My Vice Presidential Diatribe

I almost don't want to write a post about possible VPs, because it contradicts my general feeling about the subject: they don't really matter. Unless the VP is particularly offensive or unpopular with large parts of the population, no one votes for or against a candidate based on their VP pick. I think the CW surrounding vice presidential candidates is entirely wrong, and like most political conventional wisdom, comes from the echo-chamber and is not based in reality.

Vice presidential candidates cannot win a state, much less a whole region, simply by being from there (short of having the type of state-wide political machines of previous generations). Luckily, it looks like Obama's team gets this. And while most of the media looks for candidates that "balance the ticket," I agree with Chris Bowers that presidential candidates are better served by VPs that reinforce the campaign's narratives. For example, while an old, white Southerner with military/national security credentials makes the media cover their shorts, pairing that type of VP with Obama screams "you're right, I have no idea what I'm doing in foreign affairs, please help me." It plays right into opposing frames, and even if it's the media calling for it, they'll be the first to start asking "what the pick really means," etc.

So what criteria should we hope Obama's team uses when narrowing down the short list? Again, I mostly agree with Bowers. Obviously, the "change" meme is the strongest part of the Obama phenomenon, so someone without DC/establishment ties would be a good start. Same with being against the war from the start, or at least having the judgment to be firmly against it for the last several years. Also, I'm weary of losing a Senate seat that will be tough to regain, especially when a 60-seat supermajority, without Lieberman (I-Lieberman), is within reach. Plus, discount the idea of naming the standard bearer for (hopefully) 2016 now - a lot changes between now and then.

Also, it should go without saying that I think picking Senator Clinton would be a huge mistake. Off the top of my head: it weakens Obama, attaches Clinton baggage to the ticket, goes against "change," and validates all the ridiculous claims she made during the primary. It would be a true shit show, and luckily it looks like it won't be necessary; women are a big part of the "bounce," and the "PUMA" (Party Unity, My Ass) crowd can go vote for McCain for all I care. They are not part of the 21st century Democratic party, nor part of the winning coalition in November. Some of these concerns extend to vocal supporters of Clinton, as well - you're already on record attacking your running mate. Sorry, you picked the wrong horse.

I came up with a list of 25 people that are frequently speculated as possible VPs or members of the Short List Club. I don't plan on profiling people that don't meet the qualifications I've put forth, especially when most have the same concerns.

• DC establishment: Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Chris Dodd, fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen. Jack Reed, fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn. Tough to make a clean break with DC when you're firmly entrenched in it.
• Losing a Senate seat: Sen. Jim Webb, Gov./Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Bill Nelson, Sen. Sherrod Brown. We might be able to hold a few of these, but why take a chance, especially when the bench is so short already in a place like Virginia.
• Too much balancing: Gen. Wesley Clark, Gen. James Jones, Sen. Chuck Hagel. Military experience is great, but it plays into McCain's hands.
• Clinton BFF: Gov. Ed Rendell, Gov. Ted Strickland. Some people say putting a Clinton surrogate on the ticket will help heal the wounds (really?). Images of Strickland standing behind HRC as she screamed "Shame on you, Barack Obama" dance in GOP strategists' heads.

That leaves, in my opinion: John Edwards, Sen. Patty Murray (WA), and Govs. Tim Kaine (VA), Janet Napolitano (AZ), Brian Schweitzer (MT), Kathleen Sebelius (KS), and Bill Richardson (NM). Unfortunately, media obsession with the "dream ticket" and the Clintons will not let Obama pick a woman not named Clinton, even if she is the best candidate and better suited for the VP than HRC. So as much as I admire Gov. Sebelius and think she would make a perfect reinforcement pick, it's not gonna happen. So the list quickly becomes two '08 presidentials and a couple of governors.

I think Richardson is off the list because he's the type of undisciplined, foot-in-mouth guy unsuited to the VP role. Would the first African-American/Hispanic ticket be a high-risk, high-reward venture? Sure, but do low information voters even know Richardson is Hispanic? Either way, he's got a great resume, but as he often proved during the primaries, he's not ready for prime time.

How about John Edwards, would he carry the warm bucket of piss a second time? He was pretty Shermanesque but started to back off into the standard, "I'm not interested but I would serve my country" type answer recently. Paul Rosenberg has been making a case for Edwards for VP on Open Left, and while I think the poll analysis is premature, he has a point that Edwards would be both balancing and reinforcing. I think this is a real dream ticket, as in keep on dreaming. He supposedly would be happier as Attorney General, like his idol, RFK. Who knows where that puts him as a 63 year old in 2016, but it's fun to think about. I'm weary of all the trial lawyer / $400 hair cut crap that this would open the ticket to, but it's an interesting, if unlikely, prospect.

Gov. Kaine was an early supporter of Obama, but he's also the 3rd best option from a critical state. However, he is the youngest of the bunch at 50 years old, and would be a steady if unimpressive candidate to balance out the ticket. However, his three years haven't been as successful as Gov. Warner's, and leaving Richmond a year early gives the GOP a jump-start in the '09 elections. Maybe he's better suited to AG as well?

Which leaves us with my favorite at the moment, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. He definitely reinforces the change/outsider theme of the campaign and his "folksy charm" is a tool that Obama doesn't have at hand. While the political impact of today's Heller decision is still unclear, it won't hurt Obama to have someone on the ticket whose stance on gun control is "you control your gun, and I'll control mine." Plus, it'd be funny if the one who speaks Arabic on an Obama-Schweitzer ticket is the latter.

On a serious note, Schweitzer's main issues are clean government and clean energy, and I doubt he'll hesitate to take a combative stance from the #2 slot. He's a progressive in Western populist clothing, and his kind of Democrat is a big part of the party's future. Check out these brief remarks - he's the real deal and he knows what Democrats have to do to win.