Let’s talk running mates.
We’re in an unusual situation, with a party split quite evenly between two candidates. In the past, we’ve seen the nominees select running mates as party reunification gestures. Kennedy did this with Johnson. Ford did it by dropping Nelson Rockefeller in favor of Bob Dole. Ronald Reagan did it with George Bush. With the exception of LBJ, these picks were not made with regional balance in mind, so much as ideological balance.
One of the running narratives of this campaign has been that there isn’t a whole lot of daylight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on policy. This is another way of saying that there really isn’t much of a difference between their ideologies. And that’s true on a very superficial level. If all you do is compare and contrast their position papers, you won’t find much beyond minutiae that distinguishes them from each other.
Dean vs. the DLC
The differences appear once you scratch the surface, as it becomes apparent that Clinton maintains the support of the Democratic Leadership Council, the old guard of the Clinton administration (meaning both veterans of the cabinet and DNC, and the pollsters and political consultants). This is reflected in everything from the braying of James Carville, Terry McAuliffe, and Lanny Davis, to the strategy laid out by Mark Penn and echoed by Doug Schoen. Some call it the 50+1 strategy of winning the Gore/Kerry states plus either Florida or Ohio. For four years now, these consultants and pollsters have been in a running gun battle with Howard Dean and the Netroots over everything from the 50-State Strategy to the ideological makeup of candidate recruits. The most raw demonstration of this philosophical difference was laid out in January 2007, when Paul Begala told a Kossack that he didn’t ‘need some a**hole from Vermont telling him what to do’.
Obama has chosen Dean’s 50-state strategy as a model for his campaign strategy. It may originally have been more out of necessity than any philosophical affinity, but it’s clear by now that Obama has taken to the strategy like a duck to water. Right now, his campaign is announcing a 50-state registration drive. Obama’s strategy, combined with Dean’s strategy, combined with the fact that this nominating process has now involved 44 states, all contribute to the rebuilding and revitalization of the Democratic Party in areas where the grass was growing in the sidewalks.
This is where there is a real ideological split between the two campaigns. And it is not the kind of ideological split that it makes sense to bridge in the selection of vice-presidential running mate. So, for example, there is no reason to reach out to the DLC/Old Clinton Guard by selecting Evan Bayh or Tom Carper or Harold Ford or Tom Vilsack. This wing of the party should be considered vanquished, and their strategy considered defunct.
The Gender Gap
But there are other rifts that have opened up during the nominating process. None is bigger than the gender gap. Woman have consistently preferred Clinton over Obama, and there is a great deal of raw emotion about Clinton’s failure to capture the nomination. One way of bridging this gap is for Obama to select a woman as his running mate. It isn’t a cure-all. For one thing, many people will see such a move as a slap in Clinton’s face. It’s not like women are interchangeable. Clarence Thomas was no substitute for Thurgood Marshall, and it won’t do to just pick any ol’ woman as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton and her supporters.
The Demographic Play
Another rift that has opened up has developed gradually and it has more regional than national ramifications. As the contest has grown more racially charged, Obama’s support has shifted to the left. His African-American support has become monolithic, and people that consider themselves ‘very liberal’ have become another reliable bloc. At the same time, Clinton’s support among white working class voters (in Appalachia and the Upper Midwest) has grown and hardened. Nowhere is this more clear than in Kentucky, where Obama is running thirty-one points behind Clinton in a matchup against McCain. However, this effect is not seen at all in other regions of the country.
Nonetheless, Obama has to take his weakness in this demographic group seriously, and it’s possible that he can do better with Appalachian/Upper Midwest white working class voters by picking a running mate that appeals to them. Likewise, selecting someone like Bill Richardson could solidify Obama’s support among the fastest growing demographic group in the country and put some Southwestern states in play.
New Kind of Politics vs. National Security/Experience
Another consideration is the decision on whether to reinforce his brand, which is based on a new kind of politics, or whether to compensate for potential weaknesses like inexperience and a lack of military service. Clinton was successful in his decision to reinforce his brand as a Southern moderate New Democrat with the selection of Al Gore. John Kerry took his own military credentials for granted and got burned by the selection of John Edwards.
The Important State Gambit
The last consideration is whether to pick a candidate because they can help you pick up an important state that you would otherwise lose. I’m not a big fan of using this strategy because very few politicians have the clout to actually make a decisive difference. But, when taken in combination with one or more other factors, a candidate’s pull in their home state is something to be weighed in the decision making process.
