Skip to content
Categories:

Should there be an Iraq litmus test on Obama’s running mate?

Post date:
Author:

TNR’s Michael Crowley made an argument yesterday that I’ve seen more than a few times in recent months: Barack Obama shouldn’t pick a running mate who supported the war in Iraq in 2002.

Increasingly, the wise guys are predicting that Obama will choose Bayh or Biden as his running mate. Maybe, but neither one makes much sense to me. Obama’s entire candidacy has been organized around his initial opposition to the Iraq war, and his condemnation of the “Washington thinking” and “Washington judgment” that led us into it — which in the primaries, at least, was implicitly more an attack on supposedly weak-kneed Democrats than Republicans. For him to choose someone who, like Hillary Clinton, backed the war resolution and took a cautious line about withdrawal just seems to make a mockery of all that.

Scott Lemieux made a similar argument in June, noting

, “I could see a case for Joe Biden if he hadn’t been in favor of the war.”

And Matt Yglesias argued in April, in relation to Biden joining an Obama ticket, “[P]utting someone who voted for the war, even someone who did so half-heartedly and after making a quasi-promising effort to restrain Bush, seems to muddy way too much of the argument Obama is making.”

I’m relatively agnostic at this point about who would be Obama’s best choice for the ticket, but I’m not sure if a litmus test on the war in Iraq from six years ago is the way to go. (I heartily endorse a litmus test on a potential candidate’s current position on the war, though.)

First, on Biden, Yglesias noted in April some of the important caveats. Biden voted for the AUMF, but he did so grudgingly — much more so than nearly every other Dem who backed the measure — and even at the time, pushed an effort to limit the president’s war-time authority. Biden was also among the very first to start condemning Bush’s handling of the conflict. I would have obviously much preferred if Biden voted against it, but the context puts him in a far better light on the issue than, say, Evan Bayh.

Second, I’m not at all sure if every Dem who got this wrong six years ago necessarily has to be rejected by the party now.

To be sure, this was a devastating mistake, and the Dem lawmakers who voted for the war were wrong. If Hillary Clinton had voted the other way in 2002, I have little doubt that she’d be the Democratic nominee now.

But when considering possible running mates, some good Dems were on the wrong side of this issue six years ago, including senators I genuinely respect like Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, and John Kerry. Indeed, a whole lot of us heartily endorsed the Democratic ticket in 2004, and it featured two candidates who were both wrong about their 2002 vote on Iraq.

Now, I appreciate the broader context here. Obama got Iraq completely right from the start, a fact that gave him an important edge in the Democratic primaries. He doesn’t want to just change U.S. foreign policy, he wants to change the mindset that got us into this mess in the first place. Would it be great for Obama to pick a running mate whose judgment six years ago was as good as his? Sure.

But I’m not sure if this should be a disqualifying factor for those Dems who failed to show Obama’s judgment. In 2002, a whole lot of congressional Dems got it wrong. All they are persona non grata? Even if they’ve since come around? Or are they tainted forever?

Kevin warned a while back of Obama “insisting that he’ll associate only with the pure of heart who opposed the war from the beginning.” That sounds about right. If Obama’s running mate endorses Obama’s policy, considers the war in Iraq a terrible mistake, and is prepared to help end this war that never should have been fought in the first place, that’s good enough for me.

How about you?

Comments

  • dmh

    says:

    The key has to be a come to jesus moment, where the putative vp nominee completely and unabashedly professes that the vote was a terrible mistake. No hedging, not attempt to rationalize it, just admit it was a mistake. As importantly, the vp nominee must persuasively endorse the Obama vision of foriegn affairs and how we deal with conflict in the future. The purpose here is to illustrate how there will be a new, better, way to deal with the world and the vp fully endorses that. I think that Biden, for instance, could easily meet this test. Bayh, on the other hand, could not credibly make that case.

  • beep52

    says:

    The longer this race runs, the less idealistic I’m becoming. If picking Howdy Doody would help Obama keep McCain from the Oval Office, I’d say, ‘go for it.’ McCain and those behind him are that dangerous.

  • Shalimar

    says:

    I’m not sure why Bayh is even on the shortlist since he seems to believe the main thing wrong with the Iraq war is that it prevents us from starting an Iran war. Ugh.

  • SaintZak

    says:

    I think Biden would be an excellent choice. His stand on the Iraq situation has been clear, and clear-headed. I, too, wish he had voted against it from the star, especially since he wasn’t happy about it at the time. During the primary debates he virtually took the rest to school in his understanding of foreign affairs. He’d be a great and valuable running mate…I say set him loose on John MCCain.

