Who Should Be Senator Obama's Running Mate? Hasslington's Updated Picks....; Also, A Reality Check On Gas

IT'S A GOOD YEAR FOR MAINSTREAM DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES, SO LET'S NOT BLOW IT....

I'll say it again as I've said it before--the field of potential running mates for Senator Obama is far stronger than the field of potential running mates for Senator McCain.  The past two years have been a "showcase era" for the Democrats; taken as a group, a half dozen of the original candidates for this election cycle's Democratic nomination for president (Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama; ex-Senator Edwards; Governor Richardson) represented the deepest field of strong potential Democratic nominees in many years.  The Republicans, by contrast, fielded exactly one person (Senator McCain) who could retain the White House for the G.O.P. after the past two Bush terms.  (Though I detest him, ex-Governor Romney does have some strong qualities...but in my opinion not enough to win the 2008 general election.)

The Republicans did their job in nominating Senator McCain, so it is now vital that the Democrats do their job, which includes strengthening their probable nominee's chances in the general election by making intelligent suggestions regarding who he might consider to be his running mate.  Here, then, is my updated "top half-dozen" list of suggestions--with accompanying reasons--for Senator Obama insofar as a running mate is concerned.

HASSLINGTON'S TOP HALF-DOZEN PICKS TO BE SENATOR OBAMA'S RUNNING MATE

(Note:  I am providing a list for the present Democratic front-runner only, though I admit that Senator Clinton still has a chance--if a very low-percentage one--of pulling off the nomination...if she convinces a very high percentage of superdelegates to overturn the will of the pledged delegates.)

*The First Tier *

1.)  Joe Biden.  [Last time:  #1]  He either tied for the win or flat-out won every debate in which he participated during his year-long campaign for the Democratic nomination, and his debating style is part humor, part attack-dog aggression, part tenured professor erudition, and all whip-smart point-scoring.  His six terms in the U.S. Senate have been spent sponsoring the Violence Against Women Act (which would help with a certain percentage of female voters), becoming an expert on foreign affairs (he knows personally, has worked with, and has occasionally sparred with the heads of many foreign governments, both friendly and unfriendly to the U.S.), working productively as a member of the judiciary committee (he's used his knowledge to argue effectively against many Bush-sponsored proposals), and quite simply looking "presidential" (he looks as though he should be on a dollar bill).  He's almost two decades older than Senator Obama, which would help offset the latter's politically youthful nature.  He won't deliver a critical home swing-state because he's from Delaware, but he is a national figure, so his influence could be widespread, as opposed to localized.

2.)  Mark Warner.  [Last time:  Not ranked; I was too wimpy to put him on the list.]  This is a "go-for-broke" pick.  Warner has chief executive experience (as the former-Governor of Virginia), is a successful businessman, has star-power both inside his home swing-state of Virginia and (at least to a certain extent) nationwide, is fairly good-looking (never hurts), is a Southerner (always helps), and is just old enough to offset Senator Obama's relative youth as well as young enough to reinforce the idea of a "fairly-youthful-and-therefore-vigorous" ticket (though not as youthful as the Clinton/Gore ticket of 1992).  The problem is this:  he's a shoe-in to capture the national Senate seat being vacated by Republican John Warner, but if he were to drop out of that race to join an Obama ticket the Republicans would likely re-capture that seat.  So if Warner were added to the presidential ticket the Democrats would look like they were going for a White-House-or-Bust policy, hoping that presidential momentum alone will win them a few extra U.S. Senate seats in close contests elsewhere.  And you know something?  In 2008, maybe that's what they should be doing....

3.)  Kathleen Sebelius.  [Last time:  #5]  Is a ticket consisting of a man of mixed ethnicity (his father was from Kenya, his mother a white American) and a woman a bridge too far this time around?...  Might it be safer to simply pick a white guy (such as Biden, Warner, etc.) as a running mate?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  I tend to think not necessarily, actually, particularly if the woman is Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who has excelled at gathering the support of a considerable amount of Republican voters in her ruby-red state, and therefore winning elections at various levels by impressive margins, despite championing a rather progressive agenda.  Her credentials are almost uniformly strong, but there is one sticking point:  does she have enough foreign policy experience to offset Senator Obama's thin foreign policy credentials?  Probably not, but, like Senator Obama, she's a very quick learner.  In some ways, she is the chief executive version of Senator Obama's legislator:  effective and compelling.  She would reinforce many of his strengths, and she is old enough (60) to offset his relative youth, as well.  She's gone from a "dark horse" pick to one of the frontrunners of late.  I wouldn't be surprised....

