The Case Against Putting Sen. Clinton on the Supreme Court

Having outlined the reasons why Hillary Clinton should be appointed to the Supreme Court by President Obama, this post covers why tapping Clinton for the High Court would be a mistake.

Clinton is too old. This is the most obvious reason. A Supreme Court appointment is for life, so it is to the President’s advantage to appoint as young (and qualified) a nominee as possible to ensure that he or she will be able to sit on the Court for as long as possible. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they have not always grasped this tenet as well as the Republicans. Antonin Scalia was just 50 when President Reagan elevated him to the Court in 1986. When President George H.W. Bush tapped Clarence Thomas in 1991, he was a mere 43 years old. Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were 50 and 55 years old respectively upon their confirmations. The Republicans were wise to appoint each of them to the Court at their young ages, and together they could form a conservative block on the Court for years to come. Conversely, when President Clinton put Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993) and Stephen Breyer (1995) on the bench, they were already 60 and 57 respectively.

As a result of these divergent nomination strategies, the Supreme Court has three conservative jurists who could serve for another 30 years each, while the four liberal justices on the Court presently are all much older and could conceivably each retire in the near future. Faced with this dilemma, President Obama would have to strongly consider imitating the Republicans’ strategy and finding a bright young jurist to appoint should he be faced with a vacancy (which is likely given that Justice Stevens will be 89 if and when Obama takes office).

Hillary Clinton would be 62 years in 2009, the earliest point at which she could be tapped for the Supreme Court. Given the state of the liberal wing of the Court, her appointment would not be terribly strategically bright by Obama. While there is no question that Clinton would bring a judicial philosophy to the Court that many liberals – Obama included – would approve of, her age is too big a negative. Even if she were to remain in strong health, it would exceptional if she could serve a generation on the Court. A Clinton appointment would be a home run to liberals in the short-term, but in the long-term it would be a mistake and would minimize Obama’s impact and legacy on the nation’s jurisprudence.

Clinton is not qualified. While liberals would rejoice at seeing Clinton take her place on the dais and jousting at arguments and in opinions with Justice Scalia, it is difficult to argue that she is fully qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Granted, nowhere in the Constitution is there a proffered suggested background for a Justice. The Framers gave the President great leeway to select Justices. Furthermore, in the past a wide selection of men have sat on the Court with varying backgrounds, many not of the Harvard and Yale variety. Indeed, for example, Justice Hugo Black was not even a lawyer.

Unfortunately for Sen. Clinton, times have changed. Judicial selection, particularly for the Supreme Court, is far different than it was years ago. Most Justices are picked from the very top of the legal profession: on the current Court, for example, eight of the nine Justices came directly from the U.S. Court of Appeals (with the ninth, David Souter, coming from the New Hampshire Supreme Court). Justices often represent the cream of the field, and they come with extensive background and experience in various sectors of the law. While no one can question Clinton’s intelligence, or even her legal abilities, it would be difficult to argue that she possesses these high legal qualifications. Aside from graduating from Yale Law School and later working for the House Judiciary Committee and the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, her legal background is quite thin. Robert Novak has said that Clinton would be the most unqualified Justice since Byron White (who was put on the Court by JFK in 1962). However, White was probably more qualified than Clinton as he was plucked from his position as Deputy Attorney General. Ditto Abe Fortas, who was put on the Court by Lyndon Johnson in 1965. All of Fortas’ faults aside, he was one of the most brilliant and talented attorneys of his generation. On the issue of legal qualifications, Clinton cannot hold a candle to White, Fortas, or just about any other successful nominee over the last 40+ years.

A young Obama presidency would have too much to lose by getting bogged down in a protracted nomination fight. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the GOP decided not to filibuster a Hillary Clinton nomination to the Supreme Court. (I actually believe a filibuster would be unlikely for two reasons: (1) it would make the GOP look incredibly hypocritical given their memorable hissy fit against the Democratic filibusters of a handful of Bush nominees; and (2) the GOP’s Senate ranks will be at the cusp of 41 votes, thus making it harder for their caucus to stage and hold a filibuster on the nomination. Even if numerous red state Democrats were to vote against confirmation, they would not vote to uphold a filibuster.) Despite this, there is no doubt that the GOP would assail the nomination, knowing that even if they could not ultimately defeat Clinton, a long fight could hurt her credibility on the Court, and more importantly, seriously injure (perhaps critically) a young Obama presidency.

Should Justice Stevens or Justice Ginsburg decide to retire in 2009 or 2010 – a very real possibility – Obama’s nomination to the Court will represent perhaps the most important decision for the young administration. Putting Clinton up for the open slot would ensure a brutal fight that would undoubtedly take weeks, if not months, to untangle and see through until the end. The nomination would become the biggest story of the year, and suck the oxygen away from everything else. It would become the national focal point for the media and the public. Seizing on this reality, gleeful Republicans would gin up opposition with daily floor speeches, endless appearances on Fox News, talk radio, and elsewhere, and millions being spent by conservative interest groups to highlight the laundry list of Clinton’s negatives everyone has being hearing over the last 15 years. While Supreme Court nominations have become incredible spectacles, it would be an unparalleled circus.

Considering all of this, even a successful Clinton nomination would simply cost too much for Obama. Furthermore, should a vacancy occur close to the 2010 midterm elections – where, incidentally, Democrats have a favorable map – a Clinton nomination would become a major issue in election campaigns, much to the hindrance of Democratic nominees across the nation.

Even if Democrats sweep all the close Senate races this year, a Clinton nomination would still not be assured of mustering 50 Senators to vote ‘aye’. I saved for last the simplest, but most convincing argument for why Hillary Clinton can never be tapped for the Supreme Court: the nomination, if put before a vote of the Senate, would have extreme difficulty in getting enough Senators to vote ‘aye’, even with a strong Democratic majority. While there is certainly a strong and large core of liberal Democratic Senators who would happily vote to confirm their colleague Clinton to the High Court, there are also many red state Democrats, uneasy moderates, and of course just about the entire Republican caucus which would vote against the nomination.

To make this easier to conceptualize, I will go through each Senator in the chamber for 2009-2010, broken up by how they will likely vote. I recognize that it is impossible to predict this with perfect precision, but I am going to do my best to foresee how each contested Senate race will turn out. I like to think my powers of prediction are pretty strong. This of course assumes there will be a vacancy in 2009 or 2010, and that Obama is President at that time.

Guaranteed ‘no’ votes
(1) Richard Shelby (R-AL)
(2) Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
(3) Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
(4) Mel Martinez (R-FL)
(5) Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
(6) Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
(7) Mike Crapo (R-ID)
(8) Jim Risch (R-ID)
(9) Richard Lugar (R-IN)
(10) Charles Grassley (R-IA)
(11) Sam Brownback (R-KS)
(12) Pat Roberts (R-KS)
(13) Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
(14) Jim Bunning (R-KY)
(15) David Vitter (R-LA)
(16) Norm Coleman (R-MN). If Franken were to win, he is a vote in favor.
(17) Thad Cochran (R-MS)
(18) Ronnie Musgrove (D-MS) (or Roger Wicker), regardless of who wins this race in November; incidentally, I think Musgrove will win.
(19) Kit Bond (R-MO)
(20) Mike Johanns (R-NE).
(21) John Ensign (R-NV)
(22) Judd Gregg (R-NH)
(23) Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). I am assuming she will win in November, much to the consternation of overly-optimistic Dems.
(24) Richard Burr (R-NC)
(25) George Voinovich (R-OH). Very simple reason: up in 2010, if he voted in favor, he would assure a robust primary challenge.
(26) James Inhofe (R-OK)
(27) Tom Coburn (R-OK)
(28) Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
(29) Jim DeMint (R-SC)
(30) John Thune (R-SD)
(31) Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
(32) Bob Corker (R-TN)
(33) Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
(34) John Cornyn (R-TX). He is very likely to win in November given the bent of the state, and his huge war chest.
(35) Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
(36) Bob Bennett (R-UT)
(37) Mike Enzi (R-WY)
(38) John Barrasso (R-WY)

So, right off the bat there are at least 38 Senators absolutely guaranteed to vote against confirming Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court. Let’s now look at the guaranteed ‘aye’ votes.

