VP watch: Biden, Sebelius and Crist campaigning more or less overtly

It is still early in the veepstake game. Barack Obama only wrapped up the nomination three weeks ago and the two candidates are giving themselves more than a month to pick a running-mate. In fact, Marc Ambinder reports that neither campaign has yet winnowed down the field of potential picks to those who will be asked to submit vetting documents: medical and tax records, answers to embarrassing questions.

Since both Obama and McCain are likely to make that first cut soon, this is a particularly important time for those politicians who want to be seriously considered and who want to be vetted. Except for those politicians who are look certain to be vetted (say, Pawlenty and Sebelius), every statement and action from a potential VP is doubly important right now. A successful attack on the opposite party can attract your candidate's attention, for instance.

But is there such a thing as too overt campaigning for the vice-presidential slot? Mitt Romney will find out soon enough, as he has done little since the day he dropped out other than do whatever the McCain team could have asked him to do. On the Democratic side, Joe Biden has been demonstrating how effective an attack dog he would be by offering scathing reviews of McCain's foreign policy positions, months after he ridiculed Giuliani when he said that his sentences consisted of "a noun, a verb and 9-11."

On Sunday, Biden declared on NBC's Meet the Press that he would accept the nomination if it was offered to him by Obama. "The answer I’ve got to say is yes," he said. This does not seem a particularly forceful statement, but it is nonetheless a break from the tradition that potential veep picks remain discreet and never offer definite answers about anything. In fact, is the art of artfully changing the subject one of the tests VPs need to pass?

More seriously, Joe Biden would make a lot of sense as the Democrat's running mate. He gained a lot of positive reviews for his campaigning last year, and he has been among the most effective attack dogs over the past few months, displaying his willingness to do what VPs are meant to do while on the trail. Biden is also among the most experienced Democrats when it comes to foreign policy, ensuring that he would be effective on the topics McCain would love to focus the campaign on. The downside, of course, is Biden's tendency to speak too quickly and the last thing Obama needs in the coming months is to waste time addressing a Biden gaffe.

More discreetly campaigning is Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, whom Ben Smith points out referred to herself as an "Ohio girl" and praised Obama's "Kansas values" on Saturday. This is a clever way for Sebelius to highlight the strength she would bring to the ticket. Obama's Kansas roots are an essential part of the biography the Democrat is introducing to voters this months, with the expression "Kansas values" featuring in Obama's first general election ad. Who better than that state's Governor can tout that message and strengthen Obama's appeal in the heartland?

While some of the governor's doubters contend that she would not help the ticket in any particular state, Sebelius seems to be aware of that weakness and seeking to address it. By calling herself an "Ohio girl," she is signifying that her appeal would extend across the Midwest and that her success in convincing conservative voters in red Kansas bodes well for the reception she would receive in states that are more obviously on the list of battlegrounds -- starting with Ohio.

On the Republican side, Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been attracting a lot of attention of his own, starting with his surprising decision last week back McCain's proposal to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. That has long an idea vigorously opposed by Florida politicians, and one Crist had consistently rejected. While there have been some indications over the past few days that McCain's move might not be as unpopular in Florida as it was first thought, Crist's willingness to quickly rally behind his party's nominee on an issue so central to his own career betrayed his eagerness to be considered for the vice-presidential slot.

As I have often pointed out, Crist's biggest weakness is the insistent rumors about his sexual orientation. Will McCain risk a bombshell revelation over the next few months that would anger social conservatives and potentially keep them at home? Crist's denials have franklydone nothing to squash speculation ("No, man. No. I love women. I mean, they're wonderful.") and the issue has now made its way to an interview Crist conducted with New York Times magazine. This is the end of the interview:

Your personal life is not that of a typical Republican candidate. For starters, I hear you’re not a property owner. It is true. I do not own property. I just never found a need for it. Now I have the Governor’s Mansion, and I rent a condo in St. Petersburg.

You were married nearly 30 years ago, but the marriage lasted less than a year. Do you prefer living alone? I got married and divorced because it didn’t work out. I haven’t found the right one since. It’s really that simple.

You can’t find one woman in all of Florida? Maybe I have. Stay tuned.

Note the use of "the right one" in that second answer and the non-committal suggestion that Crist might soon no longer be a bachelor. Talk about doing what it takes to be included in the list of the vetted? I also included the first question as a reminder that Crist faces the distrust of business conservatives as well, many of whom regard him as a more of a Democrat than a Republican and are angered by what they perceive as excessive moderation. The National Review profiled him last month, coming close to vetoing Crist (not that McCain owes much to the National Review or similar groups).

Most recent VP headlines:

• June 20: James Jones chooses McCain, Frank warns against Nunn
  
• June 16: Jindal's exorcism problem and (more-or-less credible) Democratic denials
• June 13: Colin Powell and Chris Dodd heading out of veepstakes
  
• June 11: Strickland, Jones spark weird storylines as Obama's vetter resigns
• All coverage for Democrats and Republicans

VP watch: James Jones chooses McCain, Frank warns against Nunn

With the Democratic veepstakes seemingly more open and unpredictable than the Republican ones, it is no surprise that there is more speculation concerning Obama's vice-presidential pick. In fact, the GOP veepstakes have long been celebrated Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota as the favorite, with no real equivalent on the Democratic side. U.S. News is now hearing the same thing from a source that insists that Pawlenty is the "flavor of the week."

This is largely self-sustaining speculation: The more Pawlenty is rumored to be the favorite, the more articles and profiles will be written, the more pundits will mention his name to appear in-the-know and the more Pawlenty will appear to be heading the veepstakes. The main thing Pawlenty has going for him is that he has no obvious flaw. Mitt Romney still has to resolve the Mormon question and is not fully trusted (or liked) by John McCain, though their relationship certainly seems more friendly than it was in January. Charlie Crist has that gay rumor going against him and the conservative base would complain. Bobby Jindal is very young and, well, somewhat creepy. Remains Pawlenty, with whom McCain has a good relationship and who is unlikely to offend any major constituency. Given the rest of the field, that's already a big advantage.

The Democratic veepstakes, meanwhile, gained and lost a player within a few days: last week, the Obama campaign purposefully leaked the name of former General and NATO commander James Jones, whom no one had really thought of as a potential VP pick. But it soon became apparent that Jones was a friend of McCain's and was being mentioned by a Republican as some sort of appointee in a GOP Administration. To dispell whatever speculation might have been left, Jones made a joint appearance with McCain on Wednesday after flying on the Arizona Senator's plane. That should be enough to remove his name from the list of Obama's potential running mates.

Another potential pick that some Democrats (and myself) would love to see removed from Democratic veepstakes is former Senator Sam Nunn, whose deplorable record on gay rights is only the tip of the iceberg of what is a very conservative record of a politician positioned at the DLC-wing of the DLC (note that it would be a surprising pick coming from Obama the post-partisan). While most of the attention is devoted to Nunn's opposition to Clinton's attempts to allow gays to serve in the military, Rep. Barney Frank (one of the only gay representative in the House) pointed out in an interview with Stuart Rothenberg that Nunn had voted against the 1996 Employement Non-Discrimination Act which failed by a single vote.

Frank added that he “would have a hard time voting for the [Democratic] ticket” if it contained Nunn's name. While Frank would probably not follow through on that suggestion, it would make little sense for Obama to pick a VP who would make so many Democrats uncomfortable when he has many other more acceptable conservative Dems he can pick from if that is the direction he wants to take.

Meanwhile, Jim Webb potentially complicated his own selection as he endorsed John McCain's proposal to allow offshore drilling for oil. Barack Obama has said he is against the idea. While it is not necessary for a VP pick to agree with the head of his ticket on every topic, offshore drilling is a clear enough contrast and is likely to play a big enough role in the general election campaign (Republicans are gearing up attacks on Obama for ignoring the rise of fuel prices by refusing to lift the moratorium on drilling) that it could prove embarassing for Obama to have to deal with Webb's contrary position. Webb's statement also highlights what is the main drawback of his pick, namely the fact that he would be unpredictable on the trail with all the risks that presents for a vice-presidential candidate. A running-mate's primary role is to not mess up until November, and Webb could certainly grab a few unwanted headlines.

Most recent VP developments:

• June 16: Jindal's exorcism problem and (more-or-less credible) Democratic denials
• June 13: Colin Powell and Chris Dodd heading out of veepstakes
  
• June 11: Strickland, Jones spark weird storylines as Obama's vetter resigns
• June 5: Nunn backtracks on gay rights, Webb campaigns with Obama, Clinton steps back
• All coverage for Democrats and Republicans

Gore, Solis Doyle, Iraq: Obama prepares himself for the months ahead

The exchanges between the two campaigns are already getting heated, but don't forget that Democrats just recently switched to general election mode. While John McCain had ample time to take control of his party in the months that followed February 5th (whether he succeeded, of course, is another question), Barack Obama is still busy taking steps to ensure that Democrats are unified and preparing various other plans for the months ahead.

(1) After keeping a low profile for months (not without silly speculation that he might jump in at any moments), Al Gore made his first high-profile appearance in the presidential campaign today as he endorsed Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan. Gore celebrated Obama as "the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America" and rejected any criticism of the Illinois Senator's (in)experience. Given the elder statesman stature Al Gore has achieved within the party, this was a necessary step for Obama to claim the mantle of Democrats past and proclaim himself the new leader of the party.

Note the importance of the event taking place in Michigan. This is also the state in which Obama organized John Edwards's endorsement on May 14th. The Obama campaign has no doubt noticed that Michigan has unexpectedly emerged as their weakest link, with a number of polls suggesting that Michigan could be the Kerry state in which Obama is the weakest. The importance of the state's blue-collar population reinforces the challenge that awaits Obama. His campaign's decision to stage two of the biggest shows of Democratic unity in this state reveals their belief that it would be enough for the party's base and registered Democrats to come home for Obama to pull ahead in Michigan. Whoever Obama chooses as his running mate, he will surely send politicians like John Edwards who are close to labor to campaign in Michigan.

Speaking of last night's Michigan rally, Obama better find a way to instruct his supporters not to boo when they hear Clinton's name if he wants to sooth over hard feelings. The Washington Post reports that, after Gov. Jennifer Granholm mentioned she had supported Hillary in the primaries and before she was able to move on to the standard line about how she is now fired up to support Obama (what does Obama want more right now than former Clinton supporting women publicly backing him), she "received a deafening chorus of boos..."

(2) Obama's campaign hired Patti Solis Dolye, Clinton's former chief of staff, to serve as the chief of staff of the... VP contender once he or she is chosen. This is one of this week's richest political stories, but also one that is entirely reserved for political junkies. It might be true that the Obama campaign is intending his gesture as an overture towards the Clintonites and it might be true that placing Solis Doyle in such an important position is meant to appeal to Hispanic voters, but which insider works for whom in what post and at what time is not the kind of question that moves undecided voters. If anything, it will prevent Republicans from attacking his campaigns for the lack of high-profile Latinos -- a line of attack campaigns typically attempt to put their opponents on the defensive.

