Thursday, August 21, 2008

Veepstakes

With Obama set to announce at any moment, VP speculation is rampant. I certainly don't know who either of them will pick, but I do have my preferences. I'll admit some of those preferences are rational and some are not.

On Obama's side, I would certainly be heartened with a pro-life pick. For a party that has put NARAL front and center and rubbished good folks like the senior Mr. Casey, any lean in a more moral direction would be significant to me. At the moment only Gov. Kaine fits that description, however imperfectly. He doesn't have much experience, but I'd almost be willing to overlook that. Even slighter pro-life leanings can be found in Sen. Bayh, like myself a blue-dog, and Sen. Biden. Bayh strikes me as a rather safe, uninteresting fellow. His record is not perfect, but I don't think he'd do much harm. Biden is more problematic. He's a goodly fellow, with one of the best records on foreign policy, but he seems to suffer from perennial foot-in-mouth disease. And he has a long legislative record to plumb and attack. Gov. Sebellius has a good bi-partisan record, in a conservative state no less. But her recent pro-choice moves have really hit me the wrong way. And do we really need another liberal Catholic out there for the conservative bishops to deny communion to? (Do we, Sen. Biden?) Besides, in her stump speeches for Obama she has struck me to be about as interesting as stale wonder bread.

Then of course there's Hillary. I would have been seriously disappointed with this pick a month ago. I've long felt that this country needs to move beyond the partisan bickering and sexual indiscretions of the 90s, if that's even possible. Half the country, after all, hates her guts. But as the campaign has gotten nastier (just look at today), it has begun to look more and more like her milieu. She's got blue-collar, blue-dog credentials, a modicum of experience, and she's a fighter. Right now those are all looking like things Barack needs. She's got enough baggage to fill a container ship, and I'm already not looking forward to all the clips the right will run of her sliming Obama (which they'll undoubtedly run whether she's the running mate or not), but the country knows her and even the right respects her.

Personally, I'm still hoping it will somehow be a shocker, like the junior Casey or Hagel. And my biggest dream of all, Colin Powell. The only problem with him is that he should be at the top of the ticket. But he's never really wanted the job. Which is why he has always been perfect for it, a true Cincinnatus. As I like to say - Always give the Ring to Hobbits. Only give power to those who don't really want it. For the moment, it's Kaine and Bayh who are looking the most hobbitish.

On McCain's side it's much easier. I'm not sure I like any of them. I will be really disappointed if he picks someone like Romney, who I think is a shiftless, partisan hack. Though Giuliani's stock has risen with me in recent days, how could I abide a pro-choice Republican. That's like my worst nightmare. Mr. "a Noun, a Verb, and 9/11" just won't do. Joe Lieberman is certainly with me on many issues, but something distresses me about his fixation on the war. Even conservative commentators are saying why would we support a VP nominee who agrees with us on only one thing, the war. I certainly appreciate the long friendship he has had with McCain, a fellow maverick if you will. But it seems like he is willing to betray his entire party just over a difference on Iraq, the only major thing he agrees with the Republicans on. Perhaps that's true bi-partisanship, true character, but I just don't know. I really don't know enough about some of the others like Pawlenty and Jindal. They seem rather untested, and would diminish McCain's arguments about Obama's inexperience. At this point McCain is going to have to really impress me. A good, reforming maverick like Palin or a grand old statesman like Lugar would go a long way. (And so far the only speculation about Lugar has been for Obama). And then of course there's the Huckster. I actually like Huckabee a great deal. His folksy charm, aversion to mudslinging, and authentic faithfulness are really quite winsome. His policies in Arkansas were a mixed bag, but I don't think I would be disappointed. Of course, I don't think he has a snowball's chance in Arizona.

It's all going to be interesting. Maybe we'll all be surprised.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

I think Jimmy Carter and Charels Schumer are both correct when they say that the Democrats shouldn't focus on being pro-choice... Because being a democrat isn't about that...

Don't get me started on Leiberman... like other famous people from Conneticut (Benedict Arnold) who are two faced people who have no integrity and sold their soul to the highest warmongering bidder...

peregrinator said...

Although my skills at prognostication are poor (but I did call Gore in '92), I am going with Hilary.

1) Clintonistas are pissed that she has not been vetted by Obama's people, which they take as disrespect.
2) They want to avoid the fall-out of a roll-call for the nomination.
3) A number of Hilary folks have yet to warm to Barry, polls show.
4) Obama is not doing as well in the polls as he should at this point.

Unknown said...

Well, the big O made his mistake and decided to rush to the center without firmly shoring up his base...

I find it interesting that he went with Biden because he is "strong on foregn policy" and whose weakness is the fact he can't shut up.

peregrinator said...

If Obama doesn't win (which is a real possibility I would have counted on a few months ago) will anyone remember his running mate in 3 years?

And Team Obama, who have been so well organized and on message, to not even to have vetted Hilary seems an incomprehensible error.

peregrinator said...

Correction to the post above: That is that I would not have counted on Obama loosing a few months ago.