Conclusion
Candidates that will help with the gender gap: Governors Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Janet Napolitano of Arizona. Also, she’s kind of green, but…Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri.
Demographic candidates: Governors Tim Kaine of Virginia and Ted Strickland of Ohio. Senators Jim Webb of Virginia and Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
New Kind of Politics candidates: Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, plus…Sebelius, Napolitano, McCaskill, Kaine, Strickland, Webb, and Brown.
National Security candidates: Jim Webb, Sam Nunn, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, George Mitchell, Anthony Zinni, Wesley Clark.
Important state candidates: Tim Kaine and Jim Webb of Virginia. Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Bill Nelson of Florida.
I continue to see Jim Webb as one of the strongest candidates because he helps in so many different categories. I also see Ted Strickland and Kathleen Sebelius as strong candidates. Bill Nelson has his attractions, as well. The only candidates from this list that I’d be displeased with are Nunn and Clark. I don’t see them adding enough dynamism to offset their damage to Obama’s brand. What do you think?
I should add that Governors Brad Henry of Oklahoma and Mike Easley of North Carolina deserve mention.
The answer has always been Webb
Yes, it has always been Webb.
The anti-war issue needs to be reinforced, but it cannot be a ‘scary’ person who reinforces it.
Webb will keep it up front. Nobody can attack his credentials.
Plus Webb looks like he can kick anybodies ass. Please don’t dismiss this out of hand. It lends toughness to the ticket. I know, I know, we have to much of fake ‘tough guys’ for to many years. Americans are conditioned to expect it. Webb lends it.
nalbar
Nice photo–don’t remember seeing it before.
Now THAT’S America!
You should check out Al Giordano’s VP picks. He makes some good points. I’m not entirely sure why he thinks the pick must be Catholic though.
Personally, I think if it’s to be a woman, MCCaskill is far superior to Sebellius in my opinion. McCaskill is just such an excellent communicator. She’s probably the best surrogate/spinner Obama’s got because she has a way of disarming the interrogators. She can even handle a Hannity/O’Reilly type with ease.
But if it’s to be a man, I really like either Bill Richardson of NM or Brian Schweitzer of MT. Richardson and Obama are just so compatible. You can see the chemistry between them and together they would really excite the latino vote in the western states.
Schweitzer is a nice contrast from Obama – he’s a tough talkin’, gun totin’ westerner who would love to dismantle the big-brother police state apparatus we’ve built since the Patriot Act. If Obama passes on him, he’d be a great head of the Homeland Security Dept.
I know that she supports Obama, but McCaskill has been more of a DLC Democrat than a progressive one. I’ve been very disappointed with her job performance so far.
Webb may help on the national security level, and may help with the redneck demographic, but he is radioactive to women, especially women over 50. Obama does not have to pick of woman, but he cannot pick a man that millions of Democratic women consider to be morally abhorrent. Nor can Obama afford a reappearance of those former Naval Academy cadets, nor could Obama afford the inevitable reprints of Webb’s now infamous “Women can’t fight” article. I expect this stupidity from Kos, but I expect better from you.
Kaine carry VA, Webb would not. Webb’s approval ratings have never been above 50%. I don’t know why the significance of that doesn’t sink in on people, but Webb has never been popular.
Webb is also radioactive to blacks, which is why Clinton can’t pick Webb should she prevail.
I know netroots loves Webb, but nobody else does.
He’s actually more popular with women than he is with men, which is probably a function of more women being Democrats than men.
But he does have some baggage with women that would come to light in a campaign. If he didn’t, and if he were a more energetic campaigner, I be a big supporter of him for vee-pee. As it is, I simply acknowledge that he fits the profile for what Obama needs in a lot of ways. Rallying women to the ticket, however, is not one of them.
Umm, I’m a woman over 50 who doesn’t find Webb morally abhorrent. In fact, I proposed him as the Obama VP months ago. He’s an antiwar populist from a different–and complementary–angle.
My primary concern with Webb as VP is who gets the vitally important Senate seat. Is there a Democrat in line?
Plenty of women supported Webb, I even voted and campaigned for him. But is is a fact that he is hugely repellent to millions of women, precisely to sort of women who (for completely different reasons) oppose Obama. These are the kind of women Obama will have to reach out to, Webb will make that hugely difficult.
As for his national security appeal, all I can say is that Webb lost Virginia Beach.