Guaranteed ‘aye votes
(1) Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). While some might argue that this would be a tough call given Lincoln’s state, I disagree. I think she would want to vote for Clinton, and would be able to without fear of being badly hurt later.
(2) Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
(3) Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
(4) Mark Udall (D-CO). I acknowledge that this would be a tough call for the freshman Senator from Colorado. But Udall has a very liberal record and he would have just won, so he would have several years for any angry Coloradans to forget the vote.
(5) Chris Dodd (D-CT)
(6) Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Even if Joe has at this point been excommunicated from the Democratic caucus – a real possibility – I think he would still vote to confirm Clinton here.
(7) Joe Biden (D-DE). Assuming he is not Secretary of State; though, whoever replaces him would be a reliable vote for confirmation.
(8) Tom Carper (D-DE)
(9) Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
(10) Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
(11) Richard Durbin (D-IL)
(12) Rahm Emanuel (D-IL).
(13) Evan Bayh (D-IN). For any other Democratic Indiana Senator, this would be a hard vote, but Bayh has more than enough political capital back home to get away with it.
(14) Tom Harkin (D-IA). Harkin would have just won re-election in 2008, and is a strong, dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
(15) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
(16) Ben Cardin (D-MD)
(17) Ted Kennedy (D-MA), or whoever might replace him.
(18) John Kerry (D-MA)
(19) Carl Levin (D-MI)
(20) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
(21) Amy Klobacher (D-MN)
(22) Claire McCaskill (D-MO). I admit this would be a tough vote for her with re-election looming in 2012, but I think she would really want to do it. Close call though.
(23) Harry Reid (D-NV). A closer-than-it-looks call. Reid could face a tough re-election race in 2010.
(24) Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
(25) Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
(26) Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
(27) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
(28) Tom Udall (D-NM)
(29) Chuck Scumer (D-NY)
(30) Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Duh.
(31) Sherrod Brown (D-OH). With re-election looming in 2012, this could be tough, but Sherry is very liberal.
(32) Ron Wyden (D-OR)
(33) Jack Reed (D-RI)
(34) Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
(35) Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
(36) Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
(37) Patty Murray (D-WA)
(38) Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
(39) Herb Kohl (D-WI)
(40) Russell Feingold (D-WI)
(41) Robert Byrd (D-WV). Though, if he were to leave office, he could be replaced by Shelly Moore Capito, who would vote ‘no’.
(42) Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

We should therefore see 42 sure ‘aye’ votes, a fair sum away from the necessary 50 (plus the Vice President’s tie breaking vote) needed for confirmation. The Democrats would need to find eight more Democrats to confirm the nomination. Let’s now look at the other 20 Senators one by one.

Senators who could vote either way
(1) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). While she is a woman, I doubt she would vote in favor.
(2) Ted Stevens (R-AK) or Mark Begich (D-AK). If Stevens survives in November, he would assuredly vote against Clinton, and Begich would have a very hard time supporting her given he would have just won a first term in Alaska mainly because of his opponent’s corruption. Probably a ‘no’ too.
(3) John McCain (R-AZ). This is an interesting one. While there is always the chance he could give the middle finger to his party on the way out the door, his conservative record makes it very likely he would vote to oppose.
(4) Bill Nelson (D-FL). Nelson would have a tough choice to make. He is popular back home, but he is also moderate and having Clinton on the Supreme Court could come back to bite him. For me, the tie-breaker is that he was a supporter of Clinton’s presidential bid—I just couldn’t see him turning his back on her. Count him as a yes.
(5) Mary Landrieu (D-LA). An excruciating tough vote. Since she would have just won re-election in November 2008, I bet she would stay quiet and quietly vote yes at the end, but she would face intense pressure to oppose.
(6) Ben Nelson (D-NE). Nelson has a lot of principle and integrity, and part of me thinks he would like to vote in favor, but he comes up again 2012, and a vote for Clinton in Nebraska could bring dire political consequences later. Close, but a ‘no’ vote.
(7) Tim Johnson (D-SD). All logic says he would have to oppose, but I think he knows he will be in his last term and can get away with supporting his colleague.
(8) Mark Pryor (D-AR). Unlike Lincoln, Pryor is more moderate and probably not quite as safe, though he is pretty safe. Could go either way, but I predict he votes in favor.
(9) Ken Salazar (D-CO). He is very principled. I bet he votes in favor.
(10) Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (R-ME). Very tough to say. Gun to my head, I would say Snowe votes in favor, and Collins, having just won re-election, who knows? Though it could either more, or both could oppose or both could support.
(11) Max Baucus and John Tester (D-MT). Baucus is famously cautious, even though is very safe, and will win easy re-election this November. I have no idea. In terms of Tester, he would have to vote against since he could face a brutally difficult re-election fight in 2012.
(12) Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan (D-ND). I honestly have no idea how either would vote given their state.
(13) Gordon Smith (R-OR) or Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Depends on who wins in November. The Democrat would be a sure ‘yes’, but Smith would likely vote against.
(14) Arlen Specter (R-PA). Perhaps the most intriguing one of all. If he is not running for re-election, Specter could tell many of his long-time detractors to go to hell by voting in favor, but he is already giving strong indications that he intends to run again in 2010, in which case he would have to vote against to protect himself from a strong (and currenly likely) primary challenge. Even if he decides to retire, my gut tells me he would still vote 'no', though.
(15) Bob Casey (D-PA). His support is no sure thing. Gun to my head, I say he votes ‘aye’, but a ‘no’ is possible.
(16) Mark Warner and Jim Webb (D-VA). Another tough set of votes. Both would face intense pressure to vote against the nomination. I think each of them could survive voting in support of the nominations, but it is easy for me to say that. Plus, if Webb becomes veep, his replacement selected by Gov. Kaine would have a hard time voting in favor with an election looming. Let’s say an unknown for both.

Tabulating these, we get five probable ‘no’ votes, six probable ‘yes’ votes, and the rest are toss-ups. Adding these to the guarantees, there would be

43 ‘nos’

48 ‘ayes’

9 that could swing either way.

Sure, my total puts Hillary just one vote away from confirmation, but several Senators could waffle or switch out of fear of the electoral consequences. Furthermore, the President’s staff and the Senate whip staff count votes far in advance. They would figure out these numbers before anybody, and if they were advising President Obama, they would assuredly tell him that it would be a very hard vote for many, many members of the caucus, and it could very well actually be voted down in the end. Potential failure by itself should be enough to deter Obama from putting the nomination up, but even disregarding this consideration, the nomination simply would not be worth the immense political capital it would take to get it through, assuming that is even possible in the end.

Conclusion. The reasons are many for why Obama should not and could not realistically put Hillary Clinton on the High Court. It would be a disaster for the young administration, and imperil numerous red state Democratic Senators who would face enormous consequences back home if Hillary were to make it to the Court with their votes.

Justice Clinton? The Case for Putting Hillary on the Supreme Court

There has been some chatter lately that one option for Hillary Clinton is a potential appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Obama. This is an extremely interesting possibility, and one worthy of deeper examination. This post sets out the best argument I can muster of such an appointment. In the next post, I will make the stronger case against Justice Hillary Rodham Clinton along with an overall verdict.

The case for Justice Clinton. While HRC has been casually mentioned as a potential Justice on-and-off for some years, this is a fairly radical plan, and one that would encounter stiff resistance. Nevertheless, I believe this arrangement would be beneficial to both sides for the reasons outlined below.

What position, if any, could Hillary want if she opts to leave the Senate? Assuming that she does want to leave the Senate in the next few years, this is a tough question. Still, while Clinton was defeated by Obama, there are numerous real possibilities for her going forward. Let’s look at them one at a time.

New York Governor. There has been talk that some bigwigs have tried to get Hillary to consider running for New York governor in 2010 with Spitzer now out of the picture. I find this scenario unlikely for several reasons, both political and simply pragmatic. First, governor is a stepping stone to be President. With Hillary’s defeat in the primary, her ambitions should be dead. Maybe she harbors hopes of running again in 2012 or 2016, but she has to know that being able to launch a second run and then being successful are very unlikely. Besides, nobody likes a loser, particularly in the Democratic party (John Kerry can attest to this). A repeat of Nixon's feat in 1968 (following his defeat to JFK in 1960) is incredibly tough.

In other words, there would be no point for Hillary to be governor since her chances of being President are over. Governor is a means to an end, and in this case it would probably be an end itself, one that would not be attractive to Hillary. Why the heck would anyone -- no offense to NY up-staters as I used to be one -- want to move from tony Georgetown to dreary Albany? No one in their right mind would make this choice. This is the same reason Obama supposedly rejected early on in his Senate career moving to Springfield to be IL governor in 2010 as a springboard for a 2012 or 2016 WH run. Hillary knows life in the U.S. Senate as a show-horse would be a lot easier and sweeter than taking on the thankless job of running a horribly dysfunctional state government with no rewards coming afterwards.

Second, even if she wanted to run, the dynamics would be difficult if David Patterson stays to pursue his own run, as now looks likely. Pushing out a blind, black man to further her ambitions yet again would rub a lot of people the wrong way, and not just NYC African Americans. It is uncertain that NYers would again allow HRC to blindly use the state to further her ambitions. What happened in 2000 when HRC stepped over Rep. Nita Lowey was one thing, but this would be another with her coming off of a pitiful and bitter WH loss. Hillary can let Andrew Cuomo try to force Patterson out, only to be trounced by Mike Bloomberg in the end.


Senate Majority Leader. So we can cancel out a gubernatorial run in my opinion. What else? There has also been talk that a turn as Senate Majority Leader could be in the cards, but I find this too unlikely. First, the internal dynamics of the Senate are not something any one person or small group can just control. As Trent Lott has said many times, working in the Senate is like herding cats, and each Senator can do whatever he or she pleases. I don't know if a small group of Dems could just unilaterally decide that Hillary get the position as a sort of consolation prize.

