Senator Clinton's recent ten-point (or thereabouts) win in the Pennsylvania primary did not come about in a general atmosphere of political positivity; it occurred when the tone and content of the political discourse, at least insofar as the remaining Democratic candidates is concerned, turned increasingly more muddied and muddled. Instead of nuanced discussions of Iran (and, at a broader level, Middle East) policy, there were suggestions of "obliteration" regarding that particular nation state in conjunction with its potential for aggressive behavior that could heavily affect its various neighbors; instead of discussing the necessity to show national pride through a mindset, both individual and collective in manner, focused on improving policies in order to restore a more palpable sense of our national and self worth, there were discussions of why it is apparently trendy to wear American flag pins on one's lapel; instead of....
Forget it; I could go on forever, but that would put most readers into a depressive state, and at any rate I believe that I have made my point.
Yet we must remember the fact (and it is still a fact) that, though Senator Clinton has been given a new lease on presidential life due to her Pennsylvania win, Senator Obama nonetheless continues to lead by a not insubstantial margin in total pledged delegates. This scenario seems to indicate a few things, amongst them the following: 1.) at this point, Senator Obama is still more likely than Senator Clinton to win the Democratic nomination; 2.) the process of winning that nomination will continue to be long and tough--a real time-consuming, grueling campaign slog--and the candidate who eventually concedes (I'm hoping that a concession occurs at some point prior to the convention in the late summer) may not do so until the final votes (discounting the Florida and Michigan messes, which still need to be cleared-up in some fashion) on June 3, or perhaps even afterward; 3.) the negative, rather superficial tone that permeated the goings-on in Pennsylvania seems to have helped Senator Clinton, so it would seem a matter of course that she would continue in that vein, whether she wants to or not; and, finally, 4.) given all of this, it strikes me that, were he to win the Democratic nomination in this protracted, increasingly insidious race, Senator Obama will need a running mate with sharp teeth come the final, post-convention two months leading up to election day in November of this year.
This is to suggest that a somewhat hobbled Senator Obama (again, if he wins the nomination) will in the autumn be dealing with fending off the notion that he may not be as electable as many first thought, as well as dealing with the fallout from other assorted potentially harmful topics (the Reverend Wright scenario; Lapel-pin-gate; having lost several big battleground states to Senator Clinton in the primaries; and so forth). He may therefore need a fighting bulldog of a running mate who can counter-attack the Republican ticket and the Republican attack machine (which will be working overtime, given all that it now has to work with), on matters both trivial and substantive in matter, in a manner that forces Senator McCain and his potential running mate back on the defensive, so that Senator Obama can focus more exclusively on policy issues, both domestic and foreign in nature, in an above-the-fray manner. (I realize that this is a delicate balancing act to achieve in that Senator Obama cannot look like he is "stooping" to the level of getting sucked-in to discussing non-issues in a less-than-presidential manner, but he also must not be seen as too aloof on such matters that he appears to be wimpily hiding behind his running mate. But the necessity of having a running mate that can attack so that Senator Obama is on the defensive less often seems increasingly important, given the current conditions.)
Previous to this point, two individuals were tied for first on my list of potential running mates for Senator Obama: former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. However, because of their somewhat anti-confrontational natures (at least in comparison to my new number one choice), they have dropped to tied for second on my list (which is admittedly still very high in the rankings, given that only one person has leapfrogged in front of them). They remain high on the list because of their strong electoral and policy qualifications, which I will discuss before I discuss the individual who I now think would be the very best choice to be Senator Obama's running mate.
Sam Nunn
Sam Nunn is a former four-term U.S. Democratic Senator who will be seventy years old at the time of the general election in November, which contrasts nicely with Senator Obama's relative youth and would not be much of an issue in the "Is he too old?" variety because he is about two years younger than Senator McCain. In fact, his age would suggest that older Democrats can and have decided to align themselves with the young upstart from Illinois. His ethnicity--he is white--would balance nicely with Obama's minority status.
Nunn is from Georgia, and he is considered a popular figure in that state. As Obama won the Georgia Democratic primary, and as Georgia has been targeted by some people in the Obama camp as a southern state (along with the likes of Louisiana) in which under certain conditions their candidate might be able to compete in a competitive manner in the general election, placing Nunn on the ticket might open that particular door to the South. And, of course, if a Midwesterner (such as Obama) is leading the ticket, Nunn's presence would help to balance things geographically, as well, and it would give independent-minded Southerners who otherwise might shrug their shoulders and vote for the Republican candidate another option when they are in the voting booth. (It would also force the Republicans to put more time, money, and resources into securing the South than they would otherwise want to, leaving some battleground states a bit more open for the Democrats to take.)
Nunn is also more conservative than Obama, which would help assuage fears that Obama would take the country into a heavily tax-and-spend direction. Nunn is a successful businessman, which would reassure folks who point out that Obama has never run a business and/or met a payroll. And, since leaving the Senate, Nunn has for several years been the director of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (which he helped establish), which works to reduce the threat of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons throughout the world; his previous national security and internationalist credentials, already strong, were utilized to create the N.T.I., which has only strengthened those credentials.
Bill Richardson
Bill Richardson made exactly two enemies during his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president: Bill and Hillary Clinton. And even that didn't occur until well after Richardson folded up his presidential operations and, after a long period of deliberation, endorsed Barack Obama's bid during a very difficult week for Obama (he really helped save Obama's rear end from continued bad press just prior to Easter, in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright controversy). Other than the dust-up with the Clintons, Richardson proved to be a very personable and accessible candidate, and he proved to appeal in a particularly strong manner to small groups of people as well as on a one-on-one basis, which contrasts nicely with Obama, who appeals to large gatherings of people but is sometimes stiff and a bit aloof in small groups. Also, Richardson's ideas have been incorporated to a somewhat surprising extent by both Clinton and Obama, an example of which is his idea that the U.S. must begin immediately and systemmatically withdrawing troops from Iraq regardless of present conditions on the ground, which neither Clinton nor Obama supported until recently.
Richardson's resume' is eye-popping: he spent fourteen years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, after which he was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He left that job to become the U.S. Energy Secretary during a low point in its existence (and, aside from the Lee scandal, he was able to "right" that bureaucratic ship to a large extent), after which he became the popular two-term Governor of New Mexico, the job that he continues to hold. (Term limits will force him out of that particular office in January of 2011.) He has been an international hostage negotiator, a liaison for the U.S. to many foreign countries, and he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize a total of five times (though he has yet to win it).
Richardson is also Hispanic, which would help because Obama has struggled to win the votes of Hispanics, particularly those over the age of thirty-five. He is a governor, so he has chief executive experience (which Obama does not have), and his is a swing-state that Bush barely won in 2004 and Gore barely won four years previous to that. He is also from the Southwest, which contrasts nicely with Obama's Midwestern base, and it should be pointed out that the Southwest is still growing quickly in population and changing quickly as far as demographics go, so it's an increasingly important area of the country, electorally speaking.
Yet the fact that Richardson is Hispanic means that, if added to the ticket, the Democrats would be offering two minorities to voters nationwide (as opposed to a minority and a white person), which may not necessarily appeal to culturally conservative blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" from rustbelt states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio. Furthermore, some of the more fervent Clinton supporters dislike Richardson for his support of Obama after having worked in the Clinton White House. Also, the politically personable Richardson may or may not be comfortable in the role of "attack dog," which is sometimes required of a Vice President. In many ways, his background suggests that he would make a superb Secretary of State; if I were Senator Obama, I'd ask Richardson to fill that extremely important role.
So, if Sam Nunn and Bill Richardson are great "second" choices for the V.P. slot, who is now the best choice? Given his sometimes larger-than-life personality and presidential gravitas, my suggestion for the individual who should be Obama's running mate is one that I previously thought would not be a good choice in that he could have served to dwarf Obama on a number of fronts, but who now looks like the perfect fit given his experience, intelligence, and very strong debating skills: U.S. Senator Joe Biden, from Delaware.