But I am resigned that we may very well see an Obama/Webb ticket, and in the highly unlikely that they could win enough women and Latinos to win the election, Obama will nominate Hagel Sec of State and Lugar Dept. of Defense. It will be a very bad day for American women, but it may not be within my power to prevent it.
here’s what I posted over at The Field:
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd: Uber-competent, Irish Catholic, trustworthy, laser-sharp fast-talker, virtually gaffe-free. Great chemistry. More vetted than most. Fluent in Spanish. Champion of the Constitution. Like Clinton, recites policy in his sleep. Like Biden or Kerry, eminently ready on Day One. Will solidify MA and NH support. Once dated Bianca Jagger and Carrie Fisher (not simultaneously).
Downsides: Senator; loss of CT Senate seat; heavy ties to financial services industry; no potential for continued leadership post-Obama.
It is imperative that Obama, first and foremost, choose a President. Not a VP candidate–a President. A known, vetted figure who will instantly be recognized as being ready to ascend to the highest office in an instant.
He has no time to try to make the case for another “fresh face” like Sebelius or Kaine. It’s a losing gambit.
In my opinion, all other criteria, while very important, are secondary.
To me, that means the short list is limited to:
Dodd
Webb
Clark
Biden
Richardson
Clinton
Strickland (barely)
Nunn
in that order.
There will not be a perfect VP pick. There never is, although Gore was the exception.
The perfect choice would be a governor. There are only two (barely) governors who meet that criterion.
A great choice would be a woman. Only Clinton qualifies.
A great choice would deliver an important state. Only Webb and Richardson qualify.
A great choice reinforces your new politics message. Webb and Dodd qualify in limited ways.
A great choice bolsters your National Security cred (although Obama explicitly, and in my view erroneously, does not want that). All but Strickland qualify.
To me, it’s Dodd or Webb. That’s a pretty amazing final choice–fantastic similarities and contrasts, advantages and drawbacks. We should do a detailed tale of the tape on them soon.
please amend your post to remove Clinton. Even Nancy Pelosi has just banned the dream ticket. There won’t be any.
all I’m saying is she fits the criteria.
and as much as I respect Nancy Pelosi, she has zero say in Obama’s decision. so she can’t “ban” anything.
I seriously doubt Obama will choose Clinton. But this race really could get so bad that he will be faced with the possibility that if he doesn’t, he will lose.
after the toxic shit that Hillary threw at Obama! It would be over Michelle’s dead body before Clinton gets the VP slot. Mine too and a whole wagon of others. Pelosi may not have a say. We do, all 1.4 million in the movement.
Why would Obama saddle his administration with the Clintons? A great distraction. Mayhem.
Bill would be all over him. All over the place. In every closet, calling the shots.
The VP slot for Clinton? Ha. Obama may as well drop out now.
No. Not Clinton. This her time. In a month it’s over. Watch her burn brightly, because after this she goes back to the Senate. She’ll only see the White House as part of a tour.
Webb’s going to one of the top three potential picks I’d bet.
Dodd’s great. But I thought I read somewhere he had planned to retire fairly soon. And personally, I’d rather see him installed at Justice, if he were to be part of the administration. (A lot of people like the idea of Edwards as AG, but I don’t think he looks likely at this point to be part of the Obama team.)
I’ve been thinking Webb since late January. It’s not that he’s perfect–didn’t like his vote on telecom immunity, and he’s not a progressive by most people’s standards. And yet, I’m not convinced he’s toxic to women voters, nor am I convinced he’s too conservative (check out some Senate rankings and you’ll find in many of them Webb’s record is surprisingly lefty considering his reputation). I think women could come to like him, for those that don’t. (And I think his wife could help him there–much like Elizabeth Edwards did for John in ’04) He’s just too shrewd a potential pick to throw away. He’s got so many bases covered. He knows intimately how the inside of an adminstration works, yet he’s still got the outsider’s credentials. Foreign policy: I don’t think even Luger or John Warner could take him–and his only real Dem competition in National Security, Clark… well, Wes seems a little flaccid next to Webb. Clark’s also sacrificed a good chunk of his reputation on the Hillary’08 altar, in my view. Webb’s assertive, will forcefully defend himself and his running mate, makes sure he knows the facts, and does a killer presentation (check out his 2007 SOTU response). White, Blue collar Dems–with that marked populist streak he’s got, he’d prove potentially invaluable with that demographic in vast areas of the country, I think. And it’s looking more and more like Obama may need help here.
