For all of the speculation (i.e. pundits and reporters repeating what other pundits and reporters have said, thereby creating the illusion of "conventional wisdom") about Obama's VP selection, does anyone think/hope he's going to surprise everyone and name someone totally off of every reporters short-list?
Thinking back, I don't think anyone predicted Dick Cheney to be Bush's running mate, or Leiberman to be Gores. Certainly no one expected Bush 1 to pick Dan Quayle, and I think Jack Kemp may have been a surprise as well. It'd be interesting to find newspapers from earlier elections and see how all of their predictions turned out.
I still like Webb but am not holding out hope. I kind of agree with 538's analysis that by waiting so long it really needs to be a known name with a lot of "Wow" factor, since there's not really time over the weekend to build up the VPs bio and name recognition. Given how tight a ship the Obama camp runs, I can't believe they're waiting this long by accident, although they may have planned to announce earlier only to push back the announcement so as to let the McCain's houses/$5 million story play out and do as much damage to McCain as it can without being diluted by the VP announcement.
Anyway, if you buy that they planned it late because they felt they didn't need to build up the VPs bio and name recognition, that would lead one to believe that it isn't Sebelius, Bayh, or Kaine, who are not well known to the public-at-large. Biden is a known name but not really a wow-factor, and I don't think the average voter connects him with "strong foreign policy experience" - supposedly his greatest asset. Clinton is a known-name and a wow factor, and she's obviously been trying to get the Pumas riled up again in order to bully Obama into putting her on the ticket (that's what the whole "name in nomination" thing was obviously about).
But you know who else is a known name and provides a lot of wow factor?
Al Gore.
Up until this morning I would have thought it a ridiculous choice and a job he wouldn't want, but the more I think about it the more I could see it. Obama does better when he's generating excitement than he does when he's just coasting along or going negative. Gore would provide a great deal of excitement, re-energize the base and cause everyone who's already given hundreds of dollars to re-open their wallets. I don't think there's a faction in the party that dislikes him, so there isn't a downside. With energy being a key issue in the race he could be seen as proof that Obama is serious about Change and not just sloganeering. Gore can simultaneously represent Change and Experience in a way that Hillary cannot, and my guess is he plays fairly well among a large group of independents.
Plus, its a lot easier to envison Gore being given one policy arena to work on without trying to take over the presidency the way the Clintons would. He could be a good addition to the administration rather than an empty suit (i.e. Quayle), without really overshadowing the President.
It's a ridiculously long odds bet, but if I were going to assume that Obama wants to surprise everyone, Gore is the man I would bet on.
So some time ago I discovered the beauty of Google's RSS reader and basically stopped checking dozens of sites a day for blog updates. Like much of my internet use, it goes through spikes and lulls... I'll start adding more and more sites to my RSS reader until I find I'm spending *way* too much time dicking around on the internet and not getting any work done. Then I'll strip away most of it and be happy for a while, but eventually I'll slowly start adding more and more things that seem interesting - or I'll have some vague ambition to start blogging more with the faint hope of becoming one of those semi-popular blogs with scores of readers a day and comments on every entry.
But then I'll find once again that I'm spending way too much time dicking around on the internet and not enough time getting work done, I'll feel really stressed and drastically scale back my internet usage.
Anyway, I had originally added a ton of LiveJournals to my RSS reader, but recently discovered that I wasn't getting most of the posts. Since I only post at http://davidgrenier.com now I hadn't come back here in months and months. Now I find out Adam's at Gitmo and Emily's engaged and all sorts of fascinating shit.
Anyway, I decided to bookmark my LJ Friends page again, just so I can try (for a while) to keep up with this stuff.
Here's my predictions for the new Harry Potter book. 11.5 hours to go now. Even though I preordered through Powells and paid $20 for overnight shipping, I'm still thinking of heading to Borders at midnight to see if they have any copies on sale.
1. The Red Sox got their asses handed to them by the Royals. What the fuck was that?
2. Hillary Clinton raised more money than anyone. No big surprise on the dems side, but it is surprising that she raised more than the Republicans. The last decade+ has generally shown the Republicans raising more, spending more, and winning more. As much as I hate Hillary, this is a big boost for her on the "electability" side.
2a. I wonder if any Dems are going to drop out? Most are still clinging to the hope that its early yet and the first primary is 9 months away. However, does anyone really think Dodd or Biden has a chance? Biden may be hoping that he becomes the choice for voters who want experience, but most folks see Hillary as "experienced" even though she's only served one term in the Senate. Hillary, Obama and Edwards are still in this. Richardson can make the case that he started late and has seen a small bump (only a couple points, but still) and that he has a good chance to win over voters once people start paying attention. Kucinich and Gravel aren't really running, they just want to make speeches. So are the others just trying to raise their profile in the hopes of a VP or Cabinet slot in a Clinton administration?
2b. My quick take on the Republican numbers is that the party is in disarray. Romney was the big money winner but he's tanking in the polls. Sure, money can help with that, but its a stark contrast to the Democratic side where the person dominating the polls also raised the most money. While on the Democratic side its basically a race between Hillary and whoever can successfully present themselves as an alternative to Hillary - on the Republican side it looks like the race is still pretty open.
2c. I'm still backing Edwards, but I think Richardson would be my second choice. Personally I'd like to see an Edwards/Richardson or Edwards/Clark ticket. At this point what Edwards needs to do is keep the race as a 3-way contest. Even with him in third place, if he's seen as a strong, viable candidate he automatically gets bumped up to 2nd when Obama implodes (which I still fully predict). However, if voters have already written Edwards off as a 3rd-tier candidate when Obama implodes, then likely Hillary gets a free coronation.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
manrobotmonster's journal
