The Candidates
The Arizona governor is a dark horse pick for the senator from Illinois, to be sure. But I think she makes the most sense given what Obama is trying to accomplish.
Many comparisons have been made between Obama and previous presidential candidates from the past half-century. Obama supporters love Reagan comparisons. Detractors prefer Carter analogies. But truth be told, Obama resembles Nixon more than anyone. Obama and Nixon may be polar opposites when it comes to political aptitude, with Dick excelling at policy but failing to connect with the voters and Obama charming the country into submission but unable to speak coherently about policy in more than generalities. But the two are basically identical in their respective political roadmaps. Both ran to their base during the primaries and then ran to the center for the general election. Both seemed content to govern from the center, just like the most recent president from their respective party (Ike in the case of Nixon; Clinton in the case of Obama), but both saw universe expansion as the key to victory rather than appeasement. Eisenhower may have been content to run and win as a Vichy Republican, but Nixon had grand ideas about a Republican Party that was something other than a minority party. In fact, one of the first pieces I posted on this site two years ago detailed how it was Nixon, and not Reagan, who first conceived of a center-right majority based on a fusion between the GOP of his time and the Northern white ethnics and Southern cultural conservatives who were becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Democratic Party. This was the basis for Nixon’s infamous Southern Strategy.
Similarly, Barack Obama seems to be moving more towards Clinton Vichy Democrat status every day when it comes to his policies, but has always relied on universe expansion to bring in the votes. Just as Nixon hoped to solidify the swingin’ Midwest by adding the region’s disenchanted blue collar Catholic Democrats to the GOP voter pool, Obama hopes to secure states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio by turning the region’s former white collar Ford Republicans into Obamacans. And just as Nixon was bold enough to play offense against the Democrats in what was once their base region — the Old South — by appealing to long-neglected Southern religious folks, Obama is hitting Republicans where it hurts in the Mountain West by appealing to libertarian-leaning Republicans who have little in common with a big-government, big-religion, big-war GOP. Nixon won in 1968 on the backs of former Democrats who gave the finger to a culturally libertine, unpatriotic Democratic Party. If Obama wins in 2008, it will be because of former Republicans who cannot abide a GOP that is bathed in religion and that spends like drunken sailors.
But a political fusion between John Kerry’s 48% from 2004, moderate Northern Obamacans, and libertarian Western Obamacans will not be easy, which is why Obama will likely tap a public official who has experience in this field to be his running mate. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Arizona Gov. Janet Napalitano are the names that most often come up when Democrats with “liberal-tarian” creds are mentioned, that is to say, Democrats who expand economic freedom through things like tax cuts and school choice while also expanding access to health care, education, and other public services. No, this methodology doesn’t please the folks at CATO or the hardcore libertarians on this site, but it does do well among regular Western voters with libertarian instincts, hence the popularity of these two Democratic governors in Goldwater country.
Obama/Richardson, though, is just a tad too risky even for Obama. A completely non-Caucasian ticket in an invitation for a Bradley Effect, and I just don’t think Obama will go that route. Far more likely is the addition of Napalitano to the ticket. Not only does Napalitano add liberal-tarian cred to the ticket, she also has an ethnic-sounding surname, would appeal to her fellow middle-aged women who are still angry about Hillary, and hits McCain where it hurts…in his home state. Selecting the governor of McCain’s Arizona would be a gutsy move. It may force McCain to spend money there and, even if it doesn’t, such a selection will probably push Obama over the edge in neighboring New Mexico and possibly Colorado and Nevada. Such a move would almost force McCain to pick off a blue state such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire if he wants to get to 270.
Given Obama’s Nixonian instincts, I would be very surprised if he didn’t play offense with his veep pick. Napalitano is a good bet at this point.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
So DaveG it is going to be Obama/Napolitano vs. McCain/Ridge. BTW, these comparisons between Obama and Nixon are very unfair. I would have voted for Nixon (and Spiro Agnew for that matter)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Nixon connected to the “working man” in this country. Many younger voters do not understand this.
Based on the fact that Obama has not been in Washington this past year, “Look For Obama/Napalitano In November” this gives the Democratic ticket a total of 1 year experience in Washington and zero FP experience.
There is a reason why Obama was vetting Jim Webb. He needs someone who can assist him with foreign policy. Plus, there is no way AZ is voting Democratic this year. Impossible!
July 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I would have voted for Nixon (and Spiro Agnew for that matter)
So would I! And had we all been around 32 years ago, I could just see myself excitedly defending Ford/Dole ‘76 on this site given my penchant for boring, technocratic politicians.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
#3:
Ford/Dole was probably the best ticket we could have had in 1976. Although just imagine Race41976.com with the Ford fans fighting with the Reaganites. We thought the 08 campaign was tough, that was kid stuff compared to the Ford vs. Reagan race in 76
July 8th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
#4:
I know, and I can just see Kavon and I wearing leisure suits, posing with Reagan at one of his ‘76 campaign stops.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
#5:
The sad fact is that I probably would have voted for Ford. Ironically, my dad voted for Reagan in the 76 Indiana Primary, which was the only MidWestern state Reagan won in 76/
July 8th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Interesting facts on Janet.
- Napolitano served as attorney for Anita Hill
- Napolitano supports immigrants rights to collect welfare benefits
- Janet Napolitano is a breast cancer survivor, and had a mastectomy in 2000, three weeks before she addressed the 2000 Democratic Convention.
- Napolitano faces the same “personal” rumors as Chrlie Crist
July 8th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Yes, I was wondering about the lesbian rumors.
logcabin, what’s made you give up your R registration?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I’m sorry, but I just think that if Obama were going to go for a woman other than Clinton, it’s going to be Sebelius. You always hear Republicans say it would be a wise choice for him to pick Napolitano, but the Democrats get excited about Sebelius. Either would be a good choice, honestly, but Sebelius has more crossover appeal, fewer negatives (i.e. she’s not a closet lesbian), a closer relationship with Obama, ties to Ohio, and better name recognition. Sebelius is less charismatic than Napolitano, but an Obama ticket isn’t going to lack charisma even if his running mate’s a corpse. Sebelius is the obvious choice for Obama.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
#8, nothing to do with McCain. He is my guy. My issue is with the California GOP. They have become a two-issue party, and on both issues, I feel I am targeted. Equal Marriage and immigration. I am not a registered Democrat, just an indy. I am making a statement in time for the November marriage vote. I’ll most likely register as a Republican again after the vote.
Janet N. is extremely private. The public knows nothing about her personal life, in fact there is so little, there is no Wikipedia entry (check it out). Apparently, she is also uber-smart, like 140 IQ territory.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Obama would be crazy to pick anybody without serious national security credentials. It’s not going to be a governor wholly versed in domestic politics.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
#9:
Sebelius is also Catholic, which should help her case. Napolitano is a couple of degrees to the right of Sebelius on economics, which I think would make Napolitano more appealing to the Obamacans like Andrew Sullivan. The Dems will be excited enough by Obama; they don’t need a veep who makes them happy. But Sebelius is more conventionally feminine, and whether or not Janet is gay, she’s clearly got the whole butch look going on. That sort of thing matters in politics, but I just thought I’d put forth Janet as a dark horse who could actually help Obama get to McCain’s right on some issues and who would constitute a major offensive play, going for McCain’s home state and going full speed ahead for disaffected Republicans.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
#10 I’ll be voting against the CA amendment too.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Hillaryites are going to be PISSED if Obama picks a woman for VP and her last name isn’t Clinton.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
DaveG, I agree with some of your thoughts, but for Obama to take disaffected western voters from McCain (specifically AZ), Obama would have to pick an, “anti-immigration legislation” Republican. That will not happen, but still a great post.
These close western state polls can easily turn to McCain. I think his VP pick will help. McCain will pick a conservative, as he is not stupid enough to pick a moderate (every statistical piece of polling data shows this - base needs energizing). Almost all the radio pundits and most Conservative activisits are waiting for the VP pick so they use this as a reason to get on board with McCain. Mary Matalin was recently quoted as saying; “who do you think got McCain to change his stance on immigration”- she was referring to Rush Limbaugh.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I wouldn’t have voted for Nixon in 60′, and I don’t say this simply because of the WaterGate stuff. I just think that JFK was clearly the more conservative politician. I would have happily voted for him in 68′ and 72′ (though less so in 68′), and would still defend him as the best choice in both those elections; Watergate was damaging to the country’s morale, but in terms of practical impact it was almost laughably unimportant (until everyone started resigning of course).
July 8th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
#14, dead on. I believe Obama will force McCain to pick a women. I am amazed at all the Clinton donors and cyber supporters who are waiting for Obama to make his VP choice. Essentailly they are trying to blackmail Obama (under reported by the media).
I have seen at least five TV interviews of former Clinton backers (women) who will not get behind Obama. I honestly believe they think she deserves to be on the ticket.
When Obama does not select Clinton, or even worse, selects another woman, what the heck will McCain do? They are going to flash their $ and voter lists in front of McCain and twist his arm in to picking a woman. Clinton fundraisers include the top female CEO’s in the world.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/14/mccain_courting_clinton_loyalists/
July 9th, 2008 at 12:18 am
The fact that Hillary supporters will be annoyed if he picks a woman other than Hillary shows their stupidity.
What makes Hillary so special to woman voters that she deserves a monopoly of female elected positions? Surely women like Sebelius & Napolitano (who won election without telling everyone they were female & battling a sexist media press) are better, as they didn’t make a fuss about being a woman (i.e. they won on their attributes, not thier gender).
July 9th, 2008 at 12:20 am
#18, JayPe,
For many women, is was/is about breaking the glass ceiling. Call it what you want, but this year, they decide 08.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Yes bob, but why is it Hillary who has to break the glass ceiling? Why can’t it be someone else (e.g. a successful two term governor)?
I read an article in the WaPo that said that the glass ceiling would never be broken because “if Hillary can’t do it, who can?” - absolute drivel. The same argument could be used about blacks (Obama) and Hispanics (Richardson).
July 9th, 2008 at 12:30 am
The WaPo is wrong. I would argue Clinton cleared the path for potential female POTUS or VPOTUS.
But, with so much emotion in the Dem race, Obama is in a losing position. Many women would accept Sebelius, but for many (like the Harriet Christian video showed), it was discrimination that allowed a male to win this year, and Hillary was that symbol of barriers women face every day in America. McCain can pick a women and not appear to pander, but for Obama, any woman, other than Hillary, will appear like pandering.
I have a feeling that the women who would have moved to Obama if he selected a female VP Hillary), have already moved to him.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Interesting thoughts bob. I think Hillary has made it easier for future women, simlpy by being viable. But she made a mistake in casting a vote for her as equal to a vote for women. Obama was sensible enough not to frame his candidacy as a “first viable black candidate”, although the media did that for him (as they did for Hillary, her use of her gender was quite nakedly pandering)
Sebelius would be a great choice for Obama, if the die-hard Hillary suppoerts can accept that there are other women out there besides Hillary. If they don’t, then they’re illogical, irrational, and stupid. But that won’t help Obama much.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Of course, the frothing-at-the-mouth diehard will interpret Obama’s selection of a white male as a slap in the face, as well as interpreting sebelius as a slap in the face. So he’s stuffed with that voter in either case.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:46 am
These women aren’t quite so bad as you folks make them out to be. Based on their experience in the workplace, they are *keenly* aware of *qualifications*.
They know that Hillary Clinton is better qualified to be President than Barack Obama, and they also know she is better qualified to be President than Sebelius or any other woman.
It’s the placement of a less qualified man over a more qualified woman that makes them most angry — not the lack of a woman at the top per se.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:47 am
So, they may see a Sebelius VP choice as adding insult to injury.
The main injury was a less qualified man bumping out a more qualified woman. To substitute another woman who is less qualified is to further ignore the issue of qualifications and highlight the injustice of bumping aside Hillary in the first place all the more.
Get it?
July 9th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Metro, why is Hillary more qualified than Sebelius?
She has been First Lady (which never used to be a qualification) and a Senator for 8 years. Sebelius has been a Governor for 8 years (which is a very good qualificiation - as per Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, etc).
I can’t believe how beneficial landing under sniper fire was in determining Presidential qualifications…
July 9th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Metro #25, thats a good point re “less qualified man bumping out a more qualified woman”, although it kind of ignores Biden, Dodd & Richardson (the latter in particular) who were much more qualified than Hillary, but didn’t make the final cut.
There are lots of better qualified people than Hillary & Obama out there. To refine the choice to those two and then argue about sexism is a little daft in my view.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Obama isn’t going to pick a woman, he can’t really. If he picks a woman other than Hillary it will be like salt in a wound everytime that woman is on stage with him.
Obama is going to pick a safe white guy for his VP, someone like Biden or Bayh or Rendell. My guess it will Biden.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:47 am
All I did was read the title and I knew that it was a DaveG article. Why did I know it? I just knew it.
