One of these days Hillary Clinton is either going to concede or lose the delegate vote at the convention, and Barack Obama will be faced with the challenge of selecting a vice-presidential running mate. And I think it is fair to say that his choice will be more important to his general election chances than in any other contest of my lifetime. By this I do not mean that he can’t win the presidency without the assistance of his vice-president (e.g., picking up a crucial state), but that he needs to firm up his support and reinforce some positive narrative, or diminish some his negative narrative. Above all, his vice-presidential pick must serve to make the electorate more secure in their decision to make history by electing Obama.
And he has so many considerations and so many ways that he can go. Obama will enter the race with a very rare and fortuitous coalition: white liberals, the youth vote, and a monumental black vote. McCain will be looking to steal lower class white voters (including union voters), older voters, and women that are still smarting from Clinton’s loss. If we look at the electoral map, Obama will be weakest in the border states (roughly, the band between Oklahoma and West Virginia). But that weakness bleeds over into southern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and parts of Virginia and North Carolina. In addition, Obama will have to overcome John McCain’s perceived advantage (mainly experience) on national security. These are mainly defensive considerations, but Obama could also choose to accentuate his advantages, including: youth, multiracial appeal, and 50-state appeal/bipartisan appeal.
Above all, his selection must be considered as qualified for the job. With that in mind, I want to suggest two candidates. The first one, and my favorite, may surprise you.
1. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island.
You may know next to nothing about Sen. Reed, as he tends to keep a low profile. His biography is compelling. His is the son of a school janitor who earned a scholarship to West Point. He went on to get a law degree from Harvard (like Obama) and serve as a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne (unlike Obama). He was a professor of Social Sciences at West Point before entering private legal practice, and then served as a State Senator, Congressman, and U.S. Senator. He is the fourth most senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and Progressive Punch lists him as the 6th most progressive member of the Senate.
Sen. Reed seems to me to be exactly the right kind of low key national security expert to balance out a star personality like Obama’s. He reinforces that being tough on national security doesn’t mean being a neo-conservative (Reed voted against the war). While this pick would have a lot of surface similarity to Bush’s selection of Dick Cheney (from a small inconsequential state, picked for national security experience), Reed won’t outshine Obama, or make people wonder who is really running the ship of state.
If Obama looks elsewhere, Reed would make an excellent Secretary of Defense.
Advantages: Reed is a progressive and would confirm the progressive ascendancy of the progressive wing of the party. Reed is Catholic and also is (relatively) recently married, with a young daughter.
Disadvantages: Rhode Island is already as blue as they come.
2. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.
Gov. Sebelius’ selection would have two main attractions. It would confirm Obama’s commitment to a 50-state strategy, where Democrats do not restrict themselves to same electoral map used unsuccessfully by Al Gore and John Kerry. Polls already show Obama as competitive in Kansas, trailing McCain by a narrow 44%-50% margin. With Sebelius on the ticket, Obama would carry Wichita, and quite possibly the state. But the point of selecting Sebelius isn’t strongly connected to winning Kansas’ six electoral votes. The point is to send a message that the Democratic Party intends to compete in the far Midwest, Mountain States, and Southwest. And then there is the second point: she’s a woman.
While some have suggested that picking a female running mate will only exacerbate the bitter feelings of Hillary Clinton’s ardent supporters, the truth is that millions of women (and many men) from all areas of the country and all ideologies will be excited to vote for a woman. And by far the majority of them will be excited that woman is not Hillary Clinton.
Selecting a woman might backfire if it is seen as a stunt or some sop to alienated Clinton supporters, but Kathleen Sebelius is well qualified to be vice-president. She has been the governor of Kansas since 2003, giving her about the same amount of executive experience that George W. Bush had when he ran for president. She even has the added bonus of being the daughter of former governor of swing-state Ohio.
Some have noted that she isn’t the most engaging orator. Well…neither was George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, or Dick Cheney, and they all got elected as vice-presidents.
Advantages: Executive experience, 50-state appeal, the female vote, Catholic, ties to Ohio.
Disadvantages: lack of national security experience, from a small/red state, possible lack of skill on the stump/media.
Looking at the requirements I laid out above, who do you think might help Obama and be a good potential president eight years from now?
I’m a bit hesitant when it comes to picking a VP based on calculations that Obama needs to shore himself up in this or that category. The notion of ‘balancing the ticket’ has always seemed like the wrong approach, IMHO. I like the idea of just going with the best person available, regardless of gender or geography. The voters have to feel assured that they could live with the VP as President should that person be required to step in and fill the shoes of the Chief Executive.
My pick would be Senator Chris Dodd, who is a stalwart defender of the Constitution.
I’d be very pleased with Dodd, but he is planning on retiring in 2010, so he isn’t a pick for the future of the party.
He picks Sebelius and he’s dead in the water. I’m telling you, Americans can vote for a black guy or a woman, but not both on the same ticket (Obama/Clinton excepted) not now, not yet.
I obviously don’t agree.
I think she will reinforce Obama’s positive message in several ways and will help boost both female turnout and Democratic preference, which in combination with huge black turnout and huge youth turnout, will just swamp McCain/????? all over the country.
She was completely unimpressive in her response to the State of the Union. Certainly he has enough personality for two people but you don’t want a VP candidate who puts people to sleep.
She brings no national security expertise to the ticket which is something that he could use on the ticket.
There’s no guaranty she can carry her own state.
So she’s qualified to be VP by virtue of being a governor but she brings nothing special to the ticket – except her gender.
We don’t need a token woman on the ticket. I’m with Second Nature. I see her as nothing but a liability in this particular race.
and Reed?
I know nothing about Reed other than what you just wrote. I’d keep an open mind about him.
I’m really not too interested in the VP sweepstakes yet – except I don’t want him to make this harder than it has to be.
I like the idea of Reed far better than that of Sibelius, although charisma seems to be problem with both.
Sibelius is fine in every respect, if one looks at the choice through formulaic considerations, but she utterly fails when I use my right brain/intuitive sense, i.e., she doesn’t feel right.
Reed adds balance in many ways, so his choice looks better. But, again, I don’t get the warm feel that should occur when the choice hits the mark. There’s a little too much ‘paper’ appeal, I think you’re being too analytical in your choices.
I’m hardly down on examining potential VP choices on analytical criteria. The following article by Larry Sabato gives a good rundown on what these are:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2007032901
It’s useful to examine the VP choice on these criteria, but the choice itself needs to be made through a ‘gut feel’ process.
Here’s my suggestion — Jim Webb. I think it gives balance in the areas of foreign policy, military expertise, regional balance and appeal to blue collar demographics. What do you think folks?
I remember there were some ridiculous rumors flying around that he would consider picking a Republican like Chuck Hagel in order to both shore up his military cred and bridge the partisan divide.
It got me to wondering, if he really wanted to pick a Republican from a state where he’d need a boost in the general election, and who would bring a military background to the ticket, why wouldn’t he just pick McCain and we could just be done with this whole damned thing already?
My vote for veep is Sen. Daniel Akaka, just because I don’t think I could ever get sick of saying Obama / Akaka.
Obamakaka!
Two questions I’ll ask about any potential nominee:
Has he/she been through a tough campaign where a lot of mud was flung? How tough a campaigner have they shown themselves to be? How likely are they to make gaffs on the campaign trail?
Have both of them been completely vetted so there are no skeletons in their closets?
To me, these are really important questions in addition to the experience question.
I’ve thought for a long time that all those senior ladies who “waited their entire lives” to vote for a woman would love to vote for a woman, even in the second seat. And Sebelius’ executive experience is a plus.
My first thought is that he’ll actually ask Clinton, but demand no lobbyist contributions and that will be the deal killer. Sebelius would be a great second choice.
I can’t see him asking Clinton except as a way to wrap up the nomination early.
I’ll suffer the long campaign even to the convention floor if it’ll banish the consideration of a joint Obama- Clinton ticket, notwithstanding former Gov. Mario Cuomo (D-NY) advancing the idea on BloombergTV.
That would unleash a revolt.
There is no way he’d ask Clinton! Can you imagine having Bill the Former President hanging around your White House?
They are all old enough to have had the opportunity to vote for Geraldine Ferraro in the second seat. Sure, maybe they’d like to do it again. But it’s not like they are going to forget they already had this opportunity.
That’s what has been bothering about the older/elderly “it’s time” crowd. They had a chance to vote in a female as VP and didn’t take it. Now, they’re saying that they want to see a woman in the WH. These people aren’t necessarily pro-Clinton, they’re pro-female. Hell, I’ve even heard people saying, “Well, I don’t really like Hillary, but I liked Bill and it’s time we had a woman in the WH.” And then have the nerve to turn around and call Obama “no substance” and his supporters “dreamers”.
I’ve not a clue but I lean to the view it’s a jinx to pick a VP as we did with Kerry’s cabinet before he became the nominee.
I’ll wait until Clinton concedes. We have lot’s of time till then to suggest the right candidate…Note, I won’t hold my breath.