Second, I don't know if Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer, all extremely capable legislative leaders with their eyes in the job, would just set aside their own ambitions to give Hillary a soft landing. Maybe they would, but it would be difficult.

Third, Harry Reid is going to occupy the position until at least 2010, and at that point it is likely he will run for re-election and probably win (though Rep. Jon Porter might be a tough opponent). If Reid were to lose or retire, it would be 2011 at the earliest before Hillary could go for it, and for these reasons it would not just be something we could predict and then ensure happens all the way in January 2011 -- over two years after this primary race has concluded.

Finally, it is my belief that while she would go back to claim her Senate seat -- who wouldn't, it's a great gig -- it is something she would not do with great happiness. Let's be honest, the Senate has been a stepping stone for Hillary since she first started that listening tour with poor Daniel Patrick Moynihan at her side. It was a means to an end and not an end in itself. She will go back to the Senate because she will have nothing else as big, but there is no doubt it is not something she'll love doing for the rest of her life. Her ego just won't allow it. If she can, she wants something bigger.

Vice President. On the usual list, that leaves either the cabinet or veep, and both will not happen. First, veep. There has certainly been a great deal of discussion about this with many, many, many people advocating the so-called "dream ticket" of Obama-Clinton. For once, I am in full agreement with Nancy Pelosi that Obama-Clinton will not happen. We could discuss this for hours, but my first instinct is that Hillary's does not want to be #2 to the guy who beat her. She has been angling for the presidency for years, and her loss to the young upstart Obama -- who was elected in but 2004! (how angry this must make her) -- would be unbelievably hard for her to do coming off of a bitter loss. Sure, if Obama decides to offer the slot to her, she would have to take it as rejecting it would constitute a slap in the face and tacit indicator that Hillary Obama to lose in November. No matter anything else, Hillary could never allow this to happen.

For whatever political reasons you can throw at me, my gut tells me she won't want it; besides, in the end, her addition to the ticket would not do much in the way of strengthening the ticket. Sure, it would heal some wounds with base Dems and women who are with Hillary now, but the key to winning in November is not just carrying the base but also winning enough independents from McCain. This is a whole other treatise, but independents win big national elections. They won it for Bush in 2004, and then gave the Democrats Congress in 2006. Of course, I am presuming that the Hillary supporters will come back into the fold, but this is looking more and more likely by the day.

Finally, I do not think that Obama has any interest in teaming up with his former rival. Staging unity rallies is one thing, but there is clearly tension between Bill and Hillary and Team Obama, tension that would ensure that a political marriage would not be entirely sunshine and buttercups. Only if Obama is genuinely worried about losing the female vote would he consider the pairing, and at this point, as noted above, I think this is unlikely.

I acknowledge, though, that this is certainly something we could debate at length. Nevertheless, for these and other reasons I will spare you from hearing, I can't imagine Hillary asking for veep or being offered it outright.

The Cabinet. Second, the cabinet. As I see it, there are only two positions she would even consider: Secretary of State or Attorney General. Every other position is way "below" HRC -- she would not touch Secretary of the Interior or HHS with a ten-foot clown pole. I think that while AG is a big deal to lifetime lawyer HRC, it is not big enough. Besides, what's the point? She would serve as AG for a few years -- incidentally, constantly working under the orders of President Obama -- and then be forced to retire from public life with her Senate seat long gone. I think given this option, she would choose going back to the Senate where she has the seat for life and a daily platform to say what she wants and still get on TV regularly.

In terms of SoS, while I think that IS a big enough plum, she doesn't have the foreign policy experience to carry it well. As with AG, she would be working at the direct behest of Obama, something that would not sit well with her, despite the glamour and inherent influence of the position.

Additionally, HRC would hardly enjoy monthly pilgrimages to Capitol Hill to testify before hostile Republicans who would do their damnest to ignore her work and dredge up Whitewater and other lovely and irrelevant things. Besides, I can't see Obama as happy to hand the position to Hillary and then watch her going around the world with Bill and sometimes getting credit for any significant foreign policy accomplishments. As Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher proved, SoS should be someone capable, but also an individual unlikely to steal the spotlight or the credit from the President. So, I just don't see a cabinet position happening for HRC.


United States Supreme Court. This leaves one last option that I think would rise above all the rest in appealing HRC. The United States Supreme Court. For several reasons, there is no doubt in my mind that this position would at the very least be extremely appealing to Hillary, probably the most appealing thing outside of being President.

As we all know, the Supreme Court has become the most highly-charged legal and political battleground in the country. In terms of political appeal, it has become arguably the single most-watched venue in the nation. Big decisions involving a host of areas including abortion, prayer in schools, environmental protection, and other base political issues are treated as titanic news by the media. Important judicial nominations are the single biggest events on Capitol Hill short of debate over war. The words and statements of the nine -- yes, just nine -- Justices are scrutinized across the country as if they were written on stone tablets. In short, the only stage bigger and more exclusive is the presidency itself.

SCOTUS would be very attractive to HRC. There are obvious reasons why appointment to the High Court would be very attractive. HRC is an attorney, a smart one at that, and prior to being involved in politics she worked for the Watergate Committee out of law school, was an active member of the bar and has thought and expounded deeply on many of the legal questions of the day. She's not just a politician who happens to have a JD like many, many members of Congress. As a result, in many respects she would be a natural fit on the Court and would be well equipped to bring a very bright and liberal perspective to many of the controversial issues that come before the Justices. In short, she would be able to do the job, and do it well (at least from the Democratic perspective).

From a personal standpoint, I think Hillary would love the opportunity for a host of reasons. First, it would keep her in the national spotlight not just today and tomorrow, but potentially for decades. She would remain one of the most influential national figures, and would play a pivotal role in shaping the nation's jurisprudence. Second, it would allow her to become not just a national figure, but one of the nation's top liberal figures. The possibility of her firing back at Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito over the years on abortion, Federalism, and environmental cases would be a delicious possibility to Hillary and would lionize her further in the Democratic community. Third, the position would allow her to craft a tangible legacy for herself that would last for years to come. A legacy, mind you, that could finally put her liberal accomplishments beyond her husband's. Fourth, the job would be for life with virtually no chance of ever being fired. She can finally say what she wants -- after years of biting her tongue in the Senate to burnish her "moderate" credentials -- and not have to worry about the political consequences, at least to her own career.

An HRC SCOTUS promise would be attractive to Obama. There are also big reasons why this move would be attractive to Obama. Putting Hillary on the High Court would help heal any lasting rifts between Obama and woman still festering from the hard-fought primary race, it would remove Hillary as a political obstacle of any kind permanently, and in the end it would put a very reliable liberal vote on the Court for hopefully 20 years. It would be a home run among Dems and liberals. Sure, Barack would have to give a great position to someone he currently hates, but if it can get her out of the race, I think he'd live with it. In politics, enemies can become quick, albeit uneasy allies if it is in the interest of both parties.

Obstacles in the Senate. Going further, even if Obama wins, if the Senate is close, her nomination could be killed by a Republican filibuster. I think, however, that the Democrats are going to secure four or more new Senate seats in November (VA, NM, NH, CO, plus potentially MN, MS, OR, and AK), making it much more difficult to block a Clinton nomination. This is not to say that confirmation will be easy; Hillary is a vilified figure on the right, and the prospect of putting her on the Supreme Court to vote to uphold Roe for another 25 years would not go over well in their caucus, to put it quite mildly.

Additionally, despite Republican promises to not filibuster judicial nominees, we know that promise would probably be worth less than three cents the instant a Democrat is in the White House. Republicans have spent the last eight years whining and screeching at Democratic filibusters of about 2% of Bush's circuit court nominees, but when it comes to hypocrisy, we all know the GOP takes a back seat to no one. Furthermore, any belief that the Senate GOP would let Hillary sail through because she is/was a colleague are foolish; if the Bush years have proven nothing else, it is that the judicial nomination process is now free of any party comity or bipartisanship for years to come.

There is a good chance that Senate Republicans would oppose, but ultimately let through the nomination. Still, with all of this in mind, I think her nomination would be approved for two key reasons. First, with a much stronger minority, and Senators Snowe and Collins still there (yes, I am assuming Collins will win in November; I have been saying for some time that she is too popular to be compared with Lincoln Chafee), mustering 41 votes to block the nominee will be hard.

Second, I think in the end Republicans might want Hillary ultimately confirmed -- after a nasty fight, of course -- for the same reason many GOP strategists like having Roe v. Wade around: she would be the perfect foil for their campaigns and fundraising for years to come. Sure, they'll put a hard fight and yell and scream about how she is too political, too tainted by scandal, and too liberal to be a great jurist, but in the end it would serve their political purposes to not filibuster and allow her to be ultimately confirmed on a party-line vote. In the long run, the Republicans love running on social wedge issues -- as their terrible economic policies don't really appeal to much of their perpetually-exploited-to rural base -- and believe that it is the best way to win against Democrats. It helped them cobble together enough votes to win in 2000, and worked in similar fashion in many races in 2002 and 2004. It is a proven formula to them, and having Justice Hillary Rodham Clinton handing down liberal decisions for the next 20 years would be a fundraising and political gift that would keep on giving for their base supporters.

For these two reasons, I think the Senate Republicans would ultimately let the nomination go through, after, of course, putting up a huge fight about it.

The GOP Veepstakes: A Suggested (and Necessary) Risk

To pick a national running mate or one who can deliver a state or two? How McCain executes the broader strategy outlined here vis a vis his running mate pick presents a dilemma. On the one hand, he could choose a nominee to shake up his campaign from top to bottom, attempting to re-capture his party's enthusiasm while also going for moderates. However, such a move would seemingly run completely counter to the base view of this analysis that McCain needs to concentrate only on winning the states he needs. Rather, McCain should find a nominee who he can dispatch to the Rust Belt and help him carry Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. My suggestion is that McCain aim for the former in his veep pick in order to fit into a broader strategy of running his Pontiac campaign. He needs to work hard all summer to keep the race close, and then if he is successful, tap a vice president who can give him one final boast that he is going to need to overtake Obama in the final miles of the presidential marathon.

I realize that this suggestion seems counterintuitive in light of the overview arguments. But it is entirely logical and they fit well together. I reject the view that a candidate needs to tape a vice president who can carry a nice state or two. Such a strategy is narrow-minded and especially unhelpful in a true underdog campaign. But, you are saying to yourself, Mark Greenbaum has just spent a bunch of words arguing that McCain needs to focus on a bare 270 strategy. Yes, but the fact of the matter is that there is no such candidate who can jump on the GOP ticket and say, "don't worry Mac, I will get us the 58 Electoral Votes in the Rust Belt that we need." As will be argued in the summary below, no such candidate exists. Consequently, McCain will need to take a gamble and go for something different.

Conservative running mates. In addressing the broader veep question, McCain will need to focus on both reaching out and making sure his base, particularly the True Believers, come back into the fold. True Believers are those Republicans with strong conservative views. If McCain were to pick any of these nominees, he would do much to re-assure Evangelicals and others in the base of his own bona fides. They are also generally fiscally conservative as well, and typical GOP backers. It is obvious that McCain must try to placate these bases as they are still uneasy with his candidacy.

If McCain is interesting in tapping a running mate with the main goal of placating the Republican base, he has a wide selection of possibilities nominees

Sen. Tom Coburn (OK)

Sen. Jim DeMint (SC)

Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN)

Sen. Sam Brownback (KS)

Sen. Richard Burr (NC)

Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC)

Sen. John Thune (SD)

Gov. Mark Sanford (SC)

Gov. John Huntsman (UT)

Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)

Gov. Haley Barbour (MS)

Rep. Eric Canton (VA)

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (CA)

Rep. Mike Pence (IN)

Conservative breakdown. In the interest of making a generalization, I think that several of these names can be lumped into the same category and thereafter crossed off. There is no doubt that Sens. Coburn, DeMint, Brownback, Burr (to a lesser extent), and Thune and Rep. Pence would pass the smell test for hardcore conservatives and many religious conservatives. All of them have pretty much perfect records with groups like the Family Research Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the American Conservative Union. In other words, no one could -- or would -- question their conservative credentials. Still, their very right-centric records would make a ticket with McCain susceptible to criticism as too extreme and out of the mainstream, certainly scaring off many moderates, independents and women. Lamar Alexander -- he of the famous plaid shirts in the 1996 race -- would present similar problems. Furthermore, while being conservative, he does not exactly delight conservatives. Huntsman is an unknown entity from the most Republican state in America. Reps. Cantor and McCarthy are well-liked in Republican circles and seen as fast-rising stars in the House leaderships, but both could be seen as too young and inexperienced, with McCarthy currently in his first term. But more importantly, neither would bring huge blocs of the electorate or excitement onto the ticket, though it is worth noting that Cantor is Jewish.

No to Barbour. The others are worthy of some deeper scrutiny. While Gov. Barbour would have been the perfect type of running mate for Rudy Giuliani, he probably is not the right guy for McCain. He certainly has deep roots in the national party, a strong conservative background (he once headed the RNC and was an operative for Pres. Reagan), and has earned praise for his leadership in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Still, if I may be overly simplistic: I am not sure McCain wants to present to the American people the "old white guy" ticket in 2008. I just do not think a McCain-Barbour ticket would set the world on fire, even if it reassured conservatives.

Lindsay Graham is worth a brief discussion. Graham too has a strongly conservative voting record in the House and the Senate, and was even a House impeachment manager. He also has a military record (he was a JAG attorney), and has been a leader on numerous military issues, (he was a key backer and craftsman of the Military Commissions Act). He probably is not as loved by conservatives as the other names names mentioned above, however, because he has crossed party lines in several areas. His work as one of the Gang of 14 that broke the Senate impasse over the Federal Judges filibuster issue would undoubtedly cost Graham support with the many conservatives who hated the deal (though McCain was also in the Gang). In the end, though, Graham is only on McCain's list for one reason: their close friendship. Graham may have been McCain's most fervent congressional backer in 2000, and was an early supporter in 2008. The two are very close, and Graham has been working intimately with the campaign for some time. While he would not be a great pick, McCain's friendship with South Carolina's senior senator cannot be forgotten.

Mark Sanford is probably the least offensive, and thus, best true conservative. That leaves Jindal and Sanford. I think of all the possible names being floated about, Sanford would be the best candidate if McCain's top purpose is reassuring and gaining the confidence of the conservative base. Prior to being elected governor over incumbent Democrat Jim Hodges in 2002, Sanford had been a three-term Representative from the First District. Sanford was elected in the famous Class of '94, and he fulfilled an early pledge to serve just three terms (interestingly, Coburn also followed through on the same pledge, while other members of the class did not). He gained notoriety for his fiscal conservatism in the House, and fought vigorously against spending increases and pork barrel spending before both causes became in-vogue. Sanford is a maverick politician in many ways that McCain is, though this has led to problems while Sanford has been governor. Sanford has had strained relations with the Republican-controlled state legislature (in one famous instance, he brought a pig onto the State House floor as a symbol of criticism of the state legislators; it supposedly defecated on the floor). Furthermore, while Sanford was a strong supporter of John McCain during his 2000 run for President, he did not come out in support of McCain until after the nominating contest was over. Whether this has led to lingering bad feelings with McCain is unclear. Sanford was also rated by Time Magazine one of America's worst governors -- hardly what you want on a September commercial. Still, Sanford's record makes him the best pick of the strong conservatives, but his brash politics would be unlikely to attract non-conservatives. I will get back Gov. Jindal soon.

What we see from a summary of the conservative veep choices is a list of men who probably could assuage conservative fears, but would have a very hard time connecting McCain to the middle-of-the-road voters he will need to beat Obama. So what should be his course? Pick one of them, or pick someone else with a moderate record? McCain desperately needs to find a nominee who could best do both. Below is a list of the most obvious names I could think of.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE)

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME)

Gov. Charlie Crist (FL)

Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)

Gov. Linda Lingle (HI)

Gov. Sarah Palin (AK)

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN)

Gov. Jodi Rell (CT)

Fmr. Rep/Fmr. OMB Dir. Rob Portman (OH)

Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)

Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)

Hagel can be axed right away: despite being fellow Vietnam veterans, McCain and Hagel have broken recently over the Iraq war, and there is even talk Hagel will formally back Obama and is being considering for Obama's veep slot.

A flawed crop of possible female running mates. Snowe, Lingle, and Rell are all very interesting and similar in three important respects: they are moderate officeholders, they are all hugely popular in their home states and they are all women. For these reasons alone, each should be at least examined by Team McCain. If McCain wants to make a grab for the female vote, then each of them would be valuable in that respect. Nevertheless, each of them is very unlikely to picked. Snowe may be the most popular politician in Maine, but her moderate record in the Senate would turn off many conservative Republicans already nervous about McCain, and she cannot compensate as she is not from a key swing state that she could potentially carry for McCain (Maine is worth only five electoral votes and likely to give all five of them to Obama). The same circumstances apply to Rell, despite her great popularity in the Nutmeg State. Finally, I would be lying if said I knew a great deal about Lingle other than that she is Jewish, she won in a big upset in 2002 and was re-elected overwhelmingly in 2006, and is popular in Hawaii despite its political tilt. Her inclusion on the ticket would not turn Hawaii away from its favorite son Obama, and her past calls to raise taxes would probably earn the ire of the fiscal conservatives. So, while each of them are good politicians and moderates, none of them would help McCain a great deal or be likely to get a seal of approval from the GOP base. To put it succinctly, each of three is kind of bland.

Kay Bailey? Hutchison is an interesting name that has kind of fallen off the radar, assuming it was ever there in the first place. She has a pretty strongly conservative record -- although not as far right as her fellow Lone State Senator John Cornyn and is a member of the GOP Senate leadership. Therefore, she would likely be alright with conservatives. Yet, despite her record, she has a very subdued and fairly likable and telegenic (in fact, she was a television reporter in her prior life). She is certainly someone McCain should strongly consider, though mentions of her as a serious contender are rare.