  • OkieFromMuskogee

    says:

    Here’s my hierarchy:

    1) Right from the start (Obama)
    2) Wrong at first, but learned from their mistake (Biden et al)
    3) Unrepentant idiots (Hillary, G.W. Bush) – not qualified to be the VP nominee.

  • Winkandanod

    says:

    Obama a very sensible response to questions like this. Only a fool makes the perfect the enemy of the good. There are a few good VP candidates, but no perfect ones. I think Biden is a good as it gets.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    This is a good point for picking Sebelius, since she wasn’t in the Senate at the time, of course. (In fact, a case can be made that any of the senators you mention would be vulnerable to the ‘I was for it before I was against it’ line.) However, this does narrow the field too much, and I would want to know how early a Senator began speaking and voting against the war.

    The one absolute litmus test, for me, is the “Protect America Act.” Voting for that should rule out any candidate — bye-bye Bayh. But this whole area, Iraq, civil liberties — please don’t bring up FISA unless you can quote the sections of the bill which qualified as being bad — and the Gonzales DoJ are intertwined, if a member of Congress is picked.

  • Dennis-SGMM

    says:

    Is it a given that Obama is going to choose another Senator as a running mate? I’d think that he’s more likely to choose a governor or an ex-governor. I agree with OkieFromMuskogie on the litmus test.

  • Wapiti

    says:

    Assuming an Obama win, his VP will likely be the favorite among Democratic candidates in 2016. And if things go right over the next 8 years under Obama and the VP, then this VP will be the President for at least 4 years.

    I’d like someone with proven judgment, one whose character makes him or her less likely to involve us in future wars of choice. Someone who jumped on the attack Iraq bandwagon early because of political ambition is unfit. Too many of our Presidential candidates appear to have done just that. Blood – a lot of blood – is on their hands.

  • ml johnston

    says:

    I am confident Barack Obama will choos someone who will work with him to clear the mess lef t by the most corrupt administration and Republican committee’s.

  • JC

    says:

    But I’m not sure if this should be a disqualifying factor for those Dems who failed to show Obama’s judgment. In 2002, a whole lot of congressional Dems got it wrong. All they are persona non grata? Even if they’ve since come around? Or are they tainted forever?

    It’s not a Litmus test – it’s an IQ test.

    The disaster was easy to foresee – in fact, it had been predicted for years, not least by Republicans in 1990-1991. Lots of experts, and 40% of the nation (including a LOT of Republicans I know), opposed the invasion.

    To put it bluntly, I question the judgement and/or character of anyone who supported or voted for the invasion. I can forgive them, but voting for this invasion is, to me, the equivalent of a felony – a permanent mark that carries permanent consequences.

    That said, I continue to believe/hope the VP will be a Western Governor, not a Congressman or Senator.

  • Jinchi

    says:

    The main opposition to Biden was his key roll in pushing the Bankruptcy Bill of 2005 not his support for the Iraq war. (His “real deal” comment to Alberto Gonzales doesn’t help much either).After all the party nominated Kerry in 2004 and nearly nominated Hillary Clinton this year.

    But to your second point, there’s no problem with Obama picking a running mate who was wrong on the Iraq war unless that running mate is supposed to shore up Obama’s supposed weakness on foreign policy. That’s the only reason Biden is being pushed forward.

    Clinton would bring women’s issues and health care (not foreign policy). Dodd and Harkin are known for their civil liberties work. Bayh is a new face, like Obama, and certainly wouldn’t be seen as his foreign policy mentor. They each have assets outside of their mistaken support for the Iraq war. What does Biden bring?

  • Jinchi

    says:

    2) Wrong at first, but learned from their mistake (Biden et al)

    Put me down as someone who thinks that Joe Biden’s idea to partition Iraq would have accelerated and intensified the civil war and possibly drawn in more regional players (Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) as each faction fought to define the boundaries of their own territory.

  • jimBOB

    says:

    I’ve long thought the best reason for making AUMF a litmus test is to drive home the message to future senators that voting for a mistaken military intervention is a career-killer. I want any vote to go to war to be a really difficult vote, only undertaken when all other options are exhausted, with senators who make it realizing that if they get this one wrong they can kiss any future presidential aspirations goodbye.

    What I want to destroy is the notion that you can go along with a pro-war vote as the path of least resistance. We somehow got to the point that that was true when we allowed Bush to blunder into this thing. Hillary and a lot of other senators turned their minds and their consciences off and voted yes because it seemed like a safe vote. I don’t ever want to see that happen again.

  • SaintZak

    says:

    ?What does Biden bring?”

    I go back to the debates again. When Joe Biden brought up Pakistan as an issue that will have to be delt with Hillary clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all looked at him startled. Clinton tried to quickly attatch herself to his point, but it was clear the concept hadn’t occured to her.

    Biden’s very strong in foreign policy and with the current situations in Iraq, Afganistan…and especially now with Russia/Georgia…he’d bring alot more to the table than Sebelius.

  • Dale

    says:

    Obama has seemed definitely more pro-war since his turn on the FISA bill. He wants more troops in Afghanistan and he wants to defy Russia more and he keeps emphasizing the war on terror whatever that might be.. So his VP can’t be too pure about the war or it will make Obama look bad.

  • jimBOB

    says:

    Obama has seemed definitely more pro-war since his turn on the FISA bill.

    Not sure this is really true, but to the extent it is, I’d want a more anti-war VP to balance him, not a pro-war VP to paper over the differences between the candidate and the mood of the country.

  • Scott F

    says:

    I am beginning to think Daschle might be in the mix. He has been a very good surrogate. Two Senators, I know, but he’s better than Biden. Doesn’t anyone remember the plagerism scandal that derailed Biden’s early campaign. I still like Clark, but Obama pretty quickly threw him under the bus over is justified comments about McCain. Plus, now that Biden and Bayh are both speaking on the VP night, aren’t they effectively eliminated. Has anyone heard of a VP speaking twice.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    This is a useless argument, given that our Boy Genius has surrounded himself with the 300 Morons advising him on foreign policy with such gems as “Hey! Let’s fast-track the membership of Georgia into NATO and seriously wreck our relationship with Russia just at the time we need them to help us with a real problem, like Iran.”

    Given that Democrats and Republicans are equal offenders when it comes to demonstrating the truth of the old saw that Americans go to war so they can learn the geography lessons they slept through in 8th grade, the foreign policy cred of whoever is on the ticket doesn’t really matter.

  • doubtful

    says:

    This is entirely the reason why one Senator on the ticket is enough. This way we don’t have to argue about voting records as litmus tests.

    Governors, formers Governors, form Supreme Leaders of the NATO allied forces. Me.

    That’s really who Obama needs to be looking hard at.

  • WackyLiberal

    says:

    Well, nobody listens to my political advice anyway, and I always wonder why. Back in 1992, I thought Ross Perot made a serious mistake with his runing mate, and I still contend that he should have chosen the Purdue Chicken guy so that the posters and bumber stickers could say: Perot/Purdue in 92 … they looked so much alike it would have been perfect, and if he also got Orvile Reddenbacher in his cabinet the photo ops would have been marvelous.

    Now in 2008 we are faced with a running mate for Barrack Obama, and after giving it considerable thought I have come up with two options to suggest, and I’m sure they will be ignored as well, but give them a fair consideration, okay? You know how important catchy phrasiology is in America today.

    Obama O’Reilly in 0’8
    while there may be problems with Bill O’s political bent, it just rolls off the tongue, don’t it? or

    Barrack and The Rock
    Who would want to mess with somebody with The Rock standing beside him … besides maybe the Govenor of California or former Governor Ventura?

    Okay … just ignore me then. 🙂

  • Racer X

    says:

    As usual, I agree with jimBOB. The answer is Hell Yes there should be a litmus test.

    The last thing we need to do is tell our senators that being STUPID (failing the IQ test, as JC correctly put it) is not a career killer.

    We hire those people to be smart, not just average. And how fucking stupid did you have to be to trust Bush in 2002? To just hand him the keys to the war machine, based on his assertions of demonstrably false assertions (al Qaeda and Iraq, anyone?). To say to the guy who gave us all the finger on several other issues, “hey, we trust you to not fuck this up”.

    THAT WAS STUPID, FOLKS.

    And to those who say “well, Biden and all those other smart people couldn’t have been stupid, I say Why Not? They failed us, for whatever reason. They were either stupid or politically cowardly, or politically craven, maybe some of them thought “I’ll bet that even if Bush fucks it up I won’t have to pay a price for this vote.”

    Well to HELL with THAT.