The consequences of Solis Doyle's hire on the Democratic veepstakes, on the other hand, are fascinating. Hillary fired her longtime aide and confidante shortly after Super Tuesday, and their relationship is said to not have survived. We also know that many (and not just in Clinton's entourage) have been blaming Solis Doyle for a series of mistakes and for mismanaging the campaign. The reaction of Clinton insiders to Solis Doyle's new role in the Obama campaign leaves no doubt as to the lingering hard feelings. So does Obama's decision to hire Doyle for this particular position not imply that he has already decided to not give the vice-presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton, or is he planning on welcoming his former rival to the ticket with the poisoned gift of an awkward reunification?

(3) Finally, the Obama campaign announced today that the candidate would travel to Iraq and Afghanistan before the general election. The GOP has been taunting Obama for weeks now on why he is not imitating McCain's decision to take a trip there recently. Obama's trip will come later than the foreign travels general election candidates have taken in recent cycles (John McCain also traveled through Europe this spring), but he could not afford living the country when Hillary Clinton was still in the race. With the media's attention now devoted to the general election, Obama is sure to receive a lot of press when he embarks on this journey and this will be a crucial moment for his presidential hopes.

The upside of a well-covered trip is obvious, as it would immediately raise Obama's stature and increase voters' confidence in him on national security. The drawback is as evident: Given that Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, a single misstep or misstatement could cost him dearly as it would feed a concern voters already have about him. This is what happened in the French presidential election last year, as Socialist candidate Ségolène Royale was pilloried for two silly mistakes during a trip to China and then again when she provided the wrong answer to a question about the country's military. As a woman, Royal had more to prove on national security issues and these missteps ended up being devastating. But when her opponent Nicolas Sarkozy blundered the same exact question a few weeks later, no one seemed to care.

VP watch: Jindal's exorcism problem and (more-or-less credible) Democratic denials

Bobby Jindal's inclusion on the exclusive list of guests to McCain's ranch way back when Hillary Clinton was still a candidate caught many by surprise. While the recently elected Louisiana Governor was long mentioned as a possible contender for the vice-presidential nomination, he was perceived as an unlikely pick. But McCain needs youth on the ticket and Jindal's name has remained in the mix. Today, former Speaker Newt Gingrich endorsed Jindal on CBS's Face the Nation, declaring that "Jindal would be far and away the best candidate for vice president in the country." Gingrich's blessing points to one of Jindal's main advantages: he has a very conservative profile, particularly when it comes to social issues. A very religious politician, Jindal could help McCain connect with the part of his base that is still proving the most reluctant to enthusiastically line up against him.

Yet, social conservatism is also one of the main drawbacks of a Jindal pick, as there is only so far Republicans can push religious discourse within the political sphere. To contest in places like Pennsylvania's suburbs, the GOP needs to remain somewhat mainstream on social issues and Jindal might prove a distraction on the trail, forcing McCain to talk about religion and social issues much more than he is comfortable doing. I am not just talking about things like Jindal's strong endorsement for teaching intelligent design in the classroom (a position he articulated this morning on CBS) but more... unusual stories like Jindal's attempt to perform an exorcism.

Jindal himself wrote an essay about this in 1994 in the New Oxford Review, a Catholic publication. Jindal explains how he performed a successful exorcism and rid the body of a friend of a demon that possessed her. TPM notes that Jindal seems to have been entirely serious and provides lengthy excerpts of this stunning piece of writing (purchase is required on the website of the Oxford Review). Note that, beyond the sections about exorcism and removing Satan from the body of this poor woman, the essay also proposes a very traditionalist account of man-woman relations, as Jindal describes himself as willing to stay away from a female friend as it would not be fitting for them to be friends without a "deeper commitment."

Does this level of religious zeal and the willingness to discuss it publicly hurt Jindal's chances to be slected on the Republican ticket? And while devout Catholics take offense at the fact that exorcism is strictly forbidden by the Catholic Church?

Meanwhile, the Democratic veepstakes are being shaped by those who are taking themselves out of the running. While any potential running-make is expected to insist that the vice-presidential nomination is the farthest thing from his or her mind, there is only so far they dare take their public denials. Last week, Ted Strickland ruled out joining the ticket in strong enough terms that observers had to take him seriously.

This week-end it was the turn of Mark Warner to issue strong enough declarations to prompt the AP to headline its piece "Warner takes self out of VP mix." Speaking in front of the Virginia Democratic convention, Warner, who is now running for Senate but about whom speculation had dramatically picked up mid-May, told delegates that "Today, in front of this convention, I wanted to make it clear what I am focused on." He also said that, "I have not sought and I will not accept any other opportunity." Given that vice-presidential contenders are probably submitting their vetting documents to the campaigns just about now, this would be a deliberate lie on Warner's part -- much more than the usual half-hearted denial -- suggesting that the former Governor is really out of the veepstakes. This, of course, is a huge relief to the DSCC and Senate Democrats.

John Edwards, however, took the opposite route, walking back from very strong-worded denials that seemed to assure he would not be willing to embark on a repeat of his 2004 experience to tell George Stephanopoulos today that "I'd take anything he asked me to think about seriously." He did add that "obviously this is something I've done and it's not a job that I'm seeking" but such weakly-phrased assurances of disinterest we are used to, and they don't sound like they are sure of anything at all.

Finally, former Senator Sam Nunn continues to fuel speculation and his friends are sure doing nothing to suggest that he would not take it. The Boston Globe runs an article today explaining why Nunn might be a good pick and relying on members of Nunn's entourage who are "surprised" that "he seems more prepared to accept a vice presidential offer this year." Given that his name has been mentioned every four years since the late 1980s and that it's hard to imagine that Nunn would have rejected any prior pick, anyone else think Nunn is actively pushing to be chosen? In case there are any doubts, remember this.

Most recent VP developments:

• Heading out of the veepstakes: Colin Powell and Chris Dodd
• VP watch: Strickland, Jones spark weird storylines as Obama's vetter resigns
• VP watch: Nunn backtracks on gay rights, Webb campaigns with Obama, Clinton steps back
• All coverage for Democrats and Republicans
  

Heading out of the veepstakes: Colin Powell and Chris Dodd

The controversy that engulfed Jim Johnson, the head of Obama's VP vetting team, has now all but destroyed the vice-presidential aspirations of Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd. An investigation by CondeNast's Portfolio discovered that Dodd, along with Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and two former cabinet members had benefited from below-market rates and lender fees by mortgage company Countrywide Financial in a special "V.I.P." program.

Portfolio notes that this program, and the participation of lawmakers, might breach the law: "Federal employees are prohibited from receiving gifts offered because of their official position, including loans on terms not generally available to the public. Senate rules prohibit members from knowingly receiving gifts worth $100 or more in a calendar year from private entities that, like Countrywide, employ a registered lobbyist." It is unlikely that an investigation might launched or that it would proceed very far if it did, but Dodd and Conrad would be left with a political problem. The mortgage crisis is one of the year's most pressing economic issues, and one that will feature prominently in the campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain. The Illinois Senator has already been hitting his rival over the issue, which is what made his connection to Jim Johnson problematic after the Wall Street Journal made similar allegation against the Democratic operative. Republicans eagerly seized that story to embarrass Obama.

The fact that Johnson offered his resignation within 48 hours and that Obama quickly accepted it highlights the campaign's weariness of being hit on ethics -- especially when it relates to the mortgage industry. And it makes it very unlikely that Obama would turn around within a matter of weeks to overlook what cost him his veep vetter and tap Chris Dodd as his running-mate. Chris Dodd was never in the front-tier of possible picks though his name has sometimes been mentioned. In fact, Joe Biden's stock has always been higher despite the fact that Dodd endorsed Obama shortly after he dropped out of the presidential race while Biden remained neutral throughout the primary.

As a final note, it is ironic that this is what ends up hurting Dodd's chances: the Connecticut Senator is the Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee and as such was said to be benefiting the most when the conversation turned to the mortgage crisis in the fall of 2007.

In other news involving second-tier VP contenders, Colin Powell made it very difficult for John McCain to turn to him by hinting to a Canadian audience that he might vote for Barack Obama. Powell thus joins the list of Republican politicians who are declining to endorse McCain and are leaving the door open to supporting the Democratic candidate (Chuck Hagel is one of the most notable of these Obamacons). This does not guarantee that Powell would refuse to join the GOP ticket if McCain offered it to him, but it suggests that he would refuse to go after Obama, which all but rules him out of the veepstakes given that one of the vice-presidential nominee's chief missions is to serve as the ticket's attack dog.

In many ways, Powell would have made a lot of sense for the Arizona Senator as he would reinforce the Republicans' attempt to contrast Obama's foreign policy inexperience with McCain's national security strength. He would also allow the GOP to somewhat counter the history-making potential of the Democratic ticket. But Powell's advanced age and lack of economic background were obvious drawbacks.

By the way, note how much quieter McCain's vice presidential search has been than Obama's. The presumptive Republican nominee launched his search much earlier than his opponent and he has reached a more advanced stage but much more has leaked about the Democrat's vetting efforts and Capital Hill consultations. This is partly a reflection of Obama drawing more media attention and partly an expression of the McCain campaign's superior ability to keep the process discrete.

VP watch: Strickland, Jones spark weird storylines, as Obama's vetter resigns

Quickening the VP process, two vetters from the Obama campaign (Jim Johnson, who is dealing with his own major problems, and Eric Holder) traveled to Capitol Hill this week to talk to Democratic lawmakers about potential picks. Naturally, part of this process is meant to get names leaked to the press to float trial balloons and see how different figures might fare. Not to mention that the press and the blogs immediately start vetting the front-runners and report on some of their findings before the candidates make their pick.

For instance, the negative response to Sam Nunn among some blogs (mine included) will hopefully help steer Obama away from the former Georgia Senator. And it is hard to notice that the press has a particular affinity for airing critical stories about Jim Webb. Today, Politico reports on Webb's frequent defense the Confederacy; for instance, he has "seemed to suggest that states were justified in trying to secede." While it is unlikely that Obama might end up with a significant problem with black voters whoever he puts on the ticket and while this peace doesn't reveal anything that hasn't been already mentioned over the past few years, this drumbeat of stories plays along the conventional wisdom that Webb would be a risky choice and that he would bring with him a number of issues that the Democrats' campaign would be force to address on the trail.

It was only a metter of time after Obama's team left Capitol Hill that there would be some leaks. Senator Conrad of North Dakota said today that 20 names were discussed, including a number of "former military leaders." It is worth keeping remembering that both campaigns will float names that are not truly under consideration if they think they can get any sort of benefit., and a lot of what we will hear in the coming weeks from both parties will be a game of make-believe.

