Home

Advertisement

Customize
11 August 2008 @ 01:50 pm
The VP List  
Taking another look at the VP list, though not much has changed. Interestingly, those who appear to want the job generally seem to be less worthy of being picked than many of those who don't. Only a few in the top 10 seem open to being chosen, though it's possible others are just playing it safe and would accept if asked. As for the Republicans, I'm sticking with Romney. The only way McCain wins, barring a huge Obama collapse, is to play the electoral map well and he needs to at least take the shot with Romney for New Hampshire, Michigan, and the Mountain West.

10. Wes Clark (General, Arkansas)- He's a tough one. There is of course the military background and lack of Washington stain which is a good combination. However, there's also his uninspiring 2004 campaign and the comment about McCain that got blown out of proportion last month. It could work but I'm not sold either way.
9. Sherrod Brown (Current Senator, Ohio)- He opposed the war as a Congressman and has the right home state but his protectionist leanings may paint the Democratic ticket as too anti-trade. I'm not really sure what the country's mood on NAFTA is at this point. He also seems to be unwilling to take the position.
8. Jack Reed (Current Senator, Rhode Island)- One of those guys where you wonder if it'd be a good idea given he looks like a blatant "Look I got my own Dick Cheney" but who knows. He doesn't seem to want the job but he and Obama do seem to get along well.
7. Brian Schweitzer (Current Governor, Montana)- He's cruising to re-election and probably wouldn't take the job but he's a good governor and has the kind of folksy John Edwards charm without all the baggage. Of course, they'd try to tag him like Obama as inexperienced and lacking foreign policy credentials but frankly it's either going to be that or "how is he an agent of change?" anyway. McCain's campaign surely has their dual press releases ready to attack whoever the pick is as a bad one.
6. Russ Feingold (Current Senator, Wisconsin)- I don't think he wants the job and has had a few too many kind words to say about McCain lately but I think he's a good Senator who has an independent streak that overcomes partisanship. He probably wouldn't play as well electorally but I think he's qualified.
5. Phil Bredesen (Current Governor, Tennessee)- I haven't mentioned him much before but there would be some value in picking a popular Southern governor. If Mark Warner won't do it, Bredesen appears to be the best choice among the rest of the Southern states. He has a more impressive record than Tim Kaine though obviously in a less competitive state. He's been governor for 5 1/2 years and founded HealthAmerica Corp, a successful company. In the mold of Mike Bloomberg, he doesn't accept a salary as governor because of his wealth accrued in business which is a nice talking point for his character. His "openness and accountability" governing style would play well with Obama's message. Of course, the negative is no foreign policy experience but nobody has it all.
4. Evan Bayh (Former Governor/Current Senator, Indiana)- He's the safe pick of the bunch in terms of rocking the boat but a lot of liberals dislike him and perhaps there's a reason why he's always considered for VP but never picked.
3. Joe Biden (Current Senator, Delaware)- Has generally had his gaffes and rambling under control and offers a solid voice on foreign policy. He's at the top of my list of people who appear to have a realistic chance of being picked.
2. Ted Strickland (Former Congressman/Current Governor, Ohio)- He has never showed a hint of interest in the job but given his opposition to the war, swing state home, and current position outside Washington, he'd be a good choice. One negative is that I believe his approval in Ohio is not exactly high at the moment.
1. Mark Warner (Former Governor, Virginia)- It appears he's still unwilling to be the pick and there have been no rumblings about Obama currently considering him but I still think he's the easy #1 choice. Obviously his perceived flaw will be lack of foreign policy experience but it's hard to argue with a very popular governor with a good record in business and on the economy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
Leave a comment
 
29 July 2008 @ 09:56 pm
The Vice Paradox  
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/06/heilemann_on_obamas_vp_conundrum.html

"On the one hand, nobody in Obama’s inner circle disputes the notion that opting for a V.P. with major foreign-policy/national-security chops would be extremely desirable given the nominee’s lack of experience in that area. On the other, everyone agrees that Obama’s sidekick should reinforce his brand as an agent of change. This is not an easy circle to square: Where exactly does one find a running mate untainted by Old Politics, an outsider who represents a clean break with the past and embodies transformative potential, but who also happens to be (to borrow a phrase) ready from day one to be commander-in-chief?"- John Heilemann 