    Many if not most of a certain group of Americans SAW THIS COMING. The Progressives saw it coming, stood on the high keys, and got ignored by all those “moderates” who were willing to FLUSH TWO TRILLION DOLLARS DOWN THE TOILET.

    No.

    There is a litmus test, and it says You approved the biggest fuckup in American history, and you go to the back of the line. Period.

    If we can’t find someone suitable who was smart at the time like Obama and MANY others, then fine, pick one of the people of lesser intelligence. But putting more stupid people in office is what Republicans do, not us.

    I would also remind people that a lot of the folks who say they’re against the war now that it is politically unpopular have not done a hell of a lot to make it stop. So who knows whether they’re really against the war or not.

  • Stacy6

    says:

    I’m fairly neutral on whether the VP originally supported or opposed the war. I’d prefer one that didn’t, but …shrug… anyone who helps Obama keep McCain out of the White House can have it. It’s more important that they be willing to vocally, passionately and convincingly explain why they were wrong and how they came, step by step, to that decision. A lot of people supported the war back then. A lot still do. A VP candidate who has been there and has changed his mindset will probably be more effective at changing the mindset of others.

  • hark

    says:

    “Should there be an Iraq litmus test on Obama’s running mate?”

    Well, yes, but it’s NOT how they voted for the AUMF against Iraq in October, 2002. It’s how they view the war now, and warring in particular.

    But there are other litmus tests as well. In my opinion, energy and climate change are the critical issues for the 21st century, both nationally and globally. I prefer someone who understands that.

    But at this point, with McCain breathing down Obama’s neck, the most important litmus test is this: who will best help Obama to become president? And I have no idea how to evaluate that. My gut feel is that Biden would be stronger than Bayh, if the CW is correct that the choice is down to those two.

    On paper, I still prefer Clark, but he’s not shown himself to be a strong campaigner, and he was unable to prevail in that McCain-leadership debacle a while back. He was dead right, but lost the fight. But then again, Obama and the Democrats have caved on the drilling issue, and they were dead right on that, with all the facts on their side.

    It’s a vexing situation. Obama ought to be far ahead, but isn’t, and faces a real possibility of being defeated. Nobody really knows why. I don’t think the VP selection is going to have much effect. I think it was Eugene Robinson last night who offered an interesting twist: he said that it might just be a case of reverse coattails that pulls Obama across the finish line, that it might take a strong Congressional Democratic performance to put him in the White House, that his chances are really dependent upon on how the rest of the candidates do.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    The problem with a litmus test is that there’s nothing we can do if someone fails to meet it. Would any opponent of the war really say they would not vote for Obama/Biden as opposed to McCain/Anyone? It is certainly legitimate to have views as to who you want to be Obama’s running mate, but it doesn’t make much sense to consider it a litmus test.

  • Lance

    says:

    I’m starting to agree with the ‘stupidity’ test aspect, but really, I don’t think Hillary could have hoped to win the General in 2008 if she had voted against the AUMF.

    And I still think she’s the best choice to help Obama win (if you scream NO, NO it’s because you are already voting for Obama and you aren’t gauging the mood of the rest of the electorate correctly (though I could be wrong about the Electorate’s mood) ).

    That said, since you can’t have Jim Webb (who spoke out against the war before it started far more thoughtfully than Obama (I was going to write ‘Effectively’ but neither Webb or Obama were ‘Effective’) I have to say my candidate for VP to do the best job would be Bill Richardson, if the vetting on him came up clean.

    Clark, okay. Biden and Dodd, no. Bayh or Feingold, maybe. Another woman than Hillary, not a good idea I suspect.

  • doubtful

    says:

    I have to say my candidate for VP to do the best job would be Bill Richardson… -Lance

    Have you seen him lately, though? He’s following in Al Gore’s post election loss footsteps. He’s grown an awful beard and put on a bit of weight.

    Frankly, I think that’s as sure a signal as any that he’s out of the game.

    Can’t say as I agree to your assessment of the electorate regarding Hillary, but I’m sure you suspected that.

    I honestly think you’re overestimating her draw. She may play well among the Democrats, but I really think her presence on the ticket would turn off Obama leaning Republicans, who, baseless as it may be, harbor ill feelings for the sum total of the Clintons.

    And I’ve heard the battle cry against any other women besides Hillary, and I think that’s just sad. I doubt Hillary would agree that the crumbling of the glass ceiling was for her and her alone.

    I don’t think she delivers any votes that weren’t already his. Besides being irrelevantly small in numbers, the tried and true PUMAs won’t accept second chair, anyway.