As I’ve noted before, just wait until next week if you don’t like what he’s saying right now: DaveG’s veep-pick-of-the-week will come up again, I predict, next Thursday.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:02 am
Obama doesn’t like Clinton and it wouldn’t make sense for him to pick her. He’s already ahead and she would only undermine him. I think because Obama can’t pick Clinton, that means he can’t pick another woman - as that would only reopen the scabs of the divisive primary season. It would remind middle-aged and older women all over again how Obama “skipped the line” over a more qualified woman. So I don’t really see Obama picking a woman. I agree with Sheryl. Obama will pick a safe white guy. Most of the Hillary supporters have come home (if they didn’t then Obama wouldn’t be leading by about five points). I don’t think there is much he could do at this point to sway those Hillary supporters that haven’t already decided to jump on the O-train.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Ike, a Vichy Republican?
That’s just plain offensive. Eisenhower happened to play a little role in winning WW 2 if I recall correctly.
Besides that Eisenhower was arguably the best Republican President of the last century. He’s my model President.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Napolitano “libertarian-leaning.” Are you insane? She’s about as far away from libertarian, even a moderate libertarian, on the political spectrum as you could possible get.
The woman is a Nanny State Fascist. And I say this as a MODERATE LIBERTARIAN, not some hardcore extremist Libertarian.
Pu-leeze. Cease and desist in referring to these somewhat less leftist Democrats as anything close to resembling a libertarian. Just because they are from a Western State does not mean they have any resemblance to a libertarian whatsoever.
Schweitzer too. He declared War on libertarians, literally, in 2006, with his efforts to keep our libertarian-sponsored intiative for Property Rights off the Montana ballot.
Western Democrat, usually means Fascist.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:47 am
[...] DaveG compares the tactics of Richard Nixon and Barack Obama: Barack Obama seems to be moving more towards Clinton Vichy Democrat status every day when it comes to his policies, but has always relied on universe expansion to bring in the votes. Just as Nixon hoped to solidify the swingin’ Midwest by adding the region’s disenchanted blue collar Catholic Democrats to the GOP voter pool, Obama hopes to secure states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio by turning the region’s former white collar Ford Republicans into Obamacans. And just as Nixon was bold enough to play offense against the Democrats in what was once their base region — the Old South — by appealing to long-neglected Southern religious folks, Obama is hitting Republicans where it hurts in the Mountain West by appealing to libertarian-leaning Republicans who have little in common with a big-government, big-religion, big-war GOP. Nixon won in 1968 on the backs of former Democrats who gave the finger to a culturally libertine, unpatriotic Democratic Party. If Obama wins in 2008, it will be because of former Republicans who cannot abide a GOP that is bathed in religion and that spends like drunken sailors. [...]
July 9th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I think Obama will pick Evan Bayh, who is well-spoken, white bread and experienced in the legislative and executive arena. He wouldn’t blow up or offend anybody, and he seems presidential enough for a Democrat.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:13 am
And just as Nixon was bold enough to play offense against the Democrats in what was once their base region — the Old South — by appealing to long-neglected Southern religious folks
It wasn’t their religion he was appealing to, unless you count hurt feelings over the end of segregation as “faith.”
July 9th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Ike, a Vichy Republican?
That’s just plain offensive. Eisenhower happened to play a little role in winning WW 2 if I recall correctly.
I have to agree.
Besides that Eisenhower was arguably the best Republican President of the last century. He’s my model President
He’s definitely up there.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Doug,
It comes as no surprise that Ike is your model president. Eisenhower would be less welcome in today’s GOP than Joe Lieberman is in the Democratic Party.
Dwight David Eisenhower, Peace Hero of the 20th Century and Beyond
July 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
The Chance for Peace
by Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953
Washington, D.C.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Obama/Edwards is my prediction. The problem with all these almost nationally unknown candidates is that, while they may be excellent choices, I think the time and effort it takes to establish even name recognition is a big negative. The pres. candidates themselves suck up so much oxygen. And, Obama, especially, is still trying to establish his own identity. Edwards (granted this was a month or so ago) was polling like 10 points ahead any other choice. He would probably turn a state like MO (which is def. leaning McCain) blue. I’m not sure anyone else brings the electoral strength or appeal that he would bring.
And then we could add McCain/Lieberman to the mix! (though I’m mostly joking about that one; I think it a lot less likely
)