The Obama vice-presidential poll has finished up, with 2,524 total votes. Bill Richardson was the top choice, even if some pro-Sebelius stuffing toward the end made it close. There seem to be four tiers, with Richardson, Sebelius, and Webb in the top tier, Feingold and Clark in the second tier, and everyone else except Pelosi in the third tier, as Pelosi occupies a fourth tier all her own.
Looking through the many discussions of vice-presidential choices that I have seen online, the debate still seems to be dominated by a "bonus" perspective. For most people, the driving criteria in the discussion appears to be figuring out what each potential candidate can add to a ticket with Obama at the helm, specifically framed in terms of shoring up perceived weaknesses Obama currently displays. Potential veeps are discussed in terms of what states they can help add that Obama cannot win on his own, what demographics they can appeal to that Obama cannot win on his own, or what characteristics they can bring to an Obama administration that he would lack on his own. Yet again, I feel the need to emphasize that this is faulty thinking, since choosing a candidate for such a reason will actually do more to point out Obama's current weaknesses than to actually shore them up. Rather than helping Obama win a state, it will instead emphasize that Obama is weak in that state. Rather than helping Obama with a given demographic, it will weaken Obama with that demographic. Rather than give Obama more credibility on a given personality or administrative characteristic, it will emphasize that he is lacking is that characteristic. As I wrote five months ago:
John Edwards was charismatic, populist and southern compared to the stiff, patrician, northeastern Kerry. Joe Lieberman was moralistic and anti-Clinton, supposedly "balancing" Al Gore's ties to Clinton scandals but instead emphasizing the Clinton scandals. Dick Cheney was experienced and accomplished, emphasizing Bush's perceived inexperience and incompetence, a problem Bush still faces. Jack Kemp was, well, I still don't get that one. Quayle was young and attractive, emphasizing Bush Sr.'s age and crust, a problem that helped to eventually undo him against Clinton. Lloyd Benson was southern and conservative, emphasizing the problems Reagan Democrats caused for Dems in the 1980's rather than helping to bridge intra-party gaps. Bush Sr. was viewed as a Republican moderate, emphasizing Reagan's perceived extremism ("voodoo economics," among others), a problem for Reagan that kept Carter in the campaign until the final two weeks. Mondale was a Midwestern populist, again emphasizing something that Carter was not.
Instead of shoring up perceived weakness in the top of the ticket, choosing a Vice-President on the basis of "balance" only seems to exacerbate those weaknesses. It makes more sense for a campaign to choose a Vice-President whose argument to become President is the same one put forth by the top of the ticket. Emphasize your strengths, not your weaknesses. Instead of publicly admitting to major flaws on your part, demonstrate comfort in your own skin, and with your rationale to become President.
More in the extended entry. |
The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the "reinforcement" argument that Obama needs to choose a running mate who strengthens his campaign argument of change, unity and judgment rather than a "balancing" candidate who helps him out on experience, turning out the base, or military hawkish-ness. Any "balance" candidate will only emphasize Obama's personal flaws, rather than shoring up any of his perceived weaknesses. That is simply a bad strategy, even if it is so deeply ingrained in the Democratic psyche that it might be impossible to remove even via a lobotomy at this point.
Now, given this, consider the "judgment" issue Obama has used as a central component of his campaign since the day he announced. The basic argument is that even though Obama has less experience in D.C., he would still make a better commander in chief because he displayed excellent judgment in opposing the Iraq war before it began. In essence, vote for Obama because opposition to the war is the sort of judgment we need from a President. However, if Obama picks a VP who supported the war before it began, why should anyone vote for him, according to his own argument? The simple answer is that he can't, because choosing a VP who supported the war before it began is a direct admission that our next president can have good judgment even if s/he screwed up on Iraq. It would create a contradiction in one of his central arguments to become president, and also throw his won judgment into question. After all, he has made it clear that those who supported the war before it began have bad judgment, and should not be President. Further, it wouldn't just wipe away Obama's advantage on judgment, it would actually create a judgment problem for him, since he just contradicted himself. How can anyone trust Obama's judgment if he changes his mind about what constitutes good judgment in order to try and win an extra state or two in the general election?
It is essential that Obama choose a running mate who opposed the war from the start. This criteria quickly eliminates a wide swath of potential VP candidates, including Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Tim Kaine, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Claire McCaskill, and Tom Dsachle. The most commonly mentioned names for Obama's Veep who opposed the war from the start are Kathleen Sebelius, Jim Webb, Russ Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, Sherrod Brown, and Ted Strickland. Looking at each of these in more detail, we can narrow this already short list further:
- Russ Feingold is basically only mentioned online, and is not someone I have heard much discussion of outside the blogosphere. I would also like to remove his name from consideration, even if there is no one I would rather see as President. The simple truth is that he is more valuable in the Senate, where is regularly, staunch, principled, and effectively progressive opposition to bad legislation is not matched by a single other member of the chamber. I'd take a 100% chance that he will stay in the Senate, with a 5% chance that he will become President, anyday.
- Ted Strickland is anti-choice, sporting a 30% cote rating from NARAL. After a closely contested primary against a female candidate, for Obama to choose an anti-choice veep would be nightmarish in terms of trying to unify the party. Just a bad idea.
So, pretty quickly we have arrived at a short list of only four people: Brown, Schweitzer, Sebelius, and Webb. Looking a little deeper, there is another criteria that can be used to quickly eliminate both Brown and Schweitzer, at least temporarily: neither of them have endorsed Obama yet. Although the endorsement situation obviously could, and probably will, change, it should go without saying that it would be problematic to offer a VP spot to a person who hasn't actually endorsed you yet. So, until someone actually endorses Obama, that person should not be considered a viable VP option.
Pretty quickly, this has left us with only two candidates: Webb and Sebelius. These two were both in the top three choices in the straw poll, so they each have a lot of support online. Further, both also do a good job of reinforcing Obama's other campaign arguments: unity and change. Both have strong bi-partisan ("unity") records, Webb in working for Reagan, and Sebelius in convincing several high-ranking Kansas Republicans to become Democrats. Both also hit he "change" note pretty well, since Webb has only been a Senator for a couple of years and since Sebelius has been outside of D.C. since 1994. Among the very few other current Senators and Governors who opposed the war from the start and who have already endorsed Obama, such as Ted Kennedy, these two candidates pretty clearly surpass all other options on the "change" and "unity" front.
Now, comparing Webb and Sebelius themselves, as both a progressive and as an electoral strategist I don't think it is much of a contest. Sebelius appears to have a consistently strong progressive record, and a lengthy series of electoral victories that swan against the national and local tide. Webb, by contrast, is something of an electoral neophyte with a narrow primary victory and narrow general election victory under his belt. His Senate record is not particularly progressive (FISA being an egregious example), and I have also heard that he isn't exactly the most energetic or disciplined campaigner. Whatever flaws people may have found in Sebelius's State of the Union rebuttal, the comparison between these two does not feel like much of a comparison at all.
So, until some potentially better options begin endorsing Obama for President, right now, by process of elimination, I think Obama's best choice is definitely Kathleen Sebelius. Should either Sherrod Brown or Patty Murray endorse Obama, I could be persuaded to change my mind on this, since both of them would, I think, be extremely strong Veep choices for Obama. However, Brown remains neutral and Murray is currently backing Clinton. Right now, the only people that Obama should be realistically considering for his running mate are people who have been elected at the statewide level, who opposed the war from the beginning, and who have endorsed him for President. It is a pretty short list, but Sebelius tops it right now. |
