The Candidates
Featured Archives
So here we go. After weeks of discussion, it will all finally end with a moment’s announcement. Nothing is obvious, and we know little about Obama’s team’s decision-making process, but history does point us in a certain direction. Consider:
1. Vice-Presidential Candidates Are Never Chosen to Carry a State
I tried to drill it into everyone’s heads here at Race42008, but alas, it seems to be have been lost on most people, and the media haven’t exactly been helping to correct this ridiculous narrative. Someone please explain to me how Dick Cheney was chosen to carry the swing state of Wyoming; Lieberman, Connecticut; Kemp, New York; Ferarro, New York, etc.
There is absolutely no precedent for a VP being chosen to carry a state. The exception that proves the rule is Kerry-Edwards, with Edwards being chosen to help in the South. We all know what a smashing success that was. A regular Huckabeester, that Edwards is.
Of course, if someone fits the VP profile and just so happens to be from a swing state, then that’s a lovely bonus. Tom Ridge, on the GOP side, may be just such a candidate. But no such candidate seems to exist for Obama.
So who does this most likely rule out? Tim Kaine.
2. Virtually Every Ticket in American History Has Had Military Experience
The only ticket in modern American history that was without military experience was Mondale-Ferraro ‘84, which won a single state — Mondale’s home state of Minnesota — by a margin of a few thousand votes. Even George W. Bush had experience in the National Guard.
Democrats, in recent times, have taken to nominating respected former members of the military in order to offset the GOP advantage on military affairs, as well: Kerry and Gore, front and center. Think that this isn’t being taken into consideration, given that Obama is an utter milquetoast and that his opponent is a war hero with military credibility?
So who does this most likely rule out? Kathleen Sebelius. Evan Bayh.
3. Vice-Presidential Candidates Are Usually Chosen to Make Up for a Flaw at the Top
Quite the opposite of the media myth in #1: Cheney, Lieberman, Kemp, etc., have been chosen to make up for flaws at the top of the ticket, to assuage doubts about the top guy.
Obama’s got quite the laundry list of electoral flaws: foreign policy weakness, inexperience in a time of trials, aloofness and the perception of arrogance — not to mention a pesky problem with seniors and lower-income whites, with men in that category being particularly out-of-reach. Making up for all of these is no small order.
So who does this most likely rule out? Tim Kaine. Again (the jihad continues). And arguably most others: Bayh, Sebelius, etc.
4. Vice-Presidential Candidates Cannot Conflict With the Message at the Top
Rule #1 is always Do No Harm. Obama probably shouldn’t be going with a stuffy Washington insider. Even though history points to balanced insider/outsider tickets, Obama’s appeal as an outsider may be too compromised by picking a Washington old hand. Then again, he’s shown little shame thus far.
So who does this most likely rule out? Biden.
All of these should seem to rule out Hillary Clinton, right? Wrong. As has been noted, rules are rules until they aren’t anymore. Hillary tied Obama in the primary season, and the lingering resentment amongst Hillary’s staunchest supporters hasn’t dissipated. A Hillary vice-presidential nomination would be very dangerous to the GOP, creating a super-ticket with star power unlike, perhaps, any ticket in history.
Will it happen? Michelle Obama would probably consider an Obama-Clinton ticket a Pyrrhic victory. And there are, after all, a litany of attacks upon each other from the primary season, with Obama representing her as the anti-Hope. But Obama, as we know, isn’t afraid to throw out his previous statements if it helps him win. Why go with Hillary? The better question is: why not go with Hillary?
And consider Obama’s schedule this week: Florida? Ohio? These are states that Hillary dominated in during the primary season; states that she’d very much help Obama in.
Hillary’s still in the game.
But the mentioned lingering resentment exists inside of the Obama camp, too, so this is still unlikely. In the end, the VP will probably be retired four-star general Anthony Zinni. He’s an outsider with unquestionable military credentials that can appeal to seniors and the white working-class. He passes the commander-in-chief test with flying colors, though he retains anti-war credibility. He was a registered Republican as of recently, but he’s liberal enough in general that it wouldn’t repel the base. At the same time, it adds to his ‘bipartisan’ change message. He’s simply tailor-made to be chosen by Obama. It won’t be Clark, given that he was not invited to the convention, and it won’t be Jones, given that he seems to have quite the rapport with McCain.
If I’m wrong, it’ll probably be because Obama went with a conventional choice such as Joe Biden, but that’s my prediction: Anthony Zinni, with an outside chance of Hillary Clinton.
EDIT:
1. He warned Congress before 9/11 about bin Laden, which increased his credibility.
2. He has vehemently criticized the execution of the Iraq war.
3. He is respected by both sides of the aisle, which would help to strengthen Obama’s plan for a new type of bipartisan politics.
4. He is an Italian Catholic from Pennsylvania. This may ease some voters’ concerns regarding Obama’s race and help him to secure Catholic voters and the state of Pennsylvania.
5. He has never held an office. This means that McCain’s campaign would never be able attack his voting records.
6. He was not afraid to tell the Clinton administration that they were not being aggressive enough on terrorism issues. Obama is quoted as saying that he wants a vice president who wouldn’t be afraid to tell him that he is wrong: “I’m going to want somebody with independence, who’s willing to tell me where he thinks, or she thinks, I’m wrong,” and, “We’re going to have a lot of problems and a lot of work to do, and I’m not interested in a vice president who I just send off to go to funerals.”
August 19th, 2008 at 12:54 am
If it weren’t for Bill, Hillary would’ve been a top 3 VP pick for Obama… Biden I still think is the pick. Kaine, Sebelius, or Bayh are not for the reasons you listed. I think Obama NEEDS a Washington insider with experience. Clinton did that by picking Gore. Bush did that w/ Cheney. Reagan did it w/ Bush.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:59 am
1 – It’s a legitimate point, and one that I considered in the article, but Obama’s appeal as an outsider is so, so, so central to his candidacy that if he casts himself as running a super-conventional campaign with a Washington insider, it might just highlight his inexperience in electoral politics.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Hillary saw combat in Bosnia, so she is qualified. Seriously, obama has to pick a vet, without a doubt.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Well, Barack Obama has certainly already shown America is great inexperience in politics, haha (try to win PA by talking about bitter people clinging to guns and religion).
August 19th, 2008 at 1:04 am
*his
August 19th, 2008 at 1:05 am
“Hillary saw combat in Bosnia, so she is qualified.”
LOL
August 19th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Your making the assumption that they are using your rules to pick a candidate. Zinni might be who they should pick and who history would suggest they will pick, but Obama’s campaign is not your typical campaign (at least that’s the story they want us to believe).
I’m not sure who they will pick but I am hoping they don’t pick Hillary and that they don’t pick Nunn. Biden and Bayh are probably neutral on the ticket. If we are really lucky he will pick Kaine or Sebelius who both would swing votes a lot of undecideds towards McCain.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Nunn might be ok for us… before this campaign, I never heard of him. He might be a “who?” pick like Sebelius or Kaine (though I heard of them before I heard of Sam Nunn, but I’m young, lol).
August 19th, 2008 at 1:11 am
7 – These aren’t “my rules”, and there’s nothing unconventional about Barack Obama’s campaign.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Take it from someone who’s not yet 40… Sam Nunn was an incredibly powerful Senator.
On the level of Ted Kennedy or John McCain today. Probably bigger. The name Nunn was synonymous with foreign affairs.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I wouldn’t rule out Nunn, but there’s nothing quite like a general.
Nunn also was heavily responsible for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and derailing Clinton’s efforts to allow gays into the military. The progressives would go nuts.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Zinni endorsed Bush in 2000, would that be a problem or could a simple “I regret it” take care of that?
August 19th, 2008 at 1:40 am
The problem with Zinni is the Wesley Clark syndrome.
Clark took a while to get up to speeed in 2004, and ended up going not very far. He only came third ‘cos Dean imploded. Quayle is another example.
Can Zinni be able to cope with the 24 hour cycle right from the outset? Its a risk for an organisation that has shown little tolerance for risk.
Bayh is safe in the 24 hour cycle. If Obama is confident, he’ll get the nod.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Metro (#10), does that mean that Nunn would be influental with the older generation (those not yet sold on Obama).