    It’s time to let go of the pipe dream. I think the campaign has made it abundantly clear that she will not be his choice. I suppose you can rest your hopes of a Clinton on the ticket now on a delegate coup, but that’s also just fantasy.

  • Dale

    says:

    There seems to be a lot more certainty about the AUMF now than there was then (since we now know how it turned out). We were still under the influence of 9/11. At the time I don’t think many people thought Bush would actually use it to go to war. I think the consensus was that he would use it for leverage to play out the brinkmanship to bring Saddam to heel. But crazy Geroge went for the brink and right over it. I agree that the congresspeople should have been smarter than your average warmonger, but the times were pretty stupid.

    And Obama didn’t vote against the AUMF, although he made a good speech against it. Seeing his accomodating ways since then I don’t have real confidence that he would have voted against it at the time. And he hasn’t done any more than anyone else to end the war since then. In fact, his whole plan has been for several Friedman’s to get out of Iraq.

    But McCain is world war three walking. So it’s gotta be Obama and a vp who is against the war.

  • Will

    says:

    It scares the crap out of me that Bayh is being so seriously discussed for the VP spot. That would be an absolute disaster of a pick. There’s being wrong about the war, and then there’s being co-chair of the neocon Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. If refusing to accept any candidate who took part in that farce is a litmus test, then hell yes I support a litmus test on the issue.

    Bayh loses the election for us.

  • pfgr

    says:

    I could not find it in a quick search on line, but I wonder how Biden and Dodd voted on the Durbin and Levin amendments to the AUMF, which would have required an immediate threat rather than a continuing threat, and would have conditioned force on non compliance with inspectors. I recall HRC saying in the debates she voted against them because she wouldn’t given he U.N. a “veto power” over our use of force, but don’t recall Biden or Dodd’s positions.

    For those who use the AUMF vote as a litmus test vote, maybe having voted for these limiting amendments might carry some weight.

    BTW Jack Reed voted against the AUMF. I have read that Obama has a high opinion of Reed, who also checks off a lot of boxes — veteran, Catholic, 18 years in Congress, etc. He said he does not want the job but …

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reed

  • Jinchi

    says:

    I don’t think Hillary could have hoped to win the General in 2008 if she had voted against the AUMF.

    This statement really makes no sense to me. If victory in the general election required voting for the AUMF, then McCain will win in a landslide.

    If Clinton had stood up as an opponent to the Iraq war at the time, she would have been in solid company with a majority of the Democratic Senators and been able to use her status as a well known Senator to become the leading voice of the opposition to what we now see as the biggest foreign policy disaster of our time.

    You think that would have been a liability?

  • Jinchi

    says:

    I could not find it in a quick search on line, but I wonder how Biden and Dodd voted on the Durbin and Levin amendments to the AUMF

    Byrd Amendment (vote #234)

    To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.

    Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Harkin all voted No

    ———————————————————-
    Levin Amendment (vote #235)

    To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.

    Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd voted No
    Harkin voted Yes

    ———————————————————-
    Durbin amendment (vote #236)

    To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

    Bayh, Biden, Clinton voted No
    Dodd and Harkin voted Yes

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

  • KRK

    says:

    Votes on the Durbin amendment to the AUMF in Iraq: Biden – Nay; Dodd – Yea; overall 30 – Yea, 70 – Nay.
    On the Levin amendment: Biden – Nay, Dodd – Nay; overall 24 – Yea, 75 – Nay, 1 – not voting.

    I share jimBOB’s sentiments @ 15 about not wanting a vote for war to be the easy choice in the future, but I’m not going to stop working for an Obama victory over McCain in November in any event.

  • libra

    says:

    I tend to think, also, that voting for AUMF was a failure of “native” intelligence (ie not that provided by CIA). But.. Well… Fool me once… OK. Who of them was fooled *twice* and voted for the Kyl/Lieberman (vis Iran)? I know Clinton did. Any others? That one, I fear, is *still* hanging over us like an unexploded time bomb.

  • short fuse

    says:

    I wouldn’t have a litmus test. To a certain extent, It’s ok with me if Obama’s vp pick isn’t 100% in line with him ideologically, as long as Obama makes it clear “I have productive policy discussions with my team, including the vice president, but at the end of the day, it’s my leadership and my decisions.” It even doubles as a backhand against Cheney/Bush.

    That said, I would be unhappy about Bayh, as I would have been unhappy about Clinton. Too wrong too often, and didn’t seem to learn or even admit mistakes.

