The media has been chattering about a lot of interesting potential running mates like Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Chuck Hagel or Michael Bloomberg. That’s because the media’s goal is not to suggest a politically smart pick but rather one that would make a good story. In reality, Obama is not going to pick a Republican, period. As far as picking a woman, there are two strong reasons not to – one is too much change on one ticket, which may be especially disquieting to those downscale white males that Obama has had the most trouble reaching. A second reason is that while pundits have suggested putting a woman on the ticket would placate Hillary supporters, I think just the opposite is true. If her supporters believe she is the best candidate/woman for the job, how insulting would it be for Obama to pick some other woman, who hasn’t paid her dues with a grueling campaign.
So which serious choice gets the most support? Jim Webb. Webb seems to be a great pick – he helps put Virginia in play, he connects with the Appalachian voters Obama struggles to win, he has national security experience and credibility, and he has worked with Republicans (he was Reagan’s Navy secretary for a time). So why not Webb? Besides the good arguments that Webb is too valuable in the Senate and/or that he is too new, there is another reason.
Webb has written things that feminists (or even many liberals) would find deeply offensive. Probably the only thing more insulting to women who supported Hillary’s candidacy than putting another woman on the ticket would be to put an alleged misogynist on the ticket. I seriously doubt that these women will vote for McCain, but having already soured on Obama they are very likely to stay home.
So who can Obama pick who is an older white male with national security credibility who connects with downscale voters? I can think of only two real possibilities – Sam Nunn and Joe Biden. Nunn, besides being older and out of the public eye for a while, also has views anathema to feminists. Biden, on the other hand, is a perfect pick.
He is older but not too old. He has excellent national security credentials. He is nationally known and vetted. He connects with working class voters and Catholics. He doesn’t represent a big state, but he has a strong connection with Southeast Pennsylvania and would help Obama there.
There are two significant objections to picking Biden. One is that Biden is not just experienced, he is too experienced. His many years in Washington are inconsistent with Obama’s change message. I think that Biden is enough of a free thinker (for example, his break with the establishment over partitioning Iraq) that he would not distract in this area. The second objection is that Biden has a habit of making gaffes. I am not worried about this either. Anyone who talks as much as Biden does is going to say some things poorly on occasion, but I think 99% of the time he is a passionate, at times eloquent speaker. He demonstrated that during the debates. And even when he says something people pounce on, it’s because he lacks tact, not because he has been dishonest.
Biden, a thoughtful and articulate opponent of the Iraq war, would be a powerful asset as a campaigner and debater who would be highly effective in linking McCain to Bush and the unpopular war. His working class bona fides and his folksy manner enable him to connect with the voters that pundits erroneously believe John Edwards appeals to. His foreign policy/national security credentials are second to none and would add credibility to Obama and could ease the fears of those who worry that Obama is too idealistic or naïve when it comes to meeting with dictators, etc.
On balance, Biden’s positives far outweigh his negatives. Biden is Obama’s best choice for vice president.