I would wager that Obama already has a large majority of the youth vote, who will vote him despite the fact that they’ve never heard of Nunn. So he doesn’t need to worry about them.
The only risk is the liberals who dislike his gay rights stance – but they’ll vote for Obama for the same reasons that one issue pro-lifers will vote for a McCain/Ridge or McCain/Lieberman ticket…
August 19th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Another reason I don’t think Nunn is the pick is as follows:
- Obama is likely to want to surprise people. That’s why Biden, Kaine & Bayh keep getting mentioned (its not accidental leaking).
- Nunn had dropped out of the Veepstakes, so would have been a surprise.
- then, out of nowhere, Obama mentions him at the Faith Forum, reviving the chatter.
At the time, Obama had probably already chosen a VP. So for him to willingly revive the Nunn suggestion (if Nunn was the surprise pick) was a bad move. So that makes it unlikely in my view.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:53 am
13 – If that’s his only downside, then that should make you more sold than ever.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Alex, I’m not saying its his only downside from Obama’s point of view (#12 is another) but it is something to be aware of. Media impact matters. A stuttering start would lose a lot of goodwill that he might never get back.
Proof of that point is Biden’s campaign launch. Obama was “clean” and Biden’s campaign got no benefit from the launch whatever.
Having said that, Biden’s stuff up shows it happens to even trained politicians. But it is something Bayh doesn’t tend to do, and Biden does do.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:05 am
#14 Yes, Nunn would have gravitas among those over 40.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:21 am
The only two Democrats I am afraid of are Dr. Nunn and Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Clinton can be beaten because of her high negatives. In the case of Mr. Nunn, the political map would be changed because all of a sudden, there would be several southern states at risk. He would even make things difficult in places like Ohio because even though I would still vote for Mr. McCain, many people like me would all of a sudden not fear Mr. Obama. In the case of Mr. Bayh, that could also be a game changer. Michigan could be out of our reach, no matter who are VP is and we would be at a disadvantage in Indiana and Ohio and probably no further ahead in states further west which we are already behind.
It may actually be a good thing that Mr. McCain is waiting to pick our VP. Several people point out that Mr. Romney (or who ever else) is the most electable under the current landscape. The problem is that the political landscape could change somewhat and we would have to begin our calculations anew.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Metro, even a few people under 40 like Mr. Nunn, but you are right, the older folks love him.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:47 am
The thing about Zinni, is it’d be a tacit acknowledgment from BHO that he lacks foreign policy/military cred. I don’t think his ego will allow him to admit that.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Alex. . . I’m curious why you say Zinni is “liberal enough” for the Democrats to accept. What are his non-military creds? Has he ever discussed social or economic issues publically?
August 19th, 2008 at 5:24 am
alaska,
I don’t think the Democrats care about that. They never made a fuss about Webb because they know they are deficient on military cred and they wanted to win. Same thing for Clark. The kooks just love him too. Anything to allow them to elevate their standing (or at least let them think they can) on national defense, so they don’t look like a bunch of radical commie libs when they want to peddle irresponsible dovishness.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Alex,
What I do know is that some GOP VP candidates are better opponents for some DEM tickets than others. One size does NOT fit all.I also know that 30 % of the public will have their vote affected by the VP choices. I also assume there is a strategic and tactical reason for McCain to pick after Obama and it is NOT just ratings. So, in a couple of days we will all have a changed political map and different circumstances to discuss VP options for McCain in light of a full DEM ticket.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Sebelius
Bayh
Biden
Kaine
Pawlenty
Romney
Thune
Cantor
August 19th, 2008 at 6:22 am
I don’t know about the rest of you guys but I will be THRILLED once we know both VP nominees. This veepstakes business is like beating a dead horse, running over it with a tank, backing up, and running over it all over again.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:28 am
15 – smartest thing you’ve ever said! It won’t be Nunn.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:54 am
#1 – If it weren’t for Bill, Hillary would still be a corrupt lawyer in Arkansas.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Alex,
Don’t you remember why we stopped talking about Zinni in the first place? It turns out that Zinni opposed Obama’s plan in Iraq and supported the surge. He criticized the Bush administration for not adding more troops, ala McCain, then opposed withdrawal, again ala McCain. Here’s Zinni in November 2006, 2 months before the surge: “Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.