    And I agree with Prup, “Protect America” would be more of a deal-breaker to me than AUMF, particularly because one can demonstrate a change of heart since AUMF.

  • Mike

    says:

    OkieFromMuskogee said:….3) Unrepentant idiots (Hillary, G.W. Bush) – not qualified to be the VP nominee.

    I see the fairy tale of Obama’s anti-war vote persists. Now, who was it that said “All options are on the table” about Iran? Oh, yes, Your anti-War saber-rattler.
    … “A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Obama said.
    “I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat,” Obama said on the latest leg of talks in Israel and the Palestinian territories….

    Peace candidate? Yeah, right.

  • Jinchi

    says:

    I see the fairy tale of Obama’s anti-war vote persists.

    Obama never claims to be anti-war. He’s anti-Iraq war (or more generally, against stupid wars) which is a distinction still lost on the majority of people discussing the topic.

    He’s not a pure pacifist. But the fact remains, he’s less likely to commit to war than any of those who voted for the AUMF and far less likely to commit to war than the Republicans and John McCain in particular.

    Pretending that there’s no distinction between them is ridiculous.

  • joey

    says:

    The propaganda of the Bush administration was overwhelmingly pushed by the media to sway a country but how these possible VP picks stand since is the bigger question.

    I support Clark or Feingold for VP. Here’s a good clip for Russ but Clark did not lose that McCain qualification rampage by the media…he stood his ground and made it seem like those challenging him were hacks. Demonstrating his strong character under fire.

    “…Caroline Kennedy is the VP vetter. Russ Feingold, along with John McCain were recipients of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award for their work on McCain-Feingold. Caroline Kennedy was part of that decision and clearly she has a high regard for Feingold. I’m sure he is very much on her radar. Kennedy could have even been placed on the committee to help legitimize the decision. Obama knowing he wanted Feingold, knowing Kennedy would draw the parallels of Obama, Feingold, and her father. Just as she had drawn the parallels of her father and Feingold, and her father and Obama previously.

    Third, the issues. Feingold has co-sponsored numerous bills that would help Senator Obama. He voted against the war, Patriot Act, FISA (bring in libertarians, independents), immigration bill. He has recently introduced the Use It or Lose It Oil Bill. The list goes on. Also, Feingold is a great public speaker. He is very intelligent and thoughtful when speaking. He explains complicated issues in a simple, easy to understand manner, as seen here. However, he speaks his mind and can speak forcefully, but I’ve never heard a gaffe. He’d be a great outspoken attack dog. Also, he has a plain and folksy delivery and loves to reference Wisconsin. He travels to each WI county (all 72) at least once a year.

    Clearly, he is popular with libertarians and Independents in Wisconsin. (2004 exit poll results here). Oh, and even Republicans admire his tenacity and his principles. Of course, he also reminds them of the McCain-Feingold bill, which they hate McCain for. Also, important is the possibility of campaign finance violations by the McCain campaign gaining tranction in the traditional media. Feingold would be great to have on hand in that event. Finally, he managed to grab some Bush voters in the 2004 election (5 to 6%).

    He is also a budget hawk, sits on the Select-Intelligence Committee (which is HUGE–privileged information), the Judiciary Comm, Budget Comm, and the Foreign Relations Comm, among others. The Select Comm. on Intelligence is really a big one. These Senators have had access to some of the knowledge that has been stinking up politics for the last 7 plus years (see FISA, scandals, etc).

    Finally, if you want an outsider, you’ve got one in Feingold.

    More: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/scoop… “

  • hornblower

    says:

    Why do pundits feel that because they have a forum anyone cares what they think about VP or anything else? Go do some investigating and break a story about an issue that effects the public. There are enough opinions out there already.
    At some point they will pick running mates and they will not ask us or consult the media.

  • Terry

    says:

    And where’s the list of those who actually went to the secure room to read the full intelligence report before the AUMF vote?

  • JT

    says:

    First of all, Obama is more of a pragmatic politician then an idealist politician, so I don’t think a potential VP selection will be discarded solely based upon that vote. Second of all, I don’t think Obama should pick another Senator, which makes this question almost moot.

    I think Obama needs to choose someone outside of Washington for a couple of reasons. He needs to keep the change theme strong, and contrast it against 4 more years of Bush/McCain. Second, the Senate is too close to draw the VP choice from. Better to pick a Sebelius, Clark or someone else.