A Reasonable V.P. Candidate: Senator Brown of Ohio

[Herman74]

Picking the V.P. is still far away, but nonetheless, one can start the reasoning process that will yield the best pick. If Hillary wins the nomination, perhaps she'll go with General Clark, a fine choice, and a person who supports her now. But if Obama or Edwards win (or even if Hillary wins) there is another to consider:

Senator Brown of Ohio

Reasons?

1) As best I can tell, he's quite progressive
2) He's very intelligent, having graduated from one of the top schools in the country
3) He has a lot of experience in Congress
4) I suspect that under Ohio law, the Democratic governor of Ohio would be able to replace him should he become vice-president

and, most importantly,

4) HE'S FROM OHIO, and if we win there, WE AUTOMATICALLY WIN THE PRESIDENCY!!

[Alexander]

1. Brown just got elected. I'd rather he serve out his term.

[Herman74]

4. He just got elected Senator, but he was in the House...

...for a while, wasn't he?

As the current weakness of the Democratic Congress helps show, the Presidency is the main thing if we want to get progressive legislation through (that plus getting to 60 Senators, though this would be hard). If Brown can help a Democratic presidential nominee win Ohio, then why not? At this point, I don't see any of the current blue states going red.

[OzarkDem]

5. And Gov. Strickland just got elected, too

He needs to serve his term, too.

Brown is really enjoying being in the Senate, he's on some very good committees, including HELP. He'll stay where he is most likely.

He announced he's not endorsing anyone this year, but recently gave John Edwards very high praise in a newspaper interview.

[Herman74]

7. I'm not advocating that Strickland be chosen, just Brown

I agree that Strickland doesn't yet have enough good experience on his resume. But Brown was in Congress a while before he transferred to the Senate.

If not Brown, then who? Who could more help the Dem presidential nominee win? Senator Nelson of Florida? The guy's not progressive, and his last win may have been more a rejection of Katherine Harris than approval of him. Who else? Yes, General Clark would be good, but last time he ran for president, he indicated that he wasn't interested in the vice presidency (maybe Hillary can change his mind). Who else though?

[OzarkDem]

8. Hard to say

it would depend a lot on who wins the nomination. If it's Edwards, I'd like to see a woman VP. You couldn't do that with Clinton or possibly not even Obama.

[Herman74]

9. Senator Barbara Boxer would seemingly be good, BUT...

...we're going to win California anyway!!

On the surface, one would quickly conclude that any Democratic presidential candidate should this year trounce any Republican candidate. But I thought this way back in 2004, only to get stung badly (VERY, VERY BADLY). I don't want to take any chances this time: I want a VP candidate who can deliver a crucial Republican state.

[OzarkDem]

10. GOP will fight hard / dirty for Cali

Can't forget the tricks with Davis & Schwarzenegger. It would help, Edwards is from the south and has strong midwest support. Boxer might be a good choice.

[Herman74]

11. We need to focus on turning a red state (or a few red states) blue...

...rather than timidly striving to hold on to our blue states!!

Don't let the election of Schwarzenegger fool you: California is still solidly blue, Gray Davis just got undone (through no fault of his own) by Enron before that evil machine died. (Republican sliming hurt him too). I know my former state (for 2 plus decades), it won't go red, so don't worry about it.

Besides, if Boxer was chosen for VP, wouldn't we lose a Senate seat to the Republicans, with Arnie appointing a replacement?

[Nite Owl]

2. Very good idea

Senator Brown is a populist union guy too.

[Kucinich4America]

3. Two senators on the ticket is a bad idea.

Hell, history says that ANY senators on the ticket is a bad idea, but it appears we're stuck with, at best, an ex-senator. Edwards (or Obama) needs executive experience to balance out the ticket. Assuming Al Gore isn't available (and at this point, I do) that means a governor. Richardson has a strong resume. Howard Dean would be another solid choice. Wes Clark would be a different sort of executive experience, but he seems to be sold out to Camp Hillary (it's possible he was really there all along)

[Herman74]

6. Senators since Kennedy haven't done that well, to be sure, but...

They haven't run that often, and when they have, they've gone up against presidents having the advantage of being the incumbent. Goldwater ('64') and McGovern ('72) may have lost more so because they were viewed as extreme (I personally like McGovern), Dole in '96 wasn't going to beat Clinton when the economy was booming. Kerry had been in the Senate so long it was easy for someone like Rove to find some vote or speech somewhere with which to slime and totally distort Kerry's record.

