Democratic Vice-Presidential Odds

As the calendar moves into the dog days of summer, it’s a good time to consider who will be manning an underground bunker for the next 4 years as Vice-President. Believe it or not, it was on July 6^th, 2004 that John Kerry announced that John Edwards would be his running mate; Obama’s decision may not be far off. So let me peer into the thought processes of the vaunted “Vice-Presidential Vetters” and hope that nobody investigates my shady loan history in the meantime.

First off, what are the criteria? Generally, common political wisdom holds that a Democratic Presidential candidate should consider the following:

1. Can the VP bring a swing state into the fold? This hasn’t actually occurred since Lyndon Johnson helped win Texas for JFK, but you can always hope, right?

2. Does the VP appeal to a different but vital demographic? This is another way of saying, “Our candidate is seen as an arugula-eating, latte-drinking, doesn’t-know-how-to-bowl windsurfer and we need someone who appeals to the ‘working folk.’”

3. Does the VP bolster the candidate’s weakness in a specific policy area? With Obama, like President Bush before him, his largest concern will be to reinforce his foreign policy/national security credentials, the one area where John McCain has a clear advantage according to polling.

4. Does the VP pass that all-important “commander-in-chief” threshold? In other words, if the President is out of commission for a few hours during his colonoscopy, would we trust this candidate with that nuclear suitcase should the Russkies attack?

If those are the common criteria, there are also a few categories specific to Obama and to this election:

4. Does the VP have an acceptable history of opposition to the Iraq War? The best-case scenario would be someone who opposed the war from the very beginning, followed closely by someone who wasn’t in office/never publicly went on record as opposing or supporting the war.  Otherwise, you should have a strong argument for how and why you changed your mind, or else the liberal Netroots might have an aneurysm (which I’m all for, by the way).

5. Does the VP have a record of reaching across the aisle? Despite little to no evidence to back up the notion that he has ever effectively been a facilitator of bipartisanship, Obama has run as a new-fangled “post-partisan” candidate so you had better be able to point out how you’ve “bridged gaps” and “overcome divisions” between Democrats and Republicans (someone will have to explain to me what “post-partisan” actually means, but I gather it has something to do with listening to a diversity of opinions before you unilaterally do what you were going to do anyway). Basically, can you produce evidence that Republicans have voted for you?

6. Is the VP seen as a Washington D.C. Insider? God forbid you actually have a record of accomplishment and achievement in government.

I am personally of the opinion that the most successful VPs are the ones the mirror the Presidential candidate’s image most completely. Forget complementing, that only dilutes your message.  What did Bill Clinton do when he choose Al Gore? He choose another young, intelligent Southerner from a neighboring state and ended up as the first two term Democratic President since President Roosevelt was rolling around the oval office. Therefore, in my mind, as you’ll see below, the best candidate for Barack Obama would be  - to use Obama’s own words from his book Audacity of Hope – someone who serves “as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” The more we learn about Obama’s past associations with the Tony Rezkos, Jeremiah Wrights, and Williams Ayers, and the more that Obama actually chooses sides on an issue such as NAFTA, FISA, Gun Control, the Death Penalty, the final status of Jerusalem — and then reverses course, no less – the more the luster comes off “Obama the change agent.” Obama needs to recapture some of that “I don’t where he stands on the issues or how he’ll actually produce some of the change he’s proposing – or even what’s he proposing to change at all – but it makes me feel oh so good and tingly when he speaks” magic. I think the best way to accomplish that goal at this point would be to choose a VP with relatively minimal experience who hasn’t taken many stands on any of the pressing issues facing this country, someone who presents another untarnished palette for people to paint a new picture of all their hopes and dreams. You just know that no matter whom Obama chooses – with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton – his supporters and the media (who are really one and the same) will rush to praise his perspicacity, gush over his inimitable post-partisan posture, and shower him with encomiums for his boldness and daring. Why not provide said media with the blankest slate possible and let them do all the work? Why let irritating distractions like “where the VP actually stands on the issues” get in the way?

Okay, onto the actual candidates. This is hardly an exhaustive list, but I’d bet the VP comes from one of this lot:

Jim Webb: First-term Senator from Virginia, elected to office in 2006.

Upside: Decorated Vietnam veteran; Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan; former Republican; has written a book about his family history entitled Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America; has a son in the Marines who has served tours in Iraq but also wrote an op-ed piece in 2004 that described the Iraq War as the “greatest strategic blunder in modern memory.”

Webb got a recent boost by shepherding a GI Benefits Bill through the Senate that received bipartisan support. So, he’s a pro-gun Southerner from a swing state who has national-security and military credentials and has been opposed to the Iraq War from the very beginning. Sounds perfect, right?

Downside: Well, there’s a few rubs with Senator Webb. Always, the rub. For one, he has a remarkably poor record on women’s rights issues. In 1979 he published an article that argued that women shouldn’t be admitted to the military academies and were biologically unfit for combat. And after the 1991 Tailhook convention where nearly 100 female naval aviators were sexually harassed and assaulted, ol’ Jim defended the accused and called the investigation a “witch hunt.”

He’s also been described as “brazen” and “a loose cannon,” just like Mel Gibson’s Sergeant Martin Riggs character in Lethal Weapon. Admittedly, that’s pretty much the kind of person I would be looking for as my Vice-President, but there’s always a good chance that that loose-cannon might turn into a drunk-driving, anti-Semitic lunatic. A big risk.

Plus you know the Obama campaign is already thinking about Obama’s Presidential legacy, likely imagining his VP riding Obama’s unprecedented approval ratings into his own 8 year term that will further solidify the historical standing of an Obamanian dynasty. So now you know they have to be wondering whether Jim Webb can be trusted with that sacred endeavor; or, would he dare strike out in his own direction more reflective of his Republican roots?

Odds: 5:1

Hillary Clinton: Former First Lady, two term Senator from New York, and Democratic candidate for President.

Upside: Uh, 18 million plus votes in the Democratic Primary is what might be considered an upside. Her core constituencies of older women, Latinos, Jews, and the working class are the precise demographic groups that Obama is seen to be underperforming in.

Downside: I’m not sure that I can encapsulate all of the animus between the two campaigns without writing a novel so let’s just concede that relations have been strained. Not to mention that apparently Bill Clinton has been on the warpath (God bless him) for what he perceives as the Obama campaign’s portrayal of him as a racist and its continued denigration of his Presidency. A 20 minute phone call between Obama and Bill won’t be enough to mend all of the bridges.

Another big issue is whether the Hillary and Bill show will overshadow Obama and cause more trouble than they’re worth. Also, since Obama supporters have pretty much been brainwashed into believing that Hillary Clinton is the devil incarnate, her as VP might be a tough, tough pill to swallow for a large part of his constituency.

Odds: 6:1

Kathleen Sebelius: Was re-elected to her second term as Governor of Kansas in 2006.

Upside: A popular governor from a very red state, she eliminated a huge budget deficit she was saddled with when she took office, has a good record on blue-collar issues, and convinced a Republican to change parties and run as her Lieutenant Governor. She was also an early Obama supporter.

Downside: Choosing a female candidate other than Hillary Clinton is problematic at best. Any male VP cnadidate will be subjected to an intense comparison with Hillary Clinton, but with another woman, the comparison will grow so acute that we can expect a dissection of who has the bigger bust size. Vice-Presidents are like children, they’re meant to be seen, not heard. Sebelius would ignite a firestorm of controversy among Clinton supporters who would see in her nomination the passing over of a more qualified female candidate for one who would likely be more submissive and cow-tailed. Plus the pairing of an African-American and female on the same ticket might be a little too revolutionary for a certain portion of the electorate.

Odds: 10:1

Wesley Clark: Retired U.S. Army General, Rhodes Scholar, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 1997-2000 during the Kosovo War, and 2004 candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Also, a Presidential Medal of Freedom, a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and a Purple Heart.

Upside: A smart, decorated military general might be the perfect counterweight to John McCain’s military experience.

Downside: Can anyone say mock turtleneck? He’s also done a lot of damage to his chances with his recent comments about how John McCain’s military experiences didn’t prepare him for the White House, which led to the Obama campaign releasing a statement “rejecting” his remarks. He might have just killed his chances for the VP slot, although the Obama campaign probably put him up to the remarks in the first place. Standard operating procedure for the “new politics” of Barack Obama: have a surrogate do your dirty work, then condemn the remarks; Obama stays clean and looks like a good guy for the condemnation, but the dirt is still injected into the public debate. Brilliant.

Odds: 12:1

Joe Biden: Six term Senator from Delaware, Candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President.

Upside: Has served on the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees and has likely forgotten more about foreign policy than the combined foreign policy knowledge of Obama and McCain.

Downside: Needless to say, the ultimate Washington insider might not exactly be on message for the “hope and change” candidate. However, Obama seems to steering his campaign into a more conventional, centrist direction (a mistake in my estimation, but that’s neither here nor there), in which case Biden might be seen as a solid ballast against charges of inexperience and foreign policy naiveté.

Odds: 20:1 

Brian Schweitzer: First-term Governor of Montana since 2005.

Upside: Despite serving in a perpetually conservative state, he has one of the highest Governor’s approval ratings in the nation (a Survey USA poll from May: 58% approve, 27% disapprove, and 15% unsure). As a former irrigation developer, he has traveled the world and lived in the Middle East for long enough to actually learn to speak Arabic! (why the CIA hasn’t recruited him, we’ll never know). He has a great pro-gun record and a kind of folksy charm. It doesn’t hurt that his dog, a Border Collie named Jag, accompanies him to work.

Downside: He hasn’t been vetted on the national stage. Are there any heretofore unknown associations he may have had in the past, possibly during his travels abroad, that have yet to see the light of day? I doubt there’s much of anything, but until the spotlight is fully drawn on a politician, you never know. But there still is the real question of how he’ll perform under the intense scrutiny of the national media. He’s also, to be kind, not the most aesthetically pleasing individual, and apparently he never got the memo that nobody will take you seriously if you’re wearing a bolo tie.

Odds: 25:1

Bill Richardson: The current Governor of New Mexico, was previously a U..S Representative, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the U.S. Secretary of Energy during the Clinton administration.

Upside: He’s Hispanic, he hails from the swing state of New Mexico, and he’s got foreign policy credibility. Plus he endorsed Obama at a time that he needed a bit of a boost during the primary campaign.

Downside: This is the man famously dubbed “Judas” by James Carville for his perfidious endorsement of Barack Obama. In other words, this pick would infuriate Clinton supporters unlike any other. Additionally, his Presidential debate performances were tedious, bordering on soporific, and he loses points for that foul-smelling, splotchy goatee/beard thing he’s been growing. Who’s interested in Bill Richardson, homeless Vice-President?

Odds: 25:1

John Edwards: Former Senator from North Carolina, 2004 Democratic VP nominee with John Kerry

Upside: The hair. That wonderful, flaxen hair. Additionally, he’s already been through the ringer of the Bush-Rove attack machine and come relatively unscathed. And while he has now failed at not one but two Presidential campaigns, he maintains a sizable swath of support across the country and it would hardly take any work to reintroduce him to the electorate. Voters more or less have a fixed conception of him in their consciousness and it’s generally a positive one. He’s stated that he’s not interested in the position but would he really turn it down?

Downside: Well, it’s hard to get past the fact that he’s already been a VP candidate and lost, and he’s shown that he can’t produce a victory in his home state of North Carolina. Let’s face it, it’s hard work to wash the stench of ‘loser’ out of that silky smooth hair.

Odds: 30:1

The Field:

Janet Napalitano, Arizona Governor – 3^rd string female candidate from McCain’s home state.

Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator who voted with Democrats for an Iraq withdrawal plan but is still a Republican on most issues such as abortion.

Tom Daschle, former South Dakota Senator, big Obama supporter but managed to lose his Senate seat while he was Senate majority leader.

Sam Nunn, former Georgia Senator has been out of game for 10 years now.

Mike Bloomberg, the Independent Mayor of New York City with a good economic record, but billionaires aren’t exactly change agents. 

Odds: 20:1

 

Conclusions:

Best Pick: Brian Schweitzer. I think he’s just what Obama needs but I doubt that his campaign will have the chutzpah to choose someone so relatively inexperienced in national security matters. The campaign has been running scared for a while now, hewing to the center/right on issues of gun control, the death penalty, FISA, you name it. But the reality is that there’s nothing that Obama can do to convince people that he’s the more qualified and experienced choice on national security and foreign policy issues than John McCain. I’d stick with “hope and change” because hey, it’s gotten him this far.

Runner-up: Hillary Clinton. Between Hillary’s excellent “unity” speech last week in New Hampshire and reports of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama having a “terrific conversation” to work through their issues, it appears that the stage might be being set for Clinton as VP. As a Clinton supporter, I am generally opposed to this pairing, but who knows, maybe I’ll come around? Doubtful, but you never know.

Obama’s Likely Pick: Jim Webb. The Obama campaign seems to be actively antagonizing former Clinton supporters so why not up the ante?