4.)  Bill Richardson.  [Last time:  #4]  What a resume'!  This guy has Secretary of State written all over him (he'd be a great one, having already been a U.N. Ambassador, an international hostage negotiator, and a long-standing U.S. liaison to many trouble spots in the world), but his chief executive skills, which have been impressive over the last few years (he's the Governor of New Mexico, a swing-state) and his avuncular campaign style might win him the V.P. nod instead.  He'd be a fine choice indeed, and, as a Hispanic, he'd help with that group of voters, from whom Senator Obama has thus far struggled to win support.  Like Senator Biden, he knows a lot of foreign leaders.  The only question is whether he can calibrate his pragmatic-and-positive debating style so that he can go on the attack, too....

5.)  Tim Kaine.  [Last time:  Not ranked.]  Governor Kaine is the "safe Virginia pick" in that he doesn't have the star-power of former-Governor Mark Warner, but, as a sitting governor two-and-a-half-years into his term, he is also not running for a hotly-contested formerly-Republican U.S. Senate seat.  And though he doesn't have the name-recognition that Warner has, Kaine (born in my home state of Minnesota) has proven to be an increasingly popular chief executive in his increasingly-important swing-state.  He is also in many ways a political centrist (which might off-set questions regarding the charge that Senator Obama is a "liberal"), as well as a Roman Catholic (Senator Obama has generally struggled with that particular group of voters thus far) and at least politically a Southerner (again, always a good thing for a Democratic presidential ticket).  Also, beyond the Mark Warner conundrum, Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb's national seat would most likely be retaken by the Republicans if he were added to the ticket, so Kaine might be a good compromise pick in more ways than one.  (Virginia seems to be figuring heavily into this week's picks....)

6.)  Wesley Clark.  [Last time:  #2]  I may have been a little overzealous to put him so high on my list last time around (and, to be honest, I struggled between putting him or Sam Nunn at #6 this time around), but it cannot possibly hurt a Democratic ticket headed by Senator Obama--who critics charge with being a "liberal" consistently and mercilessly--to have a major military figure in the running-mate spot.  His campaign style was quite uneven when he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004, but he seems to have smoothed-out the rough edges, at least to a certain extent, since then.  He's also a Clinton supporter who could conceivably help to unite the Clinton and Obama factions of the Democratic party, as well as a household name...and did I already mention the words "Supreme Commander of NATO"?  One gets the sense that if he is added to the ticket, the Democrats will not wave signs reading "Obama/Clark" or "Barack Obama/Wesley Clark," but rather "Barack Obama/General Clark."  "General" will be the operative Democratic word all autumn, given Senator McCain's military background.  After all, American politics is really a game of neutralizing the strengths of the other side by providing (very) similar strengths of your own....

* The Second Tier*

Another dozen individuals that the Obama camp should consider seriously as presidential running mates, in alphabetical order (all but one are fellow Democrats):  

Evan Bayh; Hillary Clinton; Chris Dodd; John Edwards; Chuck Hagel (Republican); Carl Levin; Clare McCaskill; Janet Napolitano; Sam Nunn; Ed Rendell; Ted Strickland; Jim Webb.

(* Next time, for the purposes of anticipation and strategy, I will provide my top half-dozen picks to be Senator McCain's running mate.)

REALITY CHECK ON GAS

Time magazine's website is (finally...) reporting what those of us who frequently travel to Europe and/or have lived there have known for quite some time:  gas prices there are way, way higher than the $4 a gallon (and slightly higher for diesel) Americans are currently paying.  In my former adoptive home of the U.K., for instance, both "regular" and diesel gas are pushing the equivalent of $12 a gallon.  (If you're wondering why the prices at British gas stations look so low, it's because they're measured in liters.)  On the European continent, the prices are approaching the equivalent of $10 a gallon for both regular and diesel gasoline.  The Time report suggests that higher European taxes on gas are one reason for this, but I would suggest that higher taxes are one (relatively minor) reason amongst many.  A bigger reason is that America produces a lot more of its own gas than do most European countries.

That being said, expanding oil drilling in the U.S. is not the long-term answer; it is a potentially catastrophic short-term solution that will retard the progress we are (painfully) making toward more fuel-efficient modes of transportation.  The rapid development of alternative sources of energy (about which I have written before, and may write again in the coming weeks) is the main long-term solution.  Also, some alternative forms of transportation for metro areas would be helpful.  Remember, 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians are increasingly clamoring for big slices of the world's oil supplies.  New ways of powering transportation--and new methods of transportation--are necessary and inevitable, so let's get more focused on them right now.