I'm going back and forth every few minutes between thinking this is an amazing pick and a terrible one. But, let's boil it down - the issue is whether her presence on the ticket will bring over enough women voters to beat out however many voters are scared off by her lack of experience.
My first reaction was that she could potentially swing a lot of women voters. On the other hand, a feminist doesn't want a woman to be VP just because she's a woman, she wants a qualified woman to be VP and be treated just as fairly as a man. Older women in particular are likely to perceive Palin as unqualified. These voters may think McCain's decision demonstrates that he thinks women will just vote for any woman, which is pretty insulting.
There's also a generational issue. Older women may be more likely to question Palin's age, inexperience, and whether she's gotten ahead in part due to her good looks. To younger women, she might be an inspiration: a lot of younger women want to be successful in their careers while also raising families and finding time to hit the gym. Palin is a mother of five, very attractive, and on her way to being VP.
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain chooses Palin!?!
Wow, Sarah Palin is a ballsy choice. High risk, high reward. All along, I've thought that a female VP candidate would be a nice move for McCain. The Hillary campaign made it clear that there are a lot of women in this country who are eager to see a woman in the White House, and many of them seemed pessimistic about how soon another viable female candidate would come along. Suddenly, John McCain has given them one. There are probably a significant number of women who were already somewhat ambivalent about Obama who will now cross over to the GOP just because they think it's important to put a woman one step closer to the White House. A woman on the ticket will at least be a thumb on the proverbial scale when certain feminists are weighing their decision (assuming they're willing to overlook the whole pro-life thing). Heck, if McCain's health declines, we could have a Palin-Clinton battle in 2012!
Let's be realistic - there's also a big downside to this pick. 72 year old John McCain needs a VP who is ready to take over from day 1. He's been arguing that Obama is too young and inexperienced. Well, Palin is younger (she's 44) and less experienced (she's been governor for less than 2 years). Maybe the Republicans think Obama won't make a big issue about it because it will put the spotlight on his own lack of experience. But I think that while Obama has already made a pretty good case for why he's qualified, the case for Palin is much tougher. First off, we at least know that Obama is extremely intelligent. He went to one of the top 3 law schools in the country and became editor of their law review, which is pretty much the highest law school achievement. He then taught Constitutional law at another elite law school for many years. On the political side, he served in the Illinois state senate for 7 years. He's now been in Congress for three and a half years and has proven himself to be knowledgable on foreign and domestic policy in numerous primary debates. Let's compare that to Sarah Palin. I admit I don't know much about her, so I'm mostly relying on her wikipedia page. She has a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho. She has worked as a commercial fisherman with her husband. She served on the Wasilla City Council for 4 years and then served as mayor for 6 (I think). That sounds impressive until you realize that the population of Wasilla was 5,470 (as of 2000). That's like the equivalent of someone where I live (NYC) being president of their block association. She has now been governor for a year and eight months. By all accounts, she's done a very good job. She has amazing approval ratings. Nonetheless, that year & 8 months is pretty much her entire resume. Again, I don't know much about Palin, maybe she's incredibly knowledgable about world affairs, economic theory, and lots of other things. But, she has limited time to demonstrate that to the American public. The VP debate will be incredibly important. That will be her one big chance to show that she's ready to be President in case John McCain's age catches up with him.
I'll say it again - high risk, high reward. Palin could swing lots of women voters and win McCain the presidency. On the other hand, if McCain catches a cold in late October, a lot of people might get spooked by the idea of a very untested, unknown person becoming the leader of the country. Generally, the VP choice has little effect on the election, but this choice could be the decisive factor in either direction. It will probably be remembered as either a fantastic pick or a terrible pick.