Webb easily makes the top three contenders, possibly top two. We’ll see what happens.
And yet, I’m not convinced he’s toxic to women voters,
You didn’t work the phones in Northern Virginia in 2006. You didn’t hear women say that they would not vote for Webb in freezing accents. I have worked for some unpopular candidates in my time, but I don’t ever remember getting responses like that in any campaign. Netroots is in serious denial here.
Nor could you possibly have heard those Allen radio spots with the former Naval Cadets talking about what it was like to be at the Naval Academy when that article hit. Are you familiar with the quotes from that article? Do you know he referred to female cadets as thunder thighs? True that was thirty years ago, but as recently as 2005 he described the tailhook scandal as “spun up.” Seriously, this guy is radioactive. It was unique circumstances in 2006 that made it possible for him to win.
And then of course there is the gun incident, that should be good for some amusing TV commercials.
as for his record, in addition to his vote in favor of FISA abuse, there is his vote for tax cuts for the rich instead of funding special education, his vote for the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement, and support for additional media concentration, I mean, there is a reason Webb is unpopular outside of netroots.
I almost forgot, Webb was unpopular with Latinos during the 2006 campaign and is even more unpopular now. Really, other than netroots and a handful (not all, or even most) of rednecks, nobody likes this guy.
Yeah, those are valid points to consider. But I’m just convinced Obama needs a white guy with Nat’l Security/Foreign Policy expertise who’s also ideally an economic populist. I’m afraid anything more ambitious (female, hispanic, flaming progressive, etc.) is pushing our luck this cycle as far as Veep… so where to turn?
I am not even sure that Webb helps with national security
So I’m getting the impression that you’re not a fan of Jim Webb…
you must be psychic đŸ˜‰
heh.
That piece argues he’d be more useful in the Senate, but still calls him “an aggressive and credentialed voice on national security.”
Ah, so it does. And Klein refers to Webb as “the consensus choice”? I had no idea…
All in all, hardly an unflattering assessment, is it?
Ted Strickland is my governor, and no way does he deserve to be veep. He stood there like a bobble-headed doll behind Hillary as she screeched “Shame on you, Obama”, nodding away in agreement. He implied that people who supported Obama were fools and dreamers. So forget him.
Exactly. Anyone who obviously endorsed Clinton really should be ruled out. If he could guarantee Obama Ohio, then maybe. But I still don’t like it.
I’m still miffed at Webb over FISA.
My top three are still Richardson, Sebelius and Kaine. (I know fabooj — at least I think it was fabooj — doesn’t want Kaine, because the lt. gov. is a Rep, but, if it gets us Virginia, we’ll live.)
Each brings something different to the table, as far as the map goes. With Kaine, I think we boost our chances in Virginia quite a bit, and VA is, in my opinion, going to be the battleground with an Obama ticket. Good public speaker, too. I enjoyed listening to him introduce Obama in Alexandria.
With Sebelius, we boost Kansas (helped, too, by Obama’s background), and I think it’d serve as a nice signal that we’re going to play everywhere. With Richardson, I think we get a pretty decent, likable guy with a great resume, and I think Latino turnout potentially goes sky-high with him (see polls of Latinos after his endorsement and Clinton attacks on him).
Biden appeals to me in some ways. I like the “Say what you think even if it’s kind of outrageous-sounding” element, and I think the public would appreciate that. He’s genuinely funny, and he comes with years of experience in foreign affairs, although I don’t think Obama’s weak in that realm simply because of his opposition to the war.
Schweitzer has a similar appeal as Biden. I saw him on Real Time a while back and really liked him.
No (No, No, No) to Nunn and Clark. Clark is a nutcase, having heard him rattle the saber on Iran, and I wonder if he’s one of those who’ve been feeding Hillary all her psychotic talking points.
Maybe fabooj, but definitely me re: Tim Kaine.
(((sigh))) But I suppose I could live with it. But since I still have family and friends in Va., I shudder for them. This is who they’ll have to contend with, should Kaine be picked.
But I like Kaine, and he’s an awfully good pick. He’s a seamless garment Catholic in the mode of Mario Cuomo (keeps the Constitution and his personal beliefs separate) and southern. Because Doug Wilder was elected gov. in 1989–when the demographics weren’t as favorable–I don’t believe that he’ll need Kaine to win the Commonwealth. But, given Kaine’s organization and Mark Warner’s organization, the rethugs would have quite the row to hoe if Kaine wins the veepstakes.
