Now that John Kerry’s grip on the Dem nomination looks very secure, we can start having some fun thinking about running mates. Sure, it’s probably smarter to wait until a few more primaries have passed, but there’s no fun in that, so let’s proceed.
The conventional wisdom usually looks at pairings from the field of presidential candidates. There’s been plenty of talk, for example, about VP interest from Bob Graham, Dick Gephardt, Wes Clark, and of course, John Edwards.
Last Friday, even Howard Dean hinted that he’d consider an invitation to the Dem ticket. Asked whether he was open to the idea, Dean said, “I’ll do whatever is best for the party. Obviously, I’m running for president, but whatever’s best is what I’ll do. Anything.”
Of course, Dean stands absolutely no chance of making the ticket, unless by some bizarre twist of events, he wins the nomination. He’s burned too many bridges with Edwards and Kerry (having labeled both “Republicans” and “Bush-lite”), Vermont’s 3 electoral votes are going Dem anyway, and an all-New England ticket is out of the question. Besides, with a total of zero wins so far, Dean hasn’t exactly demonstrated an ability to win voters over.
Regardless, I still believe the running mate will probably not come from the field of candidates. As I mentioned in August, they almost never do. Since the McGovern-Fraser Commission, formed after the 1968 race, there have been eight presidential elections and, obviously, 16 tickets. In that time, only one party nominee selected a campaign rival as a running mate — Reagan chose Bush (the first one) in 1980.
Talk about a Kerry-Edwards ticket is defeaning, but there are reports that it’s not going to happen. Today’s Boston Globe, for example, described the ticket as “unlikely.”
Several Kerry advisers say the Massachusetts senator is skeptical about Edwards’s strength as a running mate, saying he appears to lack the clout with Southern voters that he often brags about being able to deliver. Edwards’s inability to win more than a single primary state thus far may give him the aura of a loser in the general election, these Kerry aides said. And Kerry himself recently noted with a touch of derision that, according to opinion polls, President Bush would defeat Edwards in his own home state of North Carolina.
Kerry is also said to be unconvinced that Edwards is experienced enough to step in as a wartime president should something happen to him. National security credentials are the most important assets that the Democratic presidential front-runner would use to choose a running mate, these aides said.
So, if not Edwards, who? I have a few thoughts.
If Kerry were to buck history and choose a campaign rival for the ticket, Clark appears to be a logical choice, particularly in light of the concerns Kerry staffers raised about Edwards in the Globe article. Clark would likely help carry Arkansas, whose six electoral votes Bush narrowly won in 2000 (and if Kerry wins all of Gore’s “blue states” plus Arkansas this November, he wins the general election). Moreover, it’s hard to even imagine someone with more “national security credentials” than the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.
Using the Globe article to help create a criterion, I’d say Kerry needs a running mate with three things: 1) national security bona fides; 2) the ability to help carry a “red state”; and 3) an “outsider” image to help balance Kerry’s lengthy career in the Senate (an all-Beltway ticket makes an easy target).
Other than Clark, the other obvious name that comes to mind is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who pretty much meets all three of my requirements. He has international experience as Clinton’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, his ethnicity (Richardson is a Hispanic-American) could help carry Southwestern states like Arizona and Oklahoma, and he’s a popular governor of a swing state. Given this, Richardson may be the ideal running mate for Kerry.
There’s only one problem: He insists that he doesn’t want the job.
Who does that leave? Frankly, I can’t really think of anyone else who would meet all three of the criteria mentioned above, but there are plenty of people who come close.
Among Democratic governors:
* Virginia Gov. Mark Warner — He endorsed Kerry shortly before the Virginia primary, has proven himself an effective campaigner in a conservative Southern state, and has a heck of a lot of money in the bank. No national security experience, but two out of three ain’t bad.
* Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack — Another Kerry endorser, Vilsack is a popular governor of a Midwestern swing state.
* North Carolina Gov. Michael Easley — Sure, he endorsed Edwards early on, but Kerry could probably look past that. He’s a popular figure in a key Southern state with a great record on education and health care.
Among Democratic senators:
* Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh — He’s way more moderate than Kerry, but that might help in the general election. And if Bayh could help put Indiana in play, that’s 11 very important electoral votes.
* Delaware Sen. Joe Biden — He’s from a small “blue state,” but he’s a close friend of Kerry’s and he’s one of the most articulate voices in the party on national security and foreign policy issues.
* Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu — She’s a popular figure from a critical “red state” (9 electoral votes). In fact, she was the only Dem to get targeted by the White House in 2002 but win anyway. And if Kerry did tap Landrieu as a running mate, it’d be the first all-Catholic ticket in U.S. history! On the other hand, she did vote with the GOP on Bush’s 2001 tax cut, which probably hurt her chances.
Am I missing someone obvious? I’m open to suggestion.