Ok, so I was dead wrong that Obama would pick Clinton as his VP.  But Biden is a good choice.  He’s smart, competent, and even though he talks too much (have you ever heard him chair a congressional hearing?) he has a good head and a good heart.

I have a funny feeling that Obama is going to pick Hillary Clinton as his VP.

Back about the time she dropped out of the race (er, I mean “suspsended her campaign”), this would have seemed unthinkable. But with some time passing, and her name seemingly vanishing from people’s VP short lists, this pick would certainly get people talking the way that a Biden or Bayh pick would not.

I’m torn between Edwards and Obama as my top choice for Democratic nominee.

Either would make a good president. Even better if they were on the same ticket. The question for today’s post is who would make the better presidentialcandidate. In terms of being able to offer bold leadership and in terms of his ability to inspire, my current view is that Edwards is the better choice.

This goes against the conventional wisdom, which to some extent is that Obama, with his immigrant roots and amazing life story, is more “inspirational” than Edwards, with his expensive haircuts and equally expensive smile.

As pretty and privileged as he may be, I believe that Edwards genuinely cares about this country and has great compassion for the poor and those who are too weak to protect themselves. Obama undoubtedly feels the same way, but comparing the two I think Edwards has shown greater strength of his convictions in this early phase of the election cycle. He seems to be less willing to listen to the bad advice of Washington “beltway” advisers and pundits, who strive to water-down politicians’ messages until they all sound alike. Obama, I’m afraid, is starting to sound more and more like other generic Democratic candidates (such as Clinton, my third choice).

Edwards was burned in 2004, and learned some lessons from that defeat. He knows that one reason the Democrats lost in 2004 because people saw the party as wavering and flip-floppy, while they saw Bush as stronger in his convictions. The new, seasoned Edwards is bolder, clearer, and more intelligent than the one we saw in 2004. He knows what’s right and importantly, he isn’t afraid to say it. For example, he’s the first one to put a specific health care proposal on the table.

Personally, I believe that about 30% of this country is very conservative, 30% is very liberal, and about 40% have no strong convictions either way, but they do have a wide range of opinions that would seemingly put them in both camps — at times in a somewhat contradictory way. (For example, they are pro-health care reform, but fearful of big government actions in the economic market). However, one thing that all of these middle 40% want is someone with courage, strength, and confidence. They want a strong personality — a leader. Kerry had trouble with these voters when he gave esoteric and complex answers to seemingly simple questions. Other democrats struggle with these voters when they say they are strong on health care and then don’t really have anything specific when they are asked what they intend to do about it. Republicans, even ones with extreme flip-flops such as Bush (click for examples of extreme Bush flip-floppery) attract these voters when they speak in moral absolutes about things like god, gays, and guns.

Edwards has been through the fire of one of the most brutal campaigns in recent history. He came out of it, learned lessons from it, and as a result has more strength and confidence than ever before. Obama has not been there — his senate campaign was a breeze. As it stands, I’m afraid that Obama is too susceptible to the pundits. This fear was partially confirmed when I heard him speak in Oakland a few weeks ago. He spoke in broad, general, generic terms that were barely distinguishable from the other Democratic candidates. Too much like Senator Clinton.

So as it stands, I’m leaning towards Edwards.

On April 2, 2007, Maryland became the first state to join the National Popular Vote interstate Compact (agreement). If enough states join the Compact, the Electoral College system of voting will effectively come to an end.

The National Popular Vote plan is so simple and elegant it’s amazing nobody thought of it sooner. The idea behind it was originated John R. Koza, a computer scientist (not a political scientist).

Here’s how it works: States have complete power under the Constitution to allocate their Electoral College votes as they see fit. Historically, each state has allocated its Electoral College vote based on the election outcome in that State. Under the National Popular Vote Compact, member states agree that their Electoral College votes will be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide, regardless of the election outcome in any particular state.

The National Popular Vote plan would only take effect only once enough states join the Compact so that the outcome of the presidential election would be determine solely by this method. In other words, enough states have to sign on so that a majority of the Electoral College votes would be under the Compact. This is a significantly lower hurdle than amending the Constitution. Once it passes in enough states, the next president would be picked based solely on whoever won the most votes. The way it should be.

Read more about the proposal here and here.

Over the past year, when asked who I would like to see on the Democratic ticket in 2008, I’ve said John Edwards and Barack Obama.

They both know how to communicate that Democratic Party issues are actually values issues (e.g., health care, worker protection, tax policy that favors the middle class instead of the rich). Both are disciplined campaigners who would never be dragged down by a Swift Boat or other distraction.

In an earlier blog post I predicted that Obama would get the VP nod from the Democratic Party in 2008. I now have $50 riding on it.

Kerry would have made a terrific president, but he’s a terrible presidential candidate. Can someone please tell him not to run? As for Hillary Clinton, I don’t see what all the fuss is about and I never have. Sure, she’s smart and good on most Democratic issues, but that describes a lot of people. She doesn’t get me fired up. She’s stiff as a board when she speaks, kind of animatronic like Al Gore. Or maybe I’ve just never forgiven her for ruining our one chance at universal health care.

I think there’s a good chance that Democratic Senator Barack Obama (Illinois) will get the Democratic Party nomination for Vice President in 2008. In fact, I would advocate it.

Rationale:

1. He won’t run for president, so he won’t get bloodied in the primary.
2. He’s one of the most well-spoken and charismatic politicians in the Democratic Party.
3. He inspires passion and will get out the base.
4. His presence on the Democratic ticket will help get out the vote in the African American community.
5. His father is an immigrant, which plays into one classic version of the American Story (in another version of the American Story, the candidate grew up in a tiny, dirt poor town. See, e.g., Bill Clinton’s famous “ I still believe in a place called Hope” speech).
6. His sense of humor, charisma, wit and demeanor make it hard to “go negative” in a campaign against him.
   
7. Obama for President in 2016.

UPDATE (10/23/2006): Maybe I was wrong about Obama not running for president. My theory was that he’s too new in national politics and too golden right now to risk everything with an early run for president. This cartoon captures my thoughts on the that:

Apparently, he’s considering it. We could very well see him at the top of the ticket in 2008.

If Ned Lamont defeats Joe Lieberman in the upcoming mid-term elections, Lieberman will become a liberal commentator for Fox News.