« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Choosing a Vice President
Edwards and Obama certainly looked very good together out there on that South Dakota stage, didn't they. Two young, vigorous, attractive, enthusiastic politicians, capable of a long hard campaign. Illinois/North Carolina. However, Edwards says he doesn't want to run for VP again (yes, I know he also said he wouldn't endorse anyone) and it wouldn't exactly send a fresh, new message to voters, would it?. Plus, he would pull Obama in the wrong direction on trade policy, immigration, medical malpractice reform and probably a few other issues.
But I think it would be a serious mistake to ask Hillary. Not because she isn't qualified or because of her views, which on all important matters are very close to Obama;s. And she would be a big asset in the campaign, unifying the party. Problem is not the campaign, it's the governing. Yes, I know politics makes strange bedfellows, witness JFK and LBJ. But to have a VP who is constantly thinking "I should be in your chair" AND WHOSE HUSBAND IS AT HER SIDE THINKING THE SAME THING? It would be a huge problem for Obama, and I think he's smart enough to see it.
Richardson is certainly a possibility. All kinds of international and Washington experience, well-regarded Governor, came out for Obama early, could be counted on to obey orders loyally. Terrible campaigner at the beginning, but he got better as he went along. Certainly would help with the Hispanic vote. Not to be written off.
But it seems to me he almost has to choose a woman. Any male, even Edwards, would antagonize further millions of women voters who supported Hillary as a matter of justice and fairness. But who? There are five female Democratic governors; one (Gregoire) is running for re-election this year. Of the remaining four, Sebelius is the most mentioned and from a variety of perspectives most logical. However, she did a terrible job responding to the State of the Union speech, and did not strike me as someone who could do a great job on the stump. That was Gore's mistake: picking someone who seemed logical but could not in fact add to the campaign. Plus, no Governor (except Richardson) could compensate for Obama's relative lack of Washington or foreign policy experience.
There are of course plenty of female Senators and Representatives to choose from. But wouldn't it be great if he picked somebody who isn't a politician, but is a great speaker with proven leadership skills and international experience? I have no names on the top of my head, but I'm sure some could be found. You'd have to go back to Eisenhower and Wendell Willkie to find a precedent, and they were not only male but in the Other Party.
In any event, a few early thoughts.
Comments (9)
"Edwards and Obama certainly looked very good together out there on that South Dakota stage, didn't they." No, not to Hillary supporters, who make up approximately half of Democratic voters. Edwards and Obama looked more like a major kick in the gut, coming the day after Hillary won W. Virginia by 2.5 to 1. But I'm sure they looked great to Obama supporters.
May 17, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop whining.
As Hillary so brilliantly said, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. Was she wrong?
May 17, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Hillary was a fighter. I thought she had six testicles. Are we worried about protecting her feelings now? Because she's a woman and fragile?
It's not Edwards' fault if some people continue to delude themselves that this isn't over, and its no one's responsibility to hold Hillary;s hand and patronize her because she's staying in the race. She doesn't need her feelings protected. She can take it. Would we be talking about her feelings if she were a man?
May 17, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards and Obama looked more like a major kick in the gut, coming the day after Hillary won W. Virginia by 2.5 to 1.
I don't follow the reasoning behind this. It might make sense if Hillary had withdrawn from the race, but officially she's still in it, and threatening to try to make arguments about "coming close" in pledged delegates and winning or almost winning the popular vote (by counting Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and not counting caucus states). Not that those arguments are likely to sway the superdelegates, since "coming close" in pledged delegates still means she lost in that category, and the popular vote argument she is trying to make is just laughable in it's contorted efforts to make the math come out in her favor. But Obama is still taking her seriously, as he should, and doing what he needs to do to lock it all up.
But you're saying that Obama should have avoided doing something that helps to boost his campaign, in order to avoid hurting Hillary's feelings, even though she's very open about the manner in which she hopes to take the nomination away from him? Why would it make any sense at all for him to do that?
May 17, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that Nancy Pelosi had a twin. She is powerful as Speaker of the House, but I think she would make a perfect V.P. She meets Obama's personal requirement that the V.P. share his values and vision for the country. She's powerful and assertive without being loud or aggressive and that's a good fit. The country has come to know her because she's been in the news a lot. She's done quite a lot of world travel in her work and is knowledgeable about world diplomacy. She is a way loyal democrat and she would also be loyal to Obama which would make it much more possible for them to work together effectively. She's a member of the House and the House is more representative of regular people. It would be good to have more in the WH who the people could feel closer to. And her last job would surely give her kick ass great experience for her new job as President of the Senate. Alas, she's 68, and the last great part is out of reach because she could have been a great woman candidate for president in 2016. But darn, I really like Nancy Pelosi for V.P.
May 17, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're spot on in highlighting the potential problems related to governance if Hillary Clinton were elected VP. One of many major contributors to the dysfunction of the Bush administration was the fact that Dick Cheney lorded over his own independent center of power outside of the authority of the POTUS's chief of staff. It would be a huge mistake for Obama to permit a similar arrangement and it would be naive to assume that the Clintons wouldn't try to maximize their authority and influence. This would create an ongoing source of tension. Best not to go there.
May 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about with Eisenhower and Wendell Willkie?Eisenhower chose Nixon as his Veep. Is this what you're advising? And Eisenhower had gobs of "foreign policy" experience--he ran Europe during WWII, heading up a coalition of British, French, etc. By today's standards, Eisenhower would be to the left of much of the Democratic Party, but he still ran twice with Nixon. At least he was the one to warn us of the military-industrial complex, although only in his farewell speech.
May 17, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he can get her (she endorsed McCain, at least for the primary), Obama would do well to have Olympia Snowe, the second most liberal republican in Congress (Arlen Specter is the most). If he doesn't, McCain likely will in the hopes of poaching female democrats. Either way, it would pull a republican out of congress. If we can't nab Snowe, we might get lucky and find that Susan Collins feels that the GOP betrayed her and left her out to rot (her voting record is nearly identical to Snowe's). If she doesn't, she might be the most likely McCain VP.
As for people outside of politics, William Fallon would be teh godwin (heh). I would love to see McCain's face when Obama says he got Fallon, as foreign policy is the only thing McCain has, and Fallon is a much better authority than he is.
If that doesn't work, my great uncle was in WWII (signed up because he knew the chances of survival of a conscripted man), first in the last cavalry (you don't break in the McClellan, it breaks in you), then in the air force, in which he was shot down in Africa three times. It was actually his idea that identifying a soldier as Jewish on his dog tag would be a bad idea, so he got one marking him as a protestant (this became military policy in Iraq). Nobody knows who he is, and he's a little eccentric, but he's a nice guy.
If Clinton gets the nod, I just know there'll be a presidential performance of Macbeth.
May 17, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There's gale-force pressure for Obama to choose a Clinton loyalist as a running mate to heal the party but avoid putting her and her formidable baggage on the ticket," said one Obama ally in Washington. "You hear the names [Ohio Gov. Ted] Strickland, [Indiana Sen. Evan] Bayh, and [retired general] Wes Clark almost constantly, and it's no secret that Jim Johnson and Tom Daschle are purveyors of that wisdom."
`Rival Camps Plan Inevitable Merger`
Mosk & Cillizza
Washington Post, May 18
If it's one of the three, I hope it's Strickland.
I'm sad it can't be McCaskill. She's done such a super job throughout the campaign. I hope Obama gives her a commensurate reward.
May 18, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment