Via BooMan comes a report on Obama's short list for vice-president:
Obama: "His focus now includes five colleagues in the U.S. Senate - Joseph Biden, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Jack Reed - and two governors, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, according to Democratic operatives, though he could still make a different pick."
No surprises in this list. These seven names are consistent with the semi-short list names we have seen floated for the past month or two. One item of note is that Jack Reed has taken himself out of contention recently, declaring that he would not accept the VP slot if offered. So, that means the six top candidates at this point are Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kaine and Sebelius.
Obama listed the qualities he'll be looking for: "I'm going to want somebody with integrity. I'm going to want somebody with independence - who's willing to tell me where he thinks, or she thinks, I'm wrong. And I'm going to want somebody who shares a vision of the country: where we need to go - that we've got to fundamentally change not only our policies, but how politics work, how business is done in Washington." (...)
"I think the most important thing, from my perspective, is somebody who can help me govern," Obama said. "I want somebody who I'm compatible with, who I can work with, who has a shared vision, who certainly complements me, in the sense that they provide a knowledge base or an area of expertise that can be useful. Because we're going to have a lot of problems and a lot of work to do."
Now, like so much in politics, this could simply be empty rhetoric and, as such, should not be taken seriously. However, if we were to take it at face value, the short list is pretty odd. None of the four Senators on the six-person list would be viewed as agents of change in D.C., and none of them would make Obama appear to be more of an agent of change in D.C.
All four candidates had been previously named on the semi-short list of about fifteen candidates, so all of this talk about their chances has at least two layers of "rumor mill" evidence to back it up. Collectively, Clinton, Dodd, Reed and Sebelius now compose the likely short list. This actually isn't a bad group, and is certainly better than the next tier of somewhat less likely candidates:
Evan Bayh (Sen-IN)
Tom Daschle (Sen-SD)
Tim Kaine (Gov-VA)
Patty Murray (Sen-WA)
Bill Nelson (Sen-FL)
Sam Nunn (Sen-GA)
These six candidates were also on the semi-short list, and have not since been ruled out, ala Biden, Jones, and Webb. With the exception of Murray, those five make up is a pretty weak and conservative list. Dodd, Reed, Sebelius and Clinton are all better choices than those. At this time, there does not appear to be any significant talk about Edwards or Clark, who are certainly two well-liked choices online.
Given Obama's newfound problems with "moving to the center," which is really more of a problem about appearing to be a power hungry, valueless politician than an ideological problem, the need for a "reinforcing" Vice-Presidential pick becomes even more important. Hopefully, if the "moving to the center" meme has taught Democrats anything, it is that the "balance," also known as "compensation" theory does not work.
Moving to the center makes a politician appear uncomfortable in his or her own image and also makes a politician appear to be valueless and power hungry, and picking a Vice-President based on "balance" results in exactly the same image problem. If your Vice-President is experienced, and you are not, then it emphases your inexperience, not his or her experience. If your Vice-President has significant foreign policy credentials and you do not, then it just emphasizes your lack of foreign policy credentials, not his or her credentials. If your Vice-President is charismatic and you are stiff, then you just look stiffer. If you Vice-President appeals to a certain state, region, or demographic, then you just look less appealing to that state, region, or demographic.
The point is that a politician should not make moves that appear to distance himself from himself. Just like moving to the center, a balancing Vice-Presidential pick makes it appear that the politician is trying to compensate for some personal flaw in order to gain political advantage. This is an extremely damaging image for a politician, especially a Democratic politician given our chronic problem with not appearing to stand for anything or anyone in particular. As such, I've said it before and I'll say it again: seek reinforcement, not balance.
Looking at the likely short list, Kathleen Sebelius and Jack Reed are the two best choices along these lines, with Sebelius holding the edge. Both opposed the war before it began. Sebelius, like Obama, is a Midwesterner who hasn't been in D.C. very much. Sebelius, like Obama, emphasizes bi-partisanship, and can back it up with her record. Importantly, while both Sebelius and Reed are quiet and reserved to the point of possibly being boring, that actually isn't a contrast that hurts Obama. A boring Vice-President will simply emphasize just how strong and charismatic a speaker Obama actually is.
We are getting down there, but I like Obama's likely short list so far. While I continue to think that Sebelius is the best choice, I would be fine with the other three candidates on the short list. Clinton might be the most dangerous of the four, as she is the least reinforcing pick and would appear to be the most politically motivated choice. Still, with the exception of Patty Murray, she is much better than anyone on the second tier of choices right now.
In an earlier post, I explored the three central criteria by which a vice-president should be selected:
1. Who would make the best president?
2. Who would maximize a Democratic victory?
3. Who would not be "wasted" in the office of vice-president?
I reached a number of conclusions that I believe are instructive. Firstly, I find that the first two criterions often find themselves in direct conflict. For example, you might argue that Russ Feingold would make the best president from the field of current candidates, but that as a twice-divorced, liberal Jew from a state that borders Illinois, he would not be likely to maximize a Democratic victory. On the other hand, a conservative militarist from Virginia like Jim Webb may secure an abundance of extra votes for Obama, but would make for a poor leader were he ever to become president. I suggested that in the face of such a conflict, the first criteria must prevail over the second; otherwise we can quickly lose sight of our greater purpose, and start suggesting that Chuck Hagel or Mike Huckabee could be golden vote-winners.
The third criterion is less discussed than the other two, but very important. Given the great work that Russ Feingold has done in the Senate and the thin margin by which Jim Webb secured his seat, we should need very strong reasons to remove them from their current positions. Given its historical lack of particular influence, the office of vice-president may not provide a sufficiently strong reason. I advocated that a former senator such as Bill Bradley would be perfect for the role, as we could put a capable public servant back into government and not have to sacrifice valuable senate seats.
This proposal met with an encouraging response, with Bill Bradley winning a poll versus Feingold and Webb, albeit by a slim margin. I arrived at my conclusion that Bradley would be a great choice for vice-president after evaluating a number of considerations. I asked myself who would make an "ideal" VP for Barack Obama, and what that would mean.
STATE BLOGS
