The pundits and the polls and, well, the math, all suggest that Obama is the front-runner to win. So, the speculation has begun - who will be Obama's VP?
Chris Cizilla of the Washington Post spitballs a few suggestions for Obama:
The Fix - Veepstakes
- John Edwards
- Tim Kaine
- Kathleen Sebelius
- Jim Webb
- Tony Zinni
However, after last night's debate, and Hillary's conciliatory closing (where she said she was "honored" to share the stage with Barack), you have to think that Hillary Clinton would be on that short list. What do you think?
Let's get beyond the "he won't ask" / "she won't accept" talk. He's on the record as saying that Hillary is on his short list (or that she "would be on anyone's short list.") The fact that she refused to unload all her ammunition on Barack last night shows that she's at least keeping the option of being his VP open.
I'm just shocked, really, that no one thinks this is the best ticket.
Here are 4 historical precedents to the "Dream Ticket."
(1) Team of Rivals Obama's narrative is that he's the political heir to Abe Lincoln. He announced in Springfield and like Lincoln, his experience was mostly as a state legislator with light Washington experience. Oh, and both were known as orators. Well, D.K. Goodwin's account of Lincoln's presidency in Team of Rivals lauds his vision in bringing his former nomination rivals into his cabinet.
(2) JFK - LBJ The other narrative about Obama is that he's this generation's JFK - young, handsome, great speaker, path-breaking. He's got Teddy's support. JFK shored up concerns about his relative youth and callowness by running with LBJ - the experienced Senate hand and consummate Washington insider.
(3) Reagan - Bush Ronald Reagan chose his nomination rival, George H. W. Bush, as his running mate in 1980, and was able to unify the party and run to landslides for 8 years. Bush, the consummate Washington insider, shored up concerns about Reagan's background as a policy lightweight.
(4) Bill Clinton-Al Gore Again, Gore was the consummate insider, Bill was the outsider running on an airy campaign of "Hope."
(5) George W. Bush - Dick Cheney 'Nuff said.
Now, these historical analogies support the conclusion that Obama should pick a "consummate Washington insider" to counterbalance his inspirational message.
Here are the common reasons why an Obama-Clinton ticket is disregarded:
(A) Some would say - an "insider" would contradict Obama's message of "change." This criticism comes largely from those who think that Obama has no substance and that his critique of Washington and his promise of change is just so much political fluff. Actually, Obama has a very specific idea of how to bring about that change - maybe it's a bit idealistic but it's not just "sitting down at a table with the enemy." It involves transparency, ethics reform, campaign finance reform, technology ("Google for Government"). It involves using the bully pulpit to tone down the rhetoric in washington. It involves grassroots organization and mobilization around particular ideas. True public participation. There's no reason that this particular notion of "change" requires political neophytes - in fact, having a "consummate Washington insider" will help deflect criticisms that Obama's message of change is unrealistic.
(B) Some say that Hillary is too polarizing and thus contradicts Obama's message of unity. Although it is true that for many Republicans and Independents, and even some Democrats, Hillary Clinton has very high negatives, she's also a known quantity who has been vetted. Those that hate her, hate her (but probably would hate any Democrat left of Joe Lieberman). Those that are apathetic about her, or see her as fake, won't be offended by her in a VP slot.
(C) Some say that Hillary doesn't bring the military "heft" to counterbalance John McCain. Actually, Hillary brings a lot to the table - she's served quite ably on the Armed Services Committee; she's seen as tough (like Maggie Thatcher) and a policy wonk. Finally, she brings Bill along as a two-for-one ambassador to the world. She has Bill's foreign policy experience at the ready. The fact is - she's perceived as being strong on foreign policy and military matters. That's all that counts.
(D) Some say "it's just too much change." I think this is why Barack will choose Hillary - it's audacious. Hillary is not just any woman - she's one of the most famous, recognizable women in the world. I think it might be "too much change" for Obama to pick another black man or minority, or just any other woman (like Sebelius or Napolitano). Hillary, however, is in a different league.
Frankly, I always thought it would be Joe Biden as Obama's VP. That is, until this stupid "plagiarism" nonsense blew up. Now, it's impossible for Obama and Biden to run together, because that's his albatross as well.
I don't think that Edwards is the right choice because, like Obama, he's a one-term Senator who is also, relatively speaking, a foreign-policy lightweight. Plus, he was the VP nominee in 2004 and he couldn't carry North Carolina. If Edwards were going to be the VP, Edwards would have endorsed Obama by now.
Some say "Bill Richardson." I could see this choice, becasue the Latino vote will be critical in November. However, Hillary brings those Latino votes as well, because of her name recognition and her popularity in that community. Richardson is a bit of a blusterer - he's competent, but he also makes mistakes and gaffes. He reminds me of Ross Perot's running made, Adm. Stockdale. I'd hate to see Richardson in a debate with McCain's running mate. No, it's not going to be Big Bill.
As for Webb or Kaine - I think both are too bland, too centrist, to really add anything to Obama's campaign. Kaine doesn't have the military heft, and Webb is too Republican. Obama will get attacked for being a liberal but his campaign is NOT (contrary to what is said on this site) about moving to the center. It's about moving the center to the left. Webb is too much of a loose cannon and a maverick and Obama does relatively well with white men.
As for a military guy - I've heard Tony Zinni, Wes Clark, Colin Powell, Tony Lake. I don't see it happening - those are great Sec Def candidates or even NSA candidates, but none are all-star politicians (except maybe for Clark, but even his campaign fizzled). None are attack dogs or champion legislators who can lead the party from the VP slot. They are simply military guys and they should be in Joint Chiefs of Staff positions, not a political role like VP.
Finally, no red state governors - Sebelius, Napolitano, the Montana governor. Those are hard to replace and Obama is better off if those state houses are kept in Democratic hands. Also, none bring the foreign policy heft that Obama needs