With Clinton surrogates increasingly migrating through the “bargaining” stage of grief, the favorite bargain du jour is to propagate the idea that in order to win over the senator’s primary voters, Obama must put her on his ticket.
Once Clinton wins West Virginia tonight - polls close in about five hours - expect that talking point to now be tied to the gap between the two among Appalachian voters. Cue up Lanny Davis tonight on Fox News to claim that only by attaching himself to the politics of the past can Obama win the futures of Ohio, Pennsylvania and other swing states along the Appalachian Trail.
I’ve maintained for a while that the logic for a Clinton vice presidential nomination crumbles like a Graham cracker when the costs and benefits are compared to specific options, i.e., Clinton v. Sebelius, Clinton v. Kaine, Clinton v. Richardson, Clinton v. Dodd, etcetera.
But let’s play along, just for now, with the presumption that Obama will need a vice presidential nominee that could help him in rural Appalachia...
There is in fact at least one possible nominee that would be far more effective on a ticket with Obama than Senator Clinton toward that goal, in part because he’s from there. (And let's see which cable TV talking head is the first to mention it tonight.)
It is Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, 67, born in the small Appalachian town of Lucasville, Ohio (population 1,500).
Benefits: Governor (someone with executive experience is generally considered preferable to a senator as Obama’s running mate) of a big swing state that elected him in 2006 with 60 percent of the vote. Prior to that, as a member of Congress representing Ohio’s 6th Congressional District, Strickland voted against authorization of the war in Iraq (reinforcing Obama, and hurting McCain, on that theme). Strickland demonstrated during the Ohio primary that his endorsement (and organization) was indeed helpful to the candidate he endorsed (Clinton), particularly delivering 72 percent of his old Congressional District, yet without making cheap-shot attacks on Obama (a consideration that pretty much rules out Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh as Obama’s running mate). He also did not stray off his candidate’s message nor did he seek, or attract, too much attention to himself (a consideration that likewise pretty much disqualifies Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell for the post). He’s pro-choice on abortion and pro-Second Amendment on guns. He’s not a divisive or polarizing figure. Being a native small-town Appalachian, he could also prove a strong campaigner in Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, the western Carolinas and Virginia mountains, upstate New York, and the Northern parts of Alabama and Georgia, as well as demographically similar regions of Mississippi, Arkansas, southern Indiana, Illinois and Missouri (basically, the purple areas on the map that Kos posted on the front page today): a pretty good match for an Obama 50-state strategy, beyond his potential strengths in his home state.
Costs: Strickland has not yet been vetted on a national stage, and there’s no guarantee he can deliver Ohio (a November 2007 poll there strongly suggests that Ohioans don’t want him to seek the vice presidency and that his nomination would not help the ticket there). He is not much of an “attack dog” (although that could also be put in the “benefits” category for an Obama-McCain contest), and he’s boring as a bag of nails (again, that could also be a benefit since it deflects from causing distractions). He’s not a Catholic (that’s Obama’s weakest demographic group in the primaries; he is a Methodist, as is Clinton), and, related: If he has any history or abilities to campaign among Hispanic-American voters (the way that Spanish-speakers Kaine, Richardson and Dodd have), I haven’t seen it. (I’m of the view that Hispanic-American voters, that widely supported Clinton particularly in the Southwest, are more in play in November than white Appalachian voters). On the other hand, Strickland wasn’t in Congress during last year’s Immigration Reform vote, so he at least didn’t vote against the bill (a deal breaker for many, many Hispanic-Americans, particularly against McCain, the bill’s co-sponsor, and the factor that, in the end, will disqualify Senators Webb, McCaskill and Lincoln, among others, from serious consideration for the VP slot).
Now, other than the 800-pound gorilla in this equation – is Strickland of presidential caliber? – what factors have I overlooked here?
And if the choice for vice president came down to Senator Clinton or Governor Strickland (it doesn’t, but just for the sake of playing along with the bargainers), which would really be the better choice, and why?
(Originally posted at The Field.)