By now, you have probably seen the poll showing that while Clinton supporters want a Clinton-Obama ticket, Obama supporters do not want an Obama-Clinton ticket. Gallup:
Only 42% of Democrats nationwide want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic vice presidential nominee if Barack Obama wins the presidential nomination, while 55% think he should pick someone else. By contrast, the majority of Democrats -- 58% -- would like to see Obama nominated as vice president if Clinton heads the ticket.
The reason for the disparity is that a relatively small number of Obama supporters -- just 29% --favor Obama choosing Clinton as a possible running mate. Seventy percent say they'd rather he choose someone else. In contrast, a majority of Clinton supporters -- 53% -- would want Clinton to choose Obama for vice president if she is nominated.
Similar percentages (a majority of both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters) say they would want their own candidate selected for vice president should the other candidate win the Democratic nomination for president.
The reason for this, I think, is quite simple, and relates to my longstanding argument that the Democratic nominee should choose a "reinforcing" choice for vice-president, rather than a "balancing" choice. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly floated the idea of Obama being her Vice-President, and as such her supporters are following her lead in thinking he would be a good choice. By the same token, Obama has never floated Clinton as his Vice-President, and has even repudiated the idea of a "dream ticket" on multiple occasions. As such, his supporters are following his lead, and looking elsewhere for a a possible VP choice.
Presidential nominees really are leaders, no matter what we hyper-engaged activists might think of them. When many people support a candidate, they also tend to support many subsequent arguments that candidate comes to make, including who would make a good Vice-President. This is one of the reasons why it is essential that the Democratic nominee chooses a Vice-President who makes sense according to the broad campaign arguments that candidate used to win the nomination. If you are running on experience, then choose a nominee who fits that profile. If you are running on change, early opposition to the Iraq war, and national unity, then choose a Vice-President who embodies those qualities. If your supporters are going to follow your arguments, amek sure that those arguments make sense.
Which Democrats makes sense as Vice-President according to the arguments that Barack Obama has put forth during this campaign? While here are many factors to consider, the most important ones are to pick someone who opposed the war from the start, someone who has an aurora of "change" about him or her, and someone who has a bi-partisan track record. Here are the strongest possibilities I can think of:
Brian Schweitzer, MT-Gov: Among the disappointing small number of Governors, Senators, and members of the House leadership who opposed the war from the start, Schweitzer really sticks out as having the most change and unity cred. This is a man who talks of needing a shower after spending too much time in D.C., and who picked a Republican as his Lt. Governor. He also has both progressive movement backing and appeal to the old Perot style voter. I have no idea what his relationship with Obama is, but he certainly makes a lot of sense given the Obama campaign message thus far.
Jim Webb, VA-Sen: Jim Webb fits the anti-war and bi-parisan criteria pretty well. As a 60-something white dude from Virginia, the "change" cred it lacking a bit, to say the least. Another huge mark against Webb is that he just isn't the most energetic campaigner. I was talking to someone very familiar with Web's 2006 Senate campaign the other day, and he said that the idea of Webb as VP was pretty laughable given Webb's campaigning style. A lot of people like this pick on a structural level, but on a personal level Webb himself doesn't make much sense as a Vice-President.
Sherrod Brown, OH-Sen: Sherrod Brown remains one of my three personal favorite picks (Pelosi and Feingold are the others), given that he would help win Ohio, provide an economic populism necessary in an election such as this, and that he would give a progressive face to the future of the party. His bi-partisan and "change" image are less clear than either Webb's or Schweitzer's, however.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House: Pelosi has the anti-war and "change" cred, but probably not so much "bi-partisan" cred. Obama picking Pelosi makes sense as a May or June early announcement, since it would pretty much lock down the nomination for Obama. Otherwise, this would actually be a big step down for Pelosi, given that she is too old to run for President in eight years. Also, do we really want Steny Hoyer as Speaker? I think not. Still, she does make sense as a way to bring the nomination campaign to an end.
Kathleen Sebelius, KS-Gov: I have no idea where Sebelius was on the Iraq war before it started, but she does have strong change and bi-partisan cred. On the bi-partisan front, she convinced numerous Republicans to actually switch parties, and has worked with a Republican legislature during her six years as Governor. If she was against the war, and if she could improve her campaign style, she might make sense.
Russ Feingold: Feingold is an interesting pick, because even though he has been in D.C. for a while and even though he is thought of as the ultimate progressive fighter in the Senate, he actually has real bi-partisan (McCain-Feingold, Patriot Act reform, good government proposals) and change ("outisder") cred. Also, I would love for Feingold to be VP, and Pelosi to be Speaker. I triple dog dare Republicans to try and impeach President Obama in that circumstance, what with their two worst nightmeres as second and third in line, respectively. Also, no one in the Senate has more anti-war cred than Feingold.
Those are the choices that seem to make the most sense right now, even if they make sense in different ways. Maybe I am just dreaming by throwing Feingold in there, since there is no one in the country who I would rather see as President. But hey, he does fit the Obama campaign argument, he comes from a swing state, and he has endorsed Obama already. Obama-Feingold 2008?
STATE BLOGS
