the last 30 years?" In fact my favorite interview of this campaign came when Chris Matthews asked Gravel that exact same question and Gravel responded, "under a rock!" (get it, gravel..rock) Another major issue for Gravel is his over all wackiness. Its not something you can pin-point, the man just comes off as crazy.

There you have it, what I think are the flaws of the democratic candidates. None are the perfect candidate, but then again there has never been a perfect candidate, but I feel confident that one of those people in that list will be our next president.

Be sure to check out my blog on the flaws of the GOP candidates as well.

The Biden Auditions---our next Secretary of State?

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware is one of the most experienced men running for the presidency. Yet just like Richardson and Dodd, his years of experience has not yet helped in the polls. Yet unlike Dodd and Richardson, the Delaware Senator for 34 years is a great performer in the debates. He has that forcefulness and passion that Dodd and especially Richardson lack. Yet have you noticed what I've seen?

Joe Biden is auditioning to Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, much like he did in the 2004 election. Why do I say that? Well in the first debate Biden backed Hillary Clinton, saying that the Republicans are sadly mistaken if they believe she would be easy to defeat. He has said kind words about Senator Clinton in every single interview I've seen him give. And he loves to tout the fact that he is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But in fact, I must say, whether Biden auditioned are not, he has to be at the top of any and every democrat's list for Secretary of State. That position is becoming increasingly important with the conflicts in the Middle East. Joe Biden has great knowledge of foreign relations and his forcefull and "say it as it is" attitude is exactly what America needs right now.

Who else would I consider for the job? Not Obama thats for sure....but anyway:

-I truly like Barbara Boxer. I've heard her speak several times, and every time she speaks she demonstrates her foreign relations experience. She is the chairwoman on the Senate Foreign relations sub-committee for Asian affairs as well as being member on the sub-committee for terrorism and the Peace Corps. She too has been a long time Senator for 14 years now.

-Bill Richardson has a mighty impressive resume. What qualifies him most for Secretary of State is the fact that he was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Not to mention he has successfully negotiated with Saddam Hussein, Castro, and Kim Jong-il for the release of American prisoners. He was also involved in foreign relations while in Congress for 14 years.