« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Veep Choice: A Gov., a Gen. or a Sen.?
In looking at the field of potential vice presidential candidates, they all of course have their individual strengths and weaknesses, and they all have different aspects of comparison/contrast to Obama which could either patch areas where he could use some reinforcement or bolster areas where he's already strong.
But zooming out from the individuals a little and taking an overview of the bigger picture, I'm seeing three main "types" of veep possibilities: governors, former military higher ups, and senators.
I'm feeling torn right now, as some of the candidates who I think could be strongest (Biden, Webb and, although she wouldn't be my personal preference, Clinton) are senators. And although it seems that the projections for a solid Democratic majority in the Senate are looking good right now, I'm still worried that it could be enough of a close call that a single senator could tip the balance. This is especially worrisome when it comes to Webb, whose seat could really end up being taken by a Republican. And in a way I just want Biden in the Senate to be a close ally and associate to the President and help Obama push through his legislative agendas.
I'm also afraid that Obama risks losing some of his "Washington outsider" credibility if he doesn't choose a governor or, say, a general. Governors and former military could not only help reinforce Obama's "change Washington" campaign theme, but could also potentially strengthen Obama's electability in terms of delivering voters from certain demographics and issue voters. Rendell, for example, could not only assist Obama with his "Appalachian Problem" by helping to deliver Pennsylvania, but also assist with unity efforts as he's been such a strong Hillary supporter. Or Wesley Clarke would surely bolster Obama's defense credentials, but he might also be able to ward off a measure of the "unpatriotic/terrorist/appeaser" type smears by defending Obama's record on such matters and also, perhaps, bringing in other key military endorsements.
So without naming a favorite candidate, I'd say that I've pretty much arrived at a point where I hope Obama does not choose a senator as his running mate. Not only is there more to lose there, but it seems to me that there is just as much if not more to gain elsewhere.
What do you think?
Comments (9)
I'll probably change my mind again, but as of now I think John Edwards will be the Vice-presidential candidate. He polls really well when on the ticket with Obama, has been vetted by the Rove machine in 2004. Furthermore he is a known National entity, which will be a huge advantage over the lesser known VP candidates because Obama isn't well known himself and trying to introduce two candidates will be too much.
He probably won't help in his home state, because he is seen there as a national political rather than a Carolina politician. However his populous anti-poverty politics is what Hillary tried to copy later in her campaign, and made her gains with it.
He can give a helluva speech as well and has debated Cheney in 2004.
One HUGE drawback is his support of the Iraq war vote and then reaffirming his support on the campaign trail in 2004 when Kerry and Edwards had to show their war toughness when the Bush campaign was not to change horses mid-stream. He has since came out against it, however it will be an obvious attack issue. In coming out against it he was against the surge and has been for withholding funding - again both attack points.
June 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a governor would be the best choice. For one thing, generally speaking, former military people don't make the best politicians. Obama's biggest weakness in the executive expreience area anyway (it's McCain's problem as well).
I supported Edwards until he dropped out, but I don't think adding another Laywer-turned-Senator to the ticket really adds much.
My idea? I think Obama should reach across the aisle on this one. I'd pick a moderate pro-choice Republican with executive experience and experience in Washington. A woman with those attributes would be even better.
Christine Todd Whitman anyone?
June 15, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm leaning toward Clark. No reaching across the aisle. That would mean a gop president if something happened to Obama.
June 15, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there's no reaching across the aisle, then I'd go with Bill Richardson.
Apparently there's been talk on the Republican side that McCain should consider Whitman. That choice would be great for Obama, and a disaster for McCain.
June 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there's no reaching across the aisle, then I'd go with Bill Richardson.
Apparently there's been talk on the Republican side that McCain should consider Whitman. That choice would be great for Obama, and a disaster for McCain.
June 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mean to be contrary, but I think that Wes Clark is the best choice.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/wes-clark-is-barack-obamas-bes.php
I don't think it will be John Edwards, but Mrs. Edwards will have a bigger role as we go forward.
June 15, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope it's not Edwards. You mention his debate with Cheney - that was really sad!
I think he proved that he's not in his element in the no 2 sot: he didn't work *with* Kerry - the latter's slogan was `Hope is on the way` and Edwards refused to go along with it and kept saying `Help is on the way`
A major theme of Obama's is the aspirational `one America`: it's in stark contrast with Edward's reality theme of `two Americas`. I think Edwards is too strident for Obama. Would be terrific for A-G.
I guess it gets down to whether Obama's private polling shows Edwards could bring him Ohio. But if he couldn't swing it for Kerry, why would he be able to do it for Obama? Maybe also whether Obama's own experience of Edwards gives him the sense of him being a difficult customer to work with: the man has his own agenda and it's different from Obama's, don't you think?
(Unless you can show that he's only a class warfare warrior during campaigns and veers sharply to the right once the campaigns are over.)
June 15, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm feeling torn right now, as some of the candidates who I think could be strongest (Biden, Webb and, although she wouldn't be my personal preference, Clinton) are senators.
Biden and Webb are both huge NO's, and not simply because they're Senators. Biden is never going to happen anyway. He's really not on the shortlist as far as I know, and he's removed himself from the running anyway. He'd be much better in Obama's cabinet.
Webb, as you rightly point out, would probably lose the Dems. a seat in the Senate. We need the seats. The Republicans are afraid of losing enough seats to give the Dems. a 60-seat majority. Let's keep it that way. But I find, because of his past, he's more of a liability to the ticket than he is a benefit.
Clinton is better kept in the Senate. Especially after this race, she's going to be integral in shaping the legislation of the Obama administration, as I see it, and also getting the legislation passed. She's in a much better place being left in the Senate, and not simply because of her seat. If she were to retire her seat in order to run, I don't have doubts that a Democrat would be able to win.
June 15, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards and Kerry didn't like each other, I think Edwards is much closer to Obama politically. I just think he has the name value and is the known entity nationally. You pick Sebelius, Schweitzer, Clark and you basically have to introduce them to the electorate as well. I don't think Obama can afford to have two unknown entities on the ticket.
June 16, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment