Vice President Biden?

April 9, 2008

I certainly won’t claim to be the most well-connected blogger on this side of the ‘sphere, but over the last couple of weeks, I’ve chatted with a few DC politicos, all of whom mentioned they’ve been hearing a lot of “VP buzz” about Joe Biden, most notably if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

This afternoon, I’ve seen the same point being bandied about in several circles. Marc Ambinder got the ball rolling, putting Biden among the frontrunners for Obama’s VP slot (along with Daschle, Napolitano, Dodd, Webb, and Hagel). “[Biden’s] hidden asset is his connection with white, working class voters,” Ambinder said. “His obvious asset is his foreign policy experience.”

Yglesias seems lukewarm on the idea.

Biden’s a sometimes maddening figure, but he’s been impressive lately and there’s a lot to be said on his behalf. But putting someone who voted for the war, even someone who did so half-heartedly and after making a quasi-promising effort to restrain Bush, seems to muddy way too much of the argument Obama is making.

Kevin said Biden seems like a “decent choice,” and disagrees with Yglesias’ Iraq-related objection.

Once [Obama] leaves the cozy confines of a primary where the anti-war base is enough to win, Obama is going to enter the chillier territory of a general election where he’ll need to draw a bunch of votes from the ranks of people who once supported the war. He needs a good way to signal these folks that he doesn’t consider them tainted forever by their erstwhile support, and what better way than by choosing a moderately hawkish senator who once favored the war but has since changed his mind? The opposite tack — insisting that he’ll associate only with the pure of heart who opposed the war from the beginning — would be something of a disaster. People won’t vote for a candidate who tacitly seems to be calling them idiots.

I tend to think Kevin’s right about this, in part because Obama already has credibility on the issue by virtue of having gotten the big question right. He wouldn’t necessarily need a running mate who agreed with him on Iraq from the start, and would disqualify many qualified people if he did.

That said, I have a few concerns, and at least one big reason I don’t think Biden will be the choice.

This is petty and borderline-silly, but the very first thought that popped into my mind was that awful ranking system from the National Journal. If Biden were Obama’s running mate, the RNC and its cohorts will boast that the Democratic ticket featured the #1 and #3 most liberal senators. It’d be ridiculous, but I guarantee it’d be at the top of the talking points.

Nevertheless, I can certainly appreciate Biden’s positives. He’s very smart and one of the most knowledgeable and articulate Democratic voices on foreign affairs in the party. He’s also proven that he knows how to smack Republican candidates around when he has to. (Two of my very favorite moments from ’07 were Biden hitting Giuliani here and here. Months later, I still love them, and wouldn’t mind seeing similar remarks directed at McCain’s ticket in the fall.)

But the negatives are numerous. First and foremost, Biden led the way on that ridiculous bankruptcy bill, and I’ll probably never forgive him for it. Second, he eschews message discipline, and is well known for sticking his foot in his mouth with embarrassing gaffes. Third, I can’t think of a single state or constituency that Biden would help Obama win in a general election that Obama couldn’t win just as easily with someone else.

Even putting all of that aside, I just don’t think Obama would pick Biden, at least not for VP.

Last night at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Barack Obama took a question on what he’s looking for in a running mate. “I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I’m not as expert on,” he said, and then he was off and running. “I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area — foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.”

Right or wrong, Obama isn’t thinking about adding a running mate to bolster his credibility on foreign policy; he believes he already has the credibility he needs.

And if that’s not the direction Obama is considering, then Biden’s chances appear remote.

I think Feingold would make an excellent pick. He would help solidify the Midwest and is one of the best Senators out there.

  • I don’t think it’d be another senator. A western or midwestern governor — Schweitzer?

  • I think Biden’s geographics also discount him.

    I think it is very unlikely fellow Senators make the short list of either Obama or McCain. Governors, former Governors, and people using the pseudonym ‘doubtful’ are far more likely and qualified, in my humble opinion.

  • Biden would be my least favorite choice for VP for all the reasons that CB mentioned plus the fact that he really doesn’t come across as a solid leader. Napolitano is an interesting possibility, and I still think Webb has a lot of positives. Somebody told me once why he’s a bad idea but I forget the reasons.

  • Biden would be a terrible choice for VP or Sec of State. He is a bright guy, can be very thoughtful on policy, and does many things well. But he is far too enamored of the sound of his own voice, and goes wildly off script with disasterous consequences. This is why he has never made it close to success in his own Presidential races (and that in turn is why I think he would be hard to control as #2 – he thinks he should be #1). He got drummed out of his first race because he plaigerized a speech. The two spots I most often see him discussed in (VP and SoS) are two of the most important in terms of message discipline and thinking before opening one’s mouth. That latter issue Biden flunks, no matter how good he may be in any other respects.

  • Somebody told me once why he’s a bad idea but I forget the reasons.
    Leave a Reply     -Curmudgeon

    Aside from thinking it’s bad in general to have two people on the ticket with the same current job, Webb disappointed with his recent telecom immunity support. For me, that’s a deal breaker.

  • What doubtful said, plus the fact that with Webb and soon Mark Warner there, we can lock up the Virginia Senate seats for 30 years.

  • I still can’t forgive Biden for calling Obama “clean” and “articulate.”

  • So what are the areas that Obama is not “as expert on”?

    Not law — he edited the Harvard Law Review
    Not urban issues or poverty– his organizing work gave him experience there
    Not military or foreign policy

    Environmental policy? Economics?

  • Louisa(9):I still can’t forgive Biden for calling Obama “clean” and “articulate.”

    I’ll bet Bush would have loved to be called clean OR articulate.

  • I hope not. Biden signed a PNAC letter – and any signatory of anything from PNAC is enough to scare the living crap out of me.

    No.

    No.

    No.

  • A far more logical choice would be James Webb. He has absolutely sterling foreign policy credentials and national security experience (Secretary of the Navy, I believe), is a Southerner, and a VERY straight talker.

  • Hi Steve, first time i have posted here, but i’m reading regularly and i enjoy your coverage… As an outsider with no other motivation than the good of the planet and its people, i think you couldn’t go far wrong with Biden or Feingold – these guys really have more brains than the entire republican party put together.

    Neil, Germany

  • TR,

    I don’t think it’d be another senator. A western or midwestern governor — Schweitzer?

    Agreed. I think Governor Napalitano from AZ would be a great pick. She is smart, capable and would be well positioned in 8 years for her own run at the White House. Governor Sebilus is better from a state-pick-up perspective (even with Napalitano on the ticket I don’t think McCain will lose AZ), but her response to the State of the Union was too flat.

    Schweitzer would actually put Montana in play and that would be pretty cool.

  • I agree with Norm, and also like Webb.

    That guy can land a punch, and we’ll need that. It’ll need to be a southerner, and Webb seems to be the best one available, although we also need him as a senator.

    Another good southerner would be Gore, but that won’t happen because it would be way too cool.

  • scott_m makes a good suggestion that Barack may want to get someone with good economic expertise as his Veep. While there seems to a be consensus that either of the Dems would do foreign policy better than the Republicans, I get the sense that this will look more like a pocketbook election come fall. If the public could feel confident that the economic ship will be righted, Barack would have an asset that John “I don’t understand economics” McCain doesn’t.

  • Scott #10 said: “So what are the areas that Obama is not ‘as expert on’?”

    Bowling.

  • So what are the areas that Obama is not “as expert on”? -scott_m

    Bowling and being Hispanic.

    Clearly, Clara Guerrero should be his first choice.

    Bill Richardson as a backup.

  • The ideal issue to cover would be economics, but who?
    Bloomberg? Independent, but too elitist.
    Dodd? To closely tied to Enron fiasco and banking interests? Rep. Gov. in CT
    Volker – too old (80)

    Meanwhile Webb is a Reagan Republican. But how about Mark Warner.

  • Laffs to doubtful!

    All I could think of was bowling. But don’t worry folks – I’m sure he’s been practicing and will be getting triple-digit scores before the PA primary.

  • If Biden were Obama’s running mate, the RNC and its cohorts will boast that the Democratic ticket featured the #1 and #3 most liberal senators. — CB

    Coincidentally, the Votemaster @:
    http://www.electoral-vote.com/
    has put a list of Senators and their rankings from the perspective of several liberal groups (ACLU, NAACP, Naral, and several others) today. It’s quite interesting, giving both interest-group scores and cumulative ones. Obama is down low (among Dems) on it; less liberal than Clinton (though not far behind). As far as I’m concerned, if he has to pick a Senator as a running mate (which I’d prefer he didn’t do), he’d do better to pick someone from the top of the list, to reassure the liberals.

  • Biden? Joe Biden (D-MBNA) of the bankruptcy bill? Right when personal bankruptcies are skyrocketing?

    I don’t think it’s going to be balancing-the-ticket choice, but a reinforce-the-message choice (think Clinton/Gore). Also, a team player (ie. not Biden or Webb), who will be comfortable NOT running a Fourth Branch-like VP office.

  • Probably not for VP, but if Obama wins, he might consider trying to find a cabinet position or UN Ambassadorship or some such for Susan Collins, or possibly Olympia Snowe. This would cover the “bridging the divide” promise by showing a willingness to work with any republicans who approach being nearly reasonable, and it would remove a Republican from the Senate. Win, win.

    And find a way to bump Lieberman upstairs to ambassador to Israel or something.

    Schweitzer seems ideal for VP. (The guy probably knows how to bowl and everything. More seriously, he should be strong in rural areas and could cause some NRA people to give equal consideration to both parties.)

  • Scott at 10

    I find it amusing that Obama’s so-called expertise in foreign and military affairs is the only one you don’t add an explanation to in your list. Of course its because there is no basis for this claimed expertise. Unless you of course buy that Obama is an expert because he syas he is based on trip to Pakistan he took in college. By that calculus my after-college tour of Europe makes me an expert on NATO deployment.

    This is a weakness that Obama needs to address as his statements seem arrogant and wrong-headed to anyone who isn’t a supporter.

  • Racerx,

    It’ll need to be a southerner…

    Why do you make this assertion?

    I’d argue that the Mountain and Southwest states are more important to the future of the Democratic Party and thus the VP should come from there. Hence my support for Gov. Napalitano and Gov Schweitzer.

  • I agree that it should/will be Schweitzer. I’ve been saying this for weeks and I’m glad to hear others saying it, too!

  • JoePA37,

    This is a weakness that Obama needs to address as his statements seem arrogant and wrong-headed to anyone who isn’t a supporter.

    care to cite some examples? And just to be clear, relying on Joe Wilson and his post on Taylor Marsh isn’t going to help your case.

    You’ll need to cite examples that people who are either undecided or supportive of both Democrats would view as “arrogant and wrong-headed” if you want to make your point. (for the record, I’m the latter camp).

  • Danp,

    Meanwhile Webb is a Reagan Republican. But how about Mark Warner.

    As long as he caucuses with the Democrats and doesn’t appear in public supporting McCain, I’m okay with Webb.

    As for Mark Warner, I actually think he would be a fine VP choice if he doesn’t run for the soon-to-be vacant Senate seat. Having said that, he dropped out the presidential race quite early for not-too-compelling reasons. I wonder if there are some skeletons there…

  • I think it would beyond risky to have two Senators on the ticket. Give me a governor for the VP slot, preferably one of the many highly qualified women governors our Party is blessed with.

  • I’m with doubtful, Clara Guerrero is the obvious pick. Great idea, doubtful, best suggestion yet!

    Oh, but this is a serious blog, right? While I think Feingold would be great, there’s that whole thing about taking a Dem senator out of the senate, though I would imagine his replacement would have a pretty good chance of being a Dem too. It’d be good to have somebody in mind for that, though, before jumping in with both feet. Webb has gotten a lot of good feeling from the left, but he is hardly a liberal. Leave him where he is, a Dem senator from a state that could too easily go red again if he were taken out of the senate.

    Let’s face it, the ugly truth is that, with Obama as president, there is a better chance than “normal” that whoever is VP will eventually end up being president. I wish it were not so, but I try to be a realist. Racist bigots and guns seem to go together. So whoever is picked will hopefully be somebody we can really feel comfortable with if he ends up at the big desk. Feingold would be my pick. I hope it never comes to that, I really do. Not only would I love to see 8 years of President Obama, I would love to see what ex-President Obama would do with the rest of his life. He could be a true positive force in the world for decades.

  • I’m so glad to see Schweitzer’s name popping up more in these discussions! As many of you know, I’ve been trumpeting the idea of an Obama/Schweitzer ticket all over the blogosphere– glad to know I’m not the only one who thinks this way!

    Check out my reasoning here: http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1707

    As for Biden . . . I think he’d be a horrible choice for VP. As someone stated earlier, there is no demographic that he would shore up that Obama doesn’t already have in the bag. And his presence would send the wrong message– “Sure, this election is all about change . . . but in case you’re not comfortable with that, here’s an old establishment guy to assuage your fears!” Not gonna fly. Message reinforcement is the name of the game– let the GOP paste together an awkward ticket this time around as they clamor to shore up their own Evangelical base while simultaneously compensating for McCain’s age while . . . who knows what. Let them have the contrived ticket. Our ticket has to be 100% forward-facing.

  • This is petty and borderline-silly, but the very first thought that popped into my mind was that awful ranking system from the National Journal. If Biden were Obama’s running mate, the RNC and its cohorts will boast that the Democratic ticket featured the #1 and #3 most liberal senators. It’d be ridiculous, but I guarantee it’d be at the top of the talking points.

    I see this as a positive for Biden. Rush and the RNC have been demonizing the word “liberal” for the past 20+ years. With Bush and Republicans in general basically becoming a synonym for catastrophic failure, now is the best possible time to re-embrace liberalism and use this branding as a positive to differentiate the campaign from the past 8 years.

    Second, he eschews message discipline, and is well known for sticking his foot in his mouth with embarrassing gaffes.

    Despite that, this alone should be enough to disqualify Biden. They already have an old white guy with a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth at the head of their ticket, and they should keep a monopoly on that trait or the press will use it as an opportunity to ignore both side’s gaffes. The fact that Biden is widely known as the Senator from MBNA is just the final nail in his coffin. Bad choice. I’m a big fan of Feingold, but I really think Obama should pick a western governor, either Schweitzer, Napolitano or Richardson. No point endangering the coming Senate majority by putting too many seats in play again right after the election, especially for a potentially worthless job like Vice President.

  • Pressed Submit too soon. I want to add, the commercials re-embracing the word “liberal” practically write themselves. All you need is 3 different parts. Part one, a listing popular liberal legislation the last few decades. Part two, a brief listing of all the stupid stuff from the last 16 years which can be linked directly to incompetent Republican idiots, starting with Gingrich shutting down the government. Part three, a good catch-phrase. something like “Who do you trust? Time to put the adults back in charge.” You could even make it a series. Lets face it, part two could go on for hours.

  • Biden is smart and he can be witty, but he’d be trouble as VP. He’ll work better in a cabinet position.

    But you know what makes me really sad? That John Edwards, who would make an excellent VP and partner for Obama, will never swallow his pride and go for it. Maybe Obama will never ask him, either. It’s a shame, because such a team could mean eight years of fine leadership by Obama, followed by eight more from Edwards. No one discusses this, but am I so off base here?

  • Wren, I couldn’t agree more. It’d be a tsunami of charisma on the campaign trail, but I think you’re right, even if Obama offered it I have my doubts that Edwards would go for it. I would love to be wrong, that would be an incredible ticket.

  • We need an older statesman like character preferable from the south with some military experience or least someone that has been around and knows how to tangle.

    An LBJ type would round all of Obama’s edges. Rumor has it he could bowl like a mad fool.

    It can not be someone that riles McCain’s base, we want them home in November, not raising money and voters.

  • As for Mark Warner, I actually think he would be a fine VP choice if he doesn’t run for the soon-to-be vacant Senate seat. — Edo, @31

    But he *is* running. I’ve already had the first fundraising e-mail, from Webb, on his behalf. And he should be a shoo-in (knocking on wood), because he was very popular as a Governor and had done a good job for us. I don’t think his chances for a presidentiol nomination would not have been anywhere nearly as good, while messing up his chances for the Senate run (once a loser, so close together…), so dropping out early, before he became too visible in the contender role was a good decision on his part, IMO.

    Besides… I want me *two* Dem Senators in my State, so would y’all please lay off Webb and Warner in your VP searches?

  • Biden might make a good Secretary of State (loose cannon?). Edwards would make a terrific Attorney General.

    As for Veep, dang! Yes, Schweitzer is populist, regional, but doesn’t bring much to the ticket except geography. Dodd would bring an economic bkgrd and be the effective Vice Presidential bridge with what should be a more Democratic Congress. Even after his prior experience, etc., it somehow doesn’t seem that Richardson has the “chops” to pull it off (he’d be valuable elsewhere, though). Webb is a “no-go”; he doesn’t suffer fools gladly, not a good campaigner…too much blunt bluster.

    Gore would really round out the friggin’ dream team.

  • Hagel, because he cuts McSame off at the knees, everything McSame is Hagel is or better, and it gives Obama’s unity message validity

  • oooh…Wes Clark. That IS interesting. Arkansas, retired general, staunch Hillary supporter. He would also tend to tamp down the expected Repub. charges that Obama “is not patriotic”.

  • If there’s some sort of poll on a blog – ha! – I’m another for Schweitzer. He is one of the four best speakers I’ve heard in the last 30 years, and I’m including people like Van Jones and Bishop Steven Charleston who are far from being politicians.

    Not only is his speaking good but his policies have moved an extremely conservative state with a big – and proud – bubba brigade in a progressive and populist direction.

    I heard his speak to a luncheon crowd of approximately 200, just before John Edwards spoke. I still remember what Schweitzer said – pragmatic solutions to energy, conservation, improving the economy, and security. The guy is either a natural or a genius. I tend to believe it’s both. His populism and clear understanding of American families from rural areas, as well as coastal liberals is in line with Obama’s core principles but approached from a different perspective.

    Once people have heard him they’re impressed. He was a bit annoyed after his talk. Everyone of the big city liberals was asking him when he’d run for president. He said, “I’ve only been governor for 8 months. What are they thinking? I’ve gotta run a state!”

    His off the cuff pragmatism and realistic perspective were refreshing, and politically astute.

    Janet Napolitano is also appealing but she has not moved me or given me the sense that she connects with small town and rural folks, at least not like Schweitzer. If anyone knows better tell me about it.

  • “bankruptcy bill” — “joe” biden’s featured role in that bit of legislative nastiness was plenty for me. no more, thanks.

  • it’s too bad ed rendell is such a strong clinton supporter — he’s popular, would deliver blue collar votes & PA, and is as tough a politician as god has ever created. a perfect attack dog & body guard for obama. oh well.

  • I like the Schweitzer and Dodd ideas, and I think I could support Napolitano or Sebelius. Biden is on my bad list thanks to the bankruptcy bill, Clark’s endorsement of Hillary would be problematic, and it’s funny to think that someone might pick Richardson due to a desire to AVOID a VP putting his foot in his mouth.

    Rendell would be a terrible pick. He’s a machine politician, and even though he’s never been convicted of anything, most people here in PA think it’s just a matter of time.

  • entheo said: “it’s too bad ed rendell is such a strong clinton supporter”

    If you don’t want to have the Obama camp credited with destroying the party you should drop that line of reasoning.

    What is Biden but Clinton with MORE problematical senate votes to critize? After a while the additional years in the Senate become a liability, not an asset.

    As libra says, leave Webb and Mark Warner OUT of your equations.

    I’d like a western governor, including Bill Richardson even with Carville being pissed at him 😉

    After all, I’m pissed at Carville for marrying the demi-bitch.

  • The Caped Composer,

    Okay, who’s still not sold?

    I know I already put in a pitch for Schweitzer, but after seeing that youtube video, I’m even more sold. Thanks for linking to that.

    I still think Napalitano would be a great pick as well, but I like Schweitzer alot!

  • Why Napolitano and not Sebelius? Sebelius is a popular, progressive, older, female, term-limited governor (executive experience, can’t run again) of a solid red state who managed to win 58% of the vote in reelection despite voting against a gun control bill (in Kansas!) and being pro-choice (in Kansas!), and being little known nationwide. She has almost no negatives, so she can be shaped by the Obama team, and has been an early and ardent Obama supporter. I think she’d be a perfect way to both reconcile disillusioned Clinton voters and play to Obama’s 50-state strategy.

  • Remember that any VP is one heartbeat away.
    So, we need to think POTUS, not just VP.
    I am also of the opinion that a non-senator from the southern or midwestern region would be a good balance- especially one who could speak to the “kitchen table” concerns of working folks and to those rural swing voters.
    But Napolitano and Sebelius just aren’t that inspiring. Yes, they’re governors of states in the right regions, and they’re women, but….so?
    (I’m a woman from Oregon in my fifties.)
    I’ve always liked Biden- he’s as smart as they come, and sharp, with excellent foreign policy cred- and a great debate attack dog. But I can also appreciate that he’s too full of himself and tends to make occasional verbal gaffes.
    Bill Richardson also has great foreign policy experience and is governer of a western state. But his debate performance during the earlier primary race was really terrible and he just seems just so unprepossessing and not presidential.
    Also, he didn’t seem to really connect with people.
    Gov Schweitzer is interesting, but is he a little too rural for broad appeal. I mean, just try to think of him assuming the presidency.
    I’d like to look again at Wesley Clark. He’s a general, also former NATO Commander. He has strong ties to the south, also wonderful foreign policy advantages. And I believe he’s the type of military man who also plays well to women. I know his presidential campaign didn’t go too well, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t get a second look. I remember him most favorably from his appearances on CNN with Aaron Brown in the lead-up to the war. Also, I believe that the fact that he’s currently in the Clinton camp would help bridge party differences.
    Does anyone have more thoughts on him, or perhaps a link to a recent speech?

  • I agree with your reasoning, OreO. Gen. Wes Clark would be a good olive branch to the Clinton people. Also, an effective dampening of McCain’s foreign policy credibility. From my recollection, he did ruffle some feathers in the Pentagon while commander of NATO (went over heads to confer w/Clinton). But most or all of that Pentagon Brass is gone now. And I’m not sure whether they would disagree now…with the passage of time & circumstances. In addition to CNN, he also did a bit of time as a “Fox News analyst” so he might bring in a few people from the moderate Republican side (watching Fox New??).

    • Comments are closed.