There's been a tremendous discussion going on over at OpenLeft with regards to potential VP choices for Barack Obama. While many of the more conventional names have been thrown out there, including Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Wesley Clark, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, there has been less discussion of other individuals less prominent in national Democratic politics but might be a better fit for an Obama campaign, and (hopefully) an Obama presidency. After all, is there any better way to demonstrating a commitment to change than reaching beyond other Senators and Governors, and into the back bench of the House and out into the military, academia and other backgrounds?
Bowers also wrote a really great and interesting post about the myth of a balanced ticket, essentially arguing that there is little advantage (and perhaps a significant disadvantage, i.e. an inexperienced presidential candidate picking the elder statesperson reinforces, not rejects, the conception that the presidential candidate is experienced) in the establishment of a ticket with some combination of geographic/ideological/personal diversity. Instead, a candidate should choose a running mate reflective of their own candidacy; as such, I thought I'd collect and assess a 12 names far outside of those so often discussed, reaching significantly into the non-elected office sphere, and solicit the input of my fellow Kossacks.
I analyzing Obama's options, Bowers lays down a number of ground rules that I'll include in addition to a few of my own in examining the advantages and disadvantages of some unconventional VP choices:
1. Opposed the Iraq war from Day 1 - strongly reinforces Obama's message on judgment and vision, helps in counter-attacking McCain's policies.
2. Moderate to strong progressive - obviously, the more progressive, the better. Unfortunately, a lot of the Democratic fresh blood in D.C. and the governors are either too inexperienced (even for Obama) or moderate to conservative, and may not be nearly as substantive as Obama, strictly on matters of progressive policy.
3. Not a long-time Washington insider - much of Obama's message and appeal is predicated on the fact that he's not an 'old hand,' that he has the integrity and vision, unlike the 20, 30, 40 year Washington insiders, to deliver the change the country really wants. Choosing a long serving member of Congress could severely compromise that message.
4. Either uncommitted or an Obama supporter - the history of the last 15 years certainly tells us there's nothing the press loves more than the "Democrats in disarray" story they like to put out every few weeks, and choosing a vice presidential candidate who openly supported another candidate would lead to lots of those sorts of stories. This may be especially true given the historic frequency of fairly public spats between Presidents and their Vice Presidents.
5. Do they come from a state in play? - definitely not a decisive criteria, but it never hurts to have popular progressive Democrats from purple or red states on the ticket.
6. Are they well suited to serve as one of the frontrunners for the 2016 presidential election? - simply put, don't we want someone who is capable of taking the Democrats beyond an Obama administration and deep into the 21st century rather than pulling a Dick Cheney? Naturally, this criterion is pre-disposed to younger, more progressive choices.
So I've broken down the options into different categories: members of the House of Representatives, relatively unknown former public office holders (cabinet officials, governors, etc.), career military background, and non-political.
Members of the House of Representatives
Tim Ryan (OH-17)
Advantages: Strong opposition to the Iraq war, multiple years in Ohio State Senate, elected to the House in 2002. Generally progressive, frequently and vociferously critical of the administration, strong on trade and economic issues, popular in a swing state. Endorsed Dodd, which doesn't factor in as a negative. Would be a strong contender for the 2016 nomination, as he is only 34 years old right now.
Disadvantages: Strongly pro-life. 10% NARAL rating, 80% National Right to Life Committee rating.
Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Advantages: Experienced but not a consummate insider; a member of the House since 1996 and popular in a swing state. Strong progressive, great on most issues, supporter of impeachment. Endorsed Obama. Has a definite sense of humor. Young and articulate, he is 47 right now and would be well positioned as a progressive face of the party in 2016. Jewish background could help deflect the ridiculous Muslim fear mongering (see Russert, Tim).
Disadvantages: Voted for the Iraq war. Previously supported missile defense.
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Advantages: Tremendous progressive, great on pretty much everything: environment, civil liberties, transportation, Iraq, etc. Endorsed Obama. Like Wexler, elected in 1996; experienced but not a consummate insider.
Disadvantages: Not from a swing state, will be 68 years old in 2016. A decidedly wonkish kind of guy who seems predisposed to writing legislation in Congress.
Brad Miller (NC-13)
Advantages: Strong, popular progressive elected in 2002 from a state that could be in play in 2008. Uncommitted in the 2008 election. Regular DailyKos contributor. Good on science and technology issues. Strong on economic concerns when those are shaping up to be big in 2008 - advantageous contrast with McCain.
Disadvantages: Few that are immediately discernible; represents the strength of the 50 state strategy and a progressive renaissance in red states, and will be 63 in 2016.
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Advantages: He's pretty much the typification of the creative class - physicist, professor, decidedly progressive, highly educated, etc. He's great on open government, voting rights, civil liberties, FISA, the environment, etc. His campaign slogan is "My Congressman IS a rocket scientist!" He was against the war from the start. Not a single skeleton to be found in his closet - he's a Quaker (the only one in Congress), with unquestioned integrity. He's also chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee of Select Intelligence and he's been around since 2000, so he's experienced but not too experienced, and he has yet to endorse. On the completely and totally cool side, he has a patent for his own solar energy device and has won Jeopardy five times.
Disadvantages: He is my congressman, so I'm a big homer and have a soft spot for him. That said, even though he's sharp as a tack, he'll be 68 in 2016. He's also distinctly professorial; he conveys his point very effectively, but is not soundbite-oriented and (though a very good progressive) not the attack dog type often preferred in a VP nominee.
Lane Evans (former Congressman, IL-10)
Advantages: Prior to his retirement before the 2006 elections, easily one of the best Democratic members of Congress. A Vietnam veteran, he also founded the House Progressive caucus; strongly against the war from the start, consistently popular with a very liberal voting record in what was initially a conservative district. Served for 24 years, but not much of an insider type.
Disadvantages: From Illinois, which creates some Electoral College legal problems, not to mention a lack of geographic diversity. Faced charges from the FEC of campaign finance irregularities between 1998 and 2000, paid a $185,000 fine. Has battled Parkinson's disease since 1995, and he cited it as a reason for his 2006 retirement; would be 65 in 2016, and his health would obviously be even more of an issue then than in 2008.
Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Advantages: Solid progressive, against the war, great ratings from virtually every progressive vote rating organization. While not from a swing state, would be an especially effective advocate for Obama, who he endorsed, in the Hispanic communities of the West and Southwest. Much like Obama, represents the changing face of the Democratic Party, and a leading indicator of the future rather than a lagging indicator of the past, and at 58, would be well suited as the party standard bearer in 2016.
Disadvantages: Not many. In lots of way, he would be an ideal choice, but would create an unprecented politicized ethnic dynamic by being on the ticket with Obama. While I think that's a great thing, some other people might not, though I'm generally not swayed at all by arguments that "America isn't ready for ___________."
Other Former Public Officials
Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor)
Advantages: Very strong on economic issues in an election that may turn upon them. Will appeal tremendously to those who have not benefited from the economic and trade regimes of the post-Cold War era, especially in places like Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, etc. Prominent Obama advocate, and strongly critical of the war, though lacking a foreign policy background. Ideally progressive on social issues; publicly supported Massachusetts marriage equality in his 2002 campaign for governor, condemned capital punishment and promised reproductive rights advocacy. A Washington insider in the Carter and Clinton administrations, but his integrity is unimpeachable.
Disadvantages: Other than brief stints with the Solicitor General and the Federal Trade Commission, no government experience other than four years as Secretary of Labor. Not particularly "presidential" in his image, according to traditional standards, and has a professorial demeanor. From a safe state and has limited campaign experience. Will be 68 in 2016, and perhaps ill-suited to serve as the party's standard bearer.
Cecil Andrus (former Secretary of Interior, governor of Idaho)
Advantages: Far outside the Washington mainstream and an excellent example of Mountain West progressivism, so a definite geographic advantage in line with the 50 state strategy. Very popular in Idaho despite being more progressive than many blue state politicians. Strongly anti-war, pro-environment, and an Obama endorser. Gave a rousing introduction to Obama's Boise rally:
Disadvantages: I wish this man were 20, or even just 5 or 10 years younger. He's already 76, and will be 84 in 2016. Even so, far more in touch with reality, far more lucid, energetic and enthusiastic than John McCain, who is 5 years younger. Also, has zero name recognition outside of Idaho. While potentially highlighting the ability of Obama to bring together all kinds of people, definitely not the kind of rising star discussed earlier.
Former Military
Anthony Zinni (4 star general, former CINC, U.S. Central Command)
Advantages: Strongly critical of the planning, execution and current state of the war in Iraq. Has reportedly been advising Obama significantly on military issues. Strong immunity against swiftboating, strengthens message of unity.
Disadvantages: Zero domestic policy expertise. Has been described as politically reluctant, though he supported Jim Webb. Endorsed Bush in 2000, and has stated he has no desire to be political ever again. Described himself as having a "Lugar-Powell-Hagel" foreign policy doctrine. Will be 73 in 2016, and his credentials as a Democrat are, at the moment, dubious. Provides no geographic advantage.
Merrill McPeak (former Air Force Chief of Staff)
Advantages: Extensive experience in Iraq from the first Gulf War; strongly critical of the 2003 invasion from the beginning. Though he supported Bob Dole in 1996, back Howard Dean (then John Kerry) in 2004. Outspoken Obama backer.
Disadvantages: Like Zinni, has zero domestic policy expertise and provides no geographic advantage. Controversial time as Air Force Chief of Staff. Will be 80 years old in 2016, and while he has backed progressive candidates over the last several years, with his age and lack of non-military experience, may be ill-suited for anything after an Obama presidency.
Non-Political
Laurence Tribe
Advantages: Generally considered America's finest legal scholar, a pre-eminent authority on constitutional issues, and frequent and notable advocate before the Supreme Court. Articulate, an excellent debater, and unequivocal proponent of progressive ideology and policy. Simply a brilliant mind; while never serving in any governmental capacity, would be able to rhetorically dismantle conservatism and the failures of the past like no one individual, and do so freed from the disadvantages of having served politically. Represents a fundamental and unconventional break from traditional norms of the vice presidency and executive power, and combines with Obama (his former student, whom Tribe described as his best ever) to form a dynamic presidency dedicated to progressive change. Has openly stated the case for impeachment.
Disadvantages: As pointed out above, has zero political or governmental experience, having served as a Harvard Law professor for the past 40 years. Decidedly academic, and very much the antithesis of everything President Bush is, and his status within academia could be a source of criticism from the GOP. Little in his background to offer on non-legal foreign and domestic policy issues, and is already 68, so not ideal for 2016.
Merrick Garland
Advantages: Often mentioned on Supreme Court short lists for a Democratic presidency, he combines many of the best qualities of Tribe with a lot more non-academic experience. As a current federal appellate court judge on the D.C. circuit, not committed to any candidate (though served in the Clinton administration and was appointed to the bench by Clinton in 1997). Spent over 10 years in various prosecutorial capacities, including Assistant U.S. Attorney. While in the Justice Department, he was the chief prosecutor in the Oklahoma City and Unabomber cases. Similar to Tribe, a way out of the box pick who could really shake up the political landscape but simultaneously represent the kind of unconventional change in which lies so much of Obama's appeal. Uniquely qualified to offer a progressive counterterrorism argument, and also like Tribe, an excellent personal ability and philosophical disposition to offer a compelling argument against virtually everything that the Bush administration has ever done. Would be 64 in 2016 and capable of serving as an effective standard bearer.
Disadvantages: Never served in elected office, and from Illinois (but may be registered in the D.C. area). Minimal expertise on social, economic and foreign policy, especially when departing from the legal respects of those policies. May want to be on the Supreme Court more than be Vice President.
Warren Buffett
Advantages: Unprecedented economic celebrity, with impeccable credentials, as he has been on point for years in his predictions and criticisms of the American economic system, especially the recent downturn of the dollar and the dangers inherent to derivatives and other highly leveraged investment vehicles. Frugal, sensible, likeable, great sense of humor, and a consistent Obama backer. Uniquely qualified to disarm any traditional Republican talking point on the economy, taxation, the budget, regulation, and do so with authority and in a way that advances progressive policy. His selection would be a media coup, an absolutely sensation in the press. Public service would be the crowning achievement of a prominent public life, and he could directly help in effecting the change he and Obama envision for the future. He is everything Mike Bloomberg wishes he was, and progressive. Also, really, really, really, really, really, really rich.
Disadvantages: Has also fundraised for Hillary and made a lot of positive statements about HRC. Like Tribe and Garland, lacks a strong foreign policy background, and has never been elected dogcatcher. Could have his extensive investment activities scrutinized in a way that they may not have been before. Is already 77 and may not be interested in taking on this kind of role; not an ideal standard bearer for 2016.
So, that's my list. I'd really love to hear the thoughts of my fellow Kossacks on these names, and any others, especially those that are completely unexpected and unconventional. It's worth noting that for most of American history, a lot of Presidents and Vice Presidents spent very little time as active in public office or long term participants in the Governor-Congressperson-Senator triad. I'd especially love updates since there are some definite gaps in my knowledge of some of the candidates I've put out there. I'd love to be able to kind of wiki this diary with everyone's thoughts, if people are receptive to it.