I was going to write a very similar thing myself, but this quote I found while looking for Obama quotes on the subject pretty much encapsulates what I was going to say. At the core of the Biden/Bayh vs. Kaine/Sebelius debate is the obvious choice of experience vs. change. Obama's candidacy is special because his spectacular judgment and recent track record, especially on foreign policy, have shown me, and presumably those others who support him, that he is both qualified for the job and is the kind of real change that is needed. The question is how to find a vice president that embodies that same characteristic. Because Obama has his astute Iraq war opposition and simulated Presidential decision making moments on the campaign trail, he's had plenty of time and will have 3 debates to show voters that he is both judgment and change.

So how is a vice president going to do the same? Given the dearth of individuals who opposed the war in Iraq, Obama is already at a disadvantage when searching for someone to back up the key idea that opposing the war from the start was a big deal. Most of the people in the national spotlight who opposed the war are those who would be expected to oppose it on the grounds that they were left wing liberals, not that they had correctly identified the flaws in this particular war. Biden and Bayh both voted for the war which seemingly cuts into the notion that they're so qualified to be President. At the same time, they have great resumes and, for the most part, good track records. But can individuals who are creatures of the Washington that America has grown to hate really be considered agents of change? With a lot of finesse, maybe he could turn Evan Bayh's DINO (Democrat in Name Only) record on some issues into a positive by saying he cares more about governing than partisanship but it might be a tough sell.

On the other side of the spectrum are the Governors, Kaine and Sebelius. Obama likes both of them and they would probably make a good team, but are they really qualified to be President? What have they ever done to demonstrate the kind of judgment that Barack Obama possesses? Kaine's record has been unremarkable and surely would not reassure voters who are scared about Obama's lack of experience. If they think Obama hasn't done anything, wait til they meet Tim Kaine. Kathleen Sebelius was named 1 of the America's top 5 governors in 2005 by Time Magazine but she has her own problems. Her State of the Union response was considered poor, her presence on the ticket would be met with "Why not Hillary?", and she has no foreign policy experience. The real question becomes whether picking someone with foreign policy experience helps Obama by filling a gap that voters worry about or whether it accentuates the fact that Obama has little experience and makes voters go for the experience of John McCain on top of the ticket.

Unfortunately for Obama, it's a paradox. Given that his vice presidential nominee will have just a few months and 1 debate to show his or her stuff, he needs to thread the needle and find someone who oozes both qualified and outsider. I wish him luck but most likely he's going to be stuck trying to convince the media and voters into buying the notion that a Washington Insider can be an agent of change or a fresh face is truly qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Presumably the best choice for Obama would be a former high-ranking member of the military or someone with a foreign policy background who became a successful post-partisan Governor of a state (who also happens to be a white male between the ages of 45 and 60, from a swing state, a good campaigner, who gets along well with Obama, is pro-choice, opposed the Iraq war, has a high approval rating, has done a good job managing the economy, isn't gaffe prone, and doesn't have skeletons or scandals in his closet). I'm pretty sure that person doesn't exist though. Three names not listed among the "final four" that at least approach this criteria though don't meet it fully are Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Schweitzer is intriguing but he's running for re-election as Governor so that perhaps takes him out of the running.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
 
Leave a comment
 
26 July 2008 @ 11:41 am
Down the VP Stretch  

Coming down the stretch, I'm sticking with my choices from 2 weeks ago (assuming Warner and Strickland are out), Joe Biden and Evan Bayh for Obama and Mitt Romney for McCain.

Biden obviously provides the foreign policy gravitas, but as a long time Senator, he's well versed on a number of issues and is the kind of individual Obama needs to back him up when McCain tries to pretend he's the only one who can handle foreign policy. He would presumably rip into McCain's nonsense the same way he did to Rudy Giuliani when they weren't even running against each other. Biden's debate performances showed he can be more than a rambling senator and was probably the most underrated candidate in the race. His presence can help in the Philadelphia suburbs which would hopefully take Pennsylvania off the list of Obama defense states at least so he can concentrate on offense. I think Obama needs to pick someone who leaves no doubt about his capacity to be President to assure voters who are on the fence and Biden does that.

