For some time now, Chris has been arguing for notion of picking a Vice-Presidential candidate based on reinforcing the Presidential candidate's message, rather than balancing their politics with another candidate who can helpe consolidate the diversity of a broad coaltion. Taking off from my earlier diary about Edwards as a possible running mate--"A Different Dream Team? Obama/Edwards"--I want to focus on what I see as a logical extension of Chris's thinking, which might at first appear contradictory to some.
Basically, I'm arguing that by choosing Edwards as his running mate--and thus balancing his ticket with someone who can appeal to the core white working-class demographic that has been Clinton's base of support--Obama can in fact reinforce what he is all about. Let me be clear. He will be filling a defecit, there are no two ways about it. But many of his supporters will claim that this is only a perceived deficit.
This is at least an arguable proposition, and the choice of Edwards, over the course of the campaign, gives Obama--and Edwards--a chance to prove them right. That's the trick that could allows Edwards to be both a "balancing" and a "reinforcing" candidate, and the end result would be a much more robust model of just what it is that Obama stands for--which is why it would be such a potent, powerful move on Obama's part.
Writing about potential Vice-Presidential selections is one of the more absurd realms of political speculation. Nonetheless, I wanted to present an idea that I hope will take Democratic approaches to selecting Vice-Presidents in a different direction than we have seen in most recent elections. Specifically, rather than choosing a running mate to create balance on a ticket for the purpose of shoring up perceived weakness in the Presidential nominee, it would be best to choose a running mate whose qualities reinforce the rationale behind the candidacy of the person at the top of the ticket.(…)
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.
The tendency to seek "balance" on a Democratic ticket is a relic of the Dixiecrat era of the Democratic Party, when there was massive disconnect between the northern and southern wings of the party. While there are obviously still divisions in the party, current gaps simply do not compare to the chasms that once existed, where Huckabee's voters were about one-third of the party. We should resist the tendency to have our cake and eat it too, or to paper over differences in the party by throwing defeated primary opponents a Vice-President consolation prize. Rather than making our divisions the basis for forging our ticket, the Vice-Presidential nominee should instead serve to reinforce the rationale the Presidential nominee is offering for his or her candidacy.
STATE BLOGS
