« The Political Brain | Main | John Edwards vs. Pharmaceutical Patents »
June 14, 2007
Obama/Warner
Like Douthat, I'm a big believer in storyline vice-presidents. Regional balance seems, at times, worse than useless -- it draws attention to your perceived vulnerabilities without actually correcting them. By contrast, picking an amplifying choice -- a war hero with a war hero, for instance -- accentuates your strengths without admitting your weaknesses. So this, from Ross, seems like wise advice for the Obama campaign:
If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he has an interest in picking a Southern running mate (like Mark Warner, say) less because the pick might help Obama carry some Southern states than because the narrative that such a pick projects - a black candidate with a white running mate from the old Confederacy! - dovetails perfectly with Obama's "beyond our differences" appeal.
Seems unambiguously true. Add in that Warner is relatively young, and his experience is in technology, and you've got a fairly solid choice. The downside is that neither has any foreign policy experience to speak of, but in the end, voters will either trust Obama or they won't.
June 14, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Warner's a solid VP pick for any of three major frontrunners. Perhaps contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't think Obama is a shoo-in for VP if he doesn't win the nomination. Clinton probably wouldn't want to pick Obama, and Edwards might prefer someone else. And who knows if Obama even wants to be VP?
Posted by: Korha | Jun 14, 2007 1:32:32 PM
Or he could reach out to a section of the country that Dems want to control (say, the SW) and serve an interest group that's owed (women). I'll actually be pretty upset if we have a male nominee without a female VP candidate.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jun 14, 2007 1:50:23 PM
Other than Sebelius, who are some possible women VP candidates? (We can assume Hillary doesn't want the #2 job.)
Posted by: Mark | Jun 14, 2007 1:53:09 PM
I just reread your comment, SomeCallMeTim, and it seems like you're suggesting Napolitano, right?
Posted by: Mark | Jun 14, 2007 1:54:10 PM
What I care about in a vice presidential choice is that both s/he and the presidential candidate make it VERY clear that we won't have a repeat of Cheney's rogue presidency. This has been unprecedented, and very dangerous for our democracy (VPs aren't really elected, as people vote for the presidential candidate much more than for the VP, and they aren't subject to Senate confirmation either). I don't really care much about anything else related to the VP choice, as this issue dwarfs any other possible consideration.
Posted by: beckya57 | Jun 14, 2007 2:08:34 PM
With Wesley Clark, Obama would get the same unity-with-Southern-white-guy story line AND foreign-policy experience.
Posted by: Jose Peterson | Jun 14, 2007 2:12:23 PM
Yeah, Warner and Clark both seem good fits for Obama on paper - and fit with this storyline. I'd also throw Bob Graham into the mix (Southern, also right on the war and plays up Obama's good judgment on that, and he helps put Florida in play). On paper, I'd say Obama should choose one of those three (should he secure the nomination next year).
I'm sympathetic to the idea of having a woman on the ticket. But honestly there aren't a lot of possibilities to choose from.
Posted by: Armand | Jun 14, 2007 2:20:19 PM
To pick a nit regarding Obama's supposed lack of foreign policy experience: the man lived in Indonesia for four years and grew up in Hawaii, probably the most international state in the US. His father is from Kenya--even if Obama didn't know his father, having a foreign parent is inevitably going to change your view on how your country relates to others. In my view, this gives him a broader, cosmopolitan perspective than anyone else in the field except perhaps Richardson. Basically, because of his international background, I'm inclined to trust him on international decisions more than Clinton, Edwards, et al, even if Clinton has more experience rubbing elbows with diplomats and foreign leaders.
Based on the widespread failure of those with so-called foreign policy experience to make the right choice on the Iraq war, and Obama's accurate predictions about the war, I think it's far past time to reevaluate what counts as "foreign policy experience" of the kind we want our leaders to have.
Posted by: yave begnet | Jun 14, 2007 2:30:17 PM
The other downside is that IIRC, Warner doesn't really want the campaign life. That's why he's not running for president (and a vice-presidential campaign would have equivalent stresses).
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 14, 2007 2:52:19 PM
The downside is that neither has any foreign policy experience to speak of
Well, if that's the only problem, then why not? I mean, it's not like he'll have a war to deal with or anything, right?
but in the end, voters will either trust Obama or they won't.
You say this as if foreign policy experience in wartime has no affect whatsoever on trust.
Posted by: Christmas | Jun 14, 2007 2:54:50 PM
Warner's good. Obama and he could run a good centrist, pragmatic campaign. He's not charismatic, but he comes off as genuine and practical. Convincing the moderates that they are not partisan ideologues would go a long way. It would also be clear who was top dog, unlike an Obama-Hillary or Anybody-Obama ticket. Finally, it wouldn't be an odd-couple scenario, like Kerry-Edwards or Gore-Lieberman.
Posted by: JewishAtheist | Jun 14, 2007 3:14:08 PM
Are we really so sure that foreign policy experience is all that important? Our current VP had some, and that hasn't turned out to well.
Posted by: Seitz | Jun 14, 2007 3:18:41 PM
Jim Webb. Culturally he's a white Southerner (Warner grew up in the Midwest and New England). He's sharp as a whip, turned out to be a pretty good campaigner and was just vetted by a tough Senate race. Finally, I can't remember a freshman senator with more national security experience (Stuart Symington maybe?).
The DLCers don't like him after that WSJ op-ed decrying income inequality, but among sane people, that's a feature not a bug.
Posted by: beowulf | Jun 14, 2007 3:27:41 PM
"The other downside is that IIRC, Warner doesn't really want the campaign life. That's why he's not running for president (and a vice-presidential campaign would have equivalent stresses)."
Warner is running hard for the #2 slot, dude.
-----
"And who knows if Obama even wants to be VP?"
Anyone who wants to be President and has never been on a national ticket wants to be VP. It's a no-brainer.
-----
Hillary picks Bayh
Obama picks Warner
Edwards picks Obama
Posted by: Petey | Jun 14, 2007 3:41:25 PM
Doesn't Edwards/Obama have a youth problem?
Posted by: Glenn | Jun 14, 2007 4:18:18 PM
I've seen a suggestion of Obama with Colin Powell. Sure, it's all-black, but folks excited about Obama aren't going to worry about that -- and, like me, may be pretty excited about it. Powell also appears to be the consummate team player, so no "rogue Cheney" worries, I think. (I know, Powell was too much the team player, viz. UN speech.)
Posted by: danthelawyer | Jun 14, 2007 4:24:11 PM
"Doesn't Edwards/Obama have a youth problem?" - Really? Edwards is 54.
"Hillary picks Bayh" - Huh, I've been thinking she'd go for a different Midwestern white guy - Vilsack. Though I think Warner makes sense as a VP choice for her too. It's hard for me to imagine a ticket that would make the netroots groan more than Clinton-Bayh.
Posted by: Armand | Jun 14, 2007 4:46:23 PM
Yeah, but he's publicly perceived as being boyish. I guess to rephrase, wouldn't the media give them shit for having a youth problem?
Posted by: Glenn | Jun 14, 2007 4:48:09 PM
Edwards (or Gore) would pick Obama. Obama and Clinton would pick Warner. There's no other better option than Warner, being a massively popular and appealing candidate in a state that's rapidly getting bluer.
Jim Webb is great and all but if you think Obama'd pick him you're nuts. Obama's biggest problem (okay, let's face it, the second-biggest) for a national campaign is his lack of experience; there's no way he's tapping a guy who's been in office for 18 months.
Wesley Clark wants a cabinet position. He's not getting asked by anyone to be VP. Let it go, guys. He's less likely to be on a ticket than Al Gore.
Posted by: August J. Pollak | Jun 14, 2007 4:50:47 PM
I think Webb is too much the hot head. I recall his refusal to shake hands with the country's head of state. I don't care how much you loathe the man or his policies -- that's just plain churlish.
Posted by: Idi | Jun 14, 2007 6:48:44 PM
I strongly agree with the "amplifying choice" view. Use the VP slot as an opportunity to develop your story, not to defend against some perceived vulnerability. That doesn't work.
I really hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination and remove a Democratic Senator from Indiana.
One of the nice things about Edwards/Obama is that it would be beautiful to see Obama inherit the substance of the Edwards policy program.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 14, 2007 7:09:35 PM
Neither Obama nor Warner has much foreign policy experience, but then Romney doesn't, and while the media supports the ridiculous notion that Giuliani does, he doesn't either. McCain has some, but he's shown his judgment to be awful these past few years. In other words, if we can do a halfway decent job of pointing out the deficiencies on the other side, we should be fine.
"The other downside is that IIRC, Warner doesn't really want the campaign life."
How do you know this? Not that I think you're lying, but what specific proof do you have?
"It's hard for me to imagine a ticket that would make the netroots groan more than Clinton-Bayh."
I agree. I don't think there's anything particularly awful about either of these people, but nothing would piss the netroots off more than having two moderates/centrists, except perhaps having Joe Lieberman on the ticket.
Posted by: Brian | Jun 14, 2007 7:10:57 PM
Anyone who wants to be President and has never been on a national ticket wants to be VP. It's a no-brainer."
Hah! Hillary Clinton would *so* rather stay in the Senate than become Edwards' or Obama's VP. And no she's never been on a national ticket, her husband doesn't count.
I mean, generally I agree with you. What kind of ambitious senator is going to turn down the VP slot, if offered it? But Obama's somewhat unique in that regard. His vice presidency wouldn't be particularly powerful or useful, and he might want to be Governor of Illinois for a couple of years instead, or something. The VP is a path to the presidency, that's why you want accept it. Obama doesn't really need that path, though, he's got a couple other ones.
"Edwards picks Obama"
I feel like this ticket could easily be blown away by the Republicans--no data to back it up, just a feeling. The two of them together are too inexperienced, too fresh, too nice, too young looking. At the end of the day the country won't go for it.
Posted by: Korha | Jun 14, 2007 7:12:28 PM
I really hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination and remove a Democratic Senator from Indiana.
Better for Edwards to take one from Ohio? Do the two states have different rules for replacing senators or something?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 14, 2007 7:54:42 PM
Sanpete, Obama is from Illinois, and I have fairly high confidence in the Democrats' ability there.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 14, 2007 9:45:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
