Now that the Democratic nomination process is over, let's ask a practical question: who will fill out the tickets?
First of all, as someone who has logged a fair amount of time boning up (*snicker*) on academic treatments of the presidency, I feel compelled to point out that the choice of running mate is stupendously unimportant to electoral outcomes. We and the media treat it like a big deal because it's something to talk about in the dog days of summer, but when November rolls around there are few historical examples of VP nominees altering the outcome. They have some potential to hurt a candidate and almost no potential to help. Dan Quayle or Tom Eagleton, for example, probably cost their candidates a few votes from people who simply couldn't imagine those tools in the Oval Office. But I struggle mightily to think of an example of a VP who substantially boosted a ticket. Nonetheless.
McCain's choices, in my opinion, are two: Charlie Crist or Bobby Jindal. Crist represents an important swing state and fits hand-in-glove with McCain's vision of conservatism. That is, he's not staking out a position to the right of Fred Phelps on "social" issues but is a reliable economic conservative. The downside is that Crist would do nothing but further enrage the far-right elements who are already wary of McCain. Could a ticket of two "moderates" fly with Dobson and company?
Jindal seems to be the only logical choice. A 36 year-old Roman Catholic Indian-American from the deep south, Jindal literally represents every characteristic that McCain lacks – youth, diversity, strident social conservatism, and southern roots. While Jindal lacks experience (which I personally consider a non-issue) and holds a few legitimately terrifying positions on abortion (i.e., no rape exclusions because every life has value!) he makes too much sense for 71 year-old pasty white John McCain to ignore. So what happens if the right declares Crist unacceptable and McCain decides that Jindal's social conservatism is too extreme?
Names being thrown around – General Petraeus, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, and so on – are lousy options. The only plausible scenario for these folks would be Romney buying his way onto the ticket, agreeing to spend vast sums of his fortune on the campaign, or the Dobsonites insisting on Huckabee at gunpoint. My guess is that McCain would rather go with an unheard of option (the Clinton 92 strategy) rather than a retread. Pawlenty would win out in that scenario. Romney and Huckabee have name recognition, but they already stood for election and the GOP base passed judgment. It wasn't good.
Obama…well, it gets complicated. Since we don't know what goes on behind closed doors, some of this will require pure speculation. So be it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the superdelegates who migrated to Obama in recent weeks may have done so with strings attached. It's unlikely that many of them did so without naming a price. That price, especially for this last handful of superdelegates who brought the contest to an end, may have been picking the VP.
That is a long and conjectural way of saying that the "Dream Ticket" may be forced on Obama. I do not believe, not for one second, that he would choose Clinton of his own free will. Aside from the bridges she's burned and the downright insane, indefensible things she has said since losing her grip on the nomination, there's Bill. Obama does not want to deal with Bill. At all. Can you even imagine being president and having an ex-president – and mind you, this is a camera-hungry, opinionated ex-president who really misses the job – hanging around the White House all the damn time? On top of dealing with Hillary's insane bitterness and lust for the top spot? I find it inconceivable that Obama wants to do that. He may not have a choice.
If this isn't the case, I see Obama with a wider range of choices than McCain. The frontrunner has to be Bill Richardson. He backed Obama early, he's enormously popular in a swing state, he has the best anti-war credentials in the party, and he has experience. Being a fluent-in-Spanish hispanic doesn't hurt. Neither does having a personality. That said, Richardson really stunk up the Democratic debates earlier this year. He may be more useful behind-the-scenes than in front of a camera.
Joe Biden is a possibility, albeit not a strong one. He has more foreign policy cred than any Democrat in Washington. He also fights like hell at the drop of a hat. I'd pay good money to see him lay into McCain's feeble record of Bush-backing and egregious foreign policy misstatements. The downsides are his blandness (unknown Senator from unimportant state plus a case of Old White Guy disease) and his penchant for being out of control when he goes into Kill mode.
If neither Clinton nor Richardson are chosen, his next best options are Jim Webb or Brian Schwietzer. Webb is well-known for being a hardass with a leg to stand on regarding military matters. He could potentially take that wind from McCain's sails. He's also from Virginia, at which the Democrats are about to take a serious run.
buy stromectol online buy stromectol no prescription
Schwietzer makes a lot more sense, though. Never heard of him? He's the Governor of going-blue Montana (two Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor, and a Democratic State Legislature). He has serious anti-lobbyist credentials and could initiate some GOP pant-shitting with his ability to make the plains or mountain west competitive. On the downside, he is a nobody and his ideology is almost too similar to Obama's to be helpful.
Also-rans include Kathleen Sebelius (she blew her chance with the horrible SOTU response earlier this year), John Edwards (doubtful that he'd want it), or the idea of a unity ticket with a disaffected Republican like Chuck Hagel.
It is incumbent upon the candidates to pick someone who won't hurt them; this is a much more pressing concern than picking someone who might help. The potential landmines, in my opinion, are Hillary and Huckabee. Hillary is absolutely loathed on the right (and by an increasing number of Democrats) and both she and Bill are lightning rods. Huckabee has the highest risk factor on the other side. Honestly, it's harder to picture him not saying something idiotic. The less contact he has with the press, the better. Otherwise his words start flowing freely and he becomes a magnet for bad press.
This decision is probably bigger for McCain, who is 71 and has had every kind of skin cancer known to science. Voters will have a much easier time picturing Grandpa Mac dropping dead than Obama.
buy cymbalta online buy cymbalta no prescription
Nevertheless Obama has to put some thought into his choice too. Frankly there are a lot of people who aren't sold on him and choosing an effective advocate could help make his case.
j says:
I think Obama/Webb would be a historic ticket for speaking prowess. Remember his response to the 2007 State of the Union? He was amazing, second only to what Obama pulls on a routine basis. Plus the military cred will be important for Democrats.
John says:
I love the idea of Obama/Webb or Obama/Richardson. I wonder how much influence the Superdelegates have now that Clinton has pulled out. It's not as if they are going to switch to Clinton at the convention after two months of Obama coronation. I love Webb because he can be Obama's Cheney. The guy who goes on Russert and acts like the grownup who really knows what is going on. His authority is very impressive. Richardson can give McCain a run for his money in the all important odd facial features category.
Could McCain do anything more to unite the Dems than to pick a running mate with extreme views on abortion? I think he should pick Joe Lieberman and double down on odd facial features.
BK says:
Has anyone else heard that Hillary wouldn't survive the vetting process for VP because of Bill? Some folks I talk to in some of the insider dem circles believe there is too much truly shaddy stuff from Bill's Presidential Library fundraising program that would force Hillary out of contention.
As for the GOP pick – could it really be Joe L? The mouth breathing wing of the GOP would surely see a Jewish Democrat as next in line for the Oval Office and either vote for someone else or stay home. Pawlenty is an intriguing pick because it puts Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota all in serious contention. Wisconsin went for Kerry by 11,000. Iowa went for Bush by 10,000.
Personally, I think the GOP will go with a Hucaback type and make this a throw away year. The Dems will go with an experienced Dem Governor or Senator.
dem says:
Nothing would piss off Clinton's supporters more than Obama selecting Bill Richardson (aka "Judas") as his running mate. I am sure that would mobilize them to vote for McCain. It is unclear whether Richardson having Mexican heritage could off-set that effect by bringing Hispanics to Obama. I think it would be best to go with a less controversial choice for VP.
pmayo says:
Obama/Webb is the best bet, methinks.
Why wouldn't McCain consider Bill Frist? He satisfies the nutjob element with his Schiavo grandstanding, and he's not likely to say anything stupid on the campaign trail.
Charlie says:
The VP pick doesn't do all that much when it comes to electoral politics (a bad pick can do damage, but a good pick won't help that much) but is fun to talk about.
Ed says:
Frist is not an option for the same reason he didn't run for president – he's going to be very lucky if he doesn't end up being indicted in the scandal involving his healthcare company.
D. Marlan says:
Ed, do you think McCain/Lieberman is a real possibility?
J-Star says:
Obama may not want to live the "Dream Ticket" but in the end you could say it is a move towards a better overall Executive. With Hillary as VP and EX PRESIDENT Bill Clinton as another "voice with no say" could help guide Obama who would ultimately have the final say. Didn't the Anti-Federalists argue that an Executive just might take too much power?? And what do you think those same Anti-feds would say if they could see Bush today? Maybe connecting former Presidents to the office to help the new ones isn't such a bad idea. Bill could make certain statements that might be too controversial and divisive for Obama or Hillary to say, and he could take some of the heat off Barak who will potentially be risking his life every time he makes a public appearance, at least in the South. You would never hear me legitimately call this a "dream ticket" but don't hate the player, hate the game. Give Hillary a break, she did and said what she had to just to have a chance at beating Obama, and lets be honest, its the most uniting, politically skilled, and overall democratic combination there is.
M-Star...derp. says:
J-Star:
Suuure…all we need in the US is MORE (rather than less) tenure in power for people named Clinton or Bush. Is Obama some kind of kid in short pants? C'mon. I'm with Ed re: the "experience" hogwash"; give me someone vision and the chutzpah to stand up to the powers that be anytime over those with experience…sucking on Satan's cock.
In addition, Clinton had his chance. What is Mr. NAFTA gonna' say after whistling past the back of the bus during the primaries that is worth saying? Bill Clinton felt no compunction adding some real doozies to the far too long list of Executive Orders granting the CEO of the US, btw, so the notion that he is going to somehow move us away from that should he manage to squirm within earshot of a President Obama is to laugh.
Lastly J-Star, the your reference to Hillary Clinton deserving "a break" after "[doing] what she had to just to have a chance at beating Obama" belies the fact that she was the early to pre-middle favorite and failed to recognize (not unlike what Frank Rich notes in his op-ed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08rich.html?ei=5087&em=&en=9bb946b39201ed81&ex=1213156800&pagewanted=print) that Obama is, thus far, the real deal. Yes, he's a politician who sharpened his teeth in Chicago. Yes, he's politically savvy. However, the dude is for real, as in, if I touch that wire with live current running through it, things are going to happen. The man is ready to make things happen in the US for the first time since Carter, and Obama has a better chance (assuming he has or will have learned form Carter and Kennedy's mistakes) to change things across the board. Among many, many other things, re-nationalize the military like, last week; abolish the death penalty, flex some strenuous anti-trust muscle, and clean house re: the incompetent nepotistas that have undermined our govt. bureaucracy for the last 8 years.
dem says:
"chutzpah to stand up to the powers that be anytime over those with experience…sucking on Satan’s cock."
…what are some instances in which Obama has stood up to the powers that be in the party, such as Kerry or Kennedy? When has Obama taken flack (in the way of public scolding or removal from a committee position) by the party leaders for deviating on a policy vote?
"The man is ready to make things happen in the US for the first time since Carter"
Surely you are joking about Carter….another Jimmy Carter–that is the LAST thing this country needs. I am not sure where you are getting this idea that Obama will make drastic change happen, but it is certainly not from his voting record. An example: If you look at Obama's voting record, he supported the Cheney Energy Bill which was nothing but a subsidy for Big Oil. I am not suggesting that McCain or others are much better; I am simply calling you out for your unrealistic expectations regarding Barack Obama and how he would facilitate this elusive "change."