Crist. Conversely, Charlie Crist has gotten a lot of attention from the media in recent weeks. Crist is the popular first-term Florida governor, and he endorsed McCain prior to the crucial Florida primary (despite flirting with Giuliani early on). Crist has apparently become a McCain favorite, and the main logic of adding him to the ticket is that he would assure that McCain would win Florida. While McCain almost certainly must win Florida, he probably does not need to tap Crist to take the state. Also, on its face, a McCain-Crist ticket would not be completely appealing, sporting two, white-haired, white men. Again, this line of thought may seem overly simplistic, but if McCain wants to branch out, there are better tickets than this one.

Huckabee. I am a fan of Mike Huckabee. There, I admitted it. No, personally I do not agree with his social views on most issues, but he is likable. A couple of years ago, I predicted that he would be the Republicans' ultimate nominee for President because of his likability and socially conservative positions. While I completely underestimated the vehemence of oppositions towards Huckabee from the Club for Growth, Cato, and other groups, I still am a bit surprised he did not do better in the primary. I think that ultimately, despite his early success in Iowa, he was unable to get much oxygen because the conservative vote was split between Huck, Romney, and Fred Thompson, thus effectively giving McCain the opening he needed in New Hampshire, Florida and elsewhere. Nevertheless, I think Huckabee could still have a bright future in politics given his pleasant demeanor. Never underestimate the value of plain likability. McCain should give Huck some good consideration, but ultimately fiscal conservatives' distrust of the former Governor would be very unhelpful. Additionally, tapping Huck would likely not open up any new doors for McCain into winning segments of the voting populace. He did lose in the primary, albeit strongly and gracefully, and as much as I think he is a likable guy, I just do not feel that a McCain-Huckabee ticket would mesh very well in then.

Romney. Mitt Romney is a name that has been bandied about a lot, and his standing among establishment conservatives has become fairly strong after he veered sharply to the right in his bid for the GOP nomination. It is that same sharp turn that would probably lose him a lot of support he could have had had he run as a moderate based on his successful business resume and his term as governor of one of the most liberal states in the country. All merits and de-merits aside, my personal opinion is that the lack of trust between the two men has already nixed this pairing. Should McCain ultimately tap Romney, it will be solely based on worries about money so that McCain can tap the Mittster's large reserve of personal cash. Any time you pick someone primarily because of money like this, the choice is unlikely to lead to success. McCain is also unlikely to allow Mitt to use him to become the de facto GOP nominee (in either 2012 or 2016).

Portman and Ohio. Ohio is another pivotal state (if it isn't the pivotal state in the nation). Winning it is certainly going to be at the heart of each candidate's plans. While Ohio has long been a Republican state, the Taft Coingate scandal and the 2006 elections changed the state's dynamic considerably, leaving Ohio with few viable Republican figures. Consequently, Rob Portman is seen (probably correctly) as the best possible veep choice from Ohio. He has cut a conservative record, and is well regarded by establishment conservatives from his time as a congressman, then as President's Bush Trade Representative and then his head of OMB. Portman is young (53 years old) and affable, and he could help McCain win Ohio. My view of Portman is pretty simple. If the McCain campaign's polling shows that Portman would be hugely helpful in carrying Ohio, he should be in the top three as Ohio's 20 electoral votes are that valuable. However, this is not something that is knowable right now. If Portman would not be very helpful in Ohio -- and this is certainly possible as Portman was only the Rep for the Second District -- he is not worth it. One thing that should not be underestimated is Portman's ties to the Bush administration. Tapping Portman would really expose McCain to accusations that he would be a third Bush term. Portman held two top (albeit less known) positions in the administration, and as a result could bring a link to the unpopular Bush that McCain would want to avoid. For this reason, I think he is a flawed candidate. Sadly for McCain, the GOP bench in Ohio has been decimated, the Portman could be the best game in town for Ohio.

Jindal=the most interesting possibility. Bobby Jindal may represent John McCain's most intriguing choice. Jindal is the Indian-American governor of Louisiana and a former congressman from the state's First District. He has a truly amazing personal story: he was a Rhodes Scholar, and before he was 30 years old, he had already headed Louisiana's university system and served in a high-ranking position in the U.S. Department of Health. After narrowly losing a bid for governor in 2003, he was elected to David Vitter's old House seat in 2004 after Vitter moved up to the Senate, and served there until he was elected governor on his second try on a reform banner. Jindal's young age (I think he is about 37) would probably be an issue to some, but given McCain's long resume and Jindal's own host of experience -- unquestionably even greater than Obama's -- that should be an issue. Jindal's inclusion on the ticket would definitely infuse a lot of energy and excitement onto the GOP side and it would certainly garner the support of staunch Republicans. Jindal is, in my opinion, an excellent speaker and brilliant mind, and is able to speak cogently on just about any subject. And let there be no question: Jindal wants the job, even though he has only been leading post-Katrina Louisiana for less than a year.

I see two key problems with Jindal. First, his record is extremely conservative, so much so that it may turn off moderates and independents intrigued by the young man. So, from that aspect, any gains made by a McCain-Jindal ticket could be lost once people learn just how conservative Gov. Jindal is. Second is the issue of what will be gained by adding Jindal to the ticket. As I said, Jindal would bring a heaping helping of youth and excitement to the Republican side, and he would help McCain win a lot of media cycles with the pick. Still, a Jindal pick would in many ways an attempt by McCain to out-Obama Obama. In other words, part of Jindal's appeal to Republicans is that he is a successful, attractive, telegenic minority leader, and many Republicans are supporting him in part based on the belief that because he is a minority, he could almost outshine Obama and perhaps peel away key blocks of voters from the Democratic nominee. I think this logic is terribly misguided. Despite Jindal's appeal, he will gain little general support for McCain from minority groups (excepting Indian-Americans and perhaps some other Asian-Americans). If the GOP wants to pick Jindal because there is a belief that they could essentially out-do Obama, they will be in for a rude awakening. Jindal certainly has his strengths, but his supporters should be realistic about his limitations as an appealing figure. On base, Jindal is still an intriguing choice and his potential for energizing the GOP race is something Team McCain should survey extremely carefully.

The likely, but not the best pick. It has been my belief for a while that when it is all said and done, John McCain will pick Gov. Tim Pawlenty to be his running mate. There are certainly good reasons why this will happen. Pawlenty is an old friend, having once been McCain's driver when he was younger. He also was one of the first to endorse McCain and stuck with him throughout the time period when it looked like the McCain campaign would crash and burn. McCain has certainly remembered Pawlenty's loyalty and friendship, and to me, this is probably the greatest reason why Pawlenty is the current frontrunner for the nomination. The son of a truck driver, he worked his way through college and has come to symbolize national Republicans capable of molding themselves as blue collar; indeed, Pawlenty himself coined the term "Sam's Club Republican" in describing the need for the GOP to branch out to more blue collar constituencies while retaining conservative values. As Newsweek well summarized: "As governor, he's cut taxes and spending, backed an anti-gay marriage amendment", so he would be acceptable to many conservatives. However, he is not beloved by all conservatives, and criticisms have bubbled up in several places, noting, among other things, that Pawlenty is a big-government Republican whose record would be anathema to many conservatives and libertarian leaners.

On a personal side, he has no white hair, is not yet 50, and is very lively and telegenic. That he survived to win re-election in the big Democratic year of 2006 -- by a slim 47-46 margin, but only after his opponent, the state Attorney General made a last minute gaffe -- speaks to his electoral strength; though, his addition to the ticket would not guarantee that McCain wins Minnesota's 10 electoral votes given Obama's great fit with the state. In fact, I suspect McCain is going to lose Minnesota no matter what. Still, my own personal view is that this last point should not be seen as a disqualifier for Pawlenty as it generally is with most candidates. Pawlenty's gifts as a politician and the assets he could bring to the GOP ticket should not be seen as totally diminished solely because he may not help the party carry his own state. McCain would be very comfortable with Pawlenty as his running mate, and the governor would add tremendous youth and energy to a GOP ticket desperate for both. I think that McCain probably agrees with this, which is why Pawlenty is probably at the top of the veep list right now.

Yet, despite the likelihood that McCain will pick Pawlenty -- in a sense, going for the "safe" pick in the process -- I think there is probably at least one better choice. This choice would certain pose greater risks, but given the national dynamic McCain faces, he will need to take risks in order to win the election. If all McCain does the entire campaign is take the safer path, than he will likely lose in my opinion. It is because of this view that I think McCain should tap Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his nominee. Palin would be able to excite and retain the GOP base while giving McCain the opportunity to branch out to other blocs of voters crucial to the election and reinvigorate his campaign in the fall.

McCain should tap...the Governor of Alaska...? This suggestion is hardly new. Numerous commentators have come out in strong support of a McCain-Palin ticket. Palin has also been receiving a great deal of attention in the last few months from Rush Limbaugh, the National Review, and key centers and figures in the conservative community. Therefore, we can see that her support is not based solely because she is the hot, new political entity; rather, the support from key conservatives is based greatly on her own credentials: she is strongly pro-life, she brings fiscal conservatism, and in taking on entrenched Republicans in Alaska since her rise to power there, she has established herself as a champion of ethics issues. Heck, she is in fact currently suing the Interior Department over the listing of polar bears as "threatened"; if that does not delight arch-conservatives, nothing will. Indeed, a few years ago she resigned her position on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to protest rampant corruption on the body that was later exposed, vindicating her stance. Palin also took on hugely unpopular former Senator and Governor Frank Murkowski, and ousted him in a 2006 primary before being elected in the general election. Palin has been vocal in calling for a new comprehensive national energy policy, and has even come out strongly in favor of allowing drilling in ANWR.

So, Palin certainly has conservative stripes that should be agreeable to many conservatives. However, Palin would bring even more to the table for Sen. McCain. Gov. Palin is only 44 years -- pretty young by political standards, vibrant, and telegenic and appealing. Palin has a likable and engaging personal story, as she married her high school sweetheart and has a large brood of children, including one that was just born who has Down's Syndrome. There is no doubt that her addition to the ticket would provide an tremendous boast to McCain's campaign. The media coverage of the appointment would be enormous, probably even greater than that which Al Gore received when he tapped Joe Lieberman for his running mate. Assuming McCain is staring down at a deficit during the summer and into the fall, Palin's appointment could provide great short-term benefits for his campaign. If I were advising the senior Senator from Arizona, I would tell him to make his pick later, probably even after Obama taps his veep, assuming McCain is able to keep it close for most of the summer.

Tapping Palin would not just be a move made to win a couple of media cycles: it would also bring long-term benefits. Palin could be a strong surrogate to discuss the importance of electoral change and ethics in government, leaning heavily on her work and experiences in Alaska. The most obvious thing many commentators will turn to is that Palin could potentially tap into angry female voters who were in the Hillary Clinton camp. This is certainly a possibility, though it is unknown, at least to me, what kind of inroads Palin could make with that vital group. There is no doubt Palin would help up McCain's numbers with women, but to what extent is an open question. Unfortunately, polling McCain-Palin would be unenlightening since no one knows who Palin is. If McCain were to pick Palin, he would have to hope on the assumption that she would be more than just a tiny bit helpful in garnering greater female support for the Arizona Senator.

For a small added bonus, having Palin on the national ticket would be immensely helpful in salvaging an endangered Senate seat. In office since 1968, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is running in a very difficult race against the mayor of Anchorage. His popularity in the state has plummeted since his house was raided by the FBI as part of an outgoing state corruption investigation that also includes his son, the former head of the State Senate. Having never faced a particularly tough race, Stevens is down in the polls now, and there is a good chance he could lose in November, costing the GOP a Senate seat in a red state. Adding Palin to the ticket would probably be very helpful to Stevens' chances, and I do not think it is an understatement to say that the move could single-handedly save Stevens. This is a small matter, but a nice little bonus nonetheless. I do not think any other talked-about prospective veep could bring the additional benefit of protecting an endangered Senate seat in the same way (though Gov. Barbour would ensure Sen. Roger Wicker's election, that race is 50-50 as is, and less likely to flip than Alaska).

Potential criticisms of a Palin candidacy. The raps against Palin are pretty much standard, and most are not terribly convincing though a couple are merit-worthy. Let's go over some of them:

"She has no experience in foreign affairs." So what? I agree that this is a concern for most nominees, particularly Obama himself, but it shouldn't be for McCain. McCain has been in the Senate for over two decades and has a wealth of experience in foreign and military affairs. That his running mate lacks those credentials should not be seen as a deal-breaker. McCain's own response should be that he wants to reach out and look towards other groups and interests that could bolster his campaign.

"She's from Alaska, a state carrying only three electoral votes and which the GOP is going to win anyway." For a long time, I have been one of those who have argued that the veep nominee to a presidential candidate should always bring with him or her the ability to help win a key state. And earlier, I said that McCain needs to run a campaign focused solely on plucking just enough states to get to 270. I still believe that, but given the uncertainty of so many states, as the decided underdog McCain cannot assume that winning that one state will swing the election for him. Sure, if Rob Portman's selection would guarantee that McCain holds Ohio, I might feel differently, but Portman would bring no such guarantee. Furthermore, there is no choice who McCain can turn to in order to pick up Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and/or Florida. McCain is down, and he needs a bold strategy. Picking Tim Pawlenty will be seen as business as usual. Ditto Mitt Romney and Mark Sanford. Picking Sarah Palin would be bold.

"She's too unknown." I find this criticism unpersuasive simply because most politicians are totally unknown by regular Americans. This may come as a shock to the writers (and readers) of Roll Call or Politico, but most people have no idea who Bobby Jindal or Steny Hoyer are. Even if McCain picked someone like Jindal or Pawlenty, that they are unknown entities is probably pretty inevitable and not that harmful.

"She's too young and inexperienced generally to be Commander in Chief should the unthinkable happen." The first half is irrelevant, while the second half of the criticism has some merit. First, her age would not matter; heck, she is only two years younger than Obama, so it is unlikely this could be an issue. Regarding general experience, there could be an argument that resonates. Palin has only been governor of Alaska for for a year and a half, and prior to that, she was the mayor of a town with only 5,000 people. Having someone who was mayor of 5,000 people in 2006 be one step from the presidency in 2009 would be a potent argument for Obama. This is something McCain would have to evaluate.

"Picking Palin would be seen as a stunt, or perhaps even worse, a sign of desperation." This is certainly possible. By tapping Palin, McCain would be hoping that he catches lightning in a bottle. However, in politics and media, there are absolutely no guarantees. Palin could turn out to be a dud right out of the gate, further dooming McCain's chances.

Conclusion. Make no mistake: John McCain is the underdog in this race. All of the national polls show Obama with varying leads and the states showing Obama ahead or close basically everywhere establish this. McCain is not going to win unless he is willing to take some big risks. Naming Sarah Palin as his running mate would certainly represent an immense gamble. But given the national environment and the strengths that Sen. Obama brings, McCain cannot get by with just the same old thing. An old white man-upper middle aged white man ticket is not going to install thunder into the hearts of weary conservative voters or those in the middle who will decide the election. While Palin -- or anyone else for that matter -- is not a panacea, she certainly would bring numerous positives with her.

Palin may not guarantee that McCain betters his standings with conservatives or moderates and independents, or even helps him in the Rust Belt states. But as I mentioned earlier, she could aid McCain if he stays close and give his ticket the best chance of closing the whole thing at the end.

If I can remember one thing about the 2000 election (besides the Florida debacle), it was the impact that Joe Liberman had on Al Gore's campaign. Prior to Gore announcing that he had selected Lieberman to be his running mate, Gore's campaign was stagnant. He was down, though not insurmountably, to then-Gov. Bush in a race most felt was his to lose. The tapping of Lieberman unquestionably reinvigorated Gore's candidacy and helped close the polling gap to the point that Gore was in a good position to win. Sure, Lieberman did not deliver Florida in the end, or perhaps any individual state, but that is irrelevant. He was not picked for that purpose. No one knew the election would hinge on Florida (indeed, most people felt Gore would have to win the troika of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida). Besides, if Gore had been focused on finding a running mate who would have taken care of the Sunshine State, he would have just tapped Sen. Bob Graham (despite his diaries issue). Lieberman was picked because the campaign had lost its stride, and it wanted to do something different, and perhaps even unexpected.

Should John McCain find himself in a similar position as the summer gives way to the fall, which appears likely at this point, picking Sarah Palin could have the same impact on his own race. It could right a sinking ship and steal Obama's thunder before it is too late. Plus, whereas Lieberman garnered attention because he was the first national Jewish candidate in a general election and did not really provide anything beyond that, Palin would be a strong asset on the campaign trail until the end of the campaign. As I noted, she is lively and telegenic and would be a strong asset in both the short-term and the long-term as a good surrogate (though, I admit that Palin's mettle as a campaigner is completely untested). Palin presents several of the benefits the talented Jindal could bring, but minus his hard edge and extremist positions.

Given the state of the race, McCain should look to tap Palin at the point when he needs a jolt of reinvigoration the most. It is a risk, sure, and McCain may not generate near what he is looking for from the selection, falling flat on his face. In all honesty, I do not think McCain will win this election, and there is a good shot that Obama is going to win big. Plus, I readily admit that McCain-Palin could be seen as a stunt that falls flat on its face. Still, given the circumstances, it is a risk worth taking for Senator McCain.

John McCain's dilemma and a suggested strategy going forward

Introduction. I do not think anyone would dispute that John McCain faces a difficult path to win the presidency this year. Almost destroyed by President Bush's eight years in office, the GOP brand is less popular now than it has been since Watergate, or perhaps even before then. To paraphrase a Republican whose political skills I respect perhaps more than any other, the sharp Rep. Tom Davis, if the GOP brand were a dog food, it would have been removed from the shelf a while ago. Compounding McCain's mission are a host of problems, some of his doing, but many outside the scope of his control. These hurdles are worth highlighting to figure out (1) how he should shape his general electoral strategy going forward; and (2) how he can make sure his veep pick best works to combat his many problems.

Change is in the air, and it favors the Democrat. First, the electorate is looking to turn the page. Perhaps never in recent history has "change" been such a powerful and pervasive theme in just about every campaign of any significance. Nor has this been a Democratic phenomenon. Indeed, candidates on both sides -- Obama and McCain -- plus congressional candidates across the country have been running as agents of change: Democrats running against the Bush years, and Republicans against the Pelosi Congress and even conservatives who are seen as not conservative enough (see recently ousted Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (MD-01) and Chris Cannon (UT-03)). As a result, McCain is at a decided disadvantage if indeed change proves to be a key motivating factor for voters in the election. Whereas McCain is tied to an unpopular President, a political party that has faced numerous high-profile ethics scandals in Congress, and has himself been in the Senate since 1987, Obama will not have an "R" next to his name, he brings a "fresh face" in the truest sense of the word, and was only elected to the Senate in 2004. Most importantly, Obama is simply a younger, more telegenic presence. Even Republicans would be hard-pressed to refute this if you were to compare the two nominees on the stump. So, it is improbable that McCain can "out-change", if I can make up such an expression, Obama in November.

The Democratic base is energized for their nominee. Second, the Democratic party is hugely more energized than the GOP side. This was evident throughout the primaries as Democratic numbers heavily out-numbered Republican primary voters. Admittedly, many of the state disparities were due to the Republican race being effectively over so soon, but these trends were well established in the contests before that point. McCain will have to contend with an energized Democratic base which will manifest itself in many ways, particularly in the way of fundraising where Obama will raise incredible amounts of money that McCain will probably not be able to match. Obama's advantage here will almost certainly be harmful when the Democrat is able to carpet bomb ads in swing states up to election day. Furthermore, Obama will be able to use his financial muscle like a club in light-red (and even ruby red) states to attempt to steal some traditional GOP states. Indeed, Obama has already indicated he will pursue a "50-state strategy" similar to DNC chair Howard Dean's well known (and ongoing) operation. Conversely, McCain may lack the funds to pursue a similarly ambitious electoral strategy; rather he will rely greatly on free media by being constantly available and he will have to spend his funds much more judiciously and implement a narrower victory plan. Still, I must admit that the RNC will be able to close this gap, should it materialize, as it consistently outraises the DNC by enormous margins. This is a theme I will return to later in greater detail. One other point -- the current electorate is different from 2004 in two key respects. In 2004, the Democratic was certainly energized, but so was the GOP base; Bush ended up winning because he rallied his own base and conquered the middle just enough to cobble together 51 percent and a majority in Ohio. Now, independents and moderates are leaning heavily against the GOP. Perhaps more importantly, whereas the Democratic base in 2004 was mobilized against Bush (and not so much for the painfully unlikeable John Kerry), this year Democrats have rallied around their candidate, and not so much against their opponent. This is a key distinction.

The Republican base is not motivated for their nominee. Third, McCain faces an unquestionably unmotivated Republican base. This is not just an oft-repeated line; it is obvious when one looks at several areas. As already noted, McCain's fundraising, not including May, has been anemic, compared not just to Obama but to Bush when he ran in 2000 (albeit with an unprecedented fundraising machine). Additionally, even after McCain effectively sealed the nomination, Mike Huckabee (and even Ron Paul!) was able to post strong showings in several states, demonstrating that that core conservative concerns remained with a McCain candidacy. This unease is deep-seeded and long-standing, as many social and other conservative stalwarts and GOP supporters have long had problems with McCain's work in campaign finance, several of his environmental positions such as opposition to ANWR drilling, his attacks on Evangelical figures like Jerry Falwell, and his participation with Democrats in the well known "Gang of 14" that assembled in the Senate to untangle the GOP's number one red meat issue--federal judges. These fears thus clearly persist. Collectively, this all represents a huge problem for the Senior Senator from Arizona. While it is highly unlikely that even a moderately-sized chunk of the GOP base crosses party lines to vote for Obama in November, more troubling is the real prospect that a small, but nonetheless vital segment stays home. Given the closeness of the national electorate as evidenced by the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, as well as in a host of congressional and Senate races in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006, even a small shift could cost McCain in some key swings states like Virginia or Colorado (states with large Evangelical populations that generally vote Republican, but both could stay home given the unease of figures like Colorado Springs' James Dobson, for example) that will decide the election.

McCain is still within striking distance. Yet, despite all of these enormous problems, McCain can still attain victory. At this point in min-June, after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, he has not yet opened a wide lead in the national numbers. This is due to several factors, most notably the closely-divided national electorate, concerns among some independents, blue collar middle-to-lower middle class voters, lingering apprehension and resentment among some Hillary Clinton supporters, and McCain's own strengths. While Obama's lead may well balloon in the coming weeks and months (in fact, it has according to some polls released in the last few days by Newsweek and the LA Times, both of which have given the Illinois Senator double-digit leads), McCain is still within striking distance of the Democrat.

McCain must reach out to Republicans and moderates. In terms of addressing several of the key problems highlighted above, McCain will have a very tough time becoming a more charismatic nominee than Obama or effectively casting himself as a better changing agent than the Illinois Senator. Similarly, Democratic turnout will be high no matter what. Therefore, the two areas where McCain should focus on is (i) finding a way to increase Republican turnout, support (financial and otherwise), and excitement, and (ii) looking for ways to increase his support among independents and also cut into Obama's vote with blue collar voters and women.

McCain must focus on the Electoral College and try not to match Obama's broader national campaign. These objectives are a bit less daunting when one remembers that this race will be won not through the national vote, but the Electoral College. Here, too, McCain finds himself at a disadvantage among states that are safely or leaning Democratic versus those likely to end up in the red column. Before examining at the current Electoral College breakdown, it is valuable to first look at the map through the lenses of what should be McCain's general broader national strategy.

Barack Obama is already setting the groundwork to to run a bold, "Cadillac" national campaign, broadly working at a national level, awash in cash and good media coverage. He will fight hard not just to win the pure toss-ups, but numerous traditionally GOP-leaning places, such as Missouri, Virginia, and perhaps even Indiana. Because of his own lack of resources, McCain will probably be unable to match Obama by fighting hard to win states like California, Maine or New Jersey. Out of necessity, he will have to run a "Pontiac" campaign geared at doing whatever it takes to somehow cobble together the magical 270 Electoral Votes needed to claim victory. McCain is going to need to largely take for granted his base states; that is, until there is evidence that Obama's 50 state strategy is bearing fruit. Then again, at the point that Obama is highly competitive in the polls in Indiana and Georgia late in the game, then it is probably fair to say that it just is not a Republican year, irregardless of McCain's own strategy. Right now, as he is crafting his plans for up to November, McCain simply has to hope that this kind of tidal wave is not forming to wash him away.

For the purposes of convenience, it is probably best to classify the states into two categories: those states that are very likely to vote Republican, and the ones that are either toss-ups or leaners.

Republican states

Alabama (7 electoral votes). Democrats hold some hope that this state could be won by Obama based on the state's fairly high percentage of black voters (just over one-quarter of the state) and Obama's decisive win in the primary after the polls showed a deadlock there. Yet, while Al Gore polled a respectable 42 percent in 2000, Kerry only garnered 37 percent. Further, while 2006 was a strong Democratic year, Gov. Bob Riley was overwhelmingly re-elected after winning his first term by less than one percent over then-Gov. Don Siegelman. While Obama may hope to win with a huge black vote, Kerry won blacks 91-6 (while losing whites about 4-to-1) in losing big here. To win, Obama would need massive black turnout, and a better showing among a depressed white electorate. This is unlikely.

Alaska (3). This is another state where Democrats are dreaming big. There are already rumblings that Obama will make a late summer visit to the Last Frontier, becoming the first Democratic nominee to do so since JFK. A recent Rasmussen poll had McCain clinging to a 45-to-41 lead in the state. Mind you: in June. The Alaska Republican Party has been beset by scandals and ethics problems, and both Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young face difficult re-election fights as they both deal with potential Federal indictments. Though, it is worth noting that Bush's margin in the state dropped six percent between 2000 and 2004 -- before many of the scandals came to light. A Democratic win here in a presidential election would be highly unexpected, and a signal of a nationwide Democratic landslide.

Arizona (10). Bush nearly doubled his margin here between elections, and while Democrats have been making strong inroads here -- winning two previously-GOP-held House seats in 2006 -- the state is probably not ready to turn in presidential elections, even in the unlikely event that Obama taps Gov. Janet Napolitano to be his running mate. Not to mention that McCain is from here. A 6/25 poll showing McCain up 38-28 could be concerning, but personally I can't believe McCain's percentage is that low in the state.

