Obviously, this is premature, but ex-Sen. Bill Bradley's (D-NJ) endorsement of Obama this morning struck the thought in me -- wouldn't Bradley just be the perfect running mate for our boy Barack? The case for (and against) Obama/Bradley '08 after the jump:
Pros:
- Age -- Bradley is 65 years old. Certainly older than Obama, but he's still young/credible enough not to seem like a Cheneyesque éminence grise; the perfect compromise between the Cheney and Gore models of veep selection.
- Record -- Bradley has, by all accounts, a fairly progressive record in the Senate despite also having worked successfully to pass the last broadly popular tax cut that didn't actually hose the middle class (the 1986 tax act). It's easy to forget, but he was actually in the Senate before McCain. And since then, he's been a reliable liberal (though unconventional) voice in American politics.
- Message -- Building on the Record factor, I think Bradley nicely complements Obama's message of the need for broad, progressive coalition building "by addition instead of division."
- Balance -- Bradley's wonky streak, which I think suits him well, would be a great complement to Obama's broad message of change.
- Experience -- Building on the "wonky" streak above, Bradley could be a useful ally in actually helping usher Obama's agenda through Congress. He knows the ins and outs and is universally respected on both sides of the aisle; great qualities for a high-profile legislative liaison role.
- Demographics -- Let's get real about one (unfortunate) fact: Obama would make some upscale white voters a little nervous, especially in border states that are potentially swingable (NV, NM, AZ?). Bradley would go a long way to reassuring those voters.
- Strategy -- This may be a minor consideration, but he'd totally defuse any potential third-party run. It'd be hard for Bloomberg and his band of merry ex-Senators to credibly grouse about the lack of bipartisanship when Bradley, who used to run in more or less that same pack, is now on the Democratic ticket. And wouldn't Broder/Friedman/Brooks just love it? (I know, I know, but like it or not, they are influential media voices.)
- Geography -- He'd probably help seal up NJ. I know NJ has been safe Dem forever, but the GOP does perennially seem to at least threaten to do well in the state, and with Lautenberg up for reelection in 2008, wouldn't it be nice to have the state put in the "safe" column before things even get started? At least we wouldn't have to spend money and resources there.
Cons:
- Geography -- I know what I said above, but with the mountain west providing such strong opportunities for Dems...a guy from New Jersey? Really?
- Image -- Bradley's a goofy looking guy, and he's about four inches taller than Obama. I know this is superficial, but it's hard to deny that that really counts for something these days, especially in a national campaign.
- Personality -- The downside of Bradley's wonky streak and "above the fray" persona is that he's not exactly an attack dog. Obama certainly seems unwilling to be one, so he might need a veep who can, if not be entirely negative, at least be a "happy warrior." Someone like Ed Rendell might fit the bill nicely -- I'm not sure Bradley would.
- History -- Obama could really break new ground by picking a woman or Latino running mate. This would miss that opportunity.
- Senator -- He's a senator. There must be tons of votes in his past that could be exploited. We saw what happened the last time we put two senators on a ticket.