Obama and Clinton Would Face Tough Decision on Running Mates, Part 2

John Adams, the second president of the United States was, as far as I can determine, the first person to observe that “facts are stubborn things.” The observation may be true. But Adams’ insistence on looking only at the facts may partially explain why he was a one-term president denied re-election in 1800 and was, until David McCullough published a winsome biography of Adams several years ago, he was the most forgotten of the Founding Fathers.

In politics, perceptions are even more important than facts, something which our most politically successful presidents, like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, have understood.

The facts are that of the three most popular candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has the most experience. He has spent more time in elective political office than either New York’s Hillary Clinton or former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. He has also spent more time “in the trenches,” so to speak, working as a community organizer, interacting with government to provide people with services and political clout, than Edwards and certainly more than Clinton, whose claim to “thirty-five years” of experience is one more example of Clintonian hyperbole.

But perceptions are stubborn things. Hillary Clinton’s time in the public eye is apparently perceived as political experience. The fact that Obama came onto the national radar just three-and-a-half years ago with his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention means that he’s seen as relatively inexperienced by comparison with Clinton.

In some sense, the Obama campaign may not mind ceding the experience title to Clinton. In portraying himself as a change agent, Obama may find it useful for Clinton to insist that she has the experience, making it easier for Obama (and voters in the primaries) to paint Clinton as the latest pretender in the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton War of the Roses-style battle for succession to the throne.

Nonetheless, in the general election, should he be the Democratic nominee for president, Obama is going to have to deal with accusations that he is an inexperienced naif, especially as it relates to national security issues.

Obama, like Clinton, will have to reassure the country that he will protect the United States. So, some of the imperatives for picking a vice presidential running mate with strong national security credentials that would face Clinton were she the Democratic presidential nominee also face the Illinois senator. But the “inexperience” accusation, along with his being the first African-American to be nominated for the presidency by a major party, would, it seems, add to the complexity of Obama’s deliberations over who to select as his running mate.

Unlike Clinton, Obama, who has been using former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs chair Colin Powell as an informal adviser, couldn’t ask Powell to be his running mate. While I believe that the United States has long been prepared to elect an African-American or a woman to be president, it seems unlikely that the country would elect two Blacks (or two women) in the same year. (For now.) Besides, Obama would gain less politically from having Powell on his ticket than Clinton would.

I imagine that the Obama campaign would give Delaware’s Joe Biden a good lookfor veep. Biden was, by far, the most credentialed and, in many ways, the most interesting candidate for the Democratic nomination this year. I believe that he exorcised many of the demons that had previously effected perceptions of him. Biden, a veteran chair of both the Senate Foreign Relations and Judiciary committees, probably enjoys more respect today than at any time in his public career. He has strong national security credentials, having dealt with these issues in a high profile way for decades. He definitely has the kind of experience that Obama lacks.

Yet, in the end, I don’t think that Biden would be a good choice for Obama. The Delaware senator has no executive experience and more importantly, two senators heading a national ticket can be poisonous. (Kennedy/Johnson in 1960 is a notable exception.)

Ideally, Obama would choose someone with experience as a governor who has strong national security credentials. Being a governor has long been highly valued in presidential politics. US voters seem to see experience as a governor as directly relevant to the presidency. (Unfortunately, Averill Harriman isn’t available this year.)

When speaking of a living governor with national security experience, one automatically thinks of New Mexico’s Bill Richardson. (He suggests himself as a possible running mate for Clinton as well.) But Richardson has so failed to catch on with voters that it seems he has failed to exorcise the demons that have attached to him. People really don’t know Richardson, which may be why he hasn’t fired people’s imaginations even as a second choice for president. But there are character questions that may make the distinguished New Mexioc governor too big a roll of the dice for Obama.

Evan Bayh could be a good choice for Obama’s running mate. Bayh is a former governor of Indiana and now represents the state in the Senate. He’s perceived by many as having strong national security credentials. His abortive bid for the presidency hasn’t hurt him. For Obama, Bayh may also be attractive because the Indiana senator currently supports Hillary Clinton, thus affording an opportunity for unifying the Democratic party for the fall campaign.

Historically, it would have been unacceptable for a vice presidential candidate to come from the presidential candidate’s neighboring state. But the team of Clinton-Gore in 1992 proved that some of the old ticket balancing imperatives are receding in importance.

Former general Wesley Clark, also currently supporting Clinton, is another strongly-credentialed person Obama could turn to as his running mate. Clark too, could represent an additional opportunity to unify the Democratic Party after a brusing nomination fight.

When one casts about for other Democratic governors, with their valued executive experience, as potential running mates for Obama, none really stands out. Eliot Spitzer in New York has only held his office since January of last year and has gotten himself into some unwanted trouble over the immigration issue. He also would do nothing for Obama on national security issues. Former Iowa governor and presidential candidate Tom Vilsack, with his impressive up-from-nowhere life story, who also is a Clinton supporter, also wouldn’t help Obama on national security issues.

To deal with perceptions of him as lacking experience and to shore up his national security cache, Obama could probably do no worse than to pick Evan Bayh as his vice presidential running mate.

Of course, first the Illinois senator must first wrest the presidential nomination of his party from the slick, influential, and brutal Clinton campaign apparatus.