Arkansas (6). Pluses: three of the four U.S. Representatives, both U.S. Senators, the Governor, and both the state house and senate are all controlled by well-entrenched Democrats, Bush scored moderate victories here (five and nine points), and Hillary Clinton probably could have contended here. Minuses: the state is just 16 percent black, the median income is $32,000 with about 40 percent of the population making $50,000 or less -- hardly an electorate that matches well with Obama.

Georgia (15). The Obama campaign and its supporters have been making noise that they will fight to win this state. While the state is nearly 30 percent black, it has become deep red territory since 2002, with Gov. Sonny Perdue and Sen. Johnny Isakson both winning landslide victories in their last campaigns in 2006, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss poised to do the same this year. Only a massive black turnout perhaps combined with an Obama-Sam Nunn ticket (which has been discussed lately, though Nunn has been out of office since 1996) could make this state seriously competitive. A recent poll had the race deadlocked, giving McCain a one-point lead. While this is great news for Obama, Georgia still is unlikely to turn. On a personal note, a friend and I have bet a steak dinner with two strong Obama supporters that McCain will Georgia, but my own desire for filet mignons and shrimp cocktails did not color my feelings here in the slightest--if anything, it was the reverse.

Idaho (4). This is one of the top five most Republican states in America. Even in the great Democratic Tide of 2006, the Democratic nominee for governor lost the open seat race by nine points, and Rep. Bill Sali won the open First District seat by five despite numerous problems with his candidacy. A reincarnated Frank Church would have great trouble winning here statewide.

Indiana (11). The 2006 House gains of three seats here was certainly impressive, but Barack Obama is the going to be the Democratic nominee for President on the ballot, not Brad Ellsworth or Baron Hill. The districts of Reps. Mark Souder, Steve Buyer, Dan Burton and Mike Pence range from strongly Republican to overwhelmingly Republican, and the seats won here in 2006 are themselves reliably Republican. Only an Obama-Bayh ticket would have a shot, and even having favorite son Evan on the ticket would not assure Democrats of winning the Hoosier State. Then again, if a just-released poll giving Obama a one-point lead is to be believed, this thinking could be very wrong. A McCain loss in Indiana would mean a landslide loss for the Republicans.

Kansas (6). Has this state ever gone Democratic for President? Ok, it has: in 1964. And 1932 and 1936, even though favorite son Gov. Alf Landon was FDR's challenger that year. I may be in the minority, but even an Obama-Sebelius ticket would lose here.

Kentucky (8). Obama was trounced here in the primary, and the state is something like six percent black. The latest SUSA poll gives McCain a 12-point lead.

Louisana (9). Here is a state where we could see Obama's 50 state strategy in action. Even after Hurricane Katrina, the state has a large black population. Still, the state has been trending red and it probably will be out of reach for the Democrat. Democrats are fighting hard to protect Mary Landrieu in her Senate race and freshman Rep. Don Cazayoux, and are playing on offense in LA-04 (and potentially LA-07). Louisiana is a state to watch closely this season.

Mississippi (6). No one was happier when Travis Childers won the First District last month, and few feel as strongly optimistic that fmr. Gov. Ronnie Musgrove can win Trent Lott's old Senate seat in November. Yet, while an unprecedented black turnout -- the state is about 37 percent black, the highest number in the nation -- is absolutely doable, Obama will have to find a way to crack the GOP's dominance of the white vote here. Both Bush in 2004 and Gov. Haley Barbour in his victory over Musgrove in 2003 broke 77 percent of the white vote in their races. There is a very reasoned argument here (worth reading) that Obama can win here. I just do not buy it. Yet. Latest poll from 6/26: Rasmussen gives McCain a concerning 50-44 lead.

Montana (3). The Good: Democrats now control the governorship (Brian Schweitzer) and both U.S. Senate seats (Max Baucus and Jon Tester). The Bad: Republicans dominate here in presidential races and blacks make up less than one percent of the state. The Ugly: only an Obama-Schweitzer ticket would have a ghost of a chance.

Nebraska (5). Even though Nebraska is one of two states that apportion its electoral votes by district -- one for each district won, and two to the winner of the state -- Obama will not win here, despite a recent poll showing districts one and two close and his intent to spend money on media and organization the Second District (Omaha).

North Dakota (3). An April poll showed the state close. If a misguided friend offers you good odds on an Obama loss, take 'em.

Oklahoma (7). Even if popular Gov. Brad Henry were tapped for veep, Dems would still lose here by double digits.

South Carolina (8). Even with a large black population -- about 30 percent -- this is a very tough field for a Democrat to play on.

South Dakota (3). Let me put it this way: if Tom Daschle could not put Obama in the primary win column against a dying Clinton campaign, how does Obama win here in November?

Tennessee (11). Harold Ford's 2006 race is instructive. Ford boasted strong statewide name recognition and a moderate voting record, ran unopposed in his primary, faced no incumbent but rather a vanilla opponent who survived a tough GOP primary, in a non-presidential year that turned out to be a landslide Democratic year, and he still lost, albeit by a close 51-48. This state is just too red, even if Memphis comes out big, which it will.

Texas (34). My hand is tired, so I will not bother explaining the obvious. But I will note a 6/26 Texas Lyceum poll showing McCain leading just 43-38. Let's wait on see before we move Texas out of the safe GOP category.

Utah (5). The most Republican state in America. McCain will likely run up his best national numbers here.

West Virginia (5). What was once a reliably-Democratic state in presidential races is no more. This state is a large collection of electorates predisposed to vote against Obama.

Wyoming (3). A recent Research 2000 poll had McCain only up 13 points here. I actually believe this state will be "close", and by that I mean Obama will lose by 40 points like Kerry or Gore. A 60-40 loss would be a moral victory, and it is doable.

Thus, McCain's likely base total (AL, AK, AR, AZ, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY): 174 electoral votes. Again, if McCain is in danger in any of these states, he is in huge trouble and probably likely to lose decisively. Not a great start, and nearly 100 shy of a needed majority. Therefore, McCain would need to do well among those states in the middle, the toss-ups and true leaners.

It is worth noting that Obama's safe state's are as follows: CA (55), CT (7), DC (3), DE (3), HI (4), IL (21), MA (12), MD (10), ME (5), NJ (15) , NY (31), OR (7), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11), for a total of 190 electoral votes, a solid lead over McCain. Under ordinary circumstances, McCain would pour resources into CA, DE, ME, NJ, and OR, as states he would try to peel off. Given his lack of resources in this campaign, he will probably be unable to make any reaches.

The remaining states where McCain will have to find 100 electoral votes are: CO (9), FL (27), IA (7), MI (17), MN (11), MO (11), NC (15), NM (5), NV (5), NH (4), OH (20), PA (21), and WI (10). I realize my estimate are conservative at this point and do match the maps proffered by others much smarter than I, but I am not ready to push the leaners into one category or the other just yet.

While all 14 of these states could be won by either side, there are certainly those than lean to one side at this time.

McCain leaners: FL, MO, NC, NV, VA.

Obama leaners: CO, IA, MI, MN, NH, PA, WI.

With leaners included, McCain is in dire shape. With these states included, the totals are McCain 245, Obama 269, a grave situation for McCain, with Obama one electoral vote shy of winning majority. He would either to hold onto his leaners and then win all of Ohio (20) and New Mexico (5) plus another state or states, or find a way to take some of the Obama leaners. Plus, I readily concede that various polls indicate that nearly all of the McCain leaners listed above could be toss-ups very soon. At this time, I still think they are Republican-leaning, but that could change very soon, putting McCain in even greater peril. For example, a lot of people are saying Virginia is now leaning towards Barack in the polls. Maybe so, but the state has not voted blue since 1964, so I am not ready to forget that history based on a few polls in May and June. I think a little more time should be given.

It is here, from this perspective, that it is most valuable to analyze prospective veeps. McCain's challenge is immense: he must find a way to excite and bring conservatives, or True Believers, back into the GOP fold and also win the moderate independents and blue collar voters who decide these elections.

An overview of my McCain strategy. My suggestion for the McCain campaign is fairly complicated, but here goes. So far, this analysis has argued that McCain can win if hunkers down and concentrates on those swings states that can get him to 270 while hoping that his base states like Indiana, Georgia, and Mississippi hold for him in the end. This will run counter to Obama's very ambitious strategy of running a broad national campaign that is unprecedented in modern presidential politics. McCain has to hope that he can hang on nationally as long as possible, and thus in his base states, and that Obama's heavy spending in red states turns out to be a huge error in judgment. In other words, should McCain lose by over five points nationally, the race is going to be a landslide for Obama, and McCain is going to lose numerous GOP base states no matter way, demonstrating that Obama's broader national strategy was wise and ultimately successful. Conversely, if McCain is able to keep the margin close throughout the campaign until the end, he can put himself in a position to win the handful of swing states that he will need to get to 270. So, in essence McCain has to hope that Obama's spending in states like Alaska, Texas, and Wyoming turns out to be a waste (at least at the presidential level and saying nothing for the congressional races impacted), while he himself keeps focusing on places like Ohio, Michigan, and Colorado.

The next post will examine how Sen. McCain can implement this broader strategy in his vice presidential search.