What Now? Veepstakes?

Still within a day of Obama's clinching of the nomination, I am already feeling fatigued by the coverage and analysis of who may or may not get to be the running mate. Regardless of who the big winner is, it is my wish that Obama takes his time with the vetting process. Not simply because it takes time to ferret out the skeletons, but also because the political calculus this year is so much more complex than in cycles past. A protracted and deliberate selection process will also allow more time for any pro-Clinton bitterness to die down and more time for Obama to be his own story for a while.

I think it's too early to make any predictions or even have a short list, but I think there are many compelling possibilities out there. Here are some commonly mentioned name I'm not liking too much right now right now:

Hillary Clinton- I'm not a big fan of the so-called "Dream Ticket" idea. Yeah, Hillary exemplifies that vintage Clinton ability to weave the horse shit with the bull shit, but this otherwise admirable quality flies right in the face of the type of campaign Obama needs to run this fall. Mostly, though, I find her to be a tireless self-promoting phony with the power to energize the Republican base like no other Democrat this side of an Obama/Osama ticket.

John Edwards- I love John Edwards. He was my favorite horse in this race the moment Joe Biden dropped out. I think he would have been a formidable presidential candidate. However, as a veep candidate, it's hard to see the advantage of adding him to the ticket. It's probably not very fair to blame him for not carrying North Carolina when John Kerry topped the ticket, but the selection of a running mate is supposed to be about getting votes you otherwise might not get. I think Edwards brings a lot more to the table if he was running his own campaign, but I don't see that he adds too much as an Obama sidekick.

Gen. Wesley Clark- This is another name bandied about that just isn't getting my nipples too hard. The swiftboating of Kerry should have taught us that a cloak of military credentialism won't necessarily protect a Democrat from the "weak liberal" charge. Having NATO Supreme Allied Commander on your resume just isn't going to stop some Americans from believing your weak on terror and want the bad guys to win the moment you start talking sense about the war in Iraq. I'm also not too convinced that he has the requisite polish to perform well in debates and on the campaign trail (at least in comparison to the other potential veep candidates). Probably a good choice on the surface, but I'm not there yet with Clark.

Evan Bayh- Not a very charismatic or compelling candidate compared to the other selections. I don't see him helping Obama carry Indiana or getting him additional votes anywhere else for that matter. He was a high-profile Clinton supporter, but it's too soon to know how much fence mending needs to be done with the selection of a veep.

Kathleen Sebelius/Claire McCaskill- Any other year, I wouldn't worry at all about a female running mate. This just isn't any other year. As great as these selections might be, their choice this time out would pick all the wrong scabs amongst Clinton backers, for right or wrong. Also, McCaskill doesn't bring any more experience to the table than Obama, and I don't see her helping on the electoral math anywhere outside of Missouri. I have the same concerns about Sebelius, except that I don't think her addition would even turn her home state of Kansas blue.


Here are a few names I haven't heard mentioned all too often, but think they deserve more consideration:

Bill Richardson- This guy could be a great twofor selection for Obama. Not only would you be adding some foreign policy expertise and general experience to the ticket, his heritage might help solidify support amongst Latinos and help earn votes in the west and southwest.

Joe Biden- The best foreign policy selection available. Not because he's served on the right committees in the Senate, but because he has (imho) the best plans for unfucking this country in the middle east. He's tough and charismatic. He may be a higher risk choice, though, if you factor in his occasional tendency to phrase ideas in an unfortunate manner.

George Mitchell- In one man, I don't think you could find a better diplomat or deal maker than former Sen. Mitchell. He represents ethos, gravitas, and supreme competence in a single package. He may not be the ideal veep candidate, but it'd be hard to find a better veep who could honorably serve the country in so many ways.

Tom Vilsack- This former Iowa governor and presidential candidate doesn't have the star power of any of the above politicians, but he is not without his qualities. He would help round out a "midwestern" ticket, which might help blunt the charges of liberal elitism we always get from the GOP. He also brings charisma and the administrative experience that comes from running a state for two terms.

Ed Rendell- If it turns out that a high profile Clinton supporter is needed to put out the fires, why not someone cool. Even when he was carrying Hillary's water, he was just damn fun to watch. He could help shore up the Jewish vote the same way Richardson might help with Latinos. His selection could help with Pennsylvania, Ohio, and amongst the blue collar voters that drug things out for Clinton.

Any other suggestions???