An I-71 Candidate for VP

by: David Sirota

Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 15:39


So John McCain is potentially doing a VP rollout in Ohio, according to ABC News. In light of this, I have a question: Can someone - anyone - please explain to me why no one in Obama's campaign, in the media, in the progressive infrastructure sphere, in the labor movement or even on lefty blogs, is pushing Sherrod Brown for VP in any real way? Seems to me, if you want to win the presidency as a Democrat, its a pretty sound strategy to simply put Brown on the ticket and tell him to spend the entire campaign simply doing events up and down Ohio's I-71 corridor.

I mean, is this really all that difficult? Please, someone - anyone - tell me how a gaffe-prone, Iraq War-supporting, bankruptcy-bill-voting senator from Delaware, or a warmongering DLC corpse from Indiana is a better pick than an economic populist with 3 decades of government experience (including 16 years in Congress, many on the House International Relations Committee) who has a proven ability to crush Republicans in Ohio, the most politically important state in the nation?

Can someone please answer this question? Anyone? Bueller?...  

David Sirota :: An I-71 Candidate for VP

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
An I-71 Candidate for VP | 55 comments
Never know (0.00 / 0)
Maybe he is. Team Obama likes surprises.
You, my friend, suffer from (4.00 / 8)
the audacity of hope.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Two new Senators... (0.00 / 0)
This is probably the biggest reason.  Obama's potentially biggest hurdle is his inexperience.  Put another new Senator on there (even newer than Obama) and that could exacerbate things.

Btw, who on McCain's supposed "short list" is from OH?

He was in the House for 14 years (4.00 / 6)
He's not new.
[ Parent ]
Sec'y of State (4.00 / 4)
He also served multiple terms as Ohio Sec'y of State, prior to which he was a State Rep.  
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
but who outside of Ohio knows his name?

[ Parent ]
Not too many. (4.00 / 2)
But I guess the point is that if he could nail down Ohio and maybe a surrounding state or two, he wouldn't have to be a national name.

(Frankly, though, I think this is the year for a populist message and he could deliver it more convincingly than Obama.)

[ Parent ]
Not to mention that he'd be fantastic at attacking McCain (0.00 / 0)
I am really baffled that no one is talking about him.  
[ Parent ]
New SENATOR... (4.00 / 1)
He was a House rep for 14 years and a SENATOR for (almost) 2 now.  As a House rep, he had basically no national standing.  As a Senator, he now has some, but since he's been there less than 2 years, not very much.

He would very much be considered a "new" face if he were the pick.

[ Parent ]
Tim Kaine, Kathleen Sebelius (4.00 / 1)
Have what national profile outside of Obama's coattails?

Just saying that national profile doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for short list consideration.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
Governors... (0.00 / 0)
Bigger deal.
[ Parent ]
Kansas (0.00 / 0)
Smaller deal.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
So what? .. (4.00 / 1)
Brown was in the House for a bit before he came to the Senate .. and he served as Ohio SoS as well.
[ Parent ]
Rob Portman (0.00 / 0)
Former Rep and Budget Director.  That is the Ohio guy for McCain.

Unless it's Bob Ney.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
He would be my choice (4.00 / 4)
For all the reasons listed in your post and more.

Populism is smart politics besides being smart policy, but judging from the way Obama's run his campagin, I don't think there's the slightest chance of it happening.

Brown a bit too far left (4.00 / 4)
Obama is not a progressive, and Brown supports populist anti-NAFTA, anti-corporate stances that are anathema to Obama's freakonomic brains trust, Goolsbee, Blinder, David Cutler, et al.

Stephen Marglin gave an interesting talk at the New School where he points out that despite the radical potential of the "new social economics," it's practitioners have been far more eager to argue for its compatibility with classical microeconomics.

But of course your right, both in terms of ideal policy and practical politics: Brown is a slam dunk.  He's won statewide for state and federal office, served multiple terms in the house, won on a consistently populist platform (unchanged throughout his career) in a supposed deep-red state.  

