Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
RE: BLOOMBERG AS VEEP. Paul makes some good points on Bloomberg's potential attractiveness as a VP for Obama. On the other hand, the case for Bloomberg is actually a better case for somebody like Mark Warner. Both are rich technocrats with a record of executive competence. But while Bloomberg does nothing for any region save the solidly blue Northeast, Warner possibly puts Virginia in play, and probably appeals to Midwestern border states like Ohio. Additionally, Obama's unity message is better enhanced by a white Southerner than a liberal Jew. If I were actually worried about Giuliani stealing New York from the Democrats, I could see the appeal of Bloomberg, but in presidential elections, partisanship tends to overwhelm personal affection, and New Yorkers seem fairly solidly behind Hillary in match-ups with Giuliani. I have trouble imagining Obama would do worse, rather than better.
All that said, I am glad to see talk of a narrative-enhancing, rather than balancing, VP candidate. VP's don't seem to win their states very often, and picking someone who improves the tickets national appeal (Like Clinton-Gore), rather than highlights its regional weaknesses (Kerry-Edwards), seems wise.
--Ezra Klein
COMMENTS (8)
Why is that Chris Matthews and his brethren tell us nonstop that national security cred is the Most Important Thing in a presidential candidate then keep falling in love with candidates with exactly none--Rudy and now Bloomberg?
Posted by: david mizner | June 21, 2007 12:47 PM
Nobody runs for vice-president and nobody cares who runs for vice-president.
There is no such thing as a dream-ticket. We voted for either Kerry or Bush last round, not for Edwards vs. Cheney.
Posted by: jinchi | June 21, 2007 1:03 PM
"If I were actually worried about Giuliani stealing New York from the Democrats, I could see the appeal of Bloomberg, but in presidential elections, partisanship tends to overwhelm personal affection, and New Yorkers seem fairly solidly behind Hillary in match-ups with Giuliani."
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ezra, but you were a Californian until recently? Believe me, there is no personal affection for Giuliani in New York, except maybe for Judi Nathan and any current mistress. His kids even hate him.
Posted by: Marlowe | June 21, 2007 1:33 PM
"Correct me if I'm wrong, Ezra, but you were a Californian until recently? Believe me, there is no personal affection for Giuliani in New York, except maybe for Judi Nathan and any current mistress. His kids even hate him."
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I think it's definitely true that people in other parts of the country only like him because they don't know him like New Yorkers do. That's why I've said that, should the race come down to Giuliani versus Clinton, it'll help her, because then the press would be forced to pay attention to his past.
Posted by: Brian | June 21, 2007 1:53 PM
Bloomberg should be nowhere near any discussion regarding the Dems Veep nomination. I do take exception to him being labeled a "liberal".
Posted by: Jake | June 21, 2007 2:06 PM
Bill Richardson should be on the short list for Obama's veep. He's the one guy worth giving the slot for old-fashioned pick-up-a-voting-bloc reasons, because the Dems would get such a large percentage of the Hispanic vote that it would be really, really tough for the GOP to win the non-Hispanic white vote by a big enough margin to compensate.
Plus the guy has a ton of experience in government, which would strengthen Obama's one weak point.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) | June 21, 2007 4:29 PM
What happened to not calling her Hillary, and calling her HRC, or Hillary Clinton, or just Clinton.
Posted by: gfw | June 21, 2007 6:00 PM
To : low-tech cyclist (formerly RT)
If we are going to talk about dream tickets that would be one, and not because of what Dave Chappelle said.
I hadn't thought of the prospect of Warner who was my initial favorite all those months ago. That may be an even better dream.
Posted by: Alex | June 21, 2007 10:12 PM