Future President Barack Obama (FPBO) has formed a Vice Presidential search committee, headed by Jim Johnson, who also preformed the same task for John Kerry in 2004.
Because there is so much of the unknown involved here, the pundits and blogs are going to have plenty to speculate over during the next two months. Voters thirst for change, Obama as the first mixed-race candidate, McCain as the oldest...who knows where this will go. And it's the first time since 1988 that BOTH parties are selecting running mates at the same time! Merry Christmas you pundits!
Because John Edwards was no more able to save John Kerry's ticket in 2004 than Dan Quayle was to potentially sinking the first George Bush ticket in 1988, the addition of a running mate should be seen as less of a reflection of electoral advantage and more so a reflection of the presidential candidate.
Historically, successful presidential candidates usually pick runningmates who suit the way they will govern. George W. Bush selected Cheney, indicating that the President would heavily rely on the counsel of others. Bill Clinton selected Al Gore indicating he was looking for a fully invested partner.
Politico has an excellent piece on the politics of picking a mate which espouses similar sentiments.
Both selections went against conventional wisdom: Clinton and Gore paired a young Southerner with...another young Southerner. Bush and Cheney saw two men from Texas, one who had to re-establish his Wyoming residency in order to be eligible to run. (Dick Cheney was living in Texas and the constitution bars a President and Vice President serving from the same state - this should have been the first clue of the "flexible terms" in which they would view the constitution for the next eight years).
* * *
Having that primer, let's put all of the math aside and see if we can get into the mind of FPBO and figure out where his leanings might be. Chances are, it may be a choice out of nowhere!
FPBO probably prefers someone likely want someone whom offers reliable counsel, has Washington credibility is easy to work with on the campaign trail and most of all...who can be President. And though he represents a brand of change, FPBO might perfer a mate who is less likely to lead an Obama-esque revolution and more likely to follow marching orders. Add to that, Obama's strongest Washington ties are in the US Senate. Hmm...
And awaaaaaay we go...
Chris Dodd, Connecticut. Sitting senator who also a primary opponent this season, he was the first to endorse FPBO. Has an expertise in financial markets and is former Chair of the Democratic National Committee. And he offers two things that help in Western states: Dodd is fluent in Spanish and his wife is Mormon - two things that come in handy in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico.
Tom Harkin, Iowa. Once a presidential contender himself, he's been around Washington as a Congressman and Senator from more than 30 years. Has an expertise in rural issues, was an early supporter of FPBO prior to the Iowa caucuses and he is a grandfatherly type figure who people can probably easily envision assuming the office of President. He is rural, and he is Catholic - both which are two important constituencies this year.
George Mitchell, Maine. Former Federal Judge, Ambassador and Senate Majority Leader. Is respected around Washington and is known as a bi-partisan bridge-builder.
Harry Reid, Nevada. Current Senate Majority Leader from the swing state of Nevada, and has experience at the state level. Also a Mormon.
Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia. Current Senator, former Governor, and endorser of FPBO. Offers a lifetime of political experience and has served in Washington for more than 20 years. Currently age 70, he has never voiced ambitions to run for President.
Seems to me that Obama's ideal VP would meet all of the following characteristics:
1. Someone who BO trusts and likes.
2. Someone who meshes well with BO's message of change.
3. Someone who has the gravitas to take over as President.
4. Someone who assists in demographic groups where BO is seen as weak (e.g., Latinos, blue-collar whites, seniors).
5. Someone who assists in the electoral map in areas where BO is seen as weak (e.g., Appalachia, Ohio, Florida, etc.).
6. Someone who won't alienate Clinton's supporters.
7. Someone who is good on the stump, but not good enough to outshine BO.
8. Someone who brings military experience.
I doubt that there exists anyone who meets all of these characteristics. Long-serving Senators (such as Dodd or Harkin), for instance, bring gravitas but might not be plausibly seen as 'change' agents. Sebelius meshes with BO's message, but it might anger some Clinton supporters if BO picked a 'substitute' woman on the ticket. Wes Clark has the military cred but not much else.
In the end, I think, BO should pick someone who he'll look (and be) comfortable with on the trail, who can serve as a trusted advisor, and who can stay on message. I don't know who that will be, however.
Posted by: Dan_in_upstate_NY | June 06, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Dan
"Sebelius meshes with BO's message, but it might anger some Clinton supporters if BO picked a 'substitute' woman on the ticket."
I just diputed that very question Gregory on the "Why did Clinton loose" thread.
I don't doubt you are right but I question how many who will be offended by a "substitute" and yet will vote for Obama if he picks a man.
I think Obama has to accept that some of these women will never be won over, and hope that there are not too many.
For those that can he could choose Hillary but there are reasons why he may not (ones that I personaly agree with). Failing that I think some might treat a female VP as a fair compromise, with the caviat that it must not be a "token woman" to be ignored once the election is over.
Sebelius is far from token. I believe women will concider their interests safe in her hands.
Alternativly he could choose a slightly younger woman with the aim of grooming her for the next Presidency. Hillary was their first chance, but does she have to be their last?
