I've been wondering how to respond to this choice. I don't agree with it. I'm not excited about it.
NPR's Morning Edition spent the five minutes contrasting how little experience Obama has in comparison and exploring Biden's reputation for pompous rambling. About the only positive anyone managed to say is that he rides the train home from work --- which is supposed to be a sign of his blue collar credentials.
But this morning I've been reading over posts from bloggers I respect and watching a handful of Biden campaign videos. I don't like him personally. He's not likeable. But it's an effective clip:
Biden is, arguably, the most effective voice Democrats have on foreign policy. And here's why: Joe Biden is an incredibly arrogant jerk. And that's exactly what Democrats need. [...]
In the 2008 election, he was the only Democrat who really figured out how to talk about Republicans and foreign policy. All the other candidates on the stage started from the presumption that Republicans were strong on national security, and voters needed to be convinced of their failures and then led to a place of support for a Democratic alternative. Biden dispensed with all that. He started from the position that Republicans had been catastrophic failures on foreign policy, and their ongoing claims to competence and leadership should be laughed at, and even mocked. [...]
This is probably right. More so than Kaine or Sebelius, Biden is the choice to aggressively challenge McCain on foreign policy. Would Clark have done the same without the poor contrast of a longer Senate record and more of a sense of change? Probably. But he wouldn't have the tenacity of Biden.
In choosing Joe Biden as his running mate, Barack Obama is gambling that Biden's many strengths will compensate for his own weaknesses as a candidate, rather than serve as a backdrop against which those weaknesses will appear in sharp relief. [...]
Rather than whine about how mean Republicans are when they hit Dems on national security, as so many Dems do, Biden has a real talent for responding with an appropriate mixture of mockery and contempt.
Well. It seems a short-sighted choice to me, one focused on winning the election and less on the future of the party, and I'm not happy with it, but in a close race, maybe that's what we need.
Ben Smith has the quote from David Plouffe that the campaign most likely won't choose a vice-president based on their ability to deliver their home state. Instead, Plouffe cited the examples of "Al Gore and Dick Cheney," who served as partners in governance.
Most of the names on the likely short list --- Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Janet Napolitano of Arizona as examples --- come from states that wouldn't likely be competitive, even with them on the ticket. Other potential candidates, like Chris Dodd of Connecticut, come from states Obama wouldn't likely win anyway. So in a sense, Plouffe's statement isn't surprising.
The prime beneficiaries of those kinds of political considerations would have been Bill Richardson of New Mexico and, even more importantly, the trio of influential Democrats from Virginia: Gov. Tim Kaine, Sen. Jim Webb, and soon-to-be Sen. Mark Warner (who has indicated he wouldn't accept a nomination as vice-president).
The New York Times ran a playful article over the weekend, making light of the innumerable lists of vice-presidential hopefuls that can dominate election coverage.
To me, this kind of speculation makes cable television even more insufferable than usual. The problem is that no one seems to ever have anything to say. There's no new information. Just rumors from groupies purporting to be "close to the candidate."
Then Pundit A will suggest a VP candidate might help deliver a certain state; then Pundit B counters with the obvious: that elections hardly ever actually play out that way.
Then conventional wisdoms form through constant repetition. Phrases like "national security gravitas" and "balance" are sprinkled throughout. Polls are taken to see what the public thinks, though the public has never heard of half the names under discussion.
The most diabolical of the conventional wisdoms simmering this cycle is the idea that Clinton supporters would be angered if Obama chose any other woman to be vice-president. An insulting idea born, miraculously, purely out of the ether of punditry hovering over the land, with little connection to reality --- but that somehow acquires substance through incessant repetition.
Often it seems the only thing worse than being forced to listen to all this vice-presidential speculation is, well, to actually have your name on one of the lists. Though, as the Times points out, there are benefits...
[T]he McCain campaign is looking at an early August date to reveal the choice; the Obama campaign is looking at early or mid-August; both campaigns are aware that the Olympics begins on August 8.
