Yesterday, I read a story on AOL Elections '08 about this. I haven't seen any other diaries on it, but if there are, I apologise for repeating. Nancy Pelosi on "This Week" that she wants Edwards as Obama's for VP, saying "I hope he will be the nominee."
For all the John Edwards supporters reading this and celebrating, I'm sorry to disappoint you; she was talking about Congressman Chet Edwards, Democratic representative for the Texas 17th. Edwards, of course, gives Democrats the ability to gloat not only about managing to hold an R+18 district, but also about how President Bush's very own congressman (the 17th contains Crawford) is a Democrat. Prior to this story that was basically I knew about Edwards, but I've begun reading up now that his name is in the ring. I can see some upsides to Edwards and maybe Obama should give him consideration, but he has some major flaws and personally, Wesley Clark and Kathleen Sebelius still top my list.
Pelosi's announcement of support for him (or for any potential candidate) does strike as oddly forward, and I'm fairly sure that's a reflection of Pelosi's annoyance about the nature of the VP speculation and search so far.
Pelosi said that amid all the talk about possible running mates from the Senate, she didn't want the House to be left out. Presumed nominee Barack Obama has not announced when he will make his pick.
"There's such a great array of people from whom Sen. Obama can choose," she said. "So, any one of them, I'm fine with. I just wanted people to be aware of the extraordinary credentials of Chet Edwards."
Clearly, she's peeved that amid the discussion of senators, governors and ex-presidential candidates for Veep, not one of the 236 congressman she leads appears to be in the mix. The lack of focus of house members is conventional wisdom; presidential tickets arguably fight on two main levels; the national battle and the state-by-state battle. Presidential candidates have national standing, senators and governors have relatively high profiles and bring local/regional strength to the ticket. House members will only be known by their own districts, may not be able to bring support to Obama in the rest of their states or may be perceived to lack broad experience.
Open seat issues plague potential VP picks from the House more so than with the other groups. With House seats, there's no option for succession or appointment to retain the seat, so Dems have to make sure they can still win the seat in an open battle. If it's an inevitably Democratic seat, the representative in question is probably too liberal to balance Obama ideologically, so Obama can only pick a Dem from a narrowly Democratic, divided or Republican-slanted seat, any of which may be tricky to retain.
Most prognosticators, me included, probably also find it much harder to discuss congressman for Veep. Geography and numbers are harder to work around; the sheer size of the house and small size of the districts, compared to the simplicity of 50 states with 51 Democratic senators and 28 governors. Another issue is the idea of geographic and ideological balance. Blue state Democratic governors and senators are ruled out for the VP slot unless they have another special quality, such as Biden or Reed's foreign policy experience.
But when we talk House districts, Obama's old point about the irrelevance of blue state/red state cultural and political contrasts ("We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states") becomes clearer. Chet Edwards and Sheila Jackson Lee are both from Texas, but is Lee really a "red state Democrat"? For that matter, are Kristin Gillibrand or Chris Carney really "blue staters"? We can maybe go on ideology to a degree, since it's safe to say that Obama wouldn't be able to pick Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank, but beyond that it could be tough to be sure of balance and impact.
All of those reasons have largely ruled out sitting House members; Jack Kemp in 1996 was the last Republican VP nominee who was a congressman, and Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 was the last for the Democrats. And Speaker John Nance Garner (D-Texas) in 1933 was the last to actually be elected to the Vice Presidency.
But still, Pelosi has a valid point. The electoral benefits of many of her caucus members may be questionable and while the nature of the House may make it far more difficult to cull the list, I agree with her that they shouldn't all be written off. First of all, lets look at Edwards himself.
Pelosi's push for him is apparantly based on his push for more veterans care, a signature issue that has helped keep Edwards alive in his increasingly tough reelection attempts. It's a good issue for Obama's VP to be associated with, to help Obama emphasise the issue when arguing with John "I'm Allowed to Screw Over Veterans Because I Served" McCain. His background is as an economist, schooled at Texas A&M and Harvard, which could also help bolster Obama's message in terms of focusing on, and obliterating McCain on, the economy.
He's 56, which I personally think is the ideal (although not essential) age range for Obama's running mate. Having nine years on Obama makes Edwards, who has nine terms in congress, seem experienced enough to suppport the younger Obama, but while keeping the ticket youthful by comparison to McCain. He's southern, so that gives regional balance to a black Illinois Democrat. Edwards was also an early Obama backer, endorsing him on the 19th of February even as Hillary Clinton looked poised to probably win his state two weeks later.
But Edwards also has no military/foreign experience in his background, so he wouldn't provide that if Obama is indeed looking for it. As I discussed, open seat issues are worth considering here; Democrats most likely wouldn't be able to hold his R+18 seat if he vacated. Being an early backer who defied his state's primary season leanings isn't an plus from the "unity image" standpoint. Also, a nine-term congressman will have trouble creating the "outsider" image Obama may want in a running mate and having two Harvard grads on the ticket probably plays into the idiotic Republican "ivy league liberal elitist" attack, despite Edward's conservative A&M links.
Another consideration with Edwards is what he brings geographically. Again, as discussed above, the impact of a congressman on the electoral map is likely to be even smaller than the already questionable regional impacts of statewide officials appointed to the VP slot. In regards to Texas in particular, Obama's chances of a win there are low and I doubt there's any VP pick who could change that. The recent poll there (Rasmussen, July 30) put it at McCain 50-Obama 41. A deficit of only nine points in such a Republican state isn't a great sign for McCain, but nor does it mean Obama will neccesarily be able to close the gap and win there. Obama is spending on ads in the state, but it's accepted that that's mostly just to boost downticket Democrats and maybe force McCain to waste some resources in the process. Obama/Edwards could make Obama's challenge in Texas stronger, helping candidates like Ciro Rodriguez and Nick Lampston hold their seats and, God willing, maybe giving Rick Noriega a boost against "Big John." And if McCain had to up his resources and appearances, leading to press stories about his weakness in heart of Bush country, that would be a net plus as well. But when all is said and done, Obama would still defenitely
Also, a major problem with Edwards may be ideology and voting record. Some members of the base will complain if Obama anyone not perceived as progressive, but Obama's VP search team are probably more realistic. They'll search for someone moderate enough to provide balance, without being conservative enought to undercut Obama's message and rile large sections of the his base. In some senses, Edwards is somewhat progressive given the district he represents; he often gets high ratings from NARAL, his NRA ratings have been very mixed and he's not a member of the Blue Dogs. But on most things, there's potential for him to be too conservative and have a negative impact, which does call into question Pelosi's recommendation here. From a blog called Nate, Uncensored:
According to his own campaign website, Edwards:
- "Supported allowing the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004." (Source: Chet Edwards for Congress / 2nd Amendment Rights) In 2004, part of John Kerry’s platform was supporting the renewal of the assault weapons ban.
- "Chet believes our nation’s first priority is to secure our borders and to protect our homeland and he strongly opposes amnesty in any form." (Source: Chet Edwards for Congress / Border Security & Illegal Immigration) This puts Rep. Edwards to the right of John McCain on immigration.
- "Chet favors cracking down on lawyers who file frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits that drive up costs." (Source: Chet Edwards for Congress / Making Health Care More Affordable & Accessible) Bush used tort reform - precisely what Edwards is talking about here - to bash John Kerry over the head on health care during the 2004 election cycle.
- Rep. Edwards voted for "[a] permanent repeal of the unfair Death Tax ... [and] reduction of capital gains taxes." (Source: Chet Edwards for Congress / Tax Relief for Working Families) Just what we need, a Democratic vice president who would favor more taxes like those secured by the Bush administration.
There’s more from On the Issues:
- In 2004, Rep. Edwards voted for the bill that tightened bankruptcy rules.
- Also in 2004, Rep. Edwards voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as well as voting in 2003 for a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag desecration.
- Edwards voted to replace illegal export tax breaks with $140 billion in legal breaks.
- Edwards voted in favor of the Bush adminsitration’s energy policy and voted against prohibiting oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), despite evidence that such drilling would be of minimal benefit to Americans and may damage the arctic environment.
- Edwards voted for fast track authority for trade agreements as well as voting for unfair Bush trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, and Australia.
- Edwards voted in 2002 to approve the use of force in Iraq.
And finally, according to the Washington Post’s Votes Database:
- Edwards joined only 31 other House Democrats to cross the aisle and vote for the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the infamous "torture bill."
- Edwards joined only 17 other House Democrats to cross the aisle and vote for the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act of 2006, which endorsed President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.
- Edwards joined only 41 other House Democrats in 2006 to cross the aisle and vote for the non-binding resolution that endorsed President Bush’s policy in the Iraq War and rejected any time table for withdrawal.
Nate goes on to defend Edward's record as pragmatic, given his district, but strongly criticises the idea of putting him on the ticket. Most Democrats would respond the same way, and I have to say some of those positions do make him a bit of a nonstarter. Edward's mixed stance on guns and his positions on the death penalty stance, flag burning and others a few other issues could help him balance Obama. But on Iraq, torture, gay rights, the environment and perhaps on taxes, Obama's running mate needs to be reasonably progressive in order for the message to work.
Like I said, maybe Pelosi is right, at least as far as Edwards deserving consideration. But he's not a flawless candidate by any yardstick and his conservative votes on some issues make me seriously skeptical about the wisdom of the idea. Even one of the proponents of an Obama/Edwards ticket admitted that the likelihood of it happening is "probably somewhere about 10 or 15 percent", and I think that's a generous estimate. But maybe we should start looking at Edwards, and maybe other House members too. Off the top of my head, Congressman Joe Sestak (PA-07) could be good. As a former Vice Admiral, he's the highest ranking military officer ever to serve in Congress. He also worked at NSC under Clinton, he's moderate, he's new to Hill politics and at 56 is young despite his experience. What other House members could Obama consider? Feel free to comment.