The Running-Mate Dilemma
The selection of a vice president is not only an exercise in political handicapping but a national rite of statecraft. Candidates, advisers, pundits and assorted experts try to calculate the ethnic, geographic, gender and ideological characteristics of potential running mates, but what this choice actually reveals is the character of a presidential nominee.
For Barack Obama, the choice of a vice president is a test of his self-confidence and his vaunted judgment. Should he seek to mollify the disappointed Clinton supporters, especially among his party’s women? Or should he try to balance his own political weaknesses with somebody else’s strengths? Will he attempt to win a region with his choice, or even one crucial state?
For John McCain, this decision will reflect the character issue that is now at the center of his campaign. Should he try to motivate the sullen base of the Republican Party by picking a right-wing hard-liner? Or should he renew his appeal to independents and even Democrats with a fresh-faced reformer? Can he strike deep into the opposition by choosing a female or minority candidate (or both)?
For either candidate, the selection process may be complicated by extraneous considerations. Suffering under a financial disadvantage, for example, the Republican campaign could be tempted by the likes of Mitt Romney, whose willingness to spend his own millions on negative ads certainly impressed Mr. McCain during the primaries. It is hard to imagine any other reason why the straight talker would tap a politician he so ardently despises.
Meanwhile certain leaders of the religious right are openly promoting the candidacy of Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and extinguished fad of the early primaries. Personable as he is, Huck nevertheless emphasizes the Republican extremism that is now out of favor with most American voters. He also talks too much and says stupid things about shooting people.
So perhaps Mr. McCain, who will turn 72 just before his party’s convention and looks even older, would do better with a young conservative governor like Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota or Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. The only problem with the youth gambit is that a political newcomer on the ticket would undermine his most compelling argument against Mr. Obama.
But if Mr. McCain confronts quandaries, those faced by his rival are just as difficult. First, Mr. Obama must engage in a complex and challenging dance with Hillary Clinton, according her appropriate respect without allowing her to dominate the process. Current polling data indicates that she would be an important asset to the Democratic ticket—if she wants the second spot and if she and Mr. Obama can truly imagine working together in the White House (with her husband somewhere in the background).
Should that seem impossible to Mr. Obama, he remains obliged to consider the disappointment of women who backed Mrs. Clinton as their gender’s great hope. It will be hard for them to accept that progress toward equality is a zero-sum game in this election cycle. Among the female officials of rank and merit are Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Both endorsed Mr. Obama, but neither possesses the national security experience that he may regard as his ticket’s most pressing need. Ranking women who do, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Jane Harman, both California Democrats, differ substantially with him on important foreign-policy issues.
Democrats with the strongest military credentials include Senator James Webb, the former Reagan Navy secretary who just might capture the electoral votes of his home state of Virginia, and Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who served as supreme commander of NATO during the Clinton administration. Both are decorated Vietnam veterans.
What Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain should remember as they draw up their lists is that many if not all successful vice presidential nominees were chosen by instinct as much as by crass calculation. Bill Clinton chose Al Gore because he wanted to make a statement about generational change, but also because he thought they could govern well together. Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman to make a statement about Bill Clinton, a mistake he will always regret. George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney to buy himself a touch of badly needed gravitas. That choice didn’t help him win the 2000 election, which he actually lost—but Mr. Cheney certainly helped secure his legacy as one of the worst presidents in our history.
The lesson is to be bold but thoughtful—and above all, to treat the vice presidency as a national trust and not a campaign gimmick.
jconason@observer.com
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 49.7
- 42.4
- Obama +7.3
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.9
- 36.7
- +19.2
- McCain
- 49.6
- 41.7
- +7.9
There is no doubt that either of the Presidential canidates will have to be extremely "crafty" in their selection of a Vice President! Both canidates will DESPERATELY need a "vote getter"...just as much as JFK needed Johnson.
And,with respect to the new E X P A N D E E D powers of the next President. You can bet there will be no such thing as a "co" Presidentcy from either party...
In the case of Obama and McCain..all either needs is Hillary's 17 million + votes to "become" President..after that nither needs those votes to BE Prresident!!
You are forgetting that Cheney picked HIMSELF, which is where the imperial power grab of the last 8 years began. It is so much easier for the right wingers need to rewrite history with you doing their dirty work for them.
where is the analysis of kerry picking edwards, a scenario applicable to both romney, huckabee & h. clinton?
sorry to post a sort of critical response to this particular column, because I am a big fan of j.c.
For Obama, the military stuff should be left to the Secretary of War (sorry: Defense) and the National Security Adviser. Indeed he can pick that person now. What we need, I feel, for VP is someone who can give strength on social problems -- including health, the economy, education, and the returning vets. These are issues when McCain seems to have no good ideas.
God help me if I give McCain any assistance here, but this is just my balanced analysis.
Obama has a wealth of riches to choose from. Mr. Conanson already discussed the pros and cons of most. Personally, I feel his best choice would be Bill Richardson, a) to get the Latino vote, and b) to work on getting the Southwest.
McCain has a somewhat harder task. If he is to present himself as a candidate of change, he cannot choose anyone with even the remotest connection to Bush (bye-bye, Colin Powell). He could choose Huckabee or Romney to solidify his connection to the religious right, but that could alienate more moderate elements.
Barring unforeseen circumstances, the campaign looks lost, so the "rising stars" (e.g. Pawlenty, Jindal) may not want to be connected with it. So, I believe his best choice would be Ron Paul, who would minimize any effect of Bob Barr's Libertarian run.
On the other hand, if Barr picks Paul, can you say "President Obama"? I thought you could.
"That choice didn’t help him win the 2000 election, which he actually lost—but Mr. Cheney certainly helped secure his legacy as one of the worst presidents in our history."
According to our Constitution, electors select the President therefore the popular vote is irrelevant. Bush won a majority of the electoral college in 2000, therefore he clearly won the election. State legislatures could constitutionally select the electors negating the popular completely.
Now that Obama has lost the popular vote in the Democratic primary, liberals now proclaim that the popular vote is irrelevant - reversing their position in 2000. The humor of this fiasco is inescapable.
And if Bush's Presidency was so awful, how did he beat John Kerry in 2004 by over 3 million votes? Convenient how his detractors always go back to 2000.
Obama/Sebelius or Obama/Napolitano are both strong tickets. The candidate for vice president should not overshadow the top of the ticket, so it does not matter that these two successful governors have little national exposure ... the country would come to know them and, I think, admire them for exactly the qualities most in demand: good judgment and competence.
I think McCain will choose Senator Larry Craig, no stranger to Minnesota, where the convention will be held. And the slogans are just too appealing; for example:
PUT YOUR BEST FOOT FORWARD WITH McCAIN & CRAIG!
Folks like yourself who still believe Bush won "fair and square" expose themselves as being naive, not well read and very ignorant to what's been going on in politics for the past 8 years or more. You obviously have not kept up on the debacle of the U.S. Attorney firings by AG Alberto Gonzales at the behest of the White House corruption team, for political reasons. Those reasons being that these U.S. attorneys were prosecuting Republicans (which the White House didn't permit) and they weren't prosecuting the Democrats for "alleged" voter fraud (which is what the White House REALLY wanted, so there would be bad press against Democrats, resulting in negativity for the presidential elections). That's just the tip of the iceberg. The "disenfranchisement" of voters in many states, people deprived of their chance to vote (long lines, not enough machines, voting machines miraculously recording positive votes for Bush, when the button was pushed to vote for Gore ... phantom votes, such as here in Ohio, where some cities with "registered voter lists" of only a few hundred people, would tally some 5,000 votes for Bush .... hundreds of thousands of people were denied their right to vote because of Karl Roves purging lists ... thousands of military lost their "right to vote" because their absentee vote packets were mailed to their homes marked "do not forward" ... and they were overseas in Iraq, etc. So their packets weren't mailed to them in time to vote, since they couldn't be forwarded. The Republicans used every trick in the book to prevent the Democrats from being able to cast their votes. Threatening letters being sent out to minorities, auto dialed calls, scrambled phone lines, etc. etc. In the end, the recounts in Florida were stopped by the Supreme Court, because they wouldn't allow any more time to be spent on them ... and the Republican stacked Supreme court awarded the White House to George Bush.
Anyone who couldn't question the validity of the last two presidential elections is either terribly uninformed, terribly stupid or wasn't listening at all. I'm from Ohio and we are still learning what actually went on here, and how they pulled it off.
It would be a mistake for Obama to pick a woman other than Clinton. Unless he makes it very clear that Clinton will have a very prestigious position like Secretary of State. You don't get 18 million votes and not expect to get something out of it. Democrats are split 50/50, that doesn't mean only Obama democrats are important. Clinton supporters still have a vote in Nov. and we can vote anyway we want.
The hatred that spews from lefties like Conason underscores the real undertone of the Democratic Party. Moveon.org, Daily KOS etc, Joey Conason, do not engage in debate. They spew vitriol.
To state that Bush is one of the 'worst presidents in history' is red meat to the radicals who read these things, but it is a silly thing to say.
This is the fact that all lefties cannot stand: President Bush, and his policies since 9-11-2001, have kept us safe from further terrorism.
It is obvious that Bush haters would prefer more terrorism on our soil than to see their President succeed. God Help Us.
As for the election of 2000, here is the inconvenient truth: The recount conducted by the New York Times PROVED that the counties in which Gore sought recounts had indeed supported Bush. This means that had the US Supreme Court allowed the Florida Court to write election laws from the bench, and conucted this recount, Bush would have won any way.
Repeating a falsehood continuously does not make it true.
Are Republicans posing as Democrats and Independents really behind the "get rid of Hillary movement? Why so much desire to push her out? Real Democrats would like Universal Healthcare; Better Schools; and an end to war. So real Democrats, speak up because Obama will not win without her!
I think having Clinton as VP would be a terrible mistake. I think most of her supporters will end up sticking with the party anyway. If she's on the ticket, all of Bill's problems would be used by the GOP against the Dems. She's also very polarizing and I think more people would NOT vote for her than ones that would. I think if they won, it would be very difficult trying to be pres with both her and Bill together. I think Obama should choose someone like Edwards, to me that would be a great ticket. I like Richardson also.
News flash to Douglas:
Bush did steal both elections -- in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004.
And, yes, his presidency HAS been awful. The worst in American history. You must be one of those delusional 27 percenters who still back this moronic frat boy.
Face it: He's a gross historical aberration in the U.S. political continuum, and no amount of wishful revisionism on your part will change that.
Ah, I see that Richmond is a Kool Aid-drinking idiot, too.
Did you happen to catch Shrub's oh-so-dignified body-slam at the Air Force Academy? Made you proud, did he? Or maybe you fondly recall his unsolicited shoulder rub on Germany's Andrea Merkel. Or his myriad other cringe-inducing gaffes on the world stage. They're simply too numerous to list here.
Wanton Boy is not only a stupid, incurious bastard, but a killer and a thief. I suggest that you mouth-breathers enlighten yourselves and pick up a copy of Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's latest book, which posits that the lying war criminal should be tried for murder.
Otherwise, STFU about this most inept and criminal of pResidents.
One last comment:
Here are some of the true spewers of divisive, partisan, bitter, fact-challenged, unhinged, hysterical, hyperbolic, hate- and bile-filled vitriol:
Savage, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Medved, Morgan, Malkin, Beck, Gibson, Cavuto, Scarborough, O'Reilly. I could go on, but you get the point.
We on the center/left are the ones who are civil -- until we're backed into a corner by the likes of the above. Then we simply overwhelm them with truth, cogency, reason and properly wrought sentences with correct spelling, syntax and grammar (poor language skills seems to be one of the hallmarks of the rabid right). BTW, did anybody catch Scott McClellan the other day as he coolly and calmly emasculated the sputtering O'Reilly? Priceless. That pompous blowhard never could handle the truth.
Good day. ;)
Hillary's negatives are way too high. Negatives are additive, they are not canceled by the running mate's positives. Add up all the folks who worry about Obama's race or his former preacher and combine them with the folks who hate the Clintons and you put an anchor around Obama's neck and toss it overboard.
My predictions:
Biden - VP (although I'd like SUSAN Rice as VP, but she's too young)
Richardson - State
Webb - Defense
Edwards - AG
Not so sure:
Wes Clark - Homeland Security???
Hillary - She should be Senate Majority Leader
Cheryl's right, but she left out the best part...and then the Mother Ship landed, Elvis got out, and directed Big Foot and Jesus to hide ballot boxes. Most people don't remember this because the aliens in the Mother Ship used a mind control ray to make them forget. But the ones with the tin foil hats... they remember...
bigislanddave--
Go back to your island. The only one on this board spewing hate and vitriol is you.
Obama can not pick Hillary. The RNC already has a commercial out with Hillary's "McCain has a lifetime of experience, all Obama has is a speech" comment. As much as I loved and defended the Clintons, I have had enough of them to last a lifetime.
My VP Picks:
1) Bill Richardson - he was my original pick for President. He's got great experience and a great resume. He helps pick up Hispanic and Southwestern votes.
2) Sam Nunn - incredible international relations and defense credentials. He is from Georgia and was very popular. Between that and Bob Barr running as the Libertarian candidate - if African-American voter registration continues to grow, Obama can pick up at least Georgia, and maybe North and South Carolina.
3) Mark Warner - very popular in Virginia and good business credentials. Could help in the south - would lock in Virginia.
For McCain - I'd tell him to pick awful people because I don't want him to win, but if I did want him to win:
1) Kay Baily Hutchinson - strong in the South and a woman. Could attract some independents.
2) Michael Steele - former Lt. Gov. of Maryland. He ran a great campaign for Senate against Ben Cardin. His commercials even made me like him. I was scared he might actually win. An African-American candidate - he actually got many endorsements from African-American Democratic local government officials.
3) Charlie Crist- very popular in Florida. Would lock it up.
I like HRC as Senate Majority Leader or even as a potential SCOTUS pick when Obama wins.
I am on my island, chump. It's the Island of Reality.
For your delectation:
Liberal vs Conservative ….
“There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.
The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.
This second vision is our vision. The liberal vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.”
No vitriol here, pal.
I think Hillary should have her choice of either a seat on the Supreme Court or as the Secretary of whatever Department she would like to head. Since she wants to really affect change for the people that most strongly supported her - women, working class, etc., she needs to figure out where she can most strongly implement the change she wants to see.
The true and complete story of how Cheney became George W.Bush's vice presidential choice is worth investigating. How did Cheney get on the committee and then pick himself to share the ticket with Bush. There has never been another vice president like him, we need to know how it came about.
The true and complete story of how Cheney became George W.Bush's vice presidential choice is worth investigating. How did Cheney get on the committee and then pick himself to share the ticket with Bush. There has never been another vice president like him, we need to know how it came about.
We saw John McCain last week and he looks TERRIFIC! He's trim and energetic. Brimming with passion and with a twinkle in his eye.....his experience trumps Obama's inexperience anyday and he's ready to be commander in chief on day one....something neither Hillary or Obama could do.
BigIslandDave hasn't yet realized that John McCain is the Republican nominee. Someone should give him the new talking points - "Bush III" and the other predictable nonsense being spewed by every Democrat who gets 5 seconds of air time.
Bush was elected by a 3 million popular vote margin in 2004 but some psychotic liberals still claim he "stole" this election despite an utter lack of any credible evidence. I fear for their sanity when McCain wins in November.
Douglas confuses the rules of a political party with those of a national election. What "liberals" proclaim the popular vote "irrelevant". This was a hotly contested race and surely there were liberals on both sides of the issue or just sitting it out watching. If you find this situation humorous you ought to watch the McCain speech on the night Obama won the Democratic nomination - you'll laugh your ass off! Regardless of the the 2004 vote the Bush presidency remains awful and will always remain awful. Silly Republicans!
Well..let's see..just who should I vote for..the old 'white" guy..or the young "black" one?
Hum....
Come 1/1/09 no doubt, I'll still be buying gas (whatever the price) from some guy from India, that also owns the liquor store, that also owns the check cashing place where "illegals" get their checks cashed, as well as the Dunkin DoughNuts..ect, ect...not to mention Wal Mart...that place where pro life "Christians" go to buy cheap goods hauled in from China...a country of forced abortions..along with a few other countries we already know of!
Oh, what a tough "race/moral" choice we Americans have!!