I'm not saying there aren't any disadvantages to picking a senator for V.P., but we need to ask ourselves: do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Didn't Senator Kennedy's choice of Senator LBJ help Kennedy win Texas? Again I repeat: if we win Ohio, we win the whole ballgame!!!

I agree Richardson has fine experience, but let's face it, New Mexico doesn't have that many electoral votes.

McCain might be stronger than we would like. I thought no way would America elect The Chimp in 2004, but (with the aid of Diebold) events proved me wrong, and showed that I had overestimated the intelligence of the entire electorate. I don't want to take any chances this time.

[Rowdyboy]

12. Pairing a midwestern senator with 3 years experience with a midwestern senator with 1 year.....

experience is not the best ticket, even if it guarantees Ohio. While southern Gov Bill Clinton and southern Senator Al Gore were VERY similar in 1992, and managed to pull it off, it wouldn't be the best move for Barack Obama. With his limited foreign policy credentials he would need someone with a strong foreign policy background to supplement his-someone like Wes Clark, Joe Biden or even former senator Bob Graham (my personal favorite).

Clinton, I think, would be more likely to go with someone like Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson, maybe even Mark Warner, a younger, male establishment politician from a purple state.

Thats my opinion, but then I expected Edwards to pull off an upset in the Iowa caucuses so what do I know?

on edit: I really like Sherrod Brown-just give him a few years.

[Herman74]

13. Isn't 16 Years in Congress enough?

Fourteen years in the House, 2 years in the Senate? In addition, a successful stint as Ohio's Secretary of State? see
http://usliberals.about.com/od/2006ussenateraces/p/SherrodBrown.htm Brown evidently does after all have some foreign policy credentials (if I recall correctly, he helped out Poland). Yes, I would have liked for Brown to have been on the national scene a little longer, but it's hard to come up with the ABSOLUTELY PERFECT VP candidate.

I agree that both Wes Clark and Bob Graham are fine choices. However, General Clark is a Hillary person, so while she might choose him, Obama and Edwards may very well not (it might not look good in the general election to have as your running mate someone who preferred another candidate). And Bob Graham would have to be talked out of retirement from political life. (Actually, I hope that he could be, since he comes from Florida). Even if we were successful in doing that, the Republicans could counter with choosing Florida's Governor Crist (our convention is first, I believe), although I doubt that they would. Yes, it could be argued that similarly the Republicans could counter our selection of Brown by selecting Voinovich, but Voinovich might be longing for retirement, and hasn't always agreed with fellow Republicans anyway (recall the John Bolton hearings).

Mark Warner isn't bad, but he's just begun a campaign to become Senator, so it might look a bit weird choosing him. And with him and the others you mentioned (except for Graham), OHIO HAS FAR MORE ELECTORAL VOTES!!! So as to Bayh, well, Ohio is a bit more bluer shade of purple to begin with than is Indiana, plus choosing him would require changing Missouri blue too (or another red state or states). And Bayh's not all that progressive, perhaps voting against Obama, Hillary, and Edwards on some key issues. Biden brings nothing new, being from a small state we're going to win anyway, plus has a plagiarism scandal to be dealt with.

[Infinite Hope]

14. Good grief, it isn't going to be 2 sitting senators. It'll be a governor. n/t

[ellacott]

15. He's my Senator and I want him to stay

He just got elected and he fought hard to go that seat away from a Repub. He's doing good work in the short time that he's been in office. I would like to see that good work continue.

[LiberalHeart]

16. Would rather see Kaptur....

In fact, Edwards/Kaptur has a nice ring to it.

[Armstead]

17. I'd love to see her as Secretary of Labor