Following up on my post featuring potential Republican nominees for VP, here's my analysis for Barack Obama's potential running mates. Whereas the Republican field is sorely lacking, I believe the Democratic field has a few excellent choices for Obama. What factors into Obama's pick? Does he choose an elder statesman to give him gravitas (see Dick Cheney for Bush)? Does he pick Hillary? No way. He does not want Hillary anywhere around. (Because with Hillary comes Bill. His campaign has been about change, so I don't see how Hillary helps him with that or with his weakness in national security… except for her experience in Bosnia of course.) But Obama has to secure Hillary supporters, beef up his national security expertise, and/or choose someone to win a key state. With this in mind, here are his best options:
1. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana. Big Clinton supporter, so he may help with her supporters. Indiana is in McCain's column, but Bayh is extremely popular in Indiana and could swing the key state to Obama. Bayh is a fairly conservative Democrat, which would balance the liberal Obama and appeal to independents. I don't know about his foreign policy experience, but I think Bayh would be his best choice.
2. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Another swing state that Obama would win if Richardson were on the ticket. Richardson would be the first Hispanic on a major ticket, which would certainly help with the Hispanic vote. He has foreign policy experience with the Clinton administration. Ran unsuccessfully for president, but definitely brings a lot to the table for Obama to consider. If I were McCain, I would fear Obama selecting either Bayh or Richardson.
3. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Traditionally Kansas is Republican state, but Sebelius is very popular and would bring Kansas in for Obama. She would possibly satisfy the "because she's a female" Clinton supporters. She lacks any foreign policy experience, so Obama would still be at a deficit there. But she's an outsider and adds to Obama's campaign for change in Washington.
4. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia - appeals to independents, military experience, traditional Republican state that could be up for grabs. However, Webb is in his first term as a Senator. Some could say he won in 2006 only because of George Allen's fateful comment. He would appeal to the yellow dog Democrat, but I think he is too inexperienced for Obama to select him.
5. Sam Nunn - Another conservative Democrat. Brings ample foreign policy credentials. Is a southerner. He would be to Obama what Cheney was perceived to be to Bush, or Bentsen was for Dukakis.
There's my prediction. Much stronger candidates in my mind than what the Republican side has to offer.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
________ for VP
Barring a Clintonian-esque comeback by Hillary Clinton, it appears the impossible has happened - Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. So now, the question becomes, who will McCain and Obama choose as their VPs? One could debate just how much a VP helps/hurts a candidate. (Quayle certainly cost Bush I votes, but has Cheyney for Bush II? Bentsen couldn't deliver Texas for Dukakis.) Perhaps VP John Nance Garner was right when he said the Vice Presidency wasn't worth "a bucket of warm spit." Nonetheless, a short run down of potential choices:
First McCain. His age, 71, is definitely a factor. His political appeal is that of a Maverick, which helps him among independents. However, some hard-core conservatives are balking at voting for him. Does he choose a VP that shares his conservative-independent nature, or does he choose a candidate whom the Religious Right will support, but in the process, cause him to possibly lose some independents? Here's a short list:
1. Colin Powell - I don't think that Powell wants to run or would run, but if McCain convinced him to run, I believe Powell would tip the election clearly to McCain, even if the conservatives were ticked with a McCain/Powell ticket. I give this about a 1% chance of happening though, which by the way, would be the same percentage I would give Powell of being Obama's running mate.
2. Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina - I don't know much about him except that he would be favored by conservatives. However, South Carolina is a state that McCain will win no matter what, so Sanford would not be much help regionally. But if he unites conservatives behind McCain without alienating moderates, he would be a safe, albeit boring, choice.
3. Kay Bailey Hutchison - Intriguing. Let's say that Clinton supporters, namely women, are really upset that Obama won. Would Hutchison help McCain win the female-leaning Clinton vote? Would Hutchison be perceived as presidential? This is a must for any McCain pick due to his age. Hutchison has planned to run for Governor, which won't happen until 2010.
4. Mike Huckabee - McCain needs to thank Huckabee for helping him win the nomination, but I don't see how choosing Huckabee would help McCain at all. Huckabee may have "shot" himself in the foot last week with his NRA comment about Obama anyway. I like Huckabee. But I don't view him as presidential. He needs to go the road of Stephanopoulos and become a political commentator.
5. Mitt Romney - Please no. I cannot figure out how Romney has become Mr. Conservative with so many people in the Republican Party. A year ago, he was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, liberal ex-governor from Massachusetts who ran left of Kennedy for the Senate in the '90s. Now he's Mr. Conservative? I don't get it.
6. Condoleezza Rice - She would be the most qualified, however, serving eight years in the Bush administration would make her a liability to the McCain campaign, as they try to counter the "Bush-third-term" label.