Bayh also does that. It's troubling that he's a little too centrist at times but it's clear that he has the experience and record to be President. His Senate career isn't exactly marked with moments of great leadership but he was a successful governor so I don't think he can be accused of never leading like a lifetime Senator potentially could. His selection would probably upset the left wing of the party but they'd need to get a grip and realize that picking a left wing hero would be less than helpful. Obama seems to want someone who has he a good personal relationship with, is clearly prepared to be President in the event of an emergency, and would challenge him rather than sitting idly and doing nothing but attending funerals. Bayh appears to fit that model. His age is a plus as it keeps the race a generational battle while still bringing a lot of experience. His popularity in Indiana could help swing the state as Obama looks to be in striking distance at the moment though Rasmussen still hasn't bothered to poll the state to support/oppose the good numbers from SurveyUSA. A drawback is that the Governor of Indiana is currently a Republican and a Bayh vice presidency would mean a Republican Senate replacement if the Democratic challenger loses. Biden could be replaced much easier by a Democrat, perhaps his son.

Romney seems like the obvious choice for me because the road for McCain is so difficult. As of now, it appears Obama has the Kerry states plus Iowa and New Mexico. That's 264 electoral votes. If Obama manages to win Colorado too, that's 273 and victory. Given that there are a number of other states that could turn like Nevada, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, I think McCain best bet is to hope he can hold on in Ohio and Florida and turn to Romney for help in securing as many states as possible since this election probably won't be like 2000 where it can be traced to just 1 state. Romney plays well in Michigan and being a Mormon could help in Nevada and Colorado. I think people will be watching Obama's VP choice much more than McCain's. As a result, McCain can afford to worry more about electoral politics than picking someone that will quiet down bad narratives. The only 2 requirements seem to be pro-life and not old. A 3rd, but not necessary, component would be economic experience. Romney has all three and helps in key states. I don't personally like Romney and would never vote for him but I'm trying to put myself in McCain's shoes and Romney is the best choice. If McCain actually won Nevada, Colorado, and Michigan with Romney, Obama would be down to 247 electoral votes and would need to pull 23 out of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or other Bush states. If he can do that, then McCain probably would've lost no matter who the VP was.





Tags: , , , , ,
 
1 comment | Leave a comment
 
11 July 2008 @ 07:22 pm
Revised VP List  
I'm not going to spend any time on Republicans because I still think Mitt Romney is the clear pick as I've said the entire time. Obviously, I have a very low opinion of Romney but in terms of who would be best for McCain, I think it's him. The economic and executive experience combined with his geographic help especially in Michigan and the Mountain West should be appealing to McCain.

As for Obama, I think things are much more fluid. The unfortunate thing is that the 2 people who are 1 and 2 on my list have apparently removed themselves from contention. Before I get to the list, I'll explain my thought process. Same as last time, Hillary Clinton is the first to go. As much as she might help by uniting the party and women around the ticket, there's a lot of harm done. She turns off Independents and would hurt Obama in a lot of the new states he's putting in play. In addition, it just makes no sense for Obama to pick Hillary Clinton in terms of campaign theme. If Hillary Clinton was worthy of being #2, then why did Obama run in the first place? If there is a "fierce urgency of now" and he's the only candidate who can truly do the job that America needs, how could the woman who would have been nominee had he not run be an acceptable alternative to replace him to the extent that he would pick her over all other choices? I'm not sure if this would become an issue if he picked her, but it certainly makes him look extremely selfish and dishonest if he did.

With Hillary Clinton out, that appears to eliminate all women from the spot. Unfortunately, the buzz is that if it's not Hillary, a lot of people are going to be really pissed if Obama picks a different woman since they don't comprehend or choose not to care about the argument I made in the last paragraph. As a result, picking another woman would start a negative furor which he doesn't need. Given that the only two choices are Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano and I don't think either one of them belongs in the top 5 anyway, I don't think it's a big deal to drop them from contention. Obama appears to like Sebelius a lot, but I can't judge their relationship, only externally visible factors.

