Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Who Would Obama's Ideal VP Be?

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 7:10 AM on February 29, 2008.


I may be moving ahead of the discussion a little bit, but I have always found that in order to help frame a discussion it is important to start early.
391pxsherrodbrownofficialhousephotocolor
Brown

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Who should Barack Obama choose as his running mate? This question might be an example of moving ahead of the discussion a little bit, but I have always found that in order to help frame a discussion it is important to start early. This is why, for example, I pointed out the dilemma of superdelegates deciding the Democratic nomination campaign the day before Super Tuesday, not the day afterward. While bloggers have the ability to create buzz, we have a very difficult time shaping an argument once it has already been brought up in larger, more established outlets of political discussion. I doubt that we would have had the same, decisive impact on the superdelegate argument (see here, here, here, here, and here) had we waited until after Super Tuesday to broach the issue. Media outlets, voters, superdelegates, and even the Clinton campaign all eventually came to take our side on superdelegates because we pushed the issue early.

I think the same thing needs to be done when selecting Obama's vice-president. As I have written in the past (see here and here), the key is that Obama needs to pick a vice-president that reinforces his strengths, not one who balances out his perceived weakness. With this in mind, I believe the following criteria are absolutely necessary for Obama's running mate:

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
Since both will be central to his 2008 campaign, Obama needs to choose a vice-president who reinforces his message of change and judgment on Iraq. These three criteria actually present us with a pretty short list from the get-go, as only the following three current Democratic Senators meet the above criteria: Sherrod Brown (OH), Ben Cardin (MD), and Jim Webb (VA). I don't mean to in anyway diss Cardin, but compared to Brown and Webb, he just is not as strong a choice. Brown is an economic populist from Ohio, while Webb was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy from Virginia. Both would clearly be strong reinforcing picks, at least based on the criteria I presented above. Also, their Democratic Governors could replace them with another Democrat.

The list of potential Governors is longer, mainly because their record on Iraq is pretty much absent. Janet Napolitano (AZ), Bill Ritter (CO), Chet Culver (IA), Kathleen Sebelius (KS), Steve Beshear (KY), Deval Patrick (MA), Brian Schweitzer (MT), John Lynch (NH), Brad Henry (OK), Phil Bredesen (TN), Tim Kaine (VA), Chris Gregoire (WA), Joe Manchin (WV), Jim Doyle (WI) and Dave Freudenthal (WY) all meet the above criteria, as long as they opposed the Iraq war from the start. That almost certainly eliminates Henry and Freudenthal, given that they originally won in 2002 and in deep red states. Beshear is also a no-go, given that he has been Governor for about two months. Deval Patrick would be about as clear a reinforcing pick as one could find, however his approval rating is under 50% and is even causing potential electoral problems for Obama in Massachusetts. In fact, Culver and Gregorie all have iffy approval ratings, so it might be best to cross them off the list as well. Of the remaining group, Napolitano, Sevelius and Schweitzer are the strongest candidates, although once again I have to emphasize that I don't know where they stood on Iraq before it began.

So, unless Obama picks someone who is either not currently serving in office, or who is in the U.S. House, this already gives us a pretty short list of Sherrod Brown (OH), Janet Napolitano (AZ), Kathleen Sebelius (KS), Brian Schweitzer (MT) and Jim Webb (VA). Of these five, Sherrod Brown is unquestionably the progressive choice, and also comes from the most important state. By comparison, everyone else is pretty much a Blue Dog, even Webb and Schweitzer. I also like that Brown is an economic populist in a campaign where a weakening economy is a concern to many voters, but I do question the wisdom of a ticket entitled "Obama-Brown." (although that does reinforce Obama, in a certain way.) If someone can show me that Schweitzer opposed the war before it began, he might be an appealing option. Webb has a certain appeal to Obama's "unity" message, since he was a former Republican and a member of Ronald Reagan's cabinet. However, like Sebelius, he is also older than the rest of the group, to the extent that he probably does not make for a very good successor. Sebelius comments seems to pop up online here and there, but am I the only one who thinks it would be strange for Obama to pick an older woman from Kansas, given that his mother is from Kansas?

Surveying the field, I think that Sherrod Brown appears to be the strongest pick, with the other four worth consideration. Brown works well as a reinforcing pick, as suiting the needs of the ticket in the 2008 election, and as a successor who can build the progressive movement in the decade to come. Hopefully, his name will start to pop up some more once this discussion really gets underway in a couple of weeks.

Update: Discussions like these are inevitably rich, but I wanted to pick out some of the choicer bits that I have seen so far:

* Commenter Ron argues that Sebelius is actually pretty progressive. However, many others have been arguing that even if she is, her SOTU response was so poor that she might not be a strong national campaigner.
* Larkspr argues that Schweitzer did oppose, or at least probably opposed, the war before it began. That would make him a stronger candidate.
* Several people are arguing for Feingold. While he has served in Washington, D.C. for a while, he remains the epitome of the outsider despite it. I'd be cool with that.
* jlkenney argues that Sherrod Brown actually has been in D.C. for 16 years, if one counts his experience in the U.S. House.
Also, consider that whoever is chosen will be viewed as Obama's successor. What image do we want to present as the future, post-Obama face of the Democratic Party? It strikes me as very, very important that whoever is chosen is a progressive.

Update 2: The discussion has persuaded me to drop Napolitano from the short list in favor of adding Feingold. I don't get the idea of putting Gore on the VP slot. At all. Brown, Feingold, Seblius, Schweitzer and Webb are all interesting, and possibly quite strong, picks.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!

Tagged as: webb, obama, feingold, brown, schweitzer, sebelius, napolitano

Chris Bowers was a full-time editor at MyDD from May 2004 until June 2007. Some of his projects have included the creation of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, the first scientifically random poll of progressive netroots activists, the Use It Or Lose It campaign, the nation's most accurate forecast of Democratic house pickups in 2006, and the 2006 Googlebomb the Elections campaign.


Breast Flaunting for Jesus
The life of a failed California beauty pageant contestant gets even weirder.
Post by Thers. November 11, 2009.
Dobbs to Quit CNN
Dobbs, under fire, to seek greener pastures.
Post by Staff. November 11, 2009.
Under Pressure From Tea Party Activists, Charleston GOP Censures Lindsey Graham For Bipartisanship
Part of the fury from the right against Graham is being spurred by the oil and coal industry.
Post by Lee Fang. November 11, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Jim Webb????
Posted by: mahabhusuku on Feb 29, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This guy is anything but a progressive, and I'm getting kind of irked that he keeps coming up as the cure all for the ills of the Democratic party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My 2 cents
Posted by: mnascimento on Feb 29, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to see Sen Obama pick Senator Jim Webb of Virginia as a running mate. I perceive them to be similar in ideology and temperment.
Webb is a southern white male who has, I think, served as Secretary of the Navy, and has a son in Iraq. He has been critical of the rationale for invasion, and the conduct of the war. He was elected to the Senate after that irrational vote to invade. While not a hawk, he would be perceived by the public as strong on defense, but not a "regime change" kind of guy. I also think he would support Obama's Constitutional concept of representing the best interests of all the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My 2 cents Posted by: aonghus36
Webb???
Posted by: Sybyll on Feb 29, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand his appeal. He is not progressive, liberal or in my opinion democratic in nature. He is a military creation without human vision or caring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I would say Sam Nunn Posted by: wagadog
Sercle
Posted by: sercle on Feb 29, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How 'bout Bloomberg for VP? He is more interested in solving problems effectively than in the limelight. Or Nancy Pelosi, but the SF ultra liberal association (even though she is definitely NOT) will get too much play. Leon Panetta?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sercle Posted by: sui_generis
Let's not take a real progressive out of the Senate...
Posted by: truthteller on Feb 29, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...There are so few of them. While I concur that Brown is one of the most progressive and appealing possible running mates for Obama, we just got him to the Senate. Ohio politics being what they are, the odds of another real progressive taking his place are not good. Ohio politics are a little strange and somewhat name driven. The Brown name sells well there, and probably had more than a little to do with his being elected. Getting another true progressive to replace him for the seat would be extremely difficult. I say let him stay in the Senate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Govn. of New Mexico Richarderson
Posted by: crazy carlos on Feb 29, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
former Senator, U.N. Rep. Broad, deep experience to offset Obama, Hispanic state, westerner which will become more important than the south. The west is where McCain is not popular, even in Arizona--we remember the Keating 5/ S&L
scandel with little Jonny in the middle of it. 2nd--John Edwards. He is palatable to the Reps who might shy away from Obama. We are not looking for a walk on water canadite but one who can help the ticket. Just who in the hell can run as a V.P. on Rep. ticket and help McCain??? No One. Crazy Carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

optimist
Posted by: optimist on Feb 29, 2008 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like Edwards for the job - despite his war vote. He is on record as regretting it and he could appeal to the many repubs that initially believed Bush - but then changed their minds when "intelligence proved faulty" (and disaster insued...)
Is there concern that because he was on the failed ticket in 2004, that a repeat might occur if he is on the 2008 ticket as well? (is he a jinx?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Edwards Posted by: Sissy
» RE: optimist Posted by: Wacre
Obama needs a VP with foreign policy cred
Posted by: Betsyny on Feb 29, 2008 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, if he picks any short term Senator or a governor aside from Richardson, he's not going to neutralize McCain's argument for experience in that area in any way. I think that'd be pretty foolish strategically, even if for purity sake it's correct to go with someone like Brown.

Wes Clark comes to mind. Even though he's endorsed Clinton, he'd be a good VP for Obama - very progressive and anti-war.

Biden and Dodd also would give foreign policy gravitas to the ticket. There really isn't a good reason to eliminate them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama needs a VP with foreign policy cred
Posted by: Betsyny on Feb 29, 2008 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, if he picks any short term Senator or a governor aside from Richardson, he's not going to neutralize McCain's argument for experience in that area in any way. I think that'd be pretty foolish strategically, even if for purity sake it's correct to go with someone like Brown.

Wes Clark comes to mind. Even though he's endorsed Clinton, he'd be a good VP for Obama - very progressive and anti-war.

Biden and Dodd also would give foreign policy gravitas to the ticket. There really isn't a good reason to eliminate them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

needs to be a Westerner
Posted by: MMiddle on Feb 29, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...like Brian Schweitzer, and not including a previous competitor (Edwards was a disaster as Kerry's VP; Richardson is far too egotistical and PR-oblivious.). Obama could then focus on building up his foreign policy cred, rather than trying to borrow it from Webb or Clarke. The West, esp. with its extensive federal lands, has been underrepresented for far too long.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best VP
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon on Feb 29, 2008 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Richardson who has the foreign policy experience needed. Not John Edwards - we need him on the Supreme Court to try to balance out the corporate shills already there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jim Webb
Posted by: g50 on Feb 29, 2008 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would be a fantastic choice. You do need a military or national security guy. Webb fits that bill. And does anyone recall Webb's 2007 State of the Union Democratic response? It was a slam dunk, a grand slam, a touch down with two point conversion - whatever analogy, Webb would be probably the best pick of anyone and by a fair amount as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wishful Thinking
Posted by: Sissy on Feb 29, 2008 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know this is way out of the box, but wouldn't it be great if Kucinich got the second spot? What a powerful pair that would be. But I know, I know, it will never, can never happen. What would the media say?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wishful Thinking Posted by: Ln
Biden or Dodd
Posted by: Unbowed on Feb 29, 2008 12:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think outside of the present climate of life after Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, would we consider the Obama candidacy a progressive one. In that light. I don't think Biden, for his World/military knowledge and Dodd for his Constitution stances and overall integrity would both be good choices. Both scored high points with me during the campaign. To think that either would somehow taint this outsiders campaign disregards the moderate vote and the dangerous world perspective,i.e.; the Ms. Clinton latest fear Mongering. Got to give it to her she is good at the dirty fighting like the Republicans....never been much difference under the skin to me. She's a Republicat

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The idea of Dodd for VP makes it easy to keep adding up the positive reasons.
Posted by: Christie on Feb 29, 2008 12:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dodd’s principled stand in leading the fight in the Senate against telecom immunity was impressive. His experience in foreign affairs and in general in the Senate are definite plusses. Although older than Obama, at 63 he is young enough--not seen as an oldster, as McCain is. His gravitas would be an excellent balance to Obama’s soaring spirit and no one could say that it was a ticket of whippersnappers. The older generation, those of us sure to vote in high numbers, are enthusiastic about Obama but would also like to see that balance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SHOULDN'T HE GET THE NOMINATION FIRST ?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 29, 2008 1:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» take up bowling Posted by: wagadog
your premise
Posted by: sui_generis on Feb 29, 2008 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to say, I don't understand the very premise of these picks.

Obama needs to pick a vice-president that reinforces his strengths, not one who balances out his perceived weakness.

Why the heck would he want to do that???

He can pick someone who doesn't clash with his strengths, but I certainly think he would be wise to also make sure they shore up his areas of perceived weakness! Why would you NOT want to do that?

I wouldn't be very surprised if he were to pick an older white guy from a Southern state with a strong military or diplomatic background. Or better yet, a flat-out military guy in total. Like Wesley Clark, but not Wesley Clark, because he supports Clinton.

Obama's definitely going to need someone with a lot of perceived experience in those areas in order to offset McCain's supposed strength on that front. If people see Obama has surrounded himself with folks whose credentials outweigh McCain's, it will definitely blunt Sidney's momentum in that area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liz Holtzman
Posted by: joshuafwhalen on Feb 29, 2008 5:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah. Think about it. Liz is a veteran, who had her craeer shredded by the repulicrat wing of the democratic party for being an uncompromising progressive, and she's been on the right side of every fight there's been in the last 40 years. Further, as the feminist's feminist, she brings back many of the women who'll be stewing over Hillary's defeat, and brings a real feminist (i.e, someone with decades of her own accomplishments, not her husband's, as her principle qualifications) with a legislative career second to none into Obama's tent. Add to that her strong jewish cred (and she's from Brooklyn, which goes nicely with Obama's Chicago), and you've got a real winner. not only that, but she is devasatating in a debate. I can't think of a better choice, and she's been sitting on the sidelines way too long.

In addition, her years a Brooklyn DA make her an excellent choice for veep, since no doubt one of the principle priorities of the incoming Obama administration will be pursuing criminal indictments against many of Bushies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Elizabeth Holtzman Posted by: wagadog
» RE: Elizabeth Holtzman Posted by: joshuafwhalen
Why not Ron Paul?
Posted by: zenbruder on Feb 29, 2008 9:45 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He has the credentials. He voted against the war. He has not endorsed any other candidate. He has a similar ground swell of grassroots followers. Since Paul probably won't get the Republican nomination (sad) I think he would be a great choice for VP with Obama. Take a page out of "The West Wing" script writers book.

I would vote for this ticket. Crazy? It's a crazy world we live in. Break out of the mold.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why not Ron Paul? Posted by: bravegirl68
CLONE OBAMA
Posted by: MB in chicago on Mar 1, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope Obama does NOT pick someone to compliment his skill set, but one who would replicate it. I have seen great, creative, administrators who were change agents, but who picked a bean-counter for VP because they felt a need for balance and counter-check. Then when the genius left, the institution is left with a long period of unraveling of every creative idea, because the innovators were shut out or left in despair when hope and imagination died. When the big ship of state has to turn on a dime, critical mass is far more important than political balance. If, God forbid, something happens to Obama, should the dream die because some born-to-be-second-in-command (like Hillary) or some good old boy from the military ends up in command? ...
My personal pick would be Elizabeth Holtzman --for a million reasons.. eloguence, integrity, grass-roots experience, courage, and not so important but useful: complementary geography, ethnicity, gender, and age.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you really want to see Elizabeth Holtzman on the ticket...
Posted by: joshuafwhalen on Mar 1, 2008 8:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really wasn't expecting to to do something like this, but when I posted earlier I got all inspired, etc..

Given the amount of response (more than any other on this page), both pro and anti, I think we are on to something so I am volunteering to focalize the effort.

My blog is at: Blog of Nothing, and there's a couple of posts already. If you want to make this happen, come on over and we'll figure out how. This is doable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]