Posted by: Blame | June 06, 2008 at 01:34 PM
Dan's criteria seem very sensible. It's not clear to me how nos. 1, 2, and 4 would affect this choice, but I'm currently stumping--non-dogmatically--for Wes Clarke. Clarke's not perfect--he's certainly taken positions with which I disagree strongly--but he's liberal enough to have been endorsed by George McGovern in 2004, while also tough and credible enough that even Hannity and O'Reilly don't treat him with the contempt they spew at other liberals. He's brilliant, confident, and seemingly very personable. And he's a white Southerner--something likely to help Obama in a number of settings.
Bill Richardson looks good. So does Ed Rendell. Maybe even Mike Bloomberg. There certainly are other credible candidates. But I think Clark (who as a Clinton friend could also help to mend some fences with HRC's campaign) would be an especially strong choice.
Posted by: Gary Chartier | June 08, 2008 at 08:48 AM
I don't agree with Dan and others that Barack Obama needs to get along with the vice president. Vice presidents have as much or as little power as the president wants to grant them. If he feels like he made the wrong choice, he simply takes power away from the veep. Also, I keep hearing in the media, presumably fed from the Obama campaign if they are getting ready to not pick Clinton, that the key reason (beyond preparedness) is "Is Obama comfortable with that person? Do they get along?" Examining the last 40 years of veep picks, I don't see good buddies. Edwards and Kerry weren't close, and before he was picked and by the end of the campaign, Kerry had grown annoyed with Edwards (see Bob Shrum's book). Other choices that were obviously not good friends, but involved a key political calculus: Gore and Lieberman were not best friend, but Gore wanted Jewish voters in Florida and to break with Bill Clinton. Gore and Clinton weren't friends, but became and then fell out of being friends. Dukakis and Bentsen couldn't have been more different, and had not personal connection. Johnson and Kennedy obviously couldn't even stand one another. I think the decision will be made for political reasons. On Dan's list, Hillary Clinton easily fits # 2-7.
Posted by: Regina | June 10, 2008 at 06:46 AM
Regina: "Vice presidents have as much or as little power as the president wants to grant them. If he feels like he made the wrong choice, he simply takes power away from the veep."
So you are saying that you want Hillary to be VP, and if she ends up marginalized that's fine? Seems an odd argument for a Clinton supporter. She'd have more power and freedom in the Senate.
Posted by: suekzoo | June 10, 2008 at 09:40 AM
Regina: Weren't all of those losing tickets, except for Clinton/Gore? :/
Posted by: Joe | June 10, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I'm not saying it is fine if she is marginalized. I'm saying she'd be the best person to pick as VP, and since Obama won the prez. nomination (and if he wins the whole thing in the general), it is his right to see how much or little power the VP gets. It would be marginalizing Obama to suggest otherwise. But my point is that veeps don't need to be--nor rarely are--good buddies. They need to bring something to the ticket and be ready to serve as president. That's about it.
Posted by: Regina | June 10, 2008 at 10:11 AM
So I just read on The Page that Kent Conrad (D-ND) has been consulted by the Obama campaign regarding a list of possible VP names to see what Sen. Conrad thinks of the list. He said a lot of them on the list are military generals.
Why does Kent Conrad get to have a say in the veep selection but Hillary Clinton doesn't? I though this was supposed to be "Obama's choice and his alone" according to the Obama campaign spin? If Conrad is being consulted, I am not going to bow to pressure to let Obama get to choose. They are clearly asking around. If that is the case, we can exert pressure to get Clinton as veep since it obviously isn't Obama's choice alone.
If Sen. Conrad, with all due respect, gets a voice in the veep selection process, I certainly hope Hillary Clinton and her supporters have a voice. I think Sen. Conrad represents about 400k people total, and about 75k of them are Democrats. Those numbers are a lot smaller than 18 million voters.
Posted by: Regina | June 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Regina, we had a voice. It is just being ignored.
I've been hearing a lot of military VP and I just can't believe it. I'm watching Obama being called an economic illiterate on MSNBC no less. I would have to agree with this statement from what I’ve been able to piece together. The one thing that shows promise is “Making Work Pay” but it seems nobody really knows any detail about this. Mr.Super, what did the Obama campaign give you so that you could understand what could possibly be the center piece of his economic platform? I asked but I’m just a lowly single voter that gets the stock answer I can get from the ambiguous Blueprint for Change. You were 10,000 guaranteed votes so I’m sure they gave you any detail you requested.
Neither candidate gives me great hope on handling the economy, but I’ve been able to hold onto some things from McCain. I highly doubt they were his ideas, but McCain taking economic advice is better than taking no advice at all.
Posted by: Truth | June 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM
> Why does Kent Conrad get to have a say in the veep selection but Hillary Clinton doesn't?
I thought that was what Obama talked with Hillary about in that secret meeting? I know it was secret, but what else were they going to talk about, realistically?
I think we all know that they wanted to work out a deal on how best to cooperate. If Hillary wants the VP job even one tiny bit, that had to have been one of the things they talked about. So I have to believe she was consulted about that, because it doesn't make sense to suppose that she wouldn't raise that issue during a private meeting like that if she cared to.
Posted by: Joe | June 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM