GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Much has been said about the possible Republican running mates but, around here at least, the Democratic possibilities haven’t been fully aired. Senator Obama has a lot of choices, many of whom would strengthen a relatively weak hand, but none seems so promising as Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. If the name sounds familiar, you’re probably used to hearing it in another context, associated with another Presidential candidate; campaign finance reform and John McCain. In 2001, they passed into law their (in)famous campaign finance legislation, McCain/Feingold. Many Republicans know precious little else about the 3-term senator from Wisconsin, but he’s an important player in Democratic circles.
When he first jumped onto my radar, I was a fledgling conservative, but not yet a Republican. It was in early 2006, during the Alito confirmation hearings, which I watched ceaselessly. Sam Alito impressed me enormously, but oddly enough, so did Russ Feingold. He seemed respectful and open-minded, a stark contrast to men like Senator Kennedy, who preached the end of the universe were Alito confirmed. And while Feingold would ultimately vote against Alito, my perception of his open-mindedness on that issue was not mistaken; he had voted for Roberts, and has voted for the confirmation of some controversial conservative appellate judges. Not because he agreed with them, but because he believes in general deference to presidential appointees.
Now why would Obama want to make someone like this his VP? There are a few huge reasons. First, Russ Feingold is a populist. And not a John Edwards faux-populist- not a guy who decided to burnish the populist label, despite a conflicting personal background (ambulance chaser populists? Give me a break) as a political ploy. He’s a genuine, mud on the boots, Paul Wellstone type populist. Besides campaign finance reform, he has, in the past, very famously refused to take money from corporations or special interests. He actively forced unions and party officials to take any ads off of the air during one of his senate races. He refuses pay increases and he literally had 2,736 bucks in his account at last check. Whatever else Russ Feingold is, he’s certainly not an an effete elitist.
And if you look at his actual election results, you can see this populism bearing fruit. In 2004, he won voters making less then 50k by 17%. He only won voters making more then 50k by 3%. He won white voters by somewhere in the neighborhood of 8%. He’s the absolute king of the blue-collar Democrats Obama is losing in droves right now. But, despite being enormously appealing to blue-collar voters, he’s well loved by much of Obama’s base as well. In fact, Feingold plays perfectly to the two demographics that a successful populist aims for; blue collar whites, who like the thought of an average Joe in politics, and well-educated liberals who see populism as a way to tutor the masses out of their “bitterness”. Indeed, in 2004 Feingold won voters with no high school by 30% (part of Hillary’s demographic), and won voters with post-grad degrees (part of Obama’s demographic) by 24%. He can please the Obama latte liberals, while placating the average Joe’s.
Feingold makes an awful lot of sense for a few more reasons. First of all, he’s Jewish. Obama has struggled with Jewish voters, as DaveG pointed out this morning. It’s unlikely to be a game-changer, anywhere but perhaps Florida, but Feingold’s sure to be at least minimally helpful in this way. Geographically, Feingold’s also a potential asset. Despite his primary victory in the state, Wisconsin is far from a sure bet for Obama. Since his primary victory, he’s become less appealing, due to Bittergate and Jeremiah Wright, to the working class whites that dominate the state. Indeed, at least one recent poll has the ever close Wisconsin narrowly in McCain’s column. And if McCain adds Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to his ticket, Wisconsin becomes even less blue in November. Democrats don’t quite need Wisconsin to win the White House. Not quite. But, the number of combinations that lead to 270+ are incredibly small sans-Wisconsin. Feingold almost guarantees a Democratic victory in the state.
There’s perhaps one final benefit to adding Feingold to the ticket; he’s a Maverick. No, not a maverick in the sense that John McCain is. He’s quite liberal on the vast majority of issues. He’s the only Democratic to vote against the Patriot Act. He’s to the left of Al Gore on environmental issues. He favors gay marriage and universal health care. But, he does have this Maverick quality, which McCain shares; he often does things that give you the sense that he doesn’t quite belong in politics. Like supporting gay marriage, for instance, when 70% of his party is too afraid of electoral reprisals to do so. Or like his charter membership in the anti-pork crusade, a battle that’s a fairly close to bi-partisan, but which puts him to the right of many in his party, and certainly well to the right of pork-lovers Clinton and Obama. Or like his respectful treatment of Sam Alito, and his vote for John Roberts. He’s a progressive, who you can’t help but feel is sincere in his disdain for political institutions. He’s someone who could add some authenticity to Obama’s rapidly crumbling veneer of “new politics”.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Yea Feingold could be a possibility, but for some reason i just keep on thinking more and more that it will be Bill Richardson only b/c Obama has such a problem with hispanics and that would really help to pick richardson, and unfortunately i think it would really help Obama when it comes to the Hispanic vote, even though i hear that Hispanics just dont really like African Americans and so maybe for some hispanics that wouldnt change even with richardson, but who knows?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Good argument, but seems to me Obama needs someone with military creds and/or massive exec experience.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
He was also the only Senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act. And as far as elitism, he makes Barack Obama look like Mike Rowe from dirty jobs.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Looking at Feingold’s election statistics may not be a great indicator of his appeal; since his victory over Kasten in ‘92, unless I’m mistaken, he hasn’t faced a serious challenge. As a result, his victories may have inflated numbers, i.e. winning voters making under 50k by 17%. He probably wouldn’t be a bad choice, but it seems pretty unlikely. Obama needs a foreign policy heavyweight IMO, and Feingold is far from that. Plus, despite all of his likability, he is extremely liberal, and I’m guessing his Senate record would have a few votes that would hurt him in the GE.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Metro,
He’s been on the foreign relations committee for 15 years. He’s been on the intelligence committee for quite awhile to. To the extent that any senator can have foreign policy experience without service in the armed forces, he pretty well qualifies. The lack of executive experience is a real knock against him though, no doubt.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
JB,
Actually, his 98′ race was closer then his 92′ race. He only won by 3%. In 2004 he managed to win by 12%, despite the fact that it was a very poor for Democrats nationally.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Feingold would be a HORRID choice.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
My sleeper pick for Obama’s VP is former Mississipi Governor and U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Ray Mabus (who happens to be a senior Obama advisor).
I had a nice long comment written, but it earsed when I tried to submit. Anyway, read the guy’s Wikipedia article and you’ll understand why he would be a dynamite VP choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Mabus
Anyway, I hate giving advice to the enemy, but I think that Obama-Mabus would be the strongest ticket we could face, and we need to be prepared for it. Especially since NO ONE in the media has yet mentioned the possibility…which I think is a strong one considering the experience, foreign policy gravitas, and Southern appeal that Gov. Mabus would bring to a ticket.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Feingold’s a great choice for Obama. I’ve come up with a few ideas…but I think Obama’s best bet is someone who a) has foreign policy experience and b) brings in Clinton voters. Feingold does just that. The only person I can think of who may be better at that would be Wesley Clark who has some odd bipartisan appeal…which I don’t quite understand why.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Trying to guess Obama’s pick is even harder than guessing McCain’s. He’s far left ideologically, he has little experience, none of it executive or foreign policy related, he doesn’t herald from a swing region of the country and large segments of his own party’s base are wary of him. Finding a candidate that balances him ideologically, demographically, and his experience would be a daunting enough challenge as it is. And the one person who could balance most of his weaknesses (Hillary Clinton) is un-nominatable because her mere presence on the ticket negates his entire message (change!) and validates most of the Republican Party talking points (since she has validated many of them by raising them herself).
May 13th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I’ve always thought Wes Clark was Obama’s most logical choice.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Damn. That Mabus guy is impressive. So is Feingold. I’d been thinking along the lines of Richardson, Bayh, Easley, or Bredesen (geographically aware governors with tons of executive experience), but Mabus and Feingold may have just jumped to the top of my list.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Metro: Clark doesn’t make sense to me personally. Since Obama’s resume is so thin it doesn’t make sense to pick someone who balances the ticket on on national security/ military credentials since that is one of McCain’s strong suits. It just seems to me like an admission that foreign policy and combat experience matter, in which case it just makes more sense to vote for McCain. Far more sense to pick a Richardson or Bayh, someone with executive experience. Of the two Bayh would make the most sense since he hasn’t been in the limelight like Richardson and wouldn’t undercut the “change!” message.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Sean P, that is a reasonable argument. But the fact is, we’re at war, and that matters a lot to the voters.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Well I agree, which is why I’m voting for McCain and I’m not going to be distracted by a guy with some shiny medals. And a lot of other people agree as well. But then again, I wouldn’t be remotely considered a swing voter in this election. And those who are swing voters are less concerned with national security than economic issues, and I don’t see how Clark helps.
In other words, I hope Obama sees things your way and not mine, because I don’t see Clark helping him one iota.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Interesting argument for Feingold, and it certainly bears considering. Only two downsides that I can see:
a) he’s a Senator, and Obama would be well advised to pick an executive as a running mate (General or Governor)
b) he’s for campaign finance reform, and Obama can’t pick him and then refuse public funds (which given his fundraising edge he’d rather not, and who can blame him?)
If he wants a blue-collar Jewish executive, then Ed Rendell is the logical choice. As a guy who backed Hillary, he’d help “heal some wounds” on that front too. And he locks in PA and helps with Ohio. Seems logical to me.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Matthew,
I loved your points on the Alito confirmations. I taped the entire SJC hearings (took up 6 VHS tapes–yes, I’m that sick). I had the exact impression you did: while Leahy, Biden, Schumer and Kennedy were busy blowhardifying, Feingold went about his business in a much less reprehensible fashion. In tone and substance, he and Sen. Feinstein were the most reasonable Dems in their questioning (although, at the end of the day, I still can’t excuse anyone actually voting against a judge like Sam Alito, with a long track record of collegiality and judicial competence).
May 13th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I still think Sen. Webb is the most likely. Obama is running on a change narrative, and he simply can’t pick an old Washington hand who’s been around forever (although Feingold is more innoculated than most long-serving legislators). He needs a relatively fresh face, and Webb’s populism, military background, and key swing state location make him, in my mind, the best bet.
Meanwhile, I expect McCain to double down on his campaign’s chief narrative in the same way. If having someone who is ready to be CIC is the McCain campaign’s raison d’etre, it is totally inconsistent to pick someone who’s a heartbeat away from the Oval Office that doesn’t meet the same threshold. It would undermine the credibility of the very story he’s spinning to pick a Pawlenty, Sanford, or even a Romney (even though all 3 would be fine by me).
No, I fully expect McCain will double-down on his central theme by picking someone with National Security creds (Ridge/Rice/Rudy). If one of those 3 were pro-life the decision would’ve been easy for McCain, and the ultimate choice a lost less galling for me.