Of course, Kaine endorsed Obama early on, and I wouldn’t mind seeing that rewarded. And dammit, I just like Kaine…just a gut thing. I’ve seen Obama and him on stage together and they seem to have a good rapport.
But it’s a hard choice. I like Sebelius, but her SOTU response wasn’t the greatest. Could be a 1st timer thing, so if there are other examples of her speaking, I”m willing to not weight that so heavily. I really like McCaskill. And Richardson. I don’t think Sweitzer would be bad, either.
Hmmmm. I’m just really stumped on this one.
Ah, okay, maybe it was you, AP. Yeah, I know he’d replaced by a nutter, but, still, VA is going to be key. A solid showing in the West, along with Virginia and perhaps North Carolina would look fantastic.
I know it’s kind of a bummer, but..I live in New Mexico and have an in depth view of Richardson. He got his political start with Henry Kissinger in 1968 in the Nixon whitehouse. He was executive director of Kissinger/McClarty Associates when he ran for governor in 2002 – that’s a deep connection in my book. I know this isn’t common knowledge out there in Democrat VP discussions, but you should at least know it. Richardson was majority co whip in the House along with Bonior and Gephardt. He was the only one who agreed to push NAFTA for Clinton.He still supports his NAFTA work. It was after that ‘success’ that he was promoted to UN ambassador first, and then Sec of Energy where he participated in the horrific Wen Ho Lee scandal, a scandal that he has still strongly defended with not one word of apology to Lee or his family. He presided over electricity dereg and still defends his actions regarding that disaster. If you go deeply into his record, you’ll find that he supported and pushed Enron internationally (Africa and Eastern Europe mainly) as head of DOE. In his favor, he has supported the glbt community and did endorse Obama. He really has been a power wielding governor with little to show for his six years in office.
First, forget Clinton. ANY Clinton.
No more dynasties!
There are NO perfect choices.
We do need someone who is seen as being of Presidential material, not necessarily someone who has run for President! (The intelligent thing is not to be seen as that ambitious.) Ticket balancing is actually secondary to a sense of how well someone could handle the job.
War mongers such as Clark are no-gos. Period. The LAST thing this country needs is to be embroiled in any more international conflicts. A diplomat who can repair relations and help negotiate treaty provisions is vital. We can’t hope to fix infrastructure or the economy while bleeding $15,000,000,000 month, and who needs an irradiated landscape or blasted cities or more refugees?
Fascist traitors are no-gos. Don’t even mention Bill Nelson or anybody who supports a police state with all its trappings. I’d like a Constitutionalist. Remember that the VP presides over the Senate. Having a tie-breaker who’ll help restore the Rule of Law is essential as long as we have turncoats such as Lieberman around.
Big egos and big mouths are no-gos. The media is bought and paid for by McCain’s bbq and booze, so anybody prone to making gaffes will give ammunition to them during the election. Embarrassments to the Administration later will make it harder to govern. There is enough of a mess to clean up now.
Someone who’ll bring in the Latino vote will repel women. Someone who’ll bring in the GLBT vote will repel Catholics. Someone who’ll bring in the religious vote will repel educated thinkers. Someone who’ll bring in women will….
So why even try for a specific subset? Why not just look for a capable person, who’ll be a team player and a good leader, if necessary?
I’d love a feminist who supported environmental protections (Barbara Boxer), but picking her just because she has XX chromosomes is just as faulty a reason as picking someone because they are white-skinned or have ancestors with royal connections. The choice needs to be based upon what someone has done with their own life and choices and achievements they have made… religion, gender, and the rest of that background is secondary. Choosing her to help save this planet would be logical; choosing her solely because she is female would be discriminatory.
BTW, I’d certainly look for a strong sense of humor. Not someone who laughs at others’ misfortunes (like Bush the Torturer), but someone who could help ease the pressure of running a government. I’d look for someone who plays fairly. (During an interview, I’d ask about games: do they gamble, think ahead, adjust the rules to suit themselves, maximize every possibility… politics is gamesmanship.)
There is also a risk in choosing someone who is as American as Apple Pie (heartland conservative) or a career military officer or whatever to “balance” the ticket, because it reinforces the conceit that the Presidential candidate himself is weak in that area.