Another unfortunate demographic elimination is Bill Richardson. There are already a number of people who are uncomfortable about Barack Obama and I think it would be a bad choice to pick another minority. It's not that it's "too much change for people to handle," it's that people have suspicions about Obama and him picking another minority would feed the suspicion that he's pulling some kind of revolution. It's stupid but I just think those subtle thoughts would sneak into people's minds. Like Sebelius and Napolitano, Richardson has some flaws that would keep him off the top of my list anyway so it's not so bad that he's cut by a trivial factor. This also eliminates Colin Powell, who never would have taken the spot anyway.

Last time, I also eliminated Republicans so that's the aforementioned Powell and Chuck Hagel. You can't pick Chuck Hagel just because he's against the war. It's a nice shock headline but he disagrees with Obama and most Democrats on so many things that you can't turn this into just an Iraq election. On that note, I'm sticking with my thought that he can't pick a retired general/foreign policy guru type. Sam Nunn, Wes Clark, and James Jones are among those who are basically 1 issue VPs and I think that's a bad idea. First of all, being the President is not just being the Commander-in-Chief. You have to manage the whole country and given the state of the economy, you need to be prepared on all the issues, not just one. Also, picking someone like that would actually work to McCain's benefit. By picking a foreign policy person, you're steering the debate toward foreign policy and suggesting that McCain is right that someone like him, who has a lot of foreign policy experience, is what is needed in a President. Foreign policy experience would be good, but not when it's such a blatant attempt to say "Look look I got an old military guy to help me with foreign policy."

Despite being high on other people's list, John Edwards remains off of mine. You can read back to my previous VP process of elimination to see why I oppose him as that hasn't changed.

That's the end of the automatic eliminations. On to the revised top 10....

10. Al Gore (Former Vice President, Former Senator from Tennessee, Probably not willing)

I don't think it would happen but there are certainly worse choices. I think Gore has built up a pretty good reputation among Independents and is probably viewed more favorably than he won in 2000. He carries the kind of gravitas that a name like Clinton does without all the baggage.

9. Brian Schweitzer (Current Governor of Montana, Willingness unknown)

He seems like an okay choice but it doesn't seem like he's too interested though I've heard very little. He looks like he's going to win re-election easily in Montana so it might not be a good idea to remove him from that spot. It also doesn't seem like he has a good relationship with Obama.

8. Chris Dodd (Current Senator from Connecticut, Probably willing but not sure)

I guess he suffers from the same problem as VP as he did running for President. There's just nothing about him to gain much traction. He did seem like a safe pick for a while but then that mortgage story came out about him and there's a danger that even though he's more of a "regular" guy, they'd turn him into the next John Kerry.

7. Jim Webb (Current Senator from Virginia, Claims he will not be VP)

He says he's off the list but all of the old reasons for including him remain. I think the big problem for him would be the sexism allegations because they play into the media's story about Obama appealing to women so they would probably pay even more attention to that stuff than it might normally get which would hurt Obama.

6. Tim Kaine (Current Governor of Virginia, Willingness unknown)

He's a solid pick but he would be replaced by a Republican Lieutenant Governor and the problem is that he's simply too new and doesn't have much of a track record. Obama has a State Senate record, his Iraq war opposition (which I consider to be a big deal), and his current Senate record. In addition, Obama has had all this time campaigning to display his judgment through debates and reactions to different events on the trail. Kaine would only have 2 or 3 months to convince me, and the general public, that he possesses the judgment to be President which is a tough task. It seems to me that if you're going to pick Tim Kaine, you might as well just pick Mark Warner since he's a better version of Kaine.

5. Russ Feingold (Current Senator from Wisconsin, Doesn't appear to be interested but willing if asked)

I think it's hard to argue he's not qualified. He's been a good member of the Senate for a while and is always willing to show his independent streak by saying and doing what he thinks not what the party wants. The bigger problem for him would be whether he would play electorally which I'm really not sure about.

4. Evan Bayh (Current Senator from Indiana, Former Governor of Indiana, Appears to be willing if asked)

I had him in 1st last time but I'm not a fan of the fact that he seems to be overly centrist. He still fits the do no harm principle and his experience is an asset so he's still in 4th but the fact that he's falling to the right on issues like Iran makes me question whether it's to the point where picking him is straying too much toward picking a VP like it's a game rather than picking the person you believe would be the best replacement. Also, currently, there is a Republican Governor so Bayh would be replaced by a Republican in the Senate most likely which isn't too good.

3. Joe Biden (Current Senator from Delaware, Claims he is not interested but would be VP if asked)

Last time I didn't even have Biden ranked because I pushed him with the foreign policy experts. It's true that foreign policy is his big thing but as a current Senator and former 2008 Presidential candidate, I should probably give him more credit. He's well versed on a lot of issues and I don't think there are many people who would dispute that he's qualified to be President. He makes some flubs on occasion but if that disqualified you, George W Bush would have never sniffed the White House. Biden does have a good candidate personality and would probably make some people who are on the fence more comfortable about Obama since they would convince themselves Biden would be around to help, especially on foreign policy. Obviously I don't think Obama needs any help but I'm not the general public. Biden was my 2nd choice for President when he was still running so I'd be perfectly happy to have my 1 and 2 become President and Vice President. On the campaign trail, Biden could be a good attack dog and could really go after McCain when he makes some of these ridiculous comments the way he tore into Rudy Giuliani. I think Biden has reached the point where he understands the conventional wisdom about him talking too much so he'd be able to stay away from that like he did last year in the debates. It's true that Biden probably wouldn't help carry any extra states but given Obama's current electoral map, he may not need to be concerned about geographical assets and consider that Biden can help in general by making a percentage of all voters more comfortable with Obama.

2. Ted Strickland (Current Governor of Ohio, Former Congressman from Ohio, Claims he will not be VP)

He says he won't be VP but if he's lying or is willing to change his mind, I think he's a good pick. Ohio should be an important state if this is a close election and Strickland looks very appealing as someone who was both a Congressman and a Governor and someone who voted against the war in Iraq.

1. Mark Warner (Former Governor of Virginia, Current Virginia Senate Candidate, Claims he will not be VP)

I laid out my case for Warner in previous posts and stand by it. Obviously the biggest potential flaw for Warner is the lack of foreign policy experience but given that he's essentially the good version of Mitt Romney and nobody seems to mind Romney's lack of foreign policy experience, I think he can get by on the fact that he has economic experience and accomplishments as well as a very popular term as Governor. McCain can try to pound the duo on foreign policy experience but as long as Obama displays his solid foreign policy knowledge at the debates then Warner would be a good complement for an ailing economy. Given how many Governors have been elected President with no foreign policy experience, I don't think it's a big problem. Warner is also pretty young so he could be the heir apparent looking down the road. Unfortunately it appears he prefers the safe Senate win so I don't think Warner will ultimately be chosen but he would add a lot to the ticket.

For more information you can read back to my previous VP posts where I gave more detailed summaries of a lot of these people. Given that Warner and Strickland have removed themselves from contention, I guess my top realistic pick right now is Joe Biden.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
5 comments | Leave a comment
 
18 May 2008 @ 12:23 am
Finding Obama's VP 5  

And finally...Round 5:

5. Brian Schweitzer (Governor- Montana)
Pros: Executive experience as Governor, would likely deliver Montana, 1 of the highest approval ratings in the country, potential 2016 candidate, good persona
Cons: Montana is only 3 electoral votes and the states around it have very few electoral votes as well, could run for re-election as Governor, no foreign policy experience
Bottom Line: I think he definitely fits the do no harm principle of vice presidents but it might not be a great idea to put him on the ticket. He can try to run for re-election this year so he’s not a term-limited potential choice. Montana isn’t that valuable in the count and though you could say he’ll appeal to other areas, he doesn’t have a long list of accomplishments to help reassure people that it’s not going to be inexperienced untested duo in the White House.

4. Tim Kaine (Governor- Virginia)
Pros: Could be 2016 candidate, helps with Virginia as swing state, early Obama supporter, executive experience, Catholic, geographic balancing, popular Governor, delivered 2006 State of the Union response
Cons: No major accomplishments so perhaps too easy to paint as inexperienced duo, no foreign policy experience
Bottom Line: While I like him as a choice, there is almost the question of whether he’s being picked as the token white southerner. Obviously he’s in the top 4 so he’s got a lot going for him but he doesn’t have the kind of track record that Webb does on military areas or Bayh and Strickland do in general experience. Delivering Virginia would be big though.

3. Jim Webb (Senator- Virginia)
Pros: Former Republican, vocal critic of Iraq war, military experience, delivered State of the Union response, could help win Virginia, tough image, potential added credibility with disillusioned Republicans, Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committee
Cons: Not likely 2016 candidate, some of his past writing could be “swift boated” for sexist and profane passages, possibly only won Senate race because of Allen’s macaca comment, no executive experience, married 3 times
Bottom Line: He trends toward the category I had in Round 1 of Foreign Policy specialists. A vice president is one heartbeat away from the presidency and I think it’s tough to make the case that Webb is as commanding as Bayh and Strickland when it comes to the totality of issues. Also, those writings scare me because they could become another one of those non-issue issues especially given that some women are already pissed about Hillary Clinton losing and don’t need to be pushed even further. He would be a good attack dog though and it would make it near impossible to tag the ticket as elitist or weak.

2. Ted Strickland (Governor- Ohio)
Pros: Could help deliver Ohio, executive experience, voted against the Iraq war, 6 term House member, potential olive branch to Clinton supporters, won gubernatorial election easily, got support of Republicans, high approval ratings
Cons: Claims he’s not interested in running, not a 2016 candidate, Clinton endorser
Bottom Line: He claims he’s not even open to the possibility of running so that doesn’t help but for the purpose of this exercise, I’m mostly ignoring that since people lie about VP aspirations all the time. There’s a good chance Ohio will be a major swing state along with Michigan so it probably won’t be so bad to have Bayh or Strickland being a 2nd Midwesterner with Obama. Strickland voted against the Iraq war while he was in the House which makes for nice continuity and clearly has a good deal of experience. He also has wide appeal and supported Hillary Clinton but not nearly as loudly as Ed Rendell or some others.

WINNER: Evan Bayh (Senator- Indiana)
Pros: Executive experience as Governor, Indiana is a potential swing state especially with Bayh on the ticket, would be an olive branch to Clinton supporters, son of Senator Birch Bayh, good pick for the future as he could definitely be a 2016 candidate, good economic record as Governor, member of Senate committees on banking, trade, intelligence, and armed services, viewed as centrist which could undercut notion of crazy liberal ticket, seems to be pretty much scandal free, popular with large re-election victories as Governor and Senator, good image to project to wavering white voters, probably fits the #1 principle of a VP candidate of “Do no harm”, backed off his support for the Iraq war pretty quickly and called for Rumsfeld’s resignation early
Cons: Voted for the war in Iraq, strong Hillary endorser which could make him a weak Obama advocate, perhaps too centrist to the point where he undercuts Obama’s message of a clean break from Republican policies, two Midwestern politicians from neighboring states doesn’t balance the ticket geographically
Bottom Line: For the most part, this guy is the total package. When I started this I didn’t really expect him to end up on top but there’s a lot of positives and few negatives. He might be too centrist but in an election against John McCain who has become known as a moderate, it would go a long way in showing Obama is not trying to push the country way to the left. I’m not sure if Bayh is interested in running but given that he’s been a popular governor and senator and could run in 2016, he makes for a good choice. He’s also a Hillary Clinton supporter so that’s a nice gift to her supporters. Obviously voting for the Iraq war was bad but at least he’s reversed course on that pretty quickly and has a good deal of experience. The “All-American” image and 2nd generation name should help throughout the country and hopefully turn Indiana and the rest of the crucial Midwest for Obama.

Tags: , , , , , ,
 
3 comments | Leave a comment
 
 
 

Advertisement

Customize