Chris Weinkopf: August 2008 Archives

Rob is right that veeps don't matter -- except for when they do. Yes, not even Dan Quayle could sink George H.W. Bush, but that's because he was running on Ronald Reagan's coattails. Bush also had the good fortune of running against the pathetic Michael Dukakis.

Other veeps have made a big difference. Walter Mondale, Al Gore and Dick Cheney all brought D.C. street cred to their outsider running-mates. LBJ and Bush Sr. unified shaky coalitions -- which can be priceless if it frees up the candidate to focus his efforts on swing voters.

Such gains are hard to detect, but meaningful nonetheless. What's most important at this stage is that no one bungles his pick. Could you imagine if Obama had chosen John Edwards?

I've long thought that California's own Dianne Feinstein would be the ideal running-mate for Barack Obama. She is everything he is not: Older, experienced, female, and moderate. She would woo back the Baby Boomer women who are still bent out of shape about Hillary's not being on the ticket. And she would alleviate some of the concerns many Jewish Americans have about Obama.

As for McCain, I'm not sure there are any good choices for a campaign in this much trouble. Bobby Jindall's name gets tossed around a lot because he's young, non-white, and conservative. But he's got even less experience than Obama, and as such would take away what might be McCain's strongest advantage. JC Watts would be better, IMO.

But what do you think? The veepstakes is the topic of the Q&A forum in this Sunday's paper. Send in your suggestions for the candidates, 125 words or fewer, to opinionated@dailynews.com, or just post them in the comments field.

For years, I've driven past the oil derricks along the Santa Barbara coast, where there hasn't been a spill in four decades, and the rigs certainly haven't hurt real-estate values. They sit, innocuously, like specks on the horizon, making me wonder: Are the majority of Californians right to support off-shore drilling?

True, drilling is not the solution to our energy woes. But can't it be part of the solution? Couldn't increased domestic oil production help reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- a vital national-security need? What if we packaged drilling with a tariff on foreign oil, and used the revenues to fund green-power alternatives?

Why does the energy debate invariably boil down to either drilling or clean alternatives. Why can't the answer be and/both?

* Headline amended to belatedly give Paris her due.