Some Early Thoughts About Who Obama Should Pick As His VP
Posted by Ashish on 05.08.2008
Richardson? Edwards? Rendell? Hillary? Thoughts on who Obama should pick...
While it may be too early to start discussing who Barack Obama should pick as his Vice Presidential candidate, it's an interesting thing to think about. I think there are a few major contenders to consider.
TOP CONTENDERS
Bill Richardson -- Richardson was of course a Presidential candidate himself this year but didn't go very far. He is also the Governor of a swing state in New Mexico and is probably the highest ranking Hispanic in the Democratic party. He also brings a ton to the table, possibly more than anyone else. First of all, nobody else will bring with him the number of instant, overnight votes as Richardson will. We've seen that Obama is getting 90%+ of the African American vote, largely because African Americans want to see him become the first African American President. Can we assume that Hispanics would turn out in the same way to put the first Hispanic Vice President in office? If so, New Mexico becomes a lock for the Democrats, and Texas suddenly looks like a very strong state for an Obama/Richardson ticket because 47% of the state's population is made up of Hispanics and African Americans. And there is no path to the Presidency for the Republicans that doesn't include Texas. If the Democrats win Texas, it's over, and an Obama/Richardson ticket would have a better shot at winning Texas than any other combination. Richardson would also be a major asset in two other key swing states -- Colorado and Nevada -- both of which have a lot of Hispanic voters. Richardson is also now recognized nationally, and name recognition always helps. Richardson also brings a ton of experience to the ticket -- executive experience as a Governor and White House experience as a member of the Clinton Administration. Richardson isn't perfect though. For one, he has a habit of saying a lot of stupid things. This happened to him a few times during the Democratic primary and it's not like he was ever one of the leading candidates. If he is on a ticket with Obama, he'd face more media pressure than he has ever faced and could spit out a game changing gaffe. The other problem with an Obama/Richardson ticket is that it doesn't include a white man/woman and that there may be some backlash to Richardson due to his race, especially in border states where immigration is a hot topic. Of course, border states are where most of the Hispanics are so they would probably more than make up for any backlash, but still. Let's face it, America still has a lot of racist people and an Obama/Richardson ticket would scare them to death. Of course, those people probably aren't going to vote for Obama anyway, regardless of who his VP is. Richardson also probably would be a tough sell as a "change" candidate, and Obama has said before that he wants his VP to bolster his main campaign themes.
Ed Rendell -- Rendell is the Governor of Pennsylvania, a swing state the Democrats probably have to win, and was one of Clinton's top supporters and helped her in major ways in the PA primary. Rendell is experienced and a natural politician. He is a good campaigner and would help to sew up PA for Obama. He also is a media darling, always is good for soundbites, and is white and gray which, again, help Obama with some of his weaker groups. Rendell also isn't really known on a national stage. That being said, I'm not sure how close Obama and Rendell are, and I doubt Obama really wants to pick a VP he isn't that close with. I mean, even if we take Clinton, he may not be best friends with her, but he knows her pretty well now and probably has a grudging respect for her. Same with Edwards. Even John Kerry's been one of his top supporters. But Rendell is someone that Obama probably has had virtually no interaction with because he isn't a Senator or someone Obama would run into in Washington, and has spent the primary season with Clinton. Still though, his status as the popular Governor of a key swing state automatically puts him in the running. And let's not forget that Rendell wasn't shy about telling voters that Obama was little more than speeches during the PA primary. And let's face it, Rendell isn't really a "change" candidate either.
Claire McCaskill -- McCaskill is a Senator from Missouri and has been one of Obama's most loyal and active surrogates since the early days, well before anyone actually thought he could win. She is popular in Missouri, which is technically a swing state, and she's a white woman and could obviously help Obama with the white women he will have to bring over from the Clinton base. She's also very well spoken and seems to do well on TV and in high profile situations. That being said, I'm not sure Obama has a legitimate shot at winning Missouri, with or without McCaskill. Plus she wouldn't do much in terms of adding experience to the ticket, which is one of Obama's weaker areas.
Kathleen Sebelius -- Sebelius is the Governor of Kansas, and a popular one at that. I doubt Obama has a chance to win Kansas though, and even if he did, it doesn't have enough electoral votes to really change much. Sebelius is a Governor (was named one of the top five Governors in the country by TIME) and would bring some executive experience to the ticket. She's also a white woman and that helps for obvious reasons. But beyond all that, she's on the same political page as Obama. She believes in working with Republicans (she's had to as she is the Governor of a red state) and more or less incorporates all of Obama's major themes. She is also someone who has been supporting him for awhile now and someone who he seems to be legitimate friends with. Don't underestimate the value of that. Sebelius was considered to be John Kerry's running mate in 2004 and some have even said that she could run for President in 2016. The party also thinks very highly of her as they picked her to give their official response to Republican President George W. Bush's 2008 State of the Union Address. If she doesn't get the VP slot, she will probably run for a Senate seat in 2010.
Tim Kaine -- Kaine is the Governor of Virginia, another swing state that Obama probably thinks he can win. He's popular there and could be enough to put the state in the Democratic column. I don't know much about Kaine but being the Governor of Virginia instantly puts him in the running for the VP slot. He's also a white male which helps Obama for obvious reasons. Kaine was the first major politician outside of Illinois to endorse Obama's Presidential campaign, and that also probably counts for something.
OTHER OPTIONS
Wes Clark -- Clark has been one of Clinton's high profile supporters and that instantly hurts his chances of being an Obama VP pick, but I'm sure he is still among those being considered. Clark is a universally respected military commander, has a ton of experience in war and foreign policy, and would offer a nice contrast to John McCain in terms of military credentials. With Obama wanting to get out of Iraq, having a respected military guy like Wes Clark there to back him up would help. Plus, Clark is not only a respected military man, he's white, and he has gray hair. Obama will have to win over older whites, and a guy like Clark could help with that based totally on his experience, age, and the calming way in which he speaks. He isn't the most charismatic guy on the stump, but Vice Presidents don't really need to be (just look at Dick Cheney and Al Gore). The main problem with Clark, though, is he doesn't bring any instant result. He isn't from a swing state like other contenders (Ed Rendell, for example) and he doesn't cause any instant improvement in a weak Obama demographic (like Richardson does with Hispanics). Clark also isn't as well known nationally as, say, Richardson, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton.
John Edwards -- An Obama/Edwards ticket was tossed around a lot during January when Edwards was still in the Democratic race. Since then, talk of the ticket has quieted down. Edwards was John Kerry's running mate in 2004 and didn't do much, as the ticket still lost Edwards' home state of North Carolina. NC will be in play again this year and is expected to be even closer now with Obama at the top of the ticket. You'd assume that Edwards would help greatly in NC and could tip the state to the Democrats, and again, adding NC to the Democratic column would be huge and make victory very tough for McCain. Edwards is also well known nationally, seemed to gain some respect in his 2008 run, and, above all else, is a Southern white man with a populist message. He would speak directly to lower income white men in the South, one of Obama's weakest demographics during the primary. That being said, the chances of the Democrats winning any state in the deep South other than North Carolina are slim to none, so winning over Southern white men probably doesn't really matter much. Edwards could also help with the traditional Democratic voters that made up much of Hillary Clinton's base in the primaries, especially in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania where there are a lot of low income, blue collar, white men and union households. Those voters are Edwards' bread and butter. It's worth noting that Kerry/Edwards lost Ohio but won Pennsylvania. There probably isn't any path to the Presidency for the Democrats winning Pennsylvania or Ohio. It's hard to see how they would lose the election if they won both those states. One of the big problems with an Obama/Edwards ticket, though, would be that they have differing views on healthcare. Edwards wants a pure, universal healthcare plan that forces everyone to buy coverage, and Obama has a plan that lowers costs but doesn't force anyone to buy in. It's a major difference and, based on reports, is what has kept Edwards from endorsing Obama thus far. Still, the two seemed to be on the same page when aligning behind "change" early in the primary contest and could do it again in the general. Edwards not endorsing Obama when he had the chance to put him over the top could cost him the VP slot though. Loyalty matters.
Hillary Clinton -- Clinton is obviously a name that will get a lot of attention. The second an Obama/Clinton "dream ticket" is announced, it would get tons of positive media coverage. It would also be the easiest way to force the Obama/Clinton voting coalitions together. Strong Obama and Clinton supporters probably wouldn't be happy about it, but they'd still vote for the ticket. And Obama teaming up with Hillary would also mean that Bill would come along for the ride, and regardless of how much of a fool he has made of himself in the primary, Bill Clinton still has plenty of value for Obama in terms of campaigning in swing states. But, with Clinton comes a lot of baggage. The Republicans will not be shy about reintroducing the many Clinton scandals during the election, and could even unearth a few new ones. And let's face it, nothing would rally a currently unmotivated Republican base more than running against the Clintons. The other big problem is that an Obama/Clinton ticket doesn't make much sense in terms of the messages the two candidates have. Obama is all about change, and having the Clintons with him kills that message. And let's face it, the two obviously don't like each other and I doubt Obama wants Bill and Hillary looking over his shoulder for eight years, not to mention the rest of the drama that usually follows them around. I don't think Obama thinks for a second that he can trust Hillary Clinton, and why pick a VP you can't trust? Obama is never going to forget the lengths to which the Clintons tried to smear him during the primary fight. Whether they did or they didn't isn't the question -- he thinks they did, and that obviously will impact his line of thinking in relation to the Clintons. And let's also not discount egos. Everybody who runs for President has a big ego, and Obama is no exception. Sure he is a big star now, but so is Clinton. Does he want someone on the ticket who will grab up so much attention? Probably not. He beat Clinton against all odds and deserves to be the undisputed top dog on the ticket if that's what he wants.
John Kerry -- Kerry was the 2004 Democratic nominee and loss in a close election to George W. Bush. I haven't heard his name mentioned much, but I figure it's still a possibility. He is another high profile Democrat who is recognized on the national scene. He is a war veteran and the swiftboat attacks from 2004 have been universally discredited, so nobody will fall for those again. He is old and gray, which helps with one of Obama's weaker demographics. He has a lot of experience. He is a good campaigner. And he has already proven his loyalty to Obama by being one of his top surrogates during the primary fight. That being said, I'm not sure what Kerry really adds. He isn't from a swing state and doesn't ensure a dramatic bump among any demographics. He also doesn't exactly scream "change" which is Obama's main message and, in many ways, still has the stink of a loser from 2004. I'm not sure Obama wants to go to the past for his VP. He probably wants someone that has experience and helps in his weak areas, but still comes across as something new. People like Kerry and Clinton are so high profile and so linked to the past that it may water down Obama's core message. Clark may be old, but he isn't really a national figure, so he'd be viewed as a new face by the majority of the electorate. And Edwards is also a familiar face, but his message is also about change, so it wouldn't hurt Obama much.
Ted Strickland -- Stickland is the Governor of Ohio, one of the swing states that will see a lot of action, and thus is automatically in contention. Of course, Strickland was Clinton's top surrogate in Ohio and can be seen nodding his head in approval during the now infamous Clinton "Shame on You" outburst.
Jim Webb -- Webb is a popular Senator from Virginia. He is a top Clinton surrogate and I don't see anyway Obama would pick Webb over Tim Kaine, the Virginia Governor. That being said, Webb is a rising star in the party and many think he could run for President himself down the line.
Evan Bayh -- Bayh is the Governor of Indiana, very popular in the state, and someone who most figured would have been one of Clinton's top VP candidates had she won the nomination. He was one of Clinton's strongest supporters. But his stock really fell on Tuesday when he did not deliver Clinton the win she expected in Indiana. Bayh is a likable white male, a natural politician, and someone who brings plenty to the table as a campaigner. But, again, the fact that he will end this battle on the losing side will hurt him, as well his inability to deliver Indiana in a big way for Clinton.
Tom Daschle -- Daschle is a former US Senator from South Dakota and also the former Senate Majority Leader. He is also currently one of the highest ranking people in the Obama campaign, and one of Obama's close advisers. I doubt Obama would pick someone like Daschle to be VP, mostly because he'd probably end up in a cabinet position or something else that would result in him being even closer to Obama, it's still an option. He's someone from the Obama inner circle and has a lot of experience.
At this point, I'd probably label Bill Richardson, Tim Kaine, and Kathleen Sebelius are the frontrunners for the VP slot, with Claire McCaskill right there in the mix as well. My feeling is that Richardson delivers the most votes and brings with him the potential for a Democratic blowout. An Obama/Richardson ticket would be in strong position to win New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Texas, and if those states go to the Democrats, and they simply hold on to Kerry's 2004 states, it'll be a blowout. That being said, there is no way to really determine what kind of racial backlash there might be to a ticket comprised of an African American and a Hispanic. The safest pick is Tim Kaine. He is a popular swing state Governor, a white man, and someone who has been with Obama since the beginning of the race. Hillary Clinton would also be a safe pick in terms of a ticket that would win in November, since combining the type of support the two got in the primaries would pretty much ensure a victory over McCain, but she brings with her a plethora of headaches that Obama probably doesn't want in his White House.
Ed Rendell would be a horrible choice. I'm not sure he'd play very well
nationally, and he's just about guaranteed to say at least one or two stupid
things that would get Obama into major trouble. He's a loose cannon. He can
get away with that as a governor, where there isn't much media scrutiny, but
not as a VP candidate.
Posted By: Orangutan (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 01:37 AM
Interesting article. I agree with most everything in here. Strategically, I
think Randell would be best, whether Obama has a relationship with him or not,
simply because I believe that would assure that Obama wins Pennsylvania, and I
think that if Obama picks someone else, he will ultimately lose Pennsylvania to
McCain, which will cost him the election. And it's his own fault for being
associated with Rev. Wright for all those years and insulting the good state of
Pennsylvania by name.
With that said, I tend to agree that Obama is unlikely to pick someone he
doesn't have a relationship with or at least someone who wasn't on his side
before now. Frankly, I don't think Kaine or Sebelius (or McCaskill) adds
anything to the table, and I don't think the Democrats are going to want to put
a non-Hillary woman on the ticket with Obama. That might be riskier than putting
Richardson on, which I don't think is that risky at all.
I think we should stow all this talk about Democratic "blowouts" or
"ensured wins." It's not like Obama has a 10-point lead (or even five
points) in the polls right now, and the general election is a completely
different animal, both in terms of the voters and the Electoral College (by the
way, if the Democratic primaries used the Electoral College, Hillary's win in
Pennsylvania would have wrapped up the nomination--just something to keep in
mind).
I think Richardson is going to be the choice. He would lock up the swing state
of New Mexico (my home state, where he is so popular that even I and other
people who lean Republican have voted for him twice, though he didn't really
face anything resembling real competition in those races). And I do think he'd
be able to help (though not guarantee) in Colorado and Nevada. Not Texas,
though. I think that's a pipe dream. I HIGHLY doubt that Hispanics that have
continually shown that they generally aren't going to vote for Obama will vote
Democratic en masse in November the way black voters will. The problem with
Richardson is that McCain is also from a southwestern state (Arizona) and is
popular in that area of the country and respected among Hispanics. Obama will
obviously win California, McCain will win Arizona (and most likely Texas) and
Richardson could deliver New Mexico, but McCain is still very capable of
winning Colorado and Nevada.
Like I said, I think Randell is the most logical choice because he is so
popular in a state that is so important. Then again, when the Rev. Wright
scandal first broke, I thought the only possible thing Obama could do was to
cut Wright off, and he didn't do that for almost two months (which was the
tipping point for me deciding that I could never vote for Obama, even though I
had been leaning toward voting for him for about a month prior to that).
