With all the informational diaries floating around Daily Kos on each of the respective Democratic candidates, while I've narrowed my own choices for the Oval Office down to three, I find myself wondering if we're ignoring, at are own peril, the number 2 slot on the ticket.
We've been told repeatedly that any of our Democratic candidates far outstrip what the Republicans have to offer, and that this is the strongest and best offering of Democratic contenders in years.
And then I remember 1976 . . .
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Jimmy Carter, both as President and as public citizen. I campaigned for his re-election in 1980. But with 20/20 hindsight was Walter Mondale, out of another field of extraordinary Democrats, the best choice of running mate? Would Hubert Humphrey, Frank Church, Ted Kennedy, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Jerry Brown or a host of others -- and there were a lot in '76 -- have given him an edge four years later? Or been the better man to rally Democrats in 1984?
Of the three front runners, an Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket appears to satisfy most camps. Both represent change. Both support the Constitution and the return to the three co-equal branches of government. Both have, if not ideal, then solid plans for our health care crisis. And both want to bring the troops home.
Chris Dodd (and even Joe Biden) would make excellent Vice Presidents; they bring statesmanship, diplomacy and a longtime familiarity with the US Senate to the position. But both have one major drawback: 2016. With the Vice Presidency being viewed as the stepping stone to the White House, would both men be seen as too old, especially following a young, energetic, revitalizing Democratic President?
There's been speculation that Bill Richardson has been positioning himself for a possible VP slot, most notably with HRC. But as noted in another diary, his recent statements seem to rule out that theory. Whether or not Richardson has a chance in hell of winning the primaries and being the nominee, would it be wise to give the VP position to someone who, without a single primary vote being cast, has already given up on his goal to be President?
Dennis Kucinich appears to march to his own drum -- and I'm glad for it. Frankly, I want him to stay in the race as long as possible. He's been leading the call for impeachment, and the longer that word stays in the public discourse, the better. The question, of course is, would he make a good Veep? Stranger things have happened. The position might smooth away the rough edges, giving him broader appeal and wider audience acceptance and voter reach by 2016.
Which leaves Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Based on her campaign strategy and the MSM's anointment, HRC is supposed to be the de facto Democratic Presidential candidate. Is there any room in her plan for being second choice? Her campaign has definitely alienated Obama supporters, and would likely weaken his appeal should she be his VP running mate. She would probably do the same for Edwards.
As HRC appears to be offering a two-fer -- elect Hillary and you get not one, but two Clintons -- who does she choose as her running mate? Would Obama or Edwards be willing to bury the hatchet, and be third on the ticket, behind Bill, thus turning the Veep into little more than a ceremonial spot? Would Dodd or Biden be her only choice, which leaves us with the 2016 question again. Or would she look outside of the current field of Democratic challengers and choose someone like Wes Clark or Michael Bloomberg? For many, Wes Clark might be enough to sway the "anyone but Hillary" crowd. But would Bloomberg add the same baggage that Lieberman did for Gore?
In this election year, Democratic voters must not plan for the short-term. While our goal is to secure 2008, it also needs to be to secure 2016 and beyond.