What he said

Ezra Klein has a very good post about why Jim Webb should NOT be the VP choice. I couldn't agree more. The vice presidency IS where good politicians go to die.

My dad and I have talked about who WOULD be a good choice. And the more I think about it, the more I am thinking Joe Biden, especially for Barak Obama. Richardson would, of course, be an interesting pick. Demographically (hispanic) and geographically (south west) he's perfect. Plus he has strong international policy credentials which would be good for either candidate. And you're sure he would be a credible caretaker in event of emergency who definitely would not out-shine the top of the ticket. The problem with Richardson are two fold. First, and most important, you need an attack dog on the ticket who has sharp instincts and isn't affraid to make the kind of attacks you don't want the top of the ticket making. Richardson hasn't shown a knack for this at all. He's far too avuncular and diplomatic. He's the sort to build bridges not burn them. Second, I think he really is incredibly skilled at international diplomacy. He's served as our Ambassador to the UN, so he knows people at key institutions and has significant background knowlege from countless briefings. He's negotiated with North Korea (twice) often credited with critical advances with them on resolving the Pungyang reactor issue and he's gone to Sudan (twice) negotiating the release of a journalist and, most recently, brokering a 60-day cease fire in Darfur in January 2007.

His skills would be wasted in a Vice President. VP's don't hold any real power (except for Cheney, but we don't have anyone of W's intellect running, thank God) but are a seperate (sometimes competing) political power base. As such they can't really be seen to speak for the administration, and allowing them to do so can be risky. I'd much rather see Richardson as a Secretary of State. Probably not an option for Hillary, since it seems she has all but promised the post to Holbrooke, but Obama wouldn't want Holbrooke since he's such a close adviser to Hillary, and his fundamental foreign policy hawkishness would be a bad fit for Obama.

Biden on the other hand, would be a huge asset. He would still bring to the ticket the foreign policy credentials that Richardson does as a long serving member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But he has also shown a real acerbic wit in the Democratic debates, pulling off some of the best one liners (who can forget his line about Guliani: he forms a sentence with a noun, a verb, and 9/11). He wouldn't create too much of an independent power base, since he's clearly in the twilight of his carreer. I have no doubt that he could continue to be elected, but he clearly want's more, and it's equally clear he has as much chance of becoming president as I do. Being on a winning presidential ticket would be almost an honorarium recognizing his years of service. And especially for Obama, he would bring a large number of long standing connections in DC which, if he was willing to deploy them, could be an invaluable resource to Obama.

It has to be said that I also like the idea because it would remove him from the Senate. It's not that I hate him as a senator per se, but some of his votes haven't been that great in my opinion (the bankruptcy bill, the Iraq war off the top of my head). Also, he comes from a very Democratic state, so there's no risk of losing a critical seat in the Senate. Given the over all mood of the party, you run a decent chance of replacing him with a more progressive Senator, and certainly no one more conservative, so it would be worth a try.

Other names have been mentioned.... but that's for another time.