The military information has sparked furious speculation through the day: Who are these former military leaders? Numerous sources, starting with First Read, are naming a surprising and unexpected name who had not yet popped up in potential running mates: James Jones, a retired general and the former commander of NATO. Jones is now the CEO of an institute that is affiliated to the Chamber of Commerce. Yet, the story becomes especially strange when we consider that John McCain and James Jones are friends, as Politico's Jonathan Martin reports. Not only that, but Jones serves as an outside adviser to McCain's campaign and the Republican presumptive nominee talks about naming Jones in his Administration. Could Obama still select Jones? There are limits to post-partisanship, and would Jones even consider an offer by the Democrat?

Speaking of potential picks declining an offer, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, one of the front-runners in the Democratic veepstakes, insisted that he would not accept becoming his party's nominee. Interviewed on NPR, he declared: "If drafted I will not run, nominated I will not accept and if elected I will not serve. So, I don’t know how more crystal clear I can be." While all potential running mates make sure to vehemently deny all speculation, it is rare for them to issue this adamant a declaration. So has Strickland truly removed himself from the veepstakes? The Ohio Governor is extremely popular in his home-state and seemed to be the choice Obama would settle on if he wanted to choose a former Clinton supporter and not pick Hillary. (Marc Ambinder points out that Strickland has been saying this for a while, so this should not be taken as a rebuke directed towards Obama.)

Update: More on this later if it continues to be a controversy, but Obama's chief vetter Jim Johnson has just resigned from the Obama campaign as the controversy about his ties to a mortgage company was mounting. This made it difficult for the Illinois Senator to take the high road on a major economic issue on which he intends to pound McCain. This is obviously a blow to the Democratic campaign as Johnson is considered as one of the most seasoned vetters either party has to offer. Also, he had been heading the process for a while now whereas his two co-chairs had come on board more recently, so it will all take some catching up (and it's not like Obama was able to start the process very early...).

VP watch: Nunn backtracks on gay rights, Webb campaigns with Obama, Clinton steps back

Former Sen. Sam Nunn, often mentioned as a possible vice-presidential pick for Barack Obama, is giving signs that he is indeed interested in the job. Last week, I explained that Nunn would be one of the Left's nightmare picks because of his profile as a very conservative Democrat -- and one who would fully embrace Obama's post-partisan message -- and also because of his dreadful record on gay rights. Fourteen years ago, he was one of the main opponents of Bill Clinton's efforts to lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving within the military and he used unmistakably gay-baiting methods.

Given how important a role gay rights have played in the political debate in the last 5 years (and will do so again this year now that California conservatives managed to get an amendment to ban gay marriage on the November ballot), Nunn's past should a factor that plays against him in the vetting process. While it might help Obama to have a running mate who is socially more conservative, Nunn's presence on the campaign trail would lead reporters to ask more rather than less gay rights questions to Obama, forcing him to revisit the issue more than he would like to.

Aware of this handicap, Sam Nunn chose to publicly backtrack this week, saying that "times change" and that it is time for the Pentagon to review "Don't ask, don't tell," a policy which Nunn played a huge role in implementing in 1994. Nunn explained that, "It's appropriate to take another look at it -- see how it's working, ask the hard questions, hear from the military." The timing of his declaration should lift any doubt that he is aiming for a position in the Obama Administration -- if not the vice-presidency than some secretarial nomination (Nunn is, after all, more than 70 years old). Why else would he suddenly come out with such a surprising declaration? "Don't ask, don't tell," after all, is not playing a prominent role in this year's campaign.

Meanwhile, veep speculation today centered on Jim Webb, who campaigned with Barack Obama as he held his first major event of the general election in Bristol, Virginia -- a move intended to confirm that his campaign intends to fully compete in the Old Dominion this year. Remember that Virginia and Colorado are the two states that the Obama campaign will cite first when ask where they are hoping to expand the map this cycle. Also accompanying Obama and Webb was Mark Warner about whom vice-presidential rumors circulated a few weeks ago though Obama will be reluctant to take Warner away from his current campaign for Senate. In fact, Obama has as much to gain from Warner appearing on the senatorial ballot as the former Governor is likely to poll much better than the party's presidential tickets and Democrats can hope for some reverse coattails.

Finally -- and inevitably -- Hillary Clinton was at the center of all VP talk today, and this will likely remain the case until Obama makes his pick. Note that John Kerry was in a similar situation in 2004 when he did bow do public pressure and selected John Edwards as his running mate. After prominent Clinton backers (starting with Lanny Davis) started a public effort yesterday to push Obama into selecting his now-former rival as his running mate, Clinton backtracked today, saying she was not interested in the job (something all potential picks have to say) and saying that the decision was entirely Obama's and that she would not make any specific demand. Hillary Clinton must have realized that her supporters' pressure was becoming too explicit and that the Obama campaign would never cave in to it for fear of appeared weak and of prolonging the Clintons' dominance.

Update: Via Marc Ambinder, it looks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are finally having that meeting though it is being held in secret and far away from the press corps.

Obama's VP and the Left's nightmares

As conversations about McCain's and Obama's choices are picking-up, a certain number of people from both parties are worried that their nominee might select a running mate that is too far from the party's base. After all, a vice-president is not only a heartbeat away from the presidency, but he also becomes the favorite to become the party's next candidate. While the Right is worrying about McCain choosing Charlie Crist and Tom Ridge, the Left's worst-case scenario is even more nightmarish, since a Republican is commonly mentioned as a possible pick for Obama, Nebraska's Chuck Hagel.

