Several outlets are reporting that Texas Congressman Chet Edwards is on the short list. He has told CNN that he WAS vetted and has NOT spoken to Senator Obama recently.
As we know, Obama called several, if not all, of the declines yesterday.
So. My first thought was that they had already printed up all the Obama/Edwards signs and shirts and other swag and then John kinda admitted the one thing you never want to admit to, and then the Obama people were like shit. We have all this crap. Can we just cross it out and write Biden? No? Shit. What do we do now?
But then I got to thinking about it a little more and ... you know what?
I love it.
UPDATE: Map props to Brooklynbadboy, who made this call yesterday, before CNN was all about it. Check out his excellent diary - didn't get nearly enough attention.
I like it for a number of reasons.
- He's relatively unknown. Remember when Obama hired a chief of staff for his running mate a few months ago? That signaled that Obama was going to be in full control of the ticket. That's good, I think. Discipline is something we often lack. But it also means that a person whose name is not a national brand is more likely to stay in line and do as he's told, and not be burdened by expectations to push a certain agenda that may or may not fit with the campaign's message calendar.
- Along the same lines, if it's Chet, Obama is choosing not a good running mate who will help him win, but a good vice president after he wins. Someone who will support the administration and take the tasks he is given and do them well. Plus, that can become a talking point. "I'm choosing the man who will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I didn't make that choice for a one-day bump in some poll. I made my choice with the future of the county in mind."
- Another benefit of a relative unknown is that the GOP will have a smaller target. If they dig up something to criticize, they'll have to explain it first, and then criticize it. And as we in the business like to say, if you're explaining, you're losing.
- Also, a relative unknown will have very little trouble being an attack dog. I would imagine a guy who's been elected nine times -- twice following a very, very unkind redistricting -- is a good attack dog.
- It will give Obama a stronger relationship with the House. Edwards is one of only six House members to serve on both the Budget and Appropriations committees. He's in good over there. I know it seems like a President and Legislature of the same party would naturally work well together, but that's not the case. We're talking super-sized egos here. A VP with strong, longstanding relationships in the House, who can be the Administration's voice in the Congress, will be VERY helpful. With that kind of help, Obama might not have to compromise so much.
- It's an absolute shocker out of nowhere, which demonstrates that the Obama campaign is the most disciplined, air-tight message machine ever assembled. Plus, it's so unexpected that it dominates like 3 or 4 news cycles.
- It puts Texas in play. As if it's not already, but still.
- If anybody says Edwards is not experienced, we can say he's a Democrat from Texas who got re-elected nine times, despite explicit Republican attempts to redistrict him out of office. That's not just experience - shit, that's trial goddamn by fire.
- Sure, he voted for the war, but it's high time somebody comes out and says "God dammit I was wrong, I feel terrible, and I want to make it right. If I had it to do again, I'd vote no in a second. Trying to make a mistake right is not a fucking flip-flop." If he can say that .... big if, I know ... that is good.
- He's got some military bona fides, as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction. You know he's got dirt on Blackwater and friends.
- He's good on a lot of issues. 100% pro-choice. Good on making people hire women and minorities. Good on church/state. Good on Health Care, school choice (opposes it), social security, gun control, immigration, war on drugs (opposed to it) and government funding for faith-based initiatives.
Not so good on gay rights, environment and military. He voted for DOMA and supports a constitutional gay marriage ban. But that's not too far out of line with Obama's preference for civil unions. I would imagine one of the rules of the game would be he's not allowed to talk much about those issues. Obama's all about compromise. It's kind of a reverse don't-ask-don't-tell. The homophobe can be on the ticket, as long as he doesn't do all that weird homophobe kinda stuff.
So, what do you all think? Could this be a real thing, or is it another red herring?