Both Obama and Clinton say it would be presumptuous to talk about a running mate yet. But as we near the convention, the issue must be considered.
Some have said Howard Dean should be the choice. I love Howard Dean. There is no one I would rather send to the White House, and I would work hard for any ticket with Dean on it. Furthermore, the most effective ticket has a VP who can attack the opposition while leaving the presidential candidate above the fray. (In the last two elections, we suffered because the VP candidates were pussy cats who wanted to curl up in Bush’s lap, leaving the guys at the top of our ticket to do the dirty work and suffer the backlash.) Dean is at his best exposing Republicans’ shortcomings.
In 2008, however, Dean would not be the best choice. Democrats’ biggest challenge will be maintaining party unity after a primary with two strong candidates having a roughly equal claim to legitimacy. Supporters of the losing candidate will have some bitterness to overcome, and some of that bitterness will be directed at Dean.
Should Obama win, as it appears he will, Clinton-supporters will grumble that their candidate was cheated because the DNC (read "Dean") disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan.
Should Clinton win, it will be for one of two reasons:
- Florida and Michigan get counted. This will leave Obama-supporters grumbling that the DNC (read "Dean") changed the rules mid-game.
- Superdelegates vote overwhelmingly for Clinton, leaving Obama-supporters to suspect the influence of our party chair.
Either way, Dean will draw bitterness, and if he joins the ticket, that bitterness will follow him. Worse yet, some Dems will be so bitter, they will wonder whether Dean made a dirty deal, rigging the nomination in return for the VP slot.
Any other year, Howard Dean would be an excellent running mate for any Democrat. But in 2008, he would be a barrier to party unity.
So who would be the right choice?
I assume Obama will win the nomination. For party unity, Hillary Clinton would be the obvious VP choice. She has proven her skill as an attack dog, and choosing her would emphasize Obama’s willingness to reach out to opponents.
But I see a better choice for Obama’s running mate: Wes Clark.
Clark has been a visible supporter of Hillary Clinton, so I assume Clinton-supporters will like him. There’s your party unity.
Clark also emphasizes many of Obama’s strengths. Obama has promoted himself as representing a new kind of politics, one that is positive and dedicated to genuine service rather than cheap pandering. Clark has been able to live up to that standard while Clinton has resorted to kitchen sink negativity and gas tax pandering. Obama has boasted he had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq from the beginning. Clark did, too. Obama boasts his ability to reach across the isle. Clark worked for FOX News. In many ways, Clark amplifies Obama’s message where Clinton could muffle it.
Clark also fills a gap for Obama: military experience. In this post-9/11 election, McCain will tout his warrior credentials. Obama never served in the military. Neither did Clinton or Dean. Wes Clark, on the other hand, spent most of his adult life serving our nation in the armed forces. General Clark can go toe-to-toe against McCain or any other Republican on issues of national security, honoring our vets, or maintaining a sufficiently aggressive foreign policy.
Voters may wonder about Obama’s inexperience, but when they see Gen. Clark at his side, they will be reassured Obama knows how to surround himself with solid advisors.
I only see one downside to an Obama/Clark ticket: feminist voters will be disappointed by yet another all-male ticket in a year when we came so tantalizingly close to finally electing a woman president. Is there a woman who would bring all the benefits that Clark would bring? Sadly, I don’t see one.
On the whole, I see Clark as Obama’s best choice.