While Hagel has repeatedly expressed admiration for Obama, he has not endorsed the Illinois Senator. But his comments have been increasingly critical of John McCain, despite the friendship that has long united the two men. Hagel was long mentioned as a possible candidate on a bipartisan ticket sponsored by Unity08 and rumors circulated for months that Hagel and New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg were in talks about a possible ticket. Given that postpartisanship is at the center of Obama's message, speculation that an Obama-Hagel ticket is a possibility emerged as soon as Bloomberg nixed a presidential run of his own back in February.

In a sign that this is indeed a possibility, it was revealed yesterday that Hagel's wife Lilibet had donated to Obama's campaign. Hagel's aides were quick to point out that this was Lilibet's individual choice and that it did not speak for Hagel's choice, but it is certainly a powerful symbol.

While Hagel is as strong a critic of the Iraq War as Senate Republicans have to offer, he remains a very conservative politician; pro-life, strongly pro-free trade and skeptical of government programs (he voted against SCHIP's expansion in the fall). Former Nebraska congressman McCollister called him "except on Iraq, the most conservative member of the United States Senate."

Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is already awakening concern in some Democratic circles. After all, Webb is a former Republican who has only recently converted to the Democratic Party, mostly because of the Iraq War. Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, he was very critical of John Kerry in the 2004 election, hitting the former candidate over his opposition to the Vietnam War. A piece written by Kathy G. on the Atlantic's blog summarizes these worries that Webb is too fundamentally conservative to be given the second slot of a Democratic ticket, particularly in a year in which the party and progressive ideals have such an advantage:

What I worry about is the fact that Webb basically became a Democrat the day before yesterday, and he has a long history of holding some pretty wingnutty opinions and making some fairly outrageous and offensive statements. To quote a Rolling Stone profile of the man, just a few years ago he was saying that "Liberals were 'cultural Marxists,' and 'the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood' were a fifth column waging war on American traditions." In 2000, Webb opined that affirmative action was "state-sponsored racism"; that same year he endorsed the ultra-conservative Republican George Allen for the senate. ...

Troublingly, he gave this glowing endorsement to Mark Moyar's uber-wingnutty "revisionist" history of the Vietnam War, Triumph Forsaken, which was published in October 2006... As Rick Perlstein has demonstrated in a devastating review, the Moyar book is dreadful piece of far-right propaganda posing as history. What it basically is, is a book-length elaboration of the "stab-in-the-back" myth: i.e., Moyar argues that the Vietnam War was winnable, and that only the treachery of liberal elites in the media and the government prevented America from achieving "victory."

Kathy G. then goes into the most troubling aspect of Webb's record: Gender issues. As had been revealed in the 2006 Senate race, Webb had authored a scathing essay in the 1970s seeking to block women from military academies because they are not biologically suited for combat. His writing became a very influential document in the fight for gender equality within the army and many women testify that Webb made it very hard for them to advance their cause, including that of fighting sexual harassment. Kathy G. notes that Webb's poor record on gender issues extends to the 1980s and 1990s and a series of ill-phrased statements. Given that Obama might conceivably have to face some leftover resentment in some quarters that he defeated Clinton's bid to be the first female president, this would not be a good controversy to rehearse in the coming months.

Finally, former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn is the last nightmare choice for those who are not fully sold on the benefits of postpartisanship. Like Hagel and Bloomberg, Nunn was one of the main names mentioned in association with Unity08's project and his national security credentials could strengthen Obama in the area in which attacks on his experience could hurt him the most. But Nunn is also remembered as one of the most moderate voices of the Democratic Party of the early 1990s, a Senator who engaged in fights with what he perceived as the Clinton Administration's excessive liberalism.

Most problematic is Nunn's record on gay rights, as he was one of the main opponents of Clinton's plan to lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving within the military, often in very gay-baiting terms. As a critic within Clinton's party, he is one of those most responsible for derailing the original plans. While it is true that past Democratic candidates were not the most sympathetic to gay rights demand (see Kerry, John and the Missouri anti-gay marriage amendment), it could prove a distraction for Obama to have to repeatedly address gay rights, as he had to do already in the fall.

However, it is a curious fact -- and one that is appropriate to Obama -- that an anti-war stance is all three men's main progressive credential (and, in the case of Hagel and Webb, the very/only reason they looked towards the Democratic Party in the first place). In fact, it is Sam Nunn's vote against the Gulf War 18 years ago derailed his own presidential ambitions. Given the central role the Iraq War will play in the fall, it could be a powerful symbol for Obama to have as a running-mate a man with very strong anti-war and national security credentials, a combination all three of these men share (though it did not help John Kerry).

VP talk picks up: Warner and Bloomberg are latest target of speculation

Vice-presidential rumors have been in the air for months, but they have been picking up this past week, as both candidates step up their vice-presidential committees, conduct interviews or just start assembling files on potential running mates.

Obama is at a much earlier stage of the process than McCain is, though it is certainly possible to draw a comprehensive list of names are are being considered, though the Hillary question still looms large. Today, Robert Novak's column mentioning the possibility of Mark Warner being selected launched a round of speculation about the chances of the former Virginia Governor who once seemed like a sure presidential candidate. Novak wrote that, "Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a strong favorite to be elected to the Senate this year, has told associates that he is being considered as Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate."