Let's be realistic - there's also a big downside to this pick. 72 year old John McCain needs a VP who is ready to take over from day 1. He's been arguing that Obama is too young and inexperienced. Well, Palin is younger (she's 44) and less experienced (she's been governor for less than 2 years). Maybe the Republicans think Obama won't make a big issue about it because it will put the spotlight on his own lack of experience. But I think that while Obama has already made a pretty good case for why he's qualified, the case for Palin is much tougher. First off, we at least know that Obama is extremely intelligent. He went to one of the top 3 law schools in the country and became editor of their law review, which is pretty much the highest law school achievement. He then taught Constitutional law at another elite law school for many years. On the political side, he served in the Illinois state senate for 7 years. He's now been in Congress for three and a half years and has proven himself to be knowledgable on foreign and domestic policy in numerous primary debates. Let's compare that to Sarah Palin. I admit I don't know much about her, so I'm mostly relying on her wikipedia page. She has a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho. She has worked as a commercial fisherman with her husband. She served on the Wasilla City Council for 4 years and then served as mayor for 6 (I think). That sounds impressive until you realize that the population of Wasilla was 5,470 (as of 2000). That's like the equivalent of someone where I live (NYC) being president of their block association. She has now been governor for a year and eight months. By all accounts, she's done a very good job. She has amazing approval ratings. Nonetheless, that year & 8 months is pretty much her entire resume. Again, I don't know much about Palin, maybe she's incredibly knowledgable about world affairs, economic theory, and lots of other things. But, she has limited time to demonstrate that to the American public. The VP debate will be incredibly important. That will be her one big chance to show that she's ready to be President in case John McCain's age catches up with him.
I'll say it again - high risk, high reward. Palin could swing lots of women voters and win McCain the presidency. On the other hand, if McCain catches a cold in late October, a lot of people might get spooked by the idea of a very untested, unknown person becoming the leader of the country. Generally, the VP choice has little effect on the election, but this choice could be the decisive factor in either direction. It will probably be remembered as either a fantastic pick or a terrible pick.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Convention - Day 3
Hillary gave a fantastic speech last night. It was as pro-Obama and anti-McCain as I had hoped, probably more so. I think it was pitch perfect. It would've sounded phony if she'd suddenly acted like she was Obama's biggest fan. Instead, she basically gave the message to her supporters that even if they're not fully enamored with Obama, they should vote (and campaign) for him because he'll help enact the policies they believe in.
The two primetime speeches have been fantastic, but the rest of the convention (outside of the Teddy Kennedy moment and the Schweitzer speech) has been really flat. Obviously, primetime matters much more, but there are still a lot of people watching cable news the rest of the night. I'm curious what the ratings are.
What I want From Biden tonight (in addition to his inspirational life story, etc.):
"The Iraq War has been a devestating mistake for this country - 4,000 American lives lost, over $1 trillion spent, all done while we took our focus off of capturing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Barack Obama had the judgment to declare that the war was a mistake from the beginning. Geore Bush was wrong. John McCain was wrong. I was wrong. Barack Obama was right. Who is more fit to be commander in chief - the man who was one of the leading advocates for this disastorous war or the man who had the good judgment to say it would be a mistake? Barack Obama had better judgment on Iraq and he'll have better judgment when it comes to future foreign policy decisions."
The two primetime speeches have been fantastic, but the rest of the convention (outside of the Teddy Kennedy moment and the Schweitzer speech) has been really flat. Obviously, primetime matters much more, but there are still a lot of people watching cable news the rest of the night. I'm curious what the ratings are.
What I want From Biden tonight (in addition to his inspirational life story, etc.):
"The Iraq War has been a devestating mistake for this country - 4,000 American lives lost, over $1 trillion spent, all done while we took our focus off of capturing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Barack Obama had the judgment to declare that the war was a mistake from the beginning. Geore Bush was wrong. John McCain was wrong. I was wrong. Barack Obama was right. Who is more fit to be commander in chief - the man who was one of the leading advocates for this disastorous war or the man who had the good judgment to say it would be a mistake? Barack Obama had better judgment on Iraq and he'll have better judgment when it comes to future foreign policy decisions."
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hillary's Big Night
Tonight is huge. Hillary's speech is more important than Mark Warner's, more important than Bill's, more important than Joe Biden's. I think the whole PUMA story has been largely media driven and that Hillary has been more supportive of the Obama campaign than she's been given credit for. Nonetheless, the impression a lot of people have is that she's not 100% behind Obama. Tonight is her chance to put an end to that storyline. Tonight she has a chance to make clear to all 18 million people who voted for her in the primaries that they should vote for Obama because she and Obama agree on all the important issues and they both disagree with John McCain.
I think it should be pretty easy for her to do it. NBC First Read wrote earlier today, "She may not be able to find her Goldilocks moment and strike a 'just right' balance tonight of both advancing her own political future and proving that she really does want Obama to win... The good news for her, the expectations are very low in this sense. No one expects her to be able to pull this off convincingly." Bullshit! Why are the expectations low? How hard is it for her to come out and basically give a more inspired version of what Nancy Pelosi said yesterday. Hillary Clinton can give herself a pat on the back and congratulate all her supporters for advancing the issues they care so much about. Issues like universal health care, saving the environment, guaranteeing a woman's right to choose, restoring the responsible economic policies of the Clinton administration, and ending the war in Iraq in a careful manner. And then she can run through each of those issues and say Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Simple and effective.
"I got into politics because of the causes and issues I cared about" - Hillary Clinton
Tonight, she has the chance to prove it.
I think it should be pretty easy for her to do it. NBC First Read wrote earlier today, "She may not be able to find her Goldilocks moment and strike a 'just right' balance tonight of both advancing her own political future and proving that she really does want Obama to win... The good news for her, the expectations are very low in this sense. No one expects her to be able to pull this off convincingly." Bullshit! Why are the expectations low? How hard is it for her to come out and basically give a more inspired version of what Nancy Pelosi said yesterday. Hillary Clinton can give herself a pat on the back and congratulate all her supporters for advancing the issues they care so much about. Issues like universal health care, saving the environment, guaranteeing a woman's right to choose, restoring the responsible economic policies of the Clinton administration, and ending the war in Iraq in a careful manner. And then she can run through each of those issues and say Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Simple and effective.
"I got into politics because of the causes and issues I cared about" - Hillary Clinton
Tonight, she has the chance to prove it.
Convention - Day 1
Michelle Obama hit a homerun. Some bloggers (and James Carville) are complaining that the Democrats didn't hit John McCain or the issues enough last night. They're wrong. As indicated by my last post, I think the campaign needs to start attacking McCain's policies and emphasizing how great Obama's are. They have three nights left to do that. Because of his race, his unusual upbringing, his relative newness, a sizable portion of the electorate is still not quite sure what to make of Barack Obama. And due to some unfortunate comments, Michelle Obama has been painted as some sort of militant angry black woman. Night one did a fantastic job of making the Obamas seem like a very normal, very relatable, very American family. Michelle came across as a dedicated mother and as a woman with immense love and admiration for her parents and her husband. She made it clear that her story is very much like the story of many Americans and that she and Barack love their country and have worked to make it a better place.And quite frankly, she's an amazing speaker. I was moved and I think a lot of other people were, too. I'm ready to vote for Michelle for some kind of office.
The introduction by her brother helped, too. Like I said, I think there was some suspicion that Michelle is an "angry black woman." Not only did she come across as someone who isn't all that different than the typical white person, her brother's intro made it clear that her family's not that different from the typical white family. I don't have a good PC way to say this, but let's just say that her brother seemed more Wayne Brady than Chris Rock.
The introduction by her brother helped, too. Like I said, I think there was some suspicion that Michelle is an "angry black woman." Not only did she come across as someone who isn't all that different than the typical white person, her brother's intro made it clear that her family's not that different from the typical white family. I don't have a good PC way to say this, but let's just say that her brother seemed more Wayne Brady than Chris Rock.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Ring Generalship
In boxing, one of the four basic criteria used to score a fight is ring generalship, which is vaguely defined as how well a fighter controls the pace, style and tempo of a fight.
Up until now, the Obama campaign has mostly been letting McCain control the terms of the debate. Obama's been playing defense fairly well, he's been counter-punching, but he needs to make a stronger attempt to frame the debate. He needs to control the issues the public is talking about. A lot of citizens see rising prices, lost jobs and stagnating wages; these people want real solutions, not opposing ads about who has 7 houses and who made $4 million last year. Americans are ready to hear about real changes that need to be made in this country.
I'm hoping the convention will be somewhat of a turning point for the Obama campaign. Obama needs to focus on the bigger, broader messages. Here are three themes I think he should be pushing in regards to the domestic agenda:
1. Bush tax cuts have given too much to the rich / Time for more fairness - This fits into a broader message about fixing the economy. Investing in infrastructure and education can help the economy in the long run, but in the meantime, the middle class needs a tax break to help them get by. It's time to cut middle class taxes and raise taxes on the rich back to levels during the Clinton years. I think it would be pretty easy to put together a 30 or 60 second ad for this issue, something like: "In the last 8 years, George Bush cut taxes for the wealthy by X%; the rest of America has only received Y%; John McCain's plan is to give even more tax cuts to the rich. Barack Obama's priority is to give the middle class a tax break, a tax break that is Z times higher than that proposed by John McCain."
2. Health Care - affordable health care for all! Remember when everyone was talking about universal health care during the Democratic primaries? Now, not so much. It's time to push this to the forefront. Because it doesn't force anyone to make any changes who doesn't want to, Obama's plan should be able to avoid a lot of the pitfalls that the Clinton plan fell into.
3. Global Warming - Obama needs to make it clear that he offers a broad solution regarding this critical issue. He should make the differences between the Obama plan and the McCain plan clear. On cap and trade - the message should be that it's not a tax, it's just a method to make polluters pay for their pollution; Obama will funnel the collected money into environmental investment and back to consumers so they won't be hurt by rising energy prices. McCain's system will just give out billions in corporate welfare (there's your talking point - McCain's in favor of corporate welfare!!!!!!)
Obama also needs to take control of the foreign policy debate. Why let McCain question Obama's judgment about the surge? Obama needs to question McCain's judgment for being such a strong supporter of this war in the first place, a war that has cost us over 4,000 American lives and $1 trillion while arguably making our country less safe. The Iraq issue has understandably dropped in importance to a lot of voters, but Obama needs to emphasize that he exhibited better judgment on Iraq, and therefore, can be expected to exhibit better judgement on Iran, Korea, Russia, etc.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
VP followup - Hillary
Nate (and one of his readers) make some compelling points for why Hillary is a good choice for VP.
I think they're missing the main reason Obama still won't pick her: he doesn't want to work with someone he can't trust, someone who has her own agenda, someone who isn't fully committed to an Obama presidency.
Ever since it became clear that Obama would be the nominee, the Clintons have been undermining Obama in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. If Hillary's the VP nominee, will she (and Bill) suddenly be fully committed to Obama? Or will part of the Clintons' agenda still be to improve their legacy? Will it be to push the idea in the public's mind that it's sort of a co-presidency? Will she fully support Obama on issues she doesn't agree with him on or will she push her own agenda?
These are relevant questions for both the campaign and (assuming they win) for the Presidency itself. Supposedly, the big piece of advice John Kerry gave to Obama is that he needs to trust his VP choice. Sounds like good advice to me.
I think they're missing the main reason Obama still won't pick her: he doesn't want to work with someone he can't trust, someone who has her own agenda, someone who isn't fully committed to an Obama presidency.
Ever since it became clear that Obama would be the nominee, the Clintons have been undermining Obama in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. If Hillary's the VP nominee, will she (and Bill) suddenly be fully committed to Obama? Or will part of the Clintons' agenda still be to improve their legacy? Will it be to push the idea in the public's mind that it's sort of a co-presidency? Will she fully support Obama on issues she doesn't agree with him on or will she push her own agenda?
These are relevant questions for both the campaign and (assuming they win) for the Presidency itself. Supposedly, the big piece of advice John Kerry gave to Obama is that he needs to trust his VP choice. Sounds like good advice to me.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Neck and Neck
Since Obama wrapped up the nomination, he's had a small solid lead on McCain. Now, all the polls are indicating that they're pretty much neck and neck. It's easy to panic, but I don't think this should be a big deal. I think it was unrealistic to think that Obama would just cruise through to election day. We live in a very partisan era; the last two elections have been very close, this one will probably follow suit.
According to the LAT/Bloomberg poll, Obama's favorable rating has slipped from 59% to 48% while his negative rating has risen from 27% to 35%. That sounds alarming at first, but I think it should've been expected. His new numbers are still slightly better than McCain's (46% positive, 38% negative), who is generally regarded to be very popular among independents andabout as liked as a Republican can be among Democrats. Obama's earlier numbers were unsustainable in this highly partisan era. During the primary, some conservatives hadn't focused hard on Obama's positions and the Republican attack machine was just getting warmed up. Now, both candidates are in the middle of a battle and people are choosing sides. It's a lot easier to view both candidates favorably in February than it is in November; we're seeing that shift in full effect right now.
According to the LAT/Bloomberg poll, Obama's favorable rating has slipped from 59% to 48% while his negative rating has risen from 27% to 35%. That sounds alarming at first, but I think it should've been expected. His new numbers are still slightly better than McCain's (46% positive, 38% negative), who is generally regarded to be very popular among independents andabout as liked as a Republican can be among Democrats. Obama's earlier numbers were unsustainable in this highly partisan era. During the primary, some conservatives hadn't focused hard on Obama's positions and the Republican attack machine was just getting warmed up. Now, both candidates are in the middle of a battle and people are choosing sides. It's a lot easier to view both candidates favorably in February than it is in November; we're seeing that shift in full effect right now.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Crazy Theory of the Day - Olympic Bounce?
McCain's enjoyed a modest bounce in the last week or two. This has happened during a relatively quiet period in the campaign and there doesn't seem to be any clear explanation (unless Americans care more about Georgia than I think). I have no basis for this, but here's a possible explanation: the Olympics.
Obama is running on a message of change. More broadly, the Democrats are trying to capitalize on dissatisfaction with the direction the country is heading, both domestically and abroad. But, if anything can make our country more patriotic, it's the Olympics. We see great hard-working Americans like Michael Phelps succeeding on the world stage and it makes us believe that everything's just fine; we're more patriotic and more optimistic. If we can beat the rest of the world in athletic competitions, we can beat them economically and militarily. Who needs change? USA! USA! USA!
Obama is running on a message of change. More broadly, the Democrats are trying to capitalize on dissatisfaction with the direction the country is heading, both domestically and abroad. But, if anything can make our country more patriotic, it's the Olympics. We see great hard-working Americans like Michael Phelps succeeding on the world stage and it makes us believe that everything's just fine; we're more patriotic and more optimistic. If we can beat the rest of the world in athletic competitions, we can beat them economically and militarily. Who needs change? USA! USA! USA!
VP - Democratic Choices
Let's get this blog started with the topic of the week - who should Obama pick for the VP spot?
The VP choice is really complicated because the VP is supposed to fill a lot of roles in the campaign. Here's a very rough, incomplete list of broad considerations:
1. Message of Change - the VP choice is the one clear message a Presidential candidate gets to give about what kind of people he will appoint/rely on. Obama is running on a message of "change." Ideally, the VP will be another person who represents change in Washington - this means either a governor who has effectively crossed over party lines (Sebelius, Kaine), another relatively new Senator (Webb if he was still under consideration), or even more of an outsider like a military person (Wesley Clark) or a CEO (?).
2. Experience (foreign policy experience, in particular) - Obama obviously trails McCain on foreign policy experience, so conventional wisdom is that his VP choice should help give the ticket some foreign policy muscle. Think Biden, Bayh, Reed, Richardson, Clinton. Of course, any "experience" pick will undermine the "change" message. That's not necessarily a problem - Obama could plausibly decide that he's already "changey" enough and that some (particularly older) voters may be scared of too much change. So, he might see some advantage in having an older, more experienced Washington insider, sort of like a Democratic version of Cheney. In this case, the message would be that Obama will bring change, but he will still rely on proven leaders to help him reach his goals.A counter-argument can be made that Obama shouldn't pick one of these more experienced people because it basically means that he's conceding that he's not experienced enough on his own.
3. Move to the Center - Republicans have tried to paint Obama as extremely liberal. A centrist VP choice (i.e. Bayh) can help convince voters that Obama is a moderate. Or course, if Obama reaches too far to the center/right (Hagel), then he risks alienating the base.
4. Attack Dog - the VP candidate is generally relied on to attack the opponent so the Presidential candidate can keep his hands clean. In addition to the VP debate, the VP candidate will regularly get lots of airtime on the cable news channels, so these attacks can be important.
5. Swing States - Ideally, a VP choice will also bring a key swing state with them. Historically, it's been hard to identify VP candidates who really made a difference in their home state. LBJ is the classic example, but the fact that you have to go back to 1960 to make the case doesn't give it a lot of credibility. On the other hand, if a state is really, really close (i.e. Ohio), then the VP choice can help tilt the scale. In other words, the VP may only add a point or two in their home state, but that could all that's needed in an otherwise even state.
6. Women (/Hispanics) - A similar idea is to have a VP that can bring a certain demographic with them (i.e. women will vote for a woman, Hispanics will vote for Richardson). The flip side of this is that this could also scare away certain sexist/racist voters. I also think there's a legitimate concern that a black man running for President might be helped by having a more traditional-looking VP; in other words, a ticket without any white males might be a little too revolutionary.
Let's take a look at some of the leading candidates (some in more depth than others) and see how they look in relation to the above considerations:
Evan Bayh - (1) Bayh would bring lots of experience to the ticket and has spent a decent amount of time in Washington, so he isn't a "change" candidate, but because he's relatively young and good looking, voters might not perceive him as quite the Washington veteran that Biden or Dodd are. (2) Bayh has plenty of political experience in general, but he's not known as a particular expert on foreign policy and was very wrong on Iraq. So, while some might lump him into the "experienced" category, it's not clear to me that how much he'll actually help swing voters who are scared that Obama lacks the necessary foreign policy credentials. (3) Bayh was a very popular governor in a somewhat conservative state who accomplished goals that aren't often attributed to Democrats (the WSJ called him "a genuinely fiscally conservative Democrat.") This could help Obama move to the center somewhat, reducing the perception that he's a tax-and-spend liberal. (4) Bayh is a political pro, but he's not a dynamic speaker. He doesn't come across as weak, but he's probably not tailor-made to be an attack dog either. (5) Indiana isn't one of the top swing states (538.com lists it as the #10 tipping point state, only being the difference maker 3% of the time), but Bayh is very popular in Indiana and his father was a very popular Indiana politician as well. It's possible tht Bayh could really be a difference maker. Indiana hasn't been polled extensively; I assume the Obama campaign has done their own polling and probably has a better idea how close things are. Also, Indiana borders Ohio, so there's possibly an argument that Bayh could make a tiny difference in Ohio.
Joe Biden - (1) Biden is not a "change" candidate. (2) Biden is a great choice for foreign policy experience. Not only does he have a resume of credentials (he just went to Georgia at their President's request), he also sounds incredibly knowledgeable when he talks about this stuff. He was a supporter of the Iraq war resolution, but I think Biden is enough of a strong speaker to turn this into a positive (something like "Bush got it wrong, McCain got it wrong, even I got it wrong, Obama got it right"). (3) Biden's been in DC for a long time, so I'm sure the Republicans can find enough votes to paint him as a leftist liberal. (4) Biden's probably the best choice for attack dog. He demonstrated during the primaries (on Giuliani - "there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11") that he can sound tough.
Tim Kaine - (1) As a governor in a traditionally conservative state, Kaine is a prototypical "change" candidate and (3) a good centrist candidate. (2) Unfortunately, he doesn't have much experience. (4) I haven't listened to that much of him, but Kaine doesn't come across as an ideal attack dog. (5) Virginia is one of the big 4 (along with Ohio, Michigan, and Colorado) states in this election, so a VP from Virginia sounds like a great idea. On the other hand, Kaine's approval numbers aren't that high, so it's unclear exactly how many votes he can swing.
Kathleen Sebelius - Let's skip to the big one: (6) Sebelius could bring a lot more women voters over to the Democrats. I realize that Obama will win a majority of the female vote regardless and that Sebelius will not convert many pro-life evangelicals, but I think there are a decent number of women on the fence who could be swayed by the possibility of having the first ever female VP. Of course, there's also the possibility that certain voters might be able to vote for a black man, but might not be willing to vote for a ticket on which neither candidate is a white man - maybe that's too much change. Quickly touching the other issues: (1) as a Washington outsider who is governor of a republican state, Sebelius is a strong "change" candidate and a (3) strong centrist candidate. (2) Sebelius has no foreign policy experience. An additional problem is that as a woman, she won't be able to fake foreign policy toughness in the way that a male governor might be able to pull off (Hillary was able to overcome this, but I think a lot of voters have trouble envisioning a woman as commander-in-chief). (4) Sebelius is a good speaker, but probaly not a great attack dog (her response to the State of the Union has been criticized as weak).
Hillary Clinton - Like Biden, she's not a change candidate and not perceived as a centrist, but has strong foreign policy creds and could be a good attack dog. She'd bring over a huge number of primary supporters, some of whom might be on the fence, including women and working class whites. But, the Clintons (they're a package deal) bring a lot of baggage and will wipe out the message of change. There are a lot of voters who simply dislike Hillary (for reasons I don't fully understand) and Bill proved to be a liability during the primaries. Plus, Obama has already made a lot of gains among women, working class whites, and Hispanics in the polls; he doesn't need Hillary as much as some people think. So, I think the potential negatives outweight the positives. Plus, I don't think Obama actually wants to have the Clintons be such important parts of his administration.
Wesley Clark - His name seemed to drop out after he called into question whether McCain's military experience makes him ready to be commander-in-chief. I still think he's worthy of consideration. (1) While Clark is not thought of as "change" candidate, he also hasn't been a career politician, so he can be positioned as somewhat of an outsider. (2) As a career military man and former NATO commander, his foreign policy creds are as good as they get. (3) Clark doesn't have a liberal voting record (he doesn't have any voting record), is a military man, and from the South, so he comes across as centrist. (4) Even though he's already gotten in trouble for attacking McCain, he doesn't come across as a strong forceful speaker, so he's probably not the best attack dog.
In summary, Biden has some deficits, but he'd be a great attack dog and be able to shore up Obama's perceived foreign policy weakness. Clark would be also be a great choice on foreign policy and doesn't have Senatorial baggage, but is less of an able attack dog. Bayh brings a nice combination of experience and bipartisanship, along with the small possibility of swinging a critical state; Bayh seems like the logical pick on paper, but he just doesn't seem inspiring to me. Kaine brings his Virginia-ness, but isn't tested on the national stage. Sebelius seems like a good choice, but also a risky one (through no fault of her own); Obama has been running a very risk averse campaign. Hillary brings too much baggage.
The VP choice is really complicated because the VP is supposed to fill a lot of roles in the campaign. Here's a very rough, incomplete list of broad considerations:
1. Message of Change - the VP choice is the one clear message a Presidential candidate gets to give about what kind of people he will appoint/rely on. Obama is running on a message of "change." Ideally, the VP will be another person who represents change in Washington - this means either a governor who has effectively crossed over party lines (Sebelius, Kaine), another relatively new Senator (Webb if he was still under consideration), or even more of an outsider like a military person (Wesley Clark) or a CEO (?).
2. Experience (foreign policy experience, in particular) - Obama obviously trails McCain on foreign policy experience, so conventional wisdom is that his VP choice should help give the ticket some foreign policy muscle. Think Biden, Bayh, Reed, Richardson, Clinton. Of course, any "experience" pick will undermine the "change" message. That's not necessarily a problem - Obama could plausibly decide that he's already "changey" enough and that some (particularly older) voters may be scared of too much change. So, he might see some advantage in having an older, more experienced Washington insider, sort of like a Democratic version of Cheney. In this case, the message would be that Obama will bring change, but he will still rely on proven leaders to help him reach his goals.A counter-argument can be made that Obama shouldn't pick one of these more experienced people because it basically means that he's conceding that he's not experienced enough on his own.
3. Move to the Center - Republicans have tried to paint Obama as extremely liberal. A centrist VP choice (i.e. Bayh) can help convince voters that Obama is a moderate. Or course, if Obama reaches too far to the center/right (Hagel), then he risks alienating the base.
4. Attack Dog - the VP candidate is generally relied on to attack the opponent so the Presidential candidate can keep his hands clean. In addition to the VP debate, the VP candidate will regularly get lots of airtime on the cable news channels, so these attacks can be important.
5. Swing States - Ideally, a VP choice will also bring a key swing state with them. Historically, it's been hard to identify VP candidates who really made a difference in their home state. LBJ is the classic example, but the fact that you have to go back to 1960 to make the case doesn't give it a lot of credibility. On the other hand, if a state is really, really close (i.e. Ohio), then the VP choice can help tilt the scale. In other words, the VP may only add a point or two in their home state, but that could all that's needed in an otherwise even state.
6. Women (/Hispanics) - A similar idea is to have a VP that can bring a certain demographic with them (i.e. women will vote for a woman, Hispanics will vote for Richardson). The flip side of this is that this could also scare away certain sexist/racist voters. I also think there's a legitimate concern that a black man running for President might be helped by having a more traditional-looking VP; in other words, a ticket without any white males might be a little too revolutionary.
Let's take a look at some of the leading candidates (some in more depth than others) and see how they look in relation to the above considerations:
Evan Bayh - (1) Bayh would bring lots of experience to the ticket and has spent a decent amount of time in Washington, so he isn't a "change" candidate, but because he's relatively young and good looking, voters might not perceive him as quite the Washington veteran that Biden or Dodd are. (2) Bayh has plenty of political experience in general, but he's not known as a particular expert on foreign policy and was very wrong on Iraq. So, while some might lump him into the "experienced" category, it's not clear to me that how much he'll actually help swing voters who are scared that Obama lacks the necessary foreign policy credentials. (3) Bayh was a very popular governor in a somewhat conservative state who accomplished goals that aren't often attributed to Democrats (the WSJ called him "a genuinely fiscally conservative Democrat.") This could help Obama move to the center somewhat, reducing the perception that he's a tax-and-spend liberal. (4) Bayh is a political pro, but he's not a dynamic speaker. He doesn't come across as weak, but he's probably not tailor-made to be an attack dog either. (5) Indiana isn't one of the top swing states (538.com lists it as the #10 tipping point state, only being the difference maker 3% of the time), but Bayh is very popular in Indiana and his father was a very popular Indiana politician as well. It's possible tht Bayh could really be a difference maker. Indiana hasn't been polled extensively; I assume the Obama campaign has done their own polling and probably has a better idea how close things are. Also, Indiana borders Ohio, so there's possibly an argument that Bayh could make a tiny difference in Ohio.
Joe Biden - (1) Biden is not a "change" candidate. (2) Biden is a great choice for foreign policy experience. Not only does he have a resume of credentials (he just went to Georgia at their President's request), he also sounds incredibly knowledgeable when he talks about this stuff. He was a supporter of the Iraq war resolution, but I think Biden is enough of a strong speaker to turn this into a positive (something like "Bush got it wrong, McCain got it wrong, even I got it wrong, Obama got it right"). (3) Biden's been in DC for a long time, so I'm sure the Republicans can find enough votes to paint him as a leftist liberal. (4) Biden's probably the best choice for attack dog. He demonstrated during the primaries (on Giuliani - "there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11") that he can sound tough.
Tim Kaine - (1) As a governor in a traditionally conservative state, Kaine is a prototypical "change" candidate and (3) a good centrist candidate. (2) Unfortunately, he doesn't have much experience. (4) I haven't listened to that much of him, but Kaine doesn't come across as an ideal attack dog. (5) Virginia is one of the big 4 (along with Ohio, Michigan, and Colorado) states in this election, so a VP from Virginia sounds like a great idea. On the other hand, Kaine's approval numbers aren't that high, so it's unclear exactly how many votes he can swing.
Kathleen Sebelius - Let's skip to the big one: (6) Sebelius could bring a lot more women voters over to the Democrats. I realize that Obama will win a majority of the female vote regardless and that Sebelius will not convert many pro-life evangelicals, but I think there are a decent number of women on the fence who could be swayed by the possibility of having the first ever female VP. Of course, there's also the possibility that certain voters might be able to vote for a black man, but might not be willing to vote for a ticket on which neither candidate is a white man - maybe that's too much change. Quickly touching the other issues: (1) as a Washington outsider who is governor of a republican state, Sebelius is a strong "change" candidate and a (3) strong centrist candidate. (2) Sebelius has no foreign policy experience. An additional problem is that as a woman, she won't be able to fake foreign policy toughness in the way that a male governor might be able to pull off (Hillary was able to overcome this, but I think a lot of voters have trouble envisioning a woman as commander-in-chief). (4) Sebelius is a good speaker, but probaly not a great attack dog (her response to the State of the Union has been criticized as weak).
Hillary Clinton - Like Biden, she's not a change candidate and not perceived as a centrist, but has strong foreign policy creds and could be a good attack dog. She'd bring over a huge number of primary supporters, some of whom might be on the fence, including women and working class whites. But, the Clintons (they're a package deal) bring a lot of baggage and will wipe out the message of change. There are a lot of voters who simply dislike Hillary (for reasons I don't fully understand) and Bill proved to be a liability during the primaries. Plus, Obama has already made a lot of gains among women, working class whites, and Hispanics in the polls; he doesn't need Hillary as much as some people think. So, I think the potential negatives outweight the positives. Plus, I don't think Obama actually wants to have the Clintons be such important parts of his administration.
Wesley Clark - His name seemed to drop out after he called into question whether McCain's military experience makes him ready to be commander-in-chief. I still think he's worthy of consideration. (1) While Clark is not thought of as "change" candidate, he also hasn't been a career politician, so he can be positioned as somewhat of an outsider. (2) As a career military man and former NATO commander, his foreign policy creds are as good as they get. (3) Clark doesn't have a liberal voting record (he doesn't have any voting record), is a military man, and from the South, so he comes across as centrist. (4) Even though he's already gotten in trouble for attacking McCain, he doesn't come across as a strong forceful speaker, so he's probably not the best attack dog.
In summary, Biden has some deficits, but he'd be a great attack dog and be able to shore up Obama's perceived foreign policy weakness. Clark would be also be a great choice on foreign policy and doesn't have Senatorial baggage, but is less of an able attack dog. Bayh brings a nice combination of experience and bipartisanship, along with the small possibility of swinging a critical state; Bayh seems like the logical pick on paper, but he just doesn't seem inspiring to me. Kaine brings his Virginia-ness, but isn't tested on the national stage. Sebelius seems like a good choice, but also a risky one (through no fault of her own); Obama has been running a very risk averse campaign. Hillary brings too much baggage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