Evidently post partisanship is a euphemism for more DLC spinelessness, however: truly pathetic.  

"deep-red state"? (4.00 / 1)
Ohio's a swing state, is it not?

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
"supposed" (0.00 / 0)
Up until 2006, Ohio had a Republican Gov, SoS, AG, Auditor, House, Senate and had voted for Bush in 2000 in 2004.  In terms of the 2006 election, Brown was a true populist running in a deep red state.  
[ Parent ]
Alabama is a deep red state (4.00 / 1)
Ohio is not. Until 1998, New York had a Republican Governor, SoS, AG, Senator and nearly half of the state's representatives, including a majority outside NYC, were Republican

Until 2002, New Jersey had a Republican Governor, a Republican legislature and Republican majority of Representatives in Congress

Neither were deep red or even swing states back then.  

[ Parent ]
Two Dem Senators in NJ (0.00 / 0)
How relevant would the description deep-red be if only states like Alabama could fulfill it?  

Again Ohio's gov't was Republican from top to bottom and had been so for a number of years, a useful definition of deep-red for me.  By what specific criteria do you define deep red?

Also, the adjective "supposed" is not without force here; it is to suggest a persistent Republican powerbase that is perceived - incorrectly - as insurmountable.  

[ Parent ]
Deep red (0.00 / 0)
is a state where Democrats are barely, if at all, competitive statewide

Like Alabama, Utah, Alaska(until now), Idaho,

Wyoming has a Democratic Governor, that's not deep red like Ohio apparently is?

Despite Republican dominance, Democrats were still competitive statewide in Ohio, they just didn't win.

[ Parent ]
Not until 2006 (0.00 / 0)
Who are these Ohio competitive Dems that you're alluding to?  From 1996 until 2006, a not insignificant stretch of time, Democrats were unelectable statewide in Ohio.  The Republican party held the state's politics in a vice - no bill from a minority party was introduced in the state legislature for nearly a decade.  

Alaska is this year's Ohio, a Republican controlled state whose one party politics bit its electorate in the ass, which goes to my larger point.  Categories like "deep-red" are dangerous in that they lead people to all sorts of erroneous conclusions, e.g., Schumer's belief in the necessity of the Patriot Act.  Effective movements and good campaigns can change a lot of perceptions.  

My point was to challenge the validity of the category.  Indeed, by your definition, "a state where Democrats are barely, if at all, competitive statewide," Ohio was a deep-red state through a number of election cycles.  We can change what is seen as competitive, but not using strategies like we've seen from the Obama campaign.  

[ Parent ]
Deep Red (0.00 / 0)
Implies Republicans get like 60%-70% of the vote. That didn't happen in Ohio. Democrats like Mary Boyle and Lee Fisher were about to run competitive, albeit losing, campaigns and Al Gore and John Kerry were competitive. Democrats just didn't make a play for Ohio, but the voters were there.  
[ Parent ]
this is the last I'll say about it (0.00 / 0)
Boyle was the lone candidate to run somewhat competitively statewide in Ohio during the 2002 election and lost by 200K votes out of 3mil cast.  Not exactly a squeaker.  Repubs won the auditor and AG by over 2 to 1 margins.  

While Fisher nearly won in 1998, other Dems on the ticket got trounced.  I guess my notion of deep-red relates to real power as expressed through the ability to implement policy, and no objective observer can deny the Republican domination of Ohio state politics from the mid 90s until 2006.

Again, the point was to call designations like "deep-red" into question as not useful;, but insofar as they are, Ohio politics over the period I've described were as deep red as anyone's.    

[ Parent ]
Only you (0.00 / 0)
seem to think Ohio has been considered a deep red state in the remotely recent past.

By your logic, Montana is a deep blue state.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
I'll live with that (0.00 / 0)
...and conclude from this discussion that categories like "deep red" and "deep blue" tell us very little about the relationship between political power and local, state and national party politics.
[ Parent ]
Ditto. Well said! (0.00 / 0)


I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November
[ Parent ]
Arrogant Jerk (4.00 / 4)
Ezra makes a good case for Biden.

He's serenely self confident in his own national security credentials, and never seems surprised to hear himself attacking Republicans on the issue. He radiates comfort with the issue, rather than simply asserting it. The press corps is used to him as a foreign policy voice, and trusts his experience. And, most importantly, he's an arrogant jerk. That's led him to adopt precisely the right attitude of contempt and disbelief at Republicans who seek to dominate the foreign policy arena in this country. And that may make him exactly the right voice for Democrats who want to drive a few more nails into the coffin of the GOP's reputation.

As long as Biden can properly promote Obama, other than himself, he should be great.  Heck, even that might not matter as long as he just knocks down McCain.

Small correction... (4.00 / 1)
"As long as Biden can properly promote Obama, other than himself, he should be great."

That should be "As long as Biden can properly promote Obama AND demonize McCain, he should be great."

[ Parent ]
Yes, Sherrod Brown would be a great VP pick (4.00 / 7)
Obama has so diluted and triangulated his core message over the past three months that I have no idea what he really stands for.

Picking Sherrod Brown would send out the message that Obama does have a message and that he is taking a stand as a progressive, instead of a bland centrist trying to be all things to the centrist voting blocs he thinks he has to pander to.

For the elites (4.00 / 1)
the answer is that elite bargaining takes place in the media (superficially) in terms of electoral politics, when its really about the relative power of different elite factions.  All that talk about winning over voters has nothing to do with winning over voters, which is why Bayh can be considered a known quantity, and safe.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
"Can someone please answer this question?" (4.00 / 2)
Because in our system the Democrats are the functional equivalent of the Washington Generals.

miasmo.com
I owe a lot to Sherrod (4.00 / 4)
He's the one that got me interested in politics. No politician before him ever got me excited enough, but his anti-NAFTA and pro-people rhetoric motivated me. I'm now an elected leader in the party.

I see no reason for him not to be. Sherrod Brown was the most pro-gay rights candidate Ohio has elected statewide, just two years after the gay marriage ban owned the ballot. Very pro-choice in a state where showing enlarged pictures of miscarriages and passing them off as abortions helped gain Bush thousands of votes.

How did he win? Brown framed the election to the economic issues. Isn't that what this election is about?

Grr: I told you so (4.00 / 2)
Oh goodie, an opportunity to vent/brag:

I suggested here months ago that we get behind a petition to name a slate (i.e., 3-4) of progressive candidates as a potential VP, and I specifically suggested Brown be included.  I still think this would have been a reasonable approach, but no one bit.

Anyway, it's not hard to understand the conventional wisdom against Brown: too liberal, too inexperienced. But I think the conventional wisdom is flatly wrong.  He's a populist and would underscore Obama's strengths.

Moreover, one pet peeve I have is the idea that the VP selection is the only way for Obama to overcome his perceived problem of being inexperienced.  There are other ways to address this, such as: naming specific people he would appoint to his cabinet, holding high-profile forums, etc..

Obama is having trouble with (4.00 / 1)
the white working-class in Michigan.  I see it at the door and so do others.  Brown is the best choice remaining.

West Michigan Rising: Progressives On the West-End of the Third Coast
[ Parent ]
What is their problem specifically? (0.00 / 0)
My brother started canvassing and working for Obama in Virginia this week. He told me on his first day, the problem he saw with white working class there was his race, experience, and "hatred of Bill and Hillary"

I don't see how Brown helps with that. Maybe it's different in Michigan.  

[ Parent ]
There's actually a good answer to David's question (0.00 / 0)
I, too, was initially pretty high on Sherrod Brown for VP. But I think there's a good reason why he hasn't been short-listed, which you can find here:
http://www.below-the-fold.com/...

I like Sherrod a lot but he should stay put in the senate. He apparently has some personal issues which would make him too much of a risk on the ticket.

Who is Brien Jackson? .. (0.00 / 0)
and if he is a liberal(which I question) .. he says he worked for DeWine's re-election .. so I don't know that I trust him that much ... he says he has an axe to grind against Brown
[ Parent ]
messy divorce (0.00 / 0)
Brown's ex-wife unleashed a fusillade of false allegations against Brown during their 1987 divorce proceedings.  If this tripe is really "too hot to handle," why didn't DeWine bring it up amid all the other false allegations he leveled at Brown?

Do you think that the linked commentator's DeWine affiliation has anything to do with his animus towards Brown?  

[ Parent ]
Brien Jackson (0.00 / 0)
Brien Jackson is a blogger whom I've had some contacts with. Yes, he worked for DeWine and is no fan of Sherrod Brown, but he's upfront about that. Based on my contacts with him, I think he's a credible source.

Also, sad to say, post-Edwards, I tend to think that as far as these kinds of rumors go, where there's smoke, there is usually fire. And actually, in Brown's case, I've heard more details about his personal issues which I'm not going to repeat in a public forum. But suffice it to say, I think it's a genuine reason for concern.

I think Sherrod is an excellent senator, but anyone who becomes a figure on the national scene is subject to a whole new level of scrutiny, and I think the risk of choosing him would be too great. Let him stay in the senate, where he's already doing a lot of good.

At this point, I think Clark or Sebelius would be the best choices for veep. Clark doesn't appear to have a ghost of a chance, so I'm hoping for Sebelius, who apparently is still in contention.

[ Parent ]
Have you ever posted a comment here before? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
New commenter (0.00 / 0)
adamterando, as a matter of fact, no, I have not commented on this site before today. But I've been a reader of Open Left from the start. I also have my own blog, The G Spot, which you might want to check out:
http://thegspot.typepad.com/

You may disagree with what I have to say about Sherrod Brown (though I must emphasize -- I really, really like him! I think he's a very good senator, and might possibly turn out to be a great one!). But I am sincere -- I believe that he has personal issues which would make him the wrong choice for the ticket. As I argued here:
http://thegspot.typepad.com/bl...
I think among the most important qualities of the veep choice is that he or she "do no harm." And I think Brown's negatives would outweigh the positives and distract from the message.

And btw, you'll see from that older post that at first I was very enthusiastic about Brown as a VP choice. It wasn't until later when I learned some other things about him that I changed my mind. Just as I've changed my mind about Edwards :-)

[ Parent ]
Clear up Brown's "vetting problem"... (4.00 / 1)
...and enjoy a great book.  There are messy stories about his divorce out there, yes; but his ex filmed an ad for him in '06 for use if DeWine went there!  Read all about his winning campaign (including the ad,) which happens to be written by his wife, Connie Schultz, the Pulitzer Prize Winning journalist.  
http://www.amazon.com/His-Love...

And for the record, as an Ohioan, I'd be mighty upset to lose him as my senator!  I'm sure he and Ted Strickland are going to help Obama win Ohio from their current jobs!

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I'd like Brown too. (0.00 / 0)
Having an inside track on Ohio would be sweet.
Brown (0.00 / 0)
For months, I've been telling anyone who will listen that the best two picks are Clark and Brown.  Brown makes the economy front and center and would nail down Ohio and perhaps even Indiana.  
I pushed for it hard in the beginning (4.00 / 1)
But he emphatically said he would not consider being VP. So I took him at his word.  
Obama/Brown? (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure they want that particular combination of words.

Stupid, but probably true.

I Agree (0.00 / 0)
But Obama's people are scared to carry a real progressive on the ticket. Nevermind the fact that in 2006 no Democrat anywhere else in the country articulated a kitchen table economic message better than Sherrod Brown, and this is quite obviously an election where the economy will be front and center.

And, shame on the netroots for not backing the guy.

I have no idea (0.00 / 0)
why Brown and Strickland aren't at the head of the list.

I suggested as much when the latest Ohio poll came out.

you want syrup for them waffles? (0.00 / 0)
He'd probably pull out and then get back in...

On twitter: @BobBrigham
An I-71 Candidate for VP | 55 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox