An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Veepstakes: Obama’s Choice

According to Marc Ambinder, Obama’s veep vetters are focusing on four contenders:

    Even Bayh;
    Joe Biden;
    Tim Kaine; and
    Kathleen Sebelius.

“Based on discussions with high-level Obama aides, I do not get the impression that Obama has made up his mind yet. These aides do say that Obama is narrowing his choices.”

According to Ambinder, Kaine and Sebelius are about governing, not campaigning, while Bayh and Biden are about legislating. The first two are outsiders, the second two are insiders. The first two are young and relatively unknown. The second two have loads of experience in Washington and “would be expected to do heavy lifting with allies and adversaries.”

(For more on Kaine, and the enthusiasm in Kaine-land, see WaPo. For a cogent critique of Ambinder’s analysis, see Publius at Obsidian Wings: Given their lack of experience in Washington, Kaine and Sebelius can’t be about governing. Instead, they are about campaigning, and about Obama winning certain key states: “They’re Red State pragmatic governors and the media would love the narrative.” (Maybe the media would, at least at first, but I’m not sure they’d remain media darlings for long.) By contast, Biden “would be an excellent governing choice.”)

But they are all, in Democratic terms, centrist. Kaine and Sebelius are red-state governors. Kaine, in particular, could help Obama win a key emerging swing state, Virginia. Each one would be a risky pick. I’m not sure how either would do on the national stage, but, given recent performances (say, giving the Democratic response to a State of the Union address), I’m not confident that either one would do all that well. At best, solid and unexciting. At worst, too obviously inexperienced, in way over their heads, criticized by the media and the Republicans alike, which could reinforce Obama’s general lack of experience.

(Still, a relatively unknown governor could match up well against a relatively unknown governor on the other side — say, if McCain were to pick Jindal or Pawlenty. The experience factor wouldn’t matter quite as much, though McCain will still play the experience card against Obama no matter what.)

Bayh and Biden, by contrast, would be safer picks, I think, though Biden has an unpleasant knack for getting his foot stuck in his mouth and Bayh is immensely dull, too much the consummate career politician. Bayh could help with Indiana, another key emerging swing state, as well as with Hillary supporters (he was one of her prominent backers during the primary campaign), but I’m not sure this is a good year to be a Washington insider. Biden, on the other hand, would be riskier but also more dynamic out on the campaign trail. He also has extensive foreign policy experience. There is the risk that he could overshadow Obama in this area, also reinforcing Obama’s lack of experience, but Obama has become a superstar statesman and would not easily be overshadowed. As well, I suspect that Biden would be kept in check by the campaign (or, at least, the Obama people would try to ensure that he doesn’t dominate, or try to dominate, the ticket). Biden also comes with a lot of baggage, having run for president in the past and having been around for so long, but it’s not like any of the others is without baggage, and, what’s more, the Obama campaign has proven extremely capable at dealing with the media and the GOP smear machine.

(Biden or Bayh would match up well against Jindal or Pawlenty or Thune, in terms of experience, but, of course, experience in Washington can leave a nasty mark. If McCain were to go with someone with more experience, like Portman, Obama would do well to have even more experience on the ticket. And if it’s Romney, well, both Biden and Bayh are strong enough not just to stand their ground against his attacks but to overwhelm him both on domestic and foreign policy.)

But… what about Hillary? I asked “why not” a while back, and some of her supporters are still pushing her name, but I doubt she’ll get the nod. (Unless the Obama campaign is keeping her vetting secret and leaking other names to deflect media attention. Imagine what a story it would be were she to be picked, say, right after the Olympics. Imagine an Obama-Clinton ticket at the convention in Denver — united, not divided. Imagine the momentum for Obama. I’m not saying I’m for it, but it makes sense, eh?)

For further analysis, see my recent Veepstakes posts here and here.

I made some predictions in those posts, and I predicted Biden in the second. He’s not my prediction here — I’ll go with Kaine, who seems to be on the rise (though perhaps propelled more by the enthusiasm of his supporters than by anything else) — but, of the four, he’s my clear and overwhelming preference.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

  • DLS
    On current lefty-talk radio I have heard no mention of Sibelius lately. PC-driven reverse-sexism "identity politics" is already at work with the Dems' presidential candidate; more such game-playing might make the play-pen crowd here and elsewhere swoon and feel psychotically superior, but would risk repelling a number of voters. "Affirmative action" (reverse discrimination) as policy has no place when it comes to either the presidential or vice presidential nomination.

    The most interesting remark about Kaine is what I heard on Bill Press's show this morning. (The lefties are routinely logic-deficient and sometimes behavior-deficient, but one or two decent lefty-talk shows offer an occasional gem burned in the -- trash.) In criticizing Kaine, Press was saying "Nobody has heard of him before, he has no experience...," which is exactly the liability having to be overcome by Obama. I didn't hear Tom Hartmann at lunch to hear if, between bouts of stupid Reagan-bashing, he had anything to say about VP choices.

    As for Clinton, she would be fine as a VP; it's really up to her. Ed Schultz (greater loudness level and less logic than Sean Hannity, an analogue on the right -- bow-wow-wow) made a good point, that it's too early to flush Clinton down the toilet as a VP choice.

    Jim Webb and Bill Richardson are also favorites on lefty talk radio.

    Evan Bayh is almost never mentioned. He's a 1990s fake-centrist "Third Way" DNC establishment insider who would be natural as Clinton's VP but not Obama's -- the progressives would not be satisfied. Obama gains nothing with Bayh.

    "criticized by the media and the Republicans alike,"

    The media are active Obama campaigners and they'd invent some way to make Kaine look good. Probably based on that abused and misused word, "change."
  • Neocon
    I have to repeat. Bayh and Biden both voted FOR WAR IN IRAQ.

    How is he going to justify this when he bashed Hillary for months over voting FOR the war and indicating that to do so was poor judgement?
  • StockBoySF
    On MSNBC this morning they mentioned the people above along with Hillary, Hagel and Todd.

    "I have to repeat. Bayh and Biden both voted FOR WAR IN IRAQ. How is he going to justify this when he bashed Hillary for months over voting FOR the war and indicating that to do so was poor judgement?"

    I think Obama would do well with someone who offers a different view. I don't want any administration filled with "Yes men". The best ideas are brought about by true discussion and brainstorming.
  • Neocon
    So then why not Hillary?

    I still have my money on Richardson. Two firsts are more then the nation could handle I think........Black and a Woman.
  • DLS
    Obama will be able to "spin" any pro-war (pro-vast-majority-USA-at-the-time) VP choice, or simply ignore it and it likely won't even be an issue.

    Bottom line right now is I suspect Obama will likely make a good choice, whereas who knows what McCain is going to do at this point. (Don't forget in addition to any blunders by McCain that many Republicans may not want to sign aboard the Titanic.)
  • Davebo
    Obama will be able to "spin" any pro-war (pro-vast-majority-USA-at-the-time) VP choice, or simply ignore it and it likely won't even be an issue.


    I don't think vast-majority means what you think it means.
  • DLS
    "Vast": I stand corrected. I also should have been more clear -- the war had widespread support at the time it was launched. People even had a good overall view of Bush at that time. But twenty (as opposed to, say, two) per cent opposition cannot be ignored.

    http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=60

    "An overwhelming majority (74%) continues to support the military action in Iraq and the president's leadership on this issue, while a minority of about 20% has, since the start of the conflict, consistently said the war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do. The public approves of the president's handling of Iraq by more than four-to-one (77% to 17% disapproval)."

    http://people-press.org/report/182/modest-bush-...
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC