« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
VP: Let the Delegates Decide
Yglesias (I like the idea that he's now just a one-namer, as his new banner on Think Progress implies) has a good idea: throw the choice of Obama's running mate to the convention delegates. While he might get a regional bump by picking a southerner, or a state-wide bump by picking a hoosier, or a demographic bump by picking a woman, he'll get a party-wide and nation-wide coverage bump by turning the convention into an excercise in intra-party democracy.
Furthermore, it answers the question of what the Vice President really is. S/he is not a National Security Advisor, as those who would recommend Biden seem to think. Nor is s/he a regional campaign chair. What is fairly constant, and where Cheney is truly the exception, is that the Vice President is the default heir to the Presidential nomination, so long as the ticket is successful. In other words, the running mate should be decided not based on who shores up the candidate's policy, demographic, or regional vulnerabilities, but on who will be a good choice for the nomination eight years from now, after President Obama is term-limited out of office.
All that said, I still don't know who that person is, which is another bonus of having convention delegates make the selection: they're much more aware of the promising executive talent within the party's ranks than the lay public in the absence of a candidate-centered VP campaign (unfortunately, this would mean that any prospects would have to have been vetted in advance). Where Obama can factor into this equation is as a persuasive advocate for the process of party building, not for any particular candidate or faction. This would also play will into the narrative that he is just a symbol of a re-awakening American political culture, adding to it the notion that the caretaker of this culture is the Democratic party.
Comments (10)
Don't fool yourself - Sen. Clinton would surely win. I'm not saying that it right or wrong, but the deck would be heavily stacked in her favor given the amount of delegates she has there.
August 20, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think YGLESIUS was joking. Saying that Obama could "pull an Adlai Stevenson" is the tip-off. Plus, it would be just too stupid. The delegates wouldn't be making the decision based on who would help the ticket most. It would be nothing more than a test of who has the most clout among party insiders. The result could be terrible, maybe even sticking Obama with a running mate who hasn't been through the vetting process and who has previously endorsed McCain.
August 20, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he was joking. Just envocing Stevenson is really too subtle even for his sense of humor (and Stevenson's loss to one of the most uncontroversial and durably popular Presidents can hardly be attributed to his pick of running-mate). And I wasn't presuming that they would vote to help the ticket: quite the opposite. Voting to help the ticket rarely, well, helps the ticket in any measurable way (yes, Kennedy-Johnson might be the best counter). I was saying they should vote for Obama's successor. And there are too many delegates to make it a simple test of clout. It indicates whose supporters could build a successful strategic coalition. And I've already noted that the winner would have to have been vetted previously. And you're on some serious crack if you think the party's faithful would nominate a McCain endorser. But in the spirit of keeping an open mind, I'd be perfectly happy with adding a stipulation that Obama would have veto authority in exchange for opening the selection to the delegates.
August 20, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary endorsed McCain. The GOP is running video clips of that endorsement in its ads right now. Maybe they can play those clips just before Lieberman speaks at the GOP convention.
As far as anyone knows Hillary hasn't been through Obama's veep-vetting process.
Veto authority? Yeah, letting the delegates pick someone only to have Obama veto the choice would go over really well.
August 20, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any doubt who the people of the Democratic Party would vote for? Is there any doubt who their elected representatives, the delegates, would vote for? Only people who fear democratic outcomes would oppose this measure.
August 20, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
To all those who say Clinton would win (assuming she wants the job): fine, great, excellent. She was my second choice for the nomination anyway. And her supporters would have satisfaction not only that she was on the ticket, but that they made it happen.
August 20, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is the quickest way to blow up the party.
Clinton's supporters would demand it be her, and Obama's supporters would demand it NOT be her.
Not exactly the exercise in party unity we want the convention to be...
bad idea...
August 20, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, it answers the question of what the Vice President really is. S/he is not a National Security Advisor, as those who would recommend Biden seem to think. Nor is s/he a regional campaign chair. What is fairly constant, and where Cheney is truly the exception, is that the Vice President is the default heir to the Presidential nomination, so long as the ticket is successful. In other words, the running mate should be decided not based on who shores up the candidate's policy, demographic, or regional vulnerabilities, but on who will be a good choice for the nomination eight years from now, after President Obama is term-limited out of office.
And to me that is exactly where your argument fails. Here, in my view, is why:
1. Who would be a good choice 8 years from presumes we can see what state the country will be in 8 years from now.
2. If your person is a good choice for the nomination -- albeit 8 years from now -- that is a political choice, not a governing choice. It is no different that choosing someone today to shore up the ticket.
3. If you are choosing for 8 years from now, the person you choose should not be older than the today's nominee. Why? All of us will be 8 years older. While Hillary might look great to you today -- 8 years from now when she's 70, would she or any other 70 year old be fully equipped mentally and physically for not just the grueling run to the presidency, but four or 8 years of governing in a 24 hour a day job?
4. Cheney stated from almost the outset that he had no intentions of ever running for President in succession to Bush #43.
5. And as we saw from Gore, Mondale, even Quayle, there is no guarantee that your heir apparent will win election in his or her own right.
Obama needs to choose someone that he can GOVERN with. And most importantly, the choice is OBAMA'S.
August 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the choice is a combination of Obama's and whoever we force down his throat. We live in a democracy, not an autocracy. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the party nominee gets to choose, and AFAIK there's nothing in the party by-laws either. If you want your candidate to make stupid moves without your consent or input, that's your choice, but it's not mine. When we have a fucking king, I'll lay low and let him tap whoever he deigns.
August 20, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point by point:
1. Who would be a good choice 8 years from presumes we can see what state the country will be in 8 years from now.
If the country is in worse shape, then it won't matter so much who the Democratic nominee is (and likely won't be an executive incumbent). If it's in better shape, it will be in the next nominee's greater interest to promise continuity with Obama's administration, which will be easier to do as the VP.
2. If your person is a good choice for the nomination -- albeit 8 years from now -- that is a political choice, not a governing choice. It is no different that choosing someone today to shore up the ticket.
Not all categorical choices are alike. Choosing a prospective nominee means giving someone executive experience and (as you would prefer) a hand in crafting and administering policy. Choosing an electoral counterpoint is simply a short-term political consideration, one that might come back to bight one in the behind.
3. If you are choosing for 8 years from now, the person you choose should not be older than the today's nominee. Why? All of us will be 8 years older. While Hillary might look great to you today -- 8 years from now when she's 70, would she or any other 70 year old be fully equipped mentally and physically for not just the grueling run to the presidency, but four or 8 years of governing in a 24 hour a day job?
That's just a constraint on the potential picks, not an argument against the idea. Unless you're only talking about Clinton, in which case you would have to look into her thinking: if she ever wants to be President, and if she'll be too old in eight years, then she needs Obama to lose, and she would do better if he were to lose without her on the ticket.
4. Cheney stated from almost the outset that he had no intentions of ever running for President in succession to Bush #43.
And he's overwhelmingly the exception.
5. And as we saw from Gore, Mondale, even Quayle, there is no guarantee that your heir apparent will win election in his or her own right.
First of all, Quayle was never the Republican nominee for President. Second of all, I don't get why this is an argument against the idea. Gore was supposed co-governing choice (as you would prefer), and Mondale lost in a landslide that virtually no Democratic candidate could have overcome.
Finally, the President governs with the cabinet, which is why it's appropriate that s/he has the sole power to nominate for those offices. The Vice President is only as empowered as the President wishes (beyond tie-breaking the Senate). If Obama picks a running-mate and assigns a substantial governing portfolio during the campaign, he will essentially be saying that he lacks the skills and talents to assume the office on his own.
August 20, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment