I know. Horserace commentary has reached ridiculous proportions. And Congress was talking baseball the day after getting taken to the woodshed by the telecom enablers. But every discussion I've seen so far regarding potential VPs for Obama has involved unrealistic, back-of-the-envelope analyses about Hillary, John, or Al. If we're going to be wildly presumptuous, then dammit, let's do it right.
If Senator Obama wins the Democratic nomination, his choice of Vice President is going to be critical. It's easy to see how one of his supposed strengths--the ability to attract a diverse coalition of Democrats and alienated Independents and Republicans--will make picking a VP extremely difficult. How many viable candidates are out there who won't piss off some sizable segment of that duct-taped group of potential voters?
Here are seven traits that I think are going to be perceived as strengths in an Obama VP, fairly or unfairly.
White, Christian, and male
If we're about to elect a black president, shouldn't we be ready to pick a minority, non-Christian woman for vice president? Well, that's why I added the "fairly or unfairly" modifier above. Part of the key to Obama's success, I think, has been his ability to argue for change in a way that's palatable to a large number of Americans. You and I and the readers of this site know that Edwards and Kucinich have pursued change far more aggressively, but Obama's the one who's made it this far. However you want to account for it, a lot of Americans are going to resist too much change at once, either because of their ideologies or because they believe that too much change at once will just eff everything up. Part of Obama's struggle will be to stay true to his liberal roots and message of change (thus keeping his base) while not pushing so hard that he activates that knee-jerk "too liberal" or "too much change" reflex (thus keeping the center).
The inclusion of another minority, a woman, or someone of a different religious background runs the risk, I think, of pushing into that "too much change" category. Race and ethnicity will already be an issue; it makes no political sense to inflame those tensions any further. Nor does it make sense to introduce gender into the mix if possible. A non-Christian would be the equivalent of dumping gasoline on the closet-Muslim fire and risks alienating evangelicals, with whom Obama's done surprisingly well.
Personally, I think he should pick the best candidate regardless of background, and I think that's what he'll do. But there are so many freaking white Christian males in politics that picking against that majority will be seen as a pretty jarring statement. And for some, a spunky forty-six year old African-American on a meteoric rise will be jarring enough.
Old, but energetic and charismatic
It could be tempting to go young, especially if McCain picks another doddering greybeard for his running mate. But there are several reasons why someone with a decade or more on Obama is likely to be superior. First, old age correlates with experience, which is definitely something Obama should be seeking in a running mate. Second, another young'un risks activating that "too much change" reflex again.
Finally, and most importantly, Obama needs to shore up his support with older voters, who are the most reliable voting demographic and who've predominantly gone for Hillary in the primaries. The main reason he's struggled with them, I think, is because his style can suggest that he's an arrogant punk kid whose rock star charisma has gone to his head and thinks he can sail in and fix all the problems that older generations were presumably too stupid to fix. McCain will have an age rapport with older voters, and Obama needs to have a credible oldster on the other half of his ticket to mitigate this disadvantage.
That said, not just any party elder will do. Imagine Barack Obama onstage at a rally with his running mate, hands held, arms raised, basking in applause. (S)he will have to seem younger than his or her years, buoyant, energetic, and fit, otherwise the contrast will be ridiculous. There's a big difference between Ronald Reagan old and Robert Byrd old.
Executive and/or foreign relations experience
Obama's experience at the national level is so limited, particularly compared to McCain's, that it's more a question of what kind of experience the running mate will have than whether he or she will have any. I see two general types of running mates as providing the "best" experience: (1) A long-time Senate member with foreign relations experience, which is as close to an LBJ as we're going to get. (2) A two-term governor of a red or battleground state, preferably with two or three decades of service preceding the governorship. Ultimately, executive experience will be a clear benefit, and foreign relations experience will counter one of McCain's biggest strengths.
From a red or battleground state
I don't think there's any question that Illinois is an excellent state for a Democratic nominee to hail from. It's big, it's blue, and it's not on either of the coasts, thus avoiding any characterizations of Massachusetts or San Francisco liberals. Given this, Obama should ideally pick a running mate from a red state. It stays true to the fifty state strategy, it backs up his stated inclusiveness, and it'll help the Democratic nominees in Senate and House races. If it happens to be a red state with a chance to turn blue this year, so much the better.
Moderate
It's becoming increasingly likely that McCain will need to pick a vice president that unites and energizes his base. The Romneyesque financial wing may hold its nose for party unity, but it's hard to believe the Huckabeean social conservatives are going to be behind McCain with their usual missionary zeal unless given some incentive. A moderate Republican VP risks alienating voters the GOP can't afford to lose.
On the other hand, barring a major slipup or the delegate battle destroying the party, Obama probably won't need to energize his base. He has an eighty-three percent approval rating among Democratic voters. People are pissed after eight years of Bush and turning out in record numbers. There's some rancor among diehards, obviously, but polls have repeatedly shown that the large majority of Democrats will be happy with either candidate.
If those scenarios play out, Obama will have an excellent chance to pick a candidate that appeals to independents and moderate Republicans at the same time that McCain is alienating the same crowd by selecting a Bible thumper. As much as I'd like Obama to pick a true progressive like Feingold in a perfect world, I think he will (and should) take advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate his inclusiveness to wavering centrists and conservatives by picking a moderate. Some Kossacks may raise a stink, but it'll be the smart political move.
Was against the Iraq War from the beginning
I think this criterion will be extremely important for Obama's VP. Obama and McCain both demonstrated in their salvos on Tuesday that they believe they have the advantage on Iraq--McCain by employing the usual it's-working, cut-and-run hocus pocus, Obama by hammering the absurdity of killing Americans and spending money we don't have in a dumb, unpopular war.
Right now the nation is on Obama's side, and if he can stay tough, he should be able to weather the fear-mongering bully tactics of the right. But his ability to do so would be severely undercut by picking a candidate who voted for the war. This will loose the damaging meme of the spineless flip-flopper all over again and negate one of Obama's clear strengths. Why allow Republicans to resurrect a very effective smear when he can effectively nullify it by picking someone with a similarly consistent record of opposition?
"Future" versus "past"
Anyone who's listened to Obama as much as I have knows he can't go five minutes without characterizing the race as a choice between the past and the future. This angle has worked well against Hillary and will work even better against the septuagenarian, Bush-lite Republican candidate.
Like picking someone who voted for the Iraq war, then, picking someone who is too tied to "the politics of the past" will severely undercut this argument and negate one of Obama's clear strengths. Many people who will consider voting for Obama, fairly or unfairly, will consider Obama hypocritical if he selects a Democrat heavily involved in the partisan wars of the past twenty-five years. It gives Republicans the benefit of already having a smear script they can dust off and reuse, and will immediately knock Obama off message as he is forced to constantly respond to "politics of the past" allegations. Even if Gore or Hillary were willing to play second fiddle to Obama, their presence would create the very dynamics Obama wants to transcend.
---
These seven traits reveal the difficulty in finding a good vice presidential candidate for Obama. Who has a lot of experience while having stayed out of the the politics of the past? How many red-state moderates voted against the war in Iraq?
Here are eleven possibilities (in alphabetical order) that I think are at least worth considering:
Joe Biden. Moderate six-term senator and head of the Senate committee in foreign relations. But has had problems with putting his foot in his mouth, voted for the Iraq war, would be nearly seventy by the end of the first term, and is perhaps more suited to Secretary of State.
Phil Bredesen. Moderate, current two-term governor of Tennessee, former two-term mayor of Nashville, won reelection in 2006 with 69% of the vote and swept all 95 counties. But his major policy achievements are in education, he would be nearly seventy in 2012, and he had a health scare last year.
Lincoln Chafee. Former Republican senator who would appeal to disillusioned Republicans and Independents, voted consistently with Democratic interests and voted against the war in Iraq (the only Republican to do so). But is still rather young (fifty-four) and didn't have much experience before replacing his deceased father in the Senate (mayor of Warwick, RI).
Kent Conrad. Four-term senator from North Dakota who won reelection in 2006 with 69% of the vote: a social moderate, economic liberal (great record on opposing free trade) who voted against the Iraq war. Only weakness I could find: maybe a bit too moderate on abortion.
Chris Dodd. Three-term representative, five-term senator from Connecticut who rocked the base with his anti-FISA efforts. But voted for Iraq, has said he's not interested in VP, would likely be pegged as a northeastern liberal, and I'd just as soon keep him in the Senate in hopes that his spinal column is contagious.
Dick Durbin. Seven-term representative, two-term senator from Illinois and current Senate Majority Whip who voted against Iraq and would be a hit with the base. But is from the same state as Obama, already has a high ranking position in the Senate, and was the National Journal's 2006 most liberal senator.
Mike Easley. Two-term governor from North Carolina. But may be too moderate on gay rights, his major achievements are in education, has no national experience (eight years as state attorney general) and he only won reelection with 56% of the vote.
Brad Henry. Two-term governor from Oklahoma, won reelection in 2006 with 67% of the vote, has a good record as a uniter, and has been speculated as a potential presidential candidate in the future. But is even younger than Obama (forty-four), may be too moderate on abortion, and has no national experience (ten years in the state senate).
Bill Richardson. Seven-term representative, former ambassador to U.N., hostage negotiator, former Secretary of Energy, and current two-term governor of New Mexico who won reelection in 2006 with 69% of the vote. But supported the Iraq war at the start, is not much of a moderate, may be gearing up to take Sen. Domenici's seat, and may be impeded by Clinton loyalty.
Kathleen Sebelius. Two-term governor from Kansas who is a rising party star with a great record fighting insurance companies. But doesn't have any national experience (state representative, state insurance commissioner), is not a moderate, and didn't win reelection by as big a margin as many other red-state Democratic candidates in '06 (58%).
Jim Webb. Ex-Marine, former Secretary of Navy under Reagan, moderate senator from Virginia with Indepedent and disillusioned Republican appeal with at least an above average record of opposing Iraq. But no significant political experience otherwise, and Hollywood connections could be feasted upon.
---
Personally, I like Conrad, Richardson, or Webb. But part of me would like to see Chafee, so "Obama-Lincoln" bumper stickers would sweep the nation...