Joe Biden
"Joe Biden looks like a Founding Father," someone recently remarked in my presence while watching him discuss the potential electoral strengths that whoever is nominated by the Democrats for the presidency might bring to bear against John McCain. Yes, as he moves through his sixties (he is presently sixty-five years old), he looks increasingly as though his picture belongs on the fifty dollar bill (or whatever). But he also often sounds like a Founding Father in that he is authoritative, experienced, philosophical, often passionate, and whip-smart insofar as making points and counter-points is concerned. He brings instant gravitas to any discussion, and when he speaks he tends to have those who agree with him nodding along enthusiastically, and those who disagree with him at least respecting him for the manner in which he constructs his arguments. These are strong characteristics for a potential running mate to display. (He is also a conviction-based individual who is often a bit intimidating, which can be a good thing to have in a presidential running mate, as well as sometimes long-winded and self-congratulatory, which can be a bit of a detriment.)
Joe Biden has served as a United States Senator from Delaware for over thirty-five years (nearly six full terms; he is up for re-election in the autumn, and, if he is not part of a winning presidential team, he will most likely win a seventh term). During that time, he has been a ranking member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. As a former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he authored the "Violence Against Women Act," which stiffened penalties against individuals who committed physical crimes against women (which would tend to appeal to a number of Hillary Clinton's strongest supporters, among others), and he promoted college aid and loan programs that allowed families to deduct thousands of dollars from their taxes due to higher education costs (which would tend to appeal to middle class Americans struggling to pay for their and/or their children's higher education costs). As the current Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is exceptionally well-informed on foreign affairs, well-acquainted with major political players throughout the world, and in possession of foreign policy and national security credentials that are beyond question. He is, simply put, very, very experienced in many of the ways that Senator Obama is not.
He has also never backed-away from a fight, and he argues with the best of them (and often beats the best, because he's one of them). He won nearly every 2007/2008 Democratic presidential debate he participated in prior to dropping out of the race following the Iowa results in January, which was due more to lack of funds to spread his message than anything else. He grilled Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearing to become the Secretary of State, but not in a coarse, mean-spirited way--he challenged her on the president's policies and never let her rest on her credentials alone when answering questions. He took both General Petraeus and Ambassador (to Iraq) Crocker to task for several of the answers they provided to his committee regarding the Iraq scenario on several occasions recently, while still treating them with the respect they rightfully deserve.
He makes the television rounds seemingly several times weekly (maybe even daily), taking the Bush Administration to task for their failure to recognize the complexities at work in various areas of foreign affairs and policy (President Bush once famously said to him, "But I don't do nuance...."), complete with facts and almost-always accurate cultural readings of the realities at work in various countries throughout the world. His plan to reduce the violence in Iraq by federalizing that country, a "nuanced" counter-proposal to the present Bush "surge" strategy, won passage by a whopping three-to-one margin in the U.S. Senate (including the votes of many Republican senators) prior to being rejected by the president. He is greatly respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle (including Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain), and no one ever seems eager to get into a debate with him, given his ability to project both professorial intelligence and "Average Joe" common sense during such scenarios.
His drawbacks are few but could prove problematic. First of all, his is a major, major personality; he is not one to fade into the background...for anybody...so he might tend to dominate the proceedings even when he isn't attempting to do so (he's really more of a president-type than he is a vice president-type), though this can be offset by what would most likely be his constant willingness to fight for his potential boss's (Obama) viewpoints. Thus, his tendency to upstage folks might need to be constantly monitored. Also, he is from Delaware, and if the Democratic nominee doesn't win Delaware, he/she doesn't win much of anything--so he's not going to be able to "deliver" his own state in the sense that it's not a critical swing-state. (Delaware's neighboring state of Maryland is similarly solidly Democratic.)
But do candidates really "deliver" states like they used to? I'm not so certain; the rules may have changed as far as that's concerned. No, Biden won't "deliver" a critical state or region, but he would be broadly acceptable to both the Obama people (who revere his experience) and the Clinton people (who revere his leadership abilities). He has stayed away from endorsing either Democratic candidate thus far, which has kept his options open, and he has impressively defended his party's stances on the issues in relation to Senator McCain's stances while the two Democratic candidates have been preoccupied with each other, which suggests that he can and will continue to do the same once a nominee is settled upon.
And, again, the guy just looks presidential.
If the Republican attack machine revs up to a great extent against a potential Democratic Nominee Obama, the Democrats may very well want Senator Biden on the ticket to fight back, quite capably, all the way to the election in November, and afterwards, as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment