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.
Posts