Interestingly, Ambinder's sense is that neither candidate is particularly far along in its decision-making process. They're still in the opening stages, reading through open-source information (i.e., packets of press about the various people suggested). Neither started to move towards the more intense vetting and interview part of the process:
In general, only a handful of VP hopefuls on both sides are asked to submit to interviews with lawyers, to relinquish their medical records and tax returns, to alert the vetting teams to any potential scandal lurking in their pasts.
Open Left has posted a new straw poll where you rank fifteen potential candidates for vice-president. Currently Richardson is carrying the poll, with Sebelius a close second. But stop by and vote. I'd be curious what your thoughts are.
I would guess that Tom Daschle is a dark horse candidate for the position. He isn't included on the poll.
There have been many straw polls in the blogosphere, but it's interesting to watch the results shift as more and more attention is focused on the question. It's especially interesting that Sebelius' support has surged recently.
The question of the week: What exactly it will take for Clinton leave the primary?
There's talk of potentially helping pay off the Clintons' some $20 million worth of debt from running a national political campaign they could not afford and with little prospect of success. Clinton would essentially be insisting Obama pay for months of negative advertisements run against him.
Then there's talk of promising to support a Clinton bid for Senate majority leader --- a position for which she isn't particularly qualified, having never served in the Senate leadership nor having served many years in the Senate. In my opinion, there are also simply better candidates, such as the affable and progressive Sen. Dick Durbin, currently the Majority Whip.
And anyway after months of Clinton following personal ambition and dividing the party, why would the party reward her with such a post? How does that demonstrate the qualities the post would require?
Most of this spectulation arises from the sheer inability of journalists to understand why Clinton persists in campaigning at all when she has no conceivable path left to the nomination --- they assume she must have some agenda, she must be working to cement her status as a power broker in the party. After all, the narrative goes, she can't still believe she can win, can she?
Like a poker player without any cards left in her hand but who still somehow expects to control the game, Clinton continues to try to stave off irrelevance by simply not leaving. Her bargaining power though only continues to dwindle.
And then there's the most beloved media invention of them: the Unity Ticket. There is an obvious appeal to simply joining forces, but leaving aside that Obama would be undermining his own brand by choosing a consummate insider like Clinton and that Clinton would be forced to walk back her many criticisms of Obama in recent months, there's been a lot of thoughtful criticism this week of the idea:
There are two schools of thought about how to choose a vice-president: Either you believe that a vice-president exists to give a ticket balance, or you believe that a vice-president exists to reinforce the candidate's core message.
These aren't mutually exclusive, of course, but arguments mainly run along these lines: The most talked about criterion is regional balance --- choosing a candidate from another part of the country in the hopes of improving a candidate's position there. Or you might favor balance by choosing a rival from another wing of your party. Or you can balance an insider with an outsider.
Most progressive bloggers seem to be of a different school of thought. They are generally advocates of message-reinforcing choices instead of balancing ones --- though they have no problem when the two coincide.
Open Left's Chris Bowers has some provocative suggestions for some criteria for Obama to choose a vice-president should he be the nominee:
1. Opposed the Iraq war from the start. This has been a centerpiece of his campaign since the beginning, and a constant source of attack on Hillary Clinton. At this point, he can't go and pick someone who supported the war before it began.
2. Has not spent a long-time in the Senate. Again, Obama has discussed the need for a change in Washington, D.C., as a centerpiece to his campaign. If he chooses a member of Congress who has spent a decade or more in the Senate, at best he will look like a hypocrite, and at worst he will look like he needs help to do the job. The decision to choose Cheney to balance out perceived inexperience and incompetence has plagued Bush from the start of his presidency, and left an indelible mark of perceived weakness, incompetence, and stupidity on his national image.
3. Did not endorse one of Obama's opponents in the primary. The last thing we need is to have Obama's running mate on record supporting someone else in the campaign besides Obama. That always leads to unpleasant questions and soundbites.
They're interesting points. Bowers uses them to derive a short list of candidates:
Sherrod Brown (OH), Janet Napolitano (AZ), Kathleen Sebelius (KS), Brian Schweitzer (MT) and Jim Webb (VA)
While I have nothing against this list, here's why I disagree with Bowers' reasoning and why Obama should keep a more open mind about choosing a vice-president.