“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”
Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.”
That’s McCain’s position, and it’s a position articulated far too late in the conflict for Obama to argue “well, I wanted more troops too…”. All Democrats and defeatists had abandoned the “let’s add more troops” trope before November 2006. All Democrats were arguing precisely what Zinni thought was nonsense: that by withdrawing we’d put pressure on Maliki and this would miraculously improve his performance. There’s no way it’s Zinni, unless Obama wants to validate McCain’s entire foreign policy. Zinni’s a more likely choice for McCain, given that they seem to lockstep on foreign policy, and given that Zinni’s only expressed liberal position has been on global warning, and given that 8 years ago he was conservative enough to endorse George Bush, and given that he only seemingly regretted that decision because of the mess Bush was making in Iraq.
If Obama needs military experience, it’ll be Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed. Reed also has the added advantage of military experience, but not so much military experience that Obama seems desperately self-conscious about his own lack of military/foreign policy experience. General’s are the Bobby Jindal’s of the Democratic field; just guaranteed to highlight a central weakness of the top of the ticket. Jack Reed is a Tim Pawlenty; erases a bit of a weakness without reinforcing it.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:11 am
There is no recent precedent for picking someone to carry a state, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. There’s no recent precedent for an African-American nominee either.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:30 am
#28, I agree with you, but I think that the particular point is that Mr. Clinton blew it for his wife.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:57 am
You have one big misconception here about Biden that I’ll point out – he’s a ’stuffy’ washington insider. Biden is anything but ’stuffy.’ He’s known for being the working-class Senator, Delaware’s favorite son, the guy who’s not above the rest of us because he commutes with the rest of us by taking the train in to DC every morning and back every night.
As long as he doesn’t become a gaffe machine – the small ones will not chip away at the Obama armor, the big ones could – we’re in for a hard last few months if Biden is his VP pick.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Alex, JFK chose LBJ as VP to carry TX. It worked out that time.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Your reasoning almost mirrors mind. By any chance did my opinion on this topic convert you?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:38 am
If McCain picks Gore, the media will go absolutely bonkers! That would be just ridiculous. good luck to mccain getting ANY media coverage if he picks Gore.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
> “All of these should seem to rule out Hillary Clinton, right? Wrong. As has been noted, rules are rules until they aren’t anymore.”
Or in short, “Please ignore the preceding 17 paragraphs.”
August 19th, 2008 at 11:19 am
33 – It was one of those ‘just so happened to work out that way’ things. It also united the party after the primary battle.
Matthew E. Miller, fair enough, although Obama’s hubris makes me unsure if it would even be an issue. But on the other hand, one could say the same thing about the rules of history. So we’ll see. Jack Reed wouldn’t shock me.
Ryan Mauro, it didn’t; I was surprised to see someone else on here as sold on him as I am.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
36 – Hahahaha. Rules are likely to remain rules, but, well, Obama could always throw out the playbook. As the first paragraph stated, this is simply what history points to.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Alex, you have laid out a nice case for Zinni. But, in the end, I don’t think Obama can stand the personal contrast–this upstart with a very sketchy background/resume along side the seasoned retired 4-star Marine.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
C’mon Alex, I could use the ego boost!
BTW I really like Chris L.’s comment. It isn’t a factor I considered before.
It seems the buzz does not indicate a Zinni pick. Thank God, because picking Zinni could really make things tough for McCain.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Back in May, Dr. Tantillo (’the marketing doctor’), who has (a blog on branding) did a post arguing against the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket–positing that from a branding perspective, it makes no sense, and actually wouldn’t be a good move for Clinton’s brand, either.
“Because of the length of this primary fight, brand identity and loyalty to brand have become central. What this means is that a kind of brand mutual exclusivity has set in.”
??Not sure if I agree or if this idea still holds at this point, but it is a compelling argument – (and one that I at least think goes a long way toward explaining Obama’s hesitation to choose Clinton as his running mate–even if it would go a long way toward building party unity and seemingly clench the general election for Obama.)
Link to the full post