As for this line:-
“In addition, Obama will have to overcome John McCain’s perceived advantage (mainly experience) on national security.”
perceived: McCain’ gaffe should put that to rest. Twenty years in Satan land, it’s hard doing the Lord’s work.
My only encounter with Sebelius was her rebuttal to the SOU speech. Could not have been duller or more wooden.
We are already asking people to take a flying leap into the unknown. Having a second first time ever candidate would complicate that immensely.
OK, now this is hilarious.
Ha!
Yup. Very funny!
That is hysterical.
I love the Onion 🙂
It might be a better idea to pick someone strong in economics. There’s a big fan and a pile of elephant crap starting to join up. By autumn the economy could well outweigh the war in the public’s mind. His anti-war stance would cover Iraq well, but having someone strong enough to convene a vice-presidential summit on the economy would resonate.
I’m more interested in what capabilities the VP brings to the table than their gender. Geraldine Ferraro is an ugy reminder of what happens when you pick someone based on their possession of ovaries.
but, living in KC MO I know Sebellius. She is powerful in her own right. She managed to win in this red state and she has a great many friends on the other side of the isle. Indeed, she is pulling some of them over to this side of the isle. I think a lot of the women who support Hill would be thrilled to have Katherine on the ticket. I think had there been anything bad in her background it would have been smeared all over by now, having run twice in that rethug country. Also in her favor is that she comes from executive roots – governorship. That could be a great plus when dealing with the states and their demands.
But there are some things to look for in a vp other than vote pulling probably. I am not sure what all they are, but we can look at some failures – Cheney and Lieberman for two. I don’t think Katherine is in any way related to either of those.
Gore was the first vp to really partner up with his presnit. Most of the time the vps are shoved in a corner. Cheney has a corner but we all know he wasn’t shoved there, he lurks there!
One commentator said that Edwards didn’t take the attack dog role seriously and was not a help to Kerry. I didn’t notice Gore doing that, Cheney yes.
The most difficult part will be extricating Dick Cheney from his office, believing as he does that the job of VP is his for life.
Reed sounds good though I know little of him. Is Richardson out of the question at this point?
Of the two I’d say Reed.
And keep your hands off Barbara Boxer. She’s ours.
Darned!
Boxer is the one woman I’d list at the top of a ticket. 😉
We do need her in the Senate chairing the environmental committee, but given the critical necessity of having someone with her smarts dealing with oil co execs, I’d be willing to let go of her.
I don’t agree with the usual balancing the ticket concept (otherwise we’d be looking for an Irish Catholic female from the west coast, and I won’t vote for Arnie’s wife!). It is more important to choose someone who could do the job, who understands it is a job, and who won’t get in the way unless called upon.
I will suggest that if the VP has a mission: preserving the environment, educating children, eliminating disease, championing the arts, whatever, it would help. That person could spend the time productively (not looking for countries to bomb) and could leverage the position to get something accomplished. Look what Al Gore has done.
but nonetheless, I like the idea of Montana governor Brian Schweitzer as VP, if only for the thought of him taking the key to the lock on his office door and throwing it away, just like he did for his office in Helena. (He has said every so often he comes into his office after lunch to find people there waiting for him. One time they were eating sandwiches.)
He has a few ideas he would need to be shed of, for instance on creating fuel from liquified coal — a proposal that would benefit Montanans (there’s a huge coal field down near Hardin, if I remember right) but the environment, not so much. In general, though, he’d be a good VP candidate — if he would take the job, which I don’t think he would.
Sebelius is a possibility if the DNC could pay for a charisma infusion. I’m not sure who else would be a winner, but as a Westerner it would be nice if it were someone from out here.
Obama has coal ties too. Southern Illinois is heavily invested in re-birthing their coal industry and Obama was talking the liquified coal talk too. He backed away from it when he began running for president. And I don’t think he’s been Senator in Illinois long enough to have non-breakable ties to the coal industry.
I don’t see them both having coal ties though as a deal breaker on Schweitzer but it’s something to keep in mind.
All the gun nuts can respect him and his farmer roots. He would drag some good ol’ boy conservatives away from the neocon machine.
And he can talk! I heard him years ago on CBS. Definitely unlovely in appearance, but a real person, who can talk!
I think Richardson is the best bet. Here’s the play. As a Hispanic, he makes the southwest tier competitive. He ensures CO and NM, and I think makes TX a real gamble. His foreign policy experience buttresses that side of the ticket. He’s not a barn burner when it comes to speechifying, but Obama doesn’t need that. He will be good with the press.
The most important reason, though, is that he brings Texas in rich, and that is the richest prize in the mix. It more than pays for Ohio and Florida.
Richardson is also extremely popular here in Nevada. With Obama running, Nevada is already likely to turn from red to blue, but Richardson would almost guarantee it. Richardson could also make McCain’s home state of Arizona a real contest as well. AZ is gradually turning blue anyway and Richardson is loved there.
Sherrod Brown or Janet Napolitano.
I remember picking Howard Dean’s cabinet 4 years ago – I’ll wait until Hillary’s campaign has a stake through its heart, garlic in its mouth, and is dipped under a running river before I give too much thought to Obama’s potential VP.
Who do you want to see as president of the Senate?
As a reason why loonies will not threaten Obama?
Who is it that Republicans would want most to see as vice-president but least want to see as president?
Why has no one mentioned Jim Webb?
Swing state. National Security. Attractive to middle America.
Gotcha covered.
Honestly, I can’t think of many credible choices I’d be dead set against. It’s too fun just to play around with different combinations.
Yep, Reed IS a pretty intriguing choice. I’ve seen him do interviews here and there, and he always comes off in a positive way, to my thinking. AND the foreign policy angle, I believe, will be crucial this cycle–especially if things are seen as going relatively well in Iraq going into November. So, if the Obama campaign feel they should try to consolidate the Dem base or go in a more progressive direction, I’d definitely consider Reed. If they feel it would be more advantageous in the General to go with a moderate, then (again, assuming national security cred trumps all else) I’d seriously consider Sen. Jim Webb.
To that end, here’s my quite possibly lame reasoning. Likely won’t get much agreement on this, but then again, I’m not sure I agree with it–just thinking out loud, really.
Webb might be clever choice. His blue dog status doesn’t especially bother me either (I will note that I don’t see him as a good heir apparent VP pick). And Reed certainly wins on progressive bona fides. But here’s the potentially significant advantage to Webb as I see it: I think Webb could potentially put forth one of the most serious, effective rebuttals of McCain’s (Bush’s) Iraq policy to be found–even better than Reed. He’s got a son serving there, AND he was against Iraq to begin with, I think, so that’s looks good. (Anybody who voted for it would be… problematic. (Yeah, I’m talkin’ to you, Hillary!)
And then there’s this: Anyone who saw Webb’s 2007 SOTU rebuttal saw a lot to be impressed with–his handling of Iraq and the economy stand out. In comparison, I thought Sebelius’ response this year was kinda tepid, though I know she’s on Obama’s VP list for a lot of people. In spite of his recent vote on telecom immunity–which I don’t yet feel should necessarily be a dealbreaker–with Webb you would get a smart, quick, highly informed running mate with serious national security/foreign policy credibility (which Obama would greatly need against McCain), and on the Economic front, he has an impressive, Edwards-like populist streak. He’s concerned with economic inequality and corporate abuse, and he’s even pushing for prison reform, I think. These things might resonate especially well with blue collar/lower income Democratic voters–a chunk of the electorate it wouldn’t hurt Obama to shore up.
Additionally, Webb is from Virginia, which is trending bluer every day, and is shaping up as a real battle state this fall. He might also prove of some use by potentially eating into McCain’s pro-military/independent vote, especially in the South. Barring some unknown personality conflicts between Obama and Webb, I think they would complement each other well as running mates. Webb can be effectively combative when necessary, but isn’t generally too much of a fire-eater. The Dems could use Webb as an efficient attack dog against the Republicans when needed, while Obama would stay largely above the fray. Now, I’m hardly sold on Webb as Veep pick myself, but I certainly think he’s worth considering. VA Gov. Tim Kaine, who seemed to get along exceptionally well with Obama ahead of the primary there, was also reportedly floating Webb’s name.
Oh, and I also like Richardson and Dodd, but they seem more valuable to me as cabinet material. Man, Dodd would really crack some heads over at Justice, wouldn’t he?
Webb’s blue collar, take-names-and-kick-ass persona will appeal to a lot of “Reagan Dems.”
He will balance out and strengthen the ticket in a number of tangible and intangible ways much better than either Sibelius or Reed.
Newly-elected Senator Webb called Bush out on his first public meeting with him.
This guy has brass cohones the size of basketballs.
He’ll be a rough and ready yin to Obama’s smooth and cool yang.
Obama/Webb ’08 is a winner in my book but, heck, Obama marches to his own drummer. He’ll probably surprise all of us.
I love the ticket of black Northerner and white Southerner. What better could symbolize racial healing than a white VP from the Capitol of the Confederacy?
Hey new to this site! Love your post booman. I agree Richardson would make a good choice, but he doesn’t campaign all that well. He needs some military white fellow type frankly–despite the FISA debacle Jim Webb maybe.
welcome to the frog pond!