Posted By: John (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 01:51 AM
Jim Webb is a great choice. Reagan Democrat, Vietnam War Hero, Anti-Iraq
War....He was NOT a Clinton surrogate---not sure where you got that from. I'd
pick him over Gov. Kaine because Gov's have no real Foreign Policy credentials
and facing McCain, Obama needs this more than executive experience.
Posted By: Kent (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 03:41 AM
Heh.. I wonder which state you're from, John.. Your argument fails. McCain will
NOT win Pennsylvania. Plus, your state is NOT the most important state in the
union, and it's just one state. Richardson could potentially deliver a Texas,
New Mexico, and maybe even give McCain a run for his money (the little that he
has) in his home state of Arizona.
Having said that, I'd prefer to see Edwards as his running mate, since it would
show that Obama is for real when it comes to change, and Edwards was the true
candidate for change in this primary.
Posted By: poffo316 (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 05:27 AM
Sorry one more thing, I almost missed you rehashing the worst political argument
of the new millenium..
"by the
way, if the Democratic primaries used the Electoral College, Hillary's win in
Pennsylvania would have wrapped up the nomination--just something to keep in
mind"
Hey by the way, if my ass was made of mozzarella it would taste like a
pizza--just something to keep in
mind!
Posted By: poffo316 (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 05:39 AM
Do you think that ignorant racists will realise that Bill Richardson is
hispanic? I know that sounds stupid, but if they see the name Richardson on the
ticket, they literally may have no idea who he is. Just throwing it out there...
Posted By: Pete Thorn (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 08:13 AM
I think you've nailed it. It will be Tim Kaine or Webb. Webb can go toe to toe
with anyone on the Iraq issue.
Posted By: Abraham (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 08:17 AM
I think it would be best to have person with military
experience as a running mate . If he doesn't , McCain will start the (War
Experience ,scare the hell of out America ) ad campaign.
Posted By: Rob (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Actually the electoral vote argument does make at least a little sense, seeing
as the general election is decided by electoral votes. So it could be some
kind of factor in the general election.
I loved that almost every suggestion included some mention of race or sex.
Nothing like generalizing groups of people!
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 10:56 AM
General Wesley Clark: Why.. 1st name general.. 2nd, a HRC supporter, 3rd,
white/gray male with military and internation credentials.. Has candidate
experience. Would help carry Ark., Ok., TX, Ark, Tn. Ky, Penn. Va. W.Va... the
segment Obama has had most trouble with.. so adds politically, demographicaly,
regionally.. AND Vietnam vet vs. John McCain.. you have your military patriot,
we have ours. JO
Posted By: JOdam (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Am I the only one who wants to see Obama / Paul as the ticket, if only for
entertainment value? It would let Obama say he's trying to unite both sides of
the aisle without picking a 'real' Republican... much like someone mentioned
that McCain/Clinton would probably win... it would be fun to watch.
Posted By: Peers (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 01:27 PM
Very nice discussion of the various options. One of the more thoughtful things
I've read on the topic. Have you thought about McCain's veep options? Keep up
the good work.
Posted By: Dan (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 01:46 PM
I see Kathleen Sebelius the best choice for the VP slot.
That being said, I just cannot resist this red herring - why not David Axelrod
himself? If he can propell Dean, Duval(!) and Obama to where they were/are, he
would be a great help in working out policy matters where it is really
required.
Posted By: IndianGuy (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 02:09 PM
As a native of the state of Pennsylvania, I have to say I hope that Obama DOES
NOT take Ed Rendell as his VP choice. 1) Rendell is not a change kind of guy,
unless there is an earth shattering movement for it,and then he jumps on the
bandwagon fast. 2) More importantly, it would leave Catherine Baker Knoll as
the governor of PA for two years. A nice grandmotherly woman, who is out of
her league in the real hardcore world of politics. She hs rouble remembering
his name (has twice called him Edward G. Robinson) and speaks of political
views at the worst time (she went to a military funeral univited and proceeded
to tell the family how the Rendell administration is against the war). Her as
governor is something nobody wants to see. Obama could take her and watch her
mess up the US Senate.
Posted By: awdnunz (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 05:32 PM
Pennsylvania hasn't swung much lately. Richardson, Clark, McCaskill and Clinton
sound like the best choices to me, with Richardson or Clinton being the most
likely. Obama/Clinton would seal the deal imo.
Posted By: meta (Registered) on May 08, 2008 at 09:02 PM
I like the idea of Senator Kerry. I don't find him old school at all. He is a
progressive with a lot of respect outside Washington. He certainly would add
the much needed experience to the ticket and he would be wonderful on foreign
policy. And, he is personaable and comes accross as genuine. Frankly, when I
listen to Senator Obama I hear a lot of Kerry 2004 ideas and talking points. I
think they would make a great team. Remember, Democrats thought Edward's would
bring something to the ticket and he brought nothing. Let's try thinking
outside the box this time.
Posted By: MAC (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Two others that deserve consideration are Gov. Tom Vilsack and former Virginia
Gov. Mark Warner, the former for being a likable guy with a good administrative
skills (and a hard luck past, born as an orphan, to boot), the latter being a
moderate pro-business Dem who kept his state in good shape while overseeing it.
Posted By: Mike (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Bloomberg?
Obama needs to do better with Jews and that would be a "change" VP
pick by going with an independent.
Posted By: Joe Rivett (Registered) on May 09, 2008 at 01:22 AM
To those who think McCain cannot win Pennsylvania, I think you are mistaken. If
I know PA, (and after twenty years I should) McCain will play very well indeed
in PA. My sense is that the middle areas of the state don't respond to Obama
and a older man and a war veteran would energize them. Surely Obama will carry
places like Philly either, but in other Democratic bastions like Erie, I can see
McCain cutting into Obama's base. Pennsylvania should be nip & tuck the
whole way.
Rendell would assuredly help Obama carry PA, but I'm afraid that the damage
done by him being a Clinton supporter and an unreliable gasbag.
I like Rendell. He's a good governor. Not as good as Tom Ridge, in my
opinion, but he's been good. I also like Ed Rendell, PA Governor, as Obama's
VP.
But I don't particularly enjoy Ed Rendell, actual person, that much and I think
Ed Rendell, when divorced from his status as PA Governor would be a bad choice.
I see Edwards, Webb, Sebelius, and Richardson all being far better choices than
Rendell. With Webb and Sebelius appealing to me most.
I really don't think that Obama wants to share the ticket with an established
name like Edwards or Richardson or Hillary.
Posted By: Orangutan (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 05:16 PM
don't forget Brian Schweitzer from Montana
Posted By: Guest#4001 (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Who would be the most helpfull and credible person to help Obama successfully
extricate himself from Iraq? Jim Webb. Webb, distingwished Vietnam vetren is
the only person that can really call out McCain on critical war issues. Plus he
is as tough as nails.
Posted By: Matt (Guest) on May 10, 2008 at 01:49 PM
Obama-Edwards!
Posted By: Populist (Guest) on May 11, 2008 at 04:22 AM
I think the best ticket would be Obama/Edwards. Edwards has great views and he
could pull in the blue collar white male and female plus he could possibly pull
North Carolina which would be crucial. If Obama can pull North Carolina he
would be the next president.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 12, 2008 at 09:45 AM
I'm surprised you practically buried Webb among 'others'. A Daily Kos poll i saw
this week has him 46% to Sebelius (11%), his nearest competitor. But Webb may be
polling highest among the most fervent netroots. I consider him Obama's most
intriguing possibility. Webb has incredible gravitas and a more authentic blue
collar white-pedigree of any in the field. The combo just might strike such a
perfect chord with voters, as to give us a landslide in the Fall.
I'm fond of Richardson, but he's an uneven campaigner. Sebelius, although fine
in nearly every respect, lacks security cred.
I haven't even been following Webb all that closely until a week ago. All
weekend I googled & you-tubed him to death - and came away convinced he's a
brilliant match for Obama.
Posted By: Guest#0539 (Guest) on May 12, 2008 at 06:30 PM