So there's the Republican short-list. In my view, not much of one. The Republican Party is sorely lacking in leadership right now. One name not on this list is Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana Governor. He's only 36, but apparently has been dubbed as the next Reagan. However, he probably isn't ready for national politics quite yet. Any of these names get you excited?
First McCain. His age, 71, is definitely a factor. His political appeal is that of a Maverick, which helps him among independents. However, some hard-core conservatives are balking at voting for him. Does he choose a VP that shares his conservative-independent nature, or does he choose a candidate whom the Religious Right will support, but in the process, cause him to possibly lose some independents? Here's a short list:
1. Colin Powell - I don't think that Powell wants to run or would run, but if McCain convinced him to run, I believe Powell would tip the election clearly to McCain, even if the conservatives were ticked with a McCain/Powell ticket. I give this about a 1% chance of happening though, which by the way, would be the same percentage I would give Powell of being Obama's running mate.
2. Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina - I don't know much about him except that he would be favored by conservatives. However, South Carolina is a state that McCain will win no matter what, so Sanford would not be much help regionally. But if he unites conservatives behind McCain without alienating moderates, he would be a safe, albeit boring, choice.
3. Kay Bailey Hutchison - Intriguing. Let's say that Clinton supporters, namely women, are really upset that Obama won. Would Hutchison help McCain win the female-leaning Clinton vote? Would Hutchison be perceived as presidential? This is a must for any McCain pick due to his age. Hutchison has planned to run for Governor, which won't happen until 2010.
4. Mike Huckabee - McCain needs to thank Huckabee for helping him win the nomination, but I don't see how choosing Huckabee would help McCain at all. Huckabee may have "shot" himself in the foot last week with his NRA comment about Obama anyway. I like Huckabee. But I don't view him as presidential. He needs to go the road of Stephanopoulos and become a political commentator.
5. Mitt Romney - Please no. I cannot figure out how Romney has become Mr. Conservative with so many people in the Republican Party. A year ago, he was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, liberal ex-governor from Massachusetts who ran left of Kennedy for the Senate in the '90s. Now he's Mr. Conservative? I don't get it.
6. Condoleezza Rice - She would be the most qualified, however, serving eight years in the Bush administration would make her a liability to the McCain campaign, as they try to counter the "Bush-third-term" label.
So there's the Republican short-list. In my view, not much of one. The Republican Party is sorely lacking in leadership right now. One name not on this list is Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana Governor. He's only 36, but apparently has been dubbed as the next Reagan. However, he probably isn't ready for national politics quite yet. Any of these names get you excited?
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Plastic Grocery Bag
Whip. Flap. Flap. Whip. Whip. What's that noise? Just a plastic grocery bag stuck high in a tree in our backyard. How long has it been there? Quite a while. Where did it come from and how did it get so high in the tree?
Drive down Eastchase. Exit onto Division. As you take the loop around, try to count the number of plastic bags you see. It may take you a few hundred trips to be able to spot them all.
Cleaning up these plastic bags costs the city over a million dollars every year. Who pays for that? We do.
Thankfully, Arlington is discussing banning the plastic grocery bag. I am all in favor of it. Paper bags would be easier to recycle and easier to control if littered. To go one step further, we could bring environmentally friendly bags with us to the store each time we shop. If we provided our own bags, that's less cost for the store to provide the bags, which may be passed on to us in savings. So this proposal to ban plastic bags makes sense economically (for the city, for property value, and for our grocery costs) and environmentally (both for recycling and neighborhood litter).
With that said, how's the best way for the city council to handle it? Before they just make the decision themselves, I think receiving public response and educating the public as to the benefits would be very wise. Some like the handles on plastic bags, thus objecting to the change. However, the canvas bags that can be re-used have handles as well. Also, many places have paper sacks with handles (Braum's for example). Encouraging local supermarkets to voluntarily remove plastic bags while publicly praising the ones that do (free advertising) might make the transition smoother. If they won't budge, then the council should move forward to do what's best for the community. But grocery stores shouldn't be given a lot of time to comply. Wal-mart, for example, shouldn’t need much time to remove their plastic bags. If they are able to move the merchandise they do, they can move out the plastic bag as well.
Unfortunately, many people view all environmental improvements as some conspiratorial agenda by "liberal evil forces." Forcing the issue right away just feeds that irrational fear. (As an aside, mentioning San Francisco as an example the city is following doesn't help with this group either.) But, I think through partnering with grocery stores and educating the public as to the economic and environmental benefits, perhaps the fears of those opposed to anything "environmental" can be alleviated, and we can take a step to make Arlington a cleaner, more attractive place to live.