Warner is now running for Virginia's open Senate seat, and he is the overwhelming favorite to win that race (this seat has been ranked the most vulnerable Senate seat for months now). Warner's involvement in the senatorial race was supposed to take him out of vice-presidential chatter. After all, when Warner accepted the candidacy, his name was already circulating as a possible VP pick so he was aware of that possibility, making his choice somewhat of a renunciation of the vice-presidency. After all, if Warner were to drop out of the Senate race right now, it would transform the Democrats' best pick-up opportunity into an at best uncertain endeavor.

This would suggest that the Obama campaign would not dare to consider Warner's candidacy, but if they decide that Warner is what they need on the ticket to carry Virginia, they probably will not have much scruples in undermining the DSCC. Nor will Warner automatically reject an offer that would put him on the path to the presidency in 2012 or 2016. And as if to confirm that Warner's name is truly in consideration, Politico 's article today on the "Virginia trio" (Kaine, Webb and Warner) argues that Warner would be the strongest of the Virginia candidates, and the one that would help Obama carry the state the most. So 13 electoral votes or a Senate seat?

Meanwhile, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg continues to entertain the most confusion three months after announcing he would not attempt a presidential run. Since then, Bloomberg has been attempting to please all sides, introducing both Obama and McCain at events a few weeks from one another. Despite the fact that there has been more speculation as to the possibility that Obama might tap Bloomberg as his running mate, since the two would reinforce each other's postpartisan message and as there had been reports of talks between Bloomberg's entourage and Obama's, it is the McCain-Bloomberg ticket that currently has the most buzz. The two had breakfast on May 17th, and NYMag is quite certain that they talked about vice-presidential prospects. Marc Ambinder confirms the seriousness of these talks.

McCain selecting Bloomberg has quite obvious drawbacks and advantages. For one, it would seriously undercut Obama's core message of reform and post-partisanship if the politician with the most post-partisan positioning were to rally his rival; McCain would also strengthen his own independent image. Second, it would give McCain much more credibility on the economy, an issue on which McCain has difficulties. Third, Bloomberg has money, lots of it -- and the GOP needs as much as it can get this year. But it could also create problems to have someone as moderate as Bloomberg on the ticket when many conservatives already distrust the Arizona Senator. After all, electing someone to the vice-presidency gives them a heads-up for the next race to the White House. He would also not improve McCain's numbers in any particular state. Finally, Bloomberg is not the most charismatic politician -- to say the least -- and he would not certainly not be an effective attack dog, in what is usually a VP's most urgent role.

Despite denials, Clinton camp increasingly eying VP spot

Hillary Clinton still professes to have her eye on the prize -- the presidential nomination. But her chances have faded irremediably, leading to the question of why she is staying in the race. One of the reasons that is advanced is that she is waging effort to secure the vice-presidential nomination. If the race between the two Democratic candidates had stayed tighter all the way to the June/July, Obama might have been forced to pick her in a last ditch effort to unify the party. But since the primary's competitive part ended on May 6th, Clinton could have quickly lost her strength, which would have given Obama no incentive to choose her as his running-mate.

As Clinton's fortunes have decreased, her surrogates have increasingly touted the possibility of her taking the vice-presidential spot. Ed Rendell for instance, explained back in March that he would be happier with Clinton at the top but that a joint ticket was the way to go. Now, Time and the New York Times are reporting that Bill Clinton is strongly in support of his wife's inclusion on the ticket and suggested that he and his surrogates are pushing the Obama campaign to engage in talks. It did not take long for both the Obama and Clinton campaigns to deny any such rumor, as both have no interest in such news being disseminated. The Obama campaign wants to keep the vice-presidential search under wraps while Clinton's would lose all credibility if they were seen as openly campaigning for the VP spot. Howard Wolfson insisted that these reports were "100% false," and both campaigns explained that there were absolutely no talk between them about a possible joint ticket.

There is no question, however, that Clinton's surrogates are pushing for her selection even while their candidate is professing to have no such desire whatsoever. Today, her top fundraising official, Hassan Nemazee, declared that "Time is not your friend. A dream ticket would be the best way to ensure both unity and full and active support, financially and politically, for the ticket to be in the strongest position to win in the fall." Senator Diane Feinstein, who does not directly speaks for the campaign but who is one of Hillary's most prominent supporters, added that "I am one that believes that if it works out that Senator Obama is the nominee, the strongest ticket would be Senator Clinton as vice president."

In justifying her stance, Feinstein voiced an argument that comes back often among proponents of a dream ticket: She referred to "the weight of the states he carried versus the states she carried. It's different. And, therefore, if you combine them both, you've got the best electoral path." In other words, a joint ticket would combine Clinton's strength in states she looks solid in (Florida, Arkansas, securing a lot of blue states) with Obama's in the states he typically fares better in (the Northwest, Virginia, Colorado). Merge the two candidates' electoral map and you get an electoral rout in the Democrats' favor.

The only problem, of course, is that vice-presidential boosts don't function quite like that. Clinton's inclusion on the ticket would not necessarily deliver to Obama the states in which she appears stronger than him, for vice-presidential candidates typically only marginally boost their ticket. While Clinton appeals to voters who are uncomfortable with Obama and Obama appeals to voters who are uncomfortable with Clinton, it is unlikely that Clinton is the best candidate Obama can choose who will make him more able to conquer blue-collar voters and Hispanics, just as Obama would not necessarily be Clinton's best choice to address her own vulnerabilities if she were to capture the nomination.

There is also the problem of the clashing nature of Obama's message of change with Clinton's persona, and whether contradictions that would emerge would put the Democratic campaign on the defensive, forced to continually explain itself. Finally, I am not sure that Clinton's selection would send a positive message to female voters, as it would show Hillary yet again stuck in a powerless position, subordinated to a male figure, just as she was in the 1990s. A lot of women who are supporting Clinton in the hope of having the first female president could regard her inclusion on the ticket as more problematic than if she was not included.

