Though I was never a fan of Richardson I've had my lightbulb moment. Richardson is more qualified than Sibelius, Webb, et al to be Obama's VP. And as many bloggers have considered an earlier time better for naming or choosing a VP, I've tried to lay out a thorough case for what Obama needs from a running mate.
More below...
I am what you might call a "Young Democrat". My political development was not contemporaneous with great liberals like Daniel Patrick Moynihan or Paul Wellstone or Howard Metzenbaum. I had little prior experience with Bill Richardson (and sadly, the Gadsen-SW's the only place west of the Mississippi I've never been) so when the palpable enthusiasm about Richardsom seethed through the nets in early 07 over his presidential campaign, I waited to see the proof in the pudding. Richardson fizzled. A most thoroughly uncharismatic candidate on the stump, (and I thought Dodd was charismatic) I remember even Kos, who is more than appreciative of Richardson, making a knock or two during debates.
Like Al Gore, Richardson went through his own little wilderness and came back with a beard to endorse Obama. There are any number of plausible VP picks: Kathleen Sibelius, Mark Warner, General Anthony Zinni, Wes Clark, Jim Webb, Dodd, Joe Biden, et cetera. So many different choices? Who strengthens Obama, our probable candidate?
A few days back I (ratherly awkwardly, like Bill Richardson) wrote that "the ideal running mateis boring":
Barack Obama is the breaks the barriers candidate. The VP candidate should not draw attention, but rather somewhat hushed respect. The candidate need not be controversial, or especially well known, as long as he or she is pre-eminant.
Zinni would be an obvious example, and he has appeal to a "group" Obama allegedly needs help with--Italian-American, middle-class whites. But that's just one example, Zinni is not required. His credentials, rather than his ingroups, explain his appeal more.
The candidate must be someone who provides competance and wisdom above all else. No charismatics, no token borderline offensive statements about race or women. I make exception for candidates chosen for battleground appeal (Webb- Virginia, Edwards - NC) but that's about it.
Any clearly choosing a woman for the sake of a woman sends a contradictory message: first female Vice President... but why a woman subserviant? Female as the basis is invalid.
Obama's generally perceived weakenesses are "national security" and "executive experience". You pacify those two, Obama is essentially invincible as a candidate. These are not the kind of needs that draw forth the waters of charisma, controversy or other fascinating aspects about a VP candidate.
Being a (somewhat disappointed) General Clark fan of several years, I think an Obama-Clark ticket would be ideal in some regard. Clark knows how to handle the asshats on TV, which is our national means of dialogue. I don't care if a VP can write an Op-Ed in the NYT or WP, let them hold their own against Brian Williams or Bill-O. It also seems very less likely than a Richardson slot, because Clark is clearly in the Clinton camp. Perhaps Clark would be offered as a conciliatory gesture at the Convention? Might be too late by then.
Obama already needs to be in GE mode against McSame. Zinni is also a great possible choice. Biden has great foreign policy experience but experience is not always pre-eminent, as we know. Biden's contradicted Obama on foreign policy a number of times, so as a ticket their differences would become the subject of conversation (rightly or wrongly).
The rest are less strong. Now that he's found his progressive voice Dodd should take it to the top and become Senate leader. Dodd needs to stay in the Senate. As does Webb. And Warner needs to get in the Senate.
We do not have strong candidates to spare in the Senate seats and Governorships.
Richardson has exactly the foreign policy and executive experience Obama needs. These are first and foremost his strong points.
There is no distraction about his identity politics, though a minority pick is also a plus in some ways. There's no doubt Obama could use help with hispanic voters and Richardson is fluent in Spanish. You can count on him going on Univision without much help. And of our possible battleground VP picks (Edwards NC, Webb or Warner in VA) New Mexico is a great state to choose, when we have a Udall running for Senate seat and New Mexico is consistantly showing up as takeable in the general election.
Some argue that VP's don't deliver in battleground states, and they're primarily referring to Edwards. I'm sure I have in the past. But let's give John the benefit of the doubt. That was such a nasty election that a twit won states normally more on the safe side for Democrats, simply because there was so much koolaid and so much disorganization on the part of Sen. Kerry, like Sen. Gore before him. North Carolina is an incredibly Republican state, and the Dems were also hedging their bets on the "swing state" strategy--Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania--as Howard Dean was not the national chairperson at that time. Al Gore certainly helped Bill Clinton out in the 90s, and LBJ probably provided a similar boost for Kennedy across more conservative/southern states.
But these are secondary concerns.
Obama needlessly lost a foreign-policy advisor Samantha Power over a big to-do with the Clinton campaign. Let's review, they traded out Geraldine Ferraro, a no-account New York politician who lost in her statewide campaigns for Samantha Power, an active wonk and author of A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Obama lost the foremost expert on genocide in increasingly genocidal times.
And the foremost genocide (though with more company than most of us know in Congo, Iraq, et al) Richardson brokered a Sudan ceasefire. He arranged the release of captive journalist Paul Salopek. He is used to negotiating. He is the quintessential effective American diplomat, 60 years after the birth of the UN. He was our ambassador to the United Nations.
Because it was a Clinton stint, James Carville called him "Judas". When Carville matters, anymore/again, let me know. The real question is whether the Clintons will be petty and make Richardson untouchable for Obama, or whether they will be gracious (aka "party leaders") just like with the Clark scenario.
Second, Richardson is a two-term governor of New Mexico. Obama is considered weak because he lacks "executive experience". I subscribe to the campaign argument that how Obama runs his campaign tells you a lot about how he'll run the White House and so should you. That will win some support and respect, but it's not enough.
Richardson thus is exactly the opposite of 15 years of Bush/Hillary Clinton Washington politics. He is removed. And he relies on his technique rather than his person or his ideas to accomplish his goals. He is a realist. He is a (light) wonk and not prestigious with the Beltway "cool kids". His methods are, if not perfect, refined by time.
And that brings me to why Hillary Clinton would be a terrible VP choice. She is essentially a neo-con, nor is she in small company among Democrats. Her stance on Iraq is exactly what damned Kerry in 2004: flip-flopping, pandering, hawkishness. Whether she is afraid of being pegged as "soft" or a true believer a la "The Family" does not matter. She and Obama have squabbled so many times on Iraq that Obama picking her would send a grossly contradictory message--more compromised than Biden. And it brings me back to the point on subservient women I made in the blockquote above. Many Clinton supporters would be satisfied, but some hardcore feminists at the core of Clinton's support would not.
It's safer to chose a Clinton-affiliate like Richardson or Clark and not risk personalty fights on the campaign trail, for which Hillary Clinton is well known and may have had a bit to do with weakening the 2000 Gore campaign.
Ok? Done.
Richardson does not distract from Obama's barrier-breaking campaign. He allows Obama to spread his message. What's more, Richardson was not on anyone's side after he stepped down, he's made it clear that Obama earned his support.
As for policy, if you had to peg Richardson he would be an environmentalist Dem. This is secondary to the national security and executive experience concerns, but it's ideologically succinct. George Lakoff and Rockridge and George Soros are recommending the expansion of green capitalism as an investment, and we're talking in the billions of dollars.
We do need strong Energy experience in the White House. Someone who knows how to navigate those waters, ready to debate the ghosts of Dick Cheney and his task force. (And remember they have both legacy and profits to motivate them: they won't rest in peace after 2008.) Richardson was Secretary of Energy, and has shown deftness and capability as NM's governor.
So let's review: Obama needs a VP with foreign policy and executive experience credentials. Richardson? Check.
Richardson also complements Obama on:
- attracting minorities without rousing a feminist backlash,
- being able to engage in-Spanish latino voters and stump fluently in Spanish,
- good prospects to deliver New Mexico, not only an a) swing state that would b) break the Ohio-Florida-Pennsylvania strategy that has killed the Democratic Party some 16 years after Clinton codified it, but a swing state with c) a crucial Senate race when we are desperate to get up to 58 or 60 Senate seats.
- Keep politicians in redder states in their seats, rather than losing Senators like Webb or a potential Senator Warner.
- Provide a strong emphasis on liberal energy policy exactly when climate change is now politically workable in Washington.
Richardson is almost the fill in the vacuum. He is unabashedly liberal in all regards (which the Kerry-Edwards campaign was not in 2004, to their own detriment with swing voters) which is strong because voters like integrity and self-confidence. He does not detract from Obama's spotlight: it's Obama's campaign, and millions of voters still need to get to know Barack.
Though I was not a Richardson fan he's an exceptionally strong choice because he will ease the criticism of all of Obama's principal weaknesses, and strengthen the campaign. That's essentially what the VP pick needs to do, whomever Obama chooses. Clark would be another fine pick if they can snag him after they make peace with the Clintons.
If any of you Obama staffers are reading, I hope you'll take note.