Drive down Eastchase. Exit onto Division. As you take the loop around, try to count the number of plastic bags you see. It may take you a few hundred trips to be able to spot them all.
Cleaning up these plastic bags costs the city over a million dollars every year. Who pays for that? We do.
Thankfully, Arlington is discussing banning the plastic grocery bag. I am all in favor of it. Paper bags would be easier to recycle and easier to control if littered. To go one step further, we could bring environmentally friendly bags with us to the store each time we shop. If we provided our own bags, that's less cost for the store to provide the bags, which may be passed on to us in savings. So this proposal to ban plastic bags makes sense economically (for the city, for property value, and for our grocery costs) and environmentally (both for recycling and neighborhood litter).
With that said, how's the best way for the city council to handle it? Before they just make the decision themselves, I think receiving public response and educating the public as to the benefits would be very wise. Some like the handles on plastic bags, thus objecting to the change. However, the canvas bags that can be re-used have handles as well. Also, many places have paper sacks with handles (Braum's for example). Encouraging local supermarkets to voluntarily remove plastic bags while publicly praising the ones that do (free advertising) might make the transition smoother. If they won't budge, then the council should move forward to do what's best for the community. But grocery stores shouldn't be given a lot of time to comply. Wal-mart, for example, shouldn’t need much time to remove their plastic bags. If they are able to move the merchandise they do, they can move out the plastic bag as well.
Unfortunately, many people view all environmental improvements as some conspiratorial agenda by "liberal evil forces." Forcing the issue right away just feeds that irrational fear. (As an aside, mentioning San Francisco as an example the city is following doesn't help with this group either.) But, I think through partnering with grocery stores and educating the public as to the economic and environmental benefits, perhaps the fears of those opposed to anything "environmental" can be alleviated, and we can take a step to make Arlington a cleaner, more attractive place to live.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Arlington City Council District 6
City politics shouldn't be this ugly. District 6 in the Arlington City Council election has become so. I am trying to make up my mind for whom to vote in District 6. I have narrowed my selection to Vera McKissic and Robert Shepard. However, instead of hearing about the issues that each candidate would address and how they plan on serving Arlington, I have received fliers and phone calls concerning McKissic's "confrontational" approach to governing. Nobody seems to be able to give examples of this confrontational approach, but they have labeled her so nonetheless. Additionally, I have received a phone call from the McKissic campaign stating that she is not confrontational.
Last night was the last straw though. We received a recorded message from Dick Malec, blasting Vera McKissic. His reasons? He mentions her confrontational style and her "dark agenda." The "dark agenda" is the most bothersome aspect of this call. What is Malec implying with his choice of words? Now I'm not a big PC guy, so please don't think I am overreacting to this, but I am very curious why the term "dark agenda" would be used against an African-American candidate. If Malec does not intend a racial undertone with this statement, he should come out and explain his choice of words. Evidently, according to the Star-Telegram, he is bitter that the McKissic campaign is not taking his advice anymore. Good for them. This phone call shows a lack of professionalism - no candidate needs that type of character as an advisor.
I would also like to hear Shepard come out against the negative attacks against McKissic, since he is evidently the one benefiting the most from the attacks. Most importantly, I would like to hear McKissic and Shepard share their ideas on how to fight crime, to attract business, to partner with the school district, and to alleviate traffic concerns. And I would appreciate the newspaper covering these topics so that the voters of Arlington can make a more informed decision than whether or not one is "confrontational."
Besides, here's the deal: I don't mind "confrontational" if it means making Arlington better. In fact, a fighting spirit on the council might be just what the city needs.
Last night was the last straw though. We received a recorded message from Dick Malec, blasting Vera McKissic. His reasons? He mentions her confrontational style and her "dark agenda." The "dark agenda" is the most bothersome aspect of this call. What is Malec implying with his choice of words? Now I'm not a big PC guy, so please don't think I am overreacting to this, but I am very curious why the term "dark agenda" would be used against an African-American candidate. If Malec does not intend a racial undertone with this statement, he should come out and explain his choice of words. Evidently, according to the Star-Telegram, he is bitter that the McKissic campaign is not taking his advice anymore. Good for them. This phone call shows a lack of professionalism - no candidate needs that type of character as an advisor.
I would also like to hear Shepard come out against the negative attacks against McKissic, since he is evidently the one benefiting the most from the attacks. Most importantly, I would like to hear McKissic and Shepard share their ideas on how to fight crime, to attract business, to partner with the school district, and to alleviate traffic concerns. And I would appreciate the newspaper covering these topics so that the voters of Arlington can make a more informed decision than whether or not one is "confrontational."
Besides, here's the deal: I don't mind "confrontational" if it means making Arlington better. In fact, a fighting spirit on the council might be just what the city needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)