In other words, it is one thing to prefer Clinton over Obama; it is quite another to believe Clinton is the strongest nominee Obama could choose. And then there is the animosity between the two candidates, one that took quite a dramatic turn today as a controversy exploded on the New York Post, then on Drudge, then throughout the web, about Clinton's comments regarding RFK's assassination. Asked why she was not dropping out, Clinton explained that it was still too early: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Clinton had made similar comments in the past, and this time a controversy erupted as the Obama campaign responded that this had no place in the political discussion. All sorts of interpretations quickly surfaced -- Clinton's subconsceous is talking, she is being insensitive, especially given US history and the much-reported fears of black people that something might happen to Obama. Given the fact that Clinton was quite clearly addressing the timeline of previous nomination fights in which the nominee was not chosen in May (in 1980, for instance, the fight went to the convention floor but Jimmy Carter had a majority of delegates secured against Ted Kennedy; and Clinton could have named 1984 but the prolonged fight hurt Democrats then so that's not a parallel Clinton wants to make), this controversy does seem overblown to me but it is revealing of how tense both sides have become and how hard it could be to mend fences in the coming months.

VP search: McCain and Obama step up the process

In yet another sign that both parties are getting ready to engage in the general election campaign, news emerged over the past two days that John McCain and Barack Obama were both stepping up the process of selecting a vice-president. Their decisions will be important as to how they impact the general election; but they will also determine who the front-runners are for the next nomination contests. Whoever becomes vice-president in 2009 will be favored to become his party's nominee in 2016, and the vice-president of the losing ticket will have increased his name recognition tremendously in preparation for 2012.

Such considerations of future elections are especially important for McCain's choice, as his list of potential vice-presidents includes more young sharks with presidential ambitions (starting, of course, with Mitt Romney), whereas Obama's includes more experienced figures who might not be looking to run on their own in 4 years or 8 years.

First, the Obama campaign is in the initial stages of the VP search -- but for a candidate that has still not proclaimed himself the victor of his party's primaries, that is still an advanced stage to be in. Indeed, Obama and his staff typically refuse to discuss VP plans, in fear of seeming too arrogant and alienating the Clinton camp. Obama himself said, "I am not commenting on vice presidential matters because I have not won this nomination." Yet, news emerged today that his campaign had tapped Jim Johnson to lead the vice-presidential search and organize the vetting of the potential candidates. Johnson fulfilled the same role for the campaigns of John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984. Johnson describes 1984 as having made him realize the importance of vetting, as Geraldine Ferraro was dogged by questions surrounding the business dealings of her husband.

It is still too early for the Obama campaign to have asked potential VP candidates to submit vetting documents or for any sort of formal or informal meetings and interviews to have been held, but Obama's staff has started compiling files for each possible pick, assembling biographical info and articles that are in the open record. One reason that it is still too early is that the Hillary Clinton question has not been resolved: How late will she drop out, and will she remain enough of a force to

Other potential Democratic picks range from those who will bolster the ticket's experience (for instance Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Tom Dashle, Sam Nunn), those who will strengthen his appeal with registered Democrats and blue-collar voters (John Edwards, Jim Webb, Bob Casey, Ted Strickland) and his national security credentials (Wes Clark, Jim Webb, Nunn again), those who will allow him to appeal to conservatives/Republicans/red states (Chuck Hagel [!], Sebelius, Evan Bayh, Nunn again), those who would help mend fences with the Clinton camp (Ed Rendell, Strickland again, Bayh again, Clark again) and those who could help Obama win key swing states (Virginia's Kaine, Ohio's Strickland, New Mexico's Richardson). Some of these names would obviously make some in the Democratic base very uncomfortable, particularly Sam Nunn and Chuck Hagel.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has been working on its vice-presidential search for much longer, and they are predictably at a more advantaged stage of the process. Despite the campaign's determination to keep developments fully under wraps, the New York Times reported yesterday that McCain had invited at least three potential picks to his ranch in Sedona this week-end: Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and our old friend Mitt Romney.

Crist has been near the top of McCain's VP list ever since he endorsed the Arizona Senator in the last week of the Florida primary; that endorsement is widely credited with having pushed McCain over the top. Crist could secure Florida in the GOP column, particularly if the Democratic candidate is Obama. He is also a strong campaigner and a charismatic politician, though he has two important problems: Conservative Republicans do not trust him at all (I wrote about Crist's profile in the National Review last month), and they would not be happy at having two people they mistrust on the ballot. And second, there is the quite insistent gay rumor.

Mitt Romney now appears like one of the favorites to get McCain's nod, but that was unthinkable a few months ago when Romney and McCain detested each other and made no effort to hide it. Since then, Romney has done more than almost any other Republican to help McCain's campaign, and it is no secret that Romney is eying future presidential elections. Of course, Romney has his own problems with the base.

As for Jindal, his name is coming up with increasing frequency in the past few weeks, which is somewhat surprising given his young age. Of course, youth is be an asset for Republican VP contenders this cycle given McCain's age and his desire to balance that out. First elected this November, he is the first Indian-American governor. He is also very socially conservative, which could help McCain reach out to parts of his base that might still be reluctant to support him. But a question that has to be asked is what impact Jindal's inclusion on the GOP ballot would have on those voters who would refuse to vote for Obama because he is African-American?