What about the VP search(es)?

April 3, 2008

He didn’t even hint about any specific considerations, but when John McCain mentioned yesterday that he is in the “embryonic stages” of picking a running mate, it was treated as big news. The senator said his list-in-the-making has “every name imaginable,” which apparently includes 20 people, and renewed speculation about who might be included in the mix.

But all of this was also a reminder that McCain, five months before his nominating convention, has the luxury of taking his time and finding the running mate he wants. The vetting process of short-list candidates can be slow and careful.

And then there’s the Dems.

I’ve noted, on a couple of recent occasions, that one of the downsides of the prolonged Democratic process is that the search for a running mate is much trickier when the party may not actually have a nominee until the convention. Yesterday, Marc Ambinder fleshed this point out nicely.

In March of 2004, Sen. John Kerry asked James Johnson, the former Fannie Mae CEO and long-time Democratic strategist, to head the search for his ticket-mate.

Whether Kerry made the right choice in the end by picking John Edwards is for history to decide, but the search itself was a model of efficiency and secrecy. It took Johnson and a small team of carefully selected lawyers and researchers a few months to carefully vet the ten or so finalists that Kerry had settled on.

As of April of 2008, Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are way behind Kerry’s pace.

The solution, of course, while awkward, is that both Clinton and Obama are going to have to start the VP process without knowing what’s going to happen.

Ambinder added:

Coming up with a list is easy — but a competitive primary — or, if you’re an Obama strategist, a fictitiously competitive primary — turns the active phase of the search into an extra-sensitive operation.

Absent a presumptive nominee, Clinton and Obama might well compile and vet two separate lists of candidates. And there will certainly be overlap. For example: Sen. Evan Bayh may be on both candidate’s short lists. Would he consent to an Obama interview before Clinton drops out? What about Sen. Joe Biden, who has yet to endorse either candidate, but who many long-time Washington hands are talking up to Obama donors? Will the vetting process complicate the superdelegate endorsement process?

Aides to Clinton and Obama declined to comment when I asked them yesterday whether any thought had been given to the vice presidential selection process.

Well, of course they declined comment. It’s an unwieldy question.

This is going to get a little tricky. Both candidates are going to have create VP vetting teams, made up of one set of political professionals who know their efforts won’t matter (it’s a bit like, immediately after the 2000 election, both Gore and Bush started assembling cabinets, knowing one team wouldn’t actually serve).

It should be interesting.

Yet another problem with stretching out a primary that is essentially over.

In the past I’ve been a fan of advocating the end of the P/VP process and going to the “general election vote getter #1 is Prez, #2 is VP, regardless of party” route.

With the GOP having gone off the deep end, however, I’ve realized I was an idiot for suggesting it. My fault.

🙂

More on point: While having both Clinton and Obama on the ticket would, IMHO, be the best thing for America and the party for years to come, it obviously won’t happen. And Biden? Really? He of the chronic foot-in-mouth disease?

Richardson would make a slam-dunk Veep for Obama (he’s got the best resume and could easily step in if something tragic happened). And while her SotU response was dryer than ten-year-old toast, Sebelius would be a nice choice as well.

  • Of course, the VP vetting question is moot if Obama and Clinton run together, as both have been vetted to within an inch of their lives.

  • I’d bet a pack of chewing gum that both Obama and Hillary have a good idea on who they’d want as their running mates. That stuff is chatter for TV talking heads to quibble over.

  • Both candidates are going to have create VP vetting teams, made up of one set of political professionals who know their efforts won’t matter

    Interesting way to put it.

    I think, instead that both vetting teams will be assembled of people who have faith their efforts
    will be the meaningful ones all the way until the convention. There might even be shock involved.

  • Is this a problem? I don’t know — it doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me. Granted, I’m almost pathologically resistant to hand-wringing because it seems to me that worry-mongering too often leads to defeatism, and this has been very bad for the Dems over the past decade.

  • I like the idea of Obama/Richardson. I really doubt Obama would select Clinton as his VP. Her negatives make her a lightning rod for wingnuts’ ire. Rightly or not, this is simple fact. Frankly, she would be more likely to ask him than the other way around.

    Richardson comes with several benefits: some name recognition, prior experience working for a president, executive experience as governor, a potential draw for many Latino voters.

    Sebelius might be a good VP candidate, but honestly I don’t know all that much about her.

  • Mary, I tend to agree with you on this. It is much too soon to be fretting over potential VPs. However, if this contest were to go all the way to the convention there is certainly the possibility that something gets overlooked in the VP vetting process. Let’s hope not.

  • I think they can wait until the primaries are actually over (June 3) before starting to compile lists. It’s enough time. You know they’re already throwing around names over the water cooler anyway. Two months between primaries and conventions is enough time to vet two or three serious contenders.

  • Mary , In order not to appear to plagiarize your quote “worry-mongering” sometime in the near future I’m giving credit to you now. Thanks

  • This is an absolute no-brainer. Obama has the brain-trust right now to start assembling short-lists for every position that needs filling, from VP on down. This could easily be done within a a matter of weeks—days, even, when you apply his bridge-building abilities. Putting a “short-list list” online would be another way to push the Clintonian rabble closer to the cliff, not only by marginalizing their importance (as if lemmings already over the cliff need extra marginalizing), but by turning the national picture towards the general election and commencing the assault on McSame.

    As I understand all of this (at least as I think I understand all of this), Obama has “$X” money for the primary and “$Y” money for the general election. He can utilize “X” money during the primary to address issues by targeting Clinton “and/or” McSame; the “Y” money, however, can only be spent on the general election (which would be against McSame and the GOP machine). He can begin the general election campaign right now with the first option.

    Another issue; a bit OT but nonetheless relevant, is the public funding construct. Obama should immediately use McSame’s refusal to abide by his public-funding commitment for the primary (he used public funding as collateral for a private loan) as grounds to fully renounce public funding limitations for the general election season. Dems have the ability to blow GOPers back to the stone age in terms of direct (campaign contributions) funding this year; while they still have the greater power in the 527 gambit. We need to pull out all the stops—and go for the throat on this one….

  • How much of a problem is it for the two candidates to vet possibilties discretely? I don’t know. It is possible, as Skewered suggests, they both have running mates in mind already and are already checking out their backgrounds. But if not, how much time really is required, and how big a problem would a leaked name present?

    Richardson was my favorite of the Democratic candidates so naturally it would be a pleasure for me to see him on the ticket.

  • McCain has the toughest job. His biggest of many weaknesses seems to be economics. However, his staff is full of lobbyists and advisors who certainly know the issue. For example, he has Economic Advisor Phil Gramm, who is largely responsible for the deregulation structure that has led to massive breakdowns in the banking and accounting industries. Then, there are the two leaders of his Victory 08 committee – Carly Fiorina and Lew Eisenberg. Fiorina was CEO at HP until she got caught spying on her employees. Eisenberg was a partner at Goldman Sachs, which is deep in the middle of the subprime fiasco, but got out of much of the problem by selling their subprime holdings.

    This may explain why his economic policy is essentially to do nothing. But he can’t very well pick a VP whose motto is “stay the course”.

  • I think both candidates have a rather short list of people who they considered going in (long before now). While this process being dragged on, is both good and bad (it’s definitely better now that both candidates are hammering McCain – and let’s hope that keeps up), because the more that is thrown out there now, the more that is aware, and hence the biggest “drawbacks” of each of the dem candidates can be addressed by a good selection for VP (e.g., Clark on military strength, etc.)

    The vetting process should have started long before now, but I find it difficult to believe that it has not.

    I think it might be nice to hear more about cabinet positions, too. Obama mentioning Gore is but one. Whom might they consider for SoD, SoS, AG, etc. But I suppose that there would always be people bitching about whomever is considered but the thought process for those people would be beneficial. Paybacks for support (a la Bush) or people who are truly qualified for the positions. I would certainly like to know who the next AG would be.

    While we’re asking questions, my one biggie is still nowhere on the radar: Will the next president rescind the many Bush signing statements, executive orders and house directives to bring our country back under the constitution for we have operated under for better than two centuries?

    I don’t want another Cheney, Yoo, LIbby, or any other of these people whose wet dreams consist of subverting and destroying the most basic tenets of our country.

  • MsJoanne, I see your signing statement position and raise you a gaggle of federal court judgments. It isn’t enough to me that a candidate promises to behave. I want to hear a candidate’s plan to slam the door on this shit so hard it castrates the neocon movement. They are a plague that is worse than the Amerikan Taliban. I want to see prosecutions, convictions and perhaps even an execution or two. Now excuse me while I git back to my anger management session. They’re serving ludes ’n tea.

  • Since the superdelegates are unable or unwilling to make a choice for president, why not choose the VP candidate first and then he or she can decide who the presidential candidate will be.

  • Obama/Richardson–really? The all-minority group ticket. It would be very brave and I don’t think the Dems want to go there. I can see Richardson as Secretary of State, though. Sebelius also isn’t going to be it. Obama will choose a white guy with foreign policy cred. I don’t know who; I’d like Dodd, but I doubt it will happen.

  • It’s gotta be either Biden or Richardson for Obama’s veep choice. Either one is a winner in terms of Obama’s perceived limitations.

    I’d bet on Richardson (a pack of gum, I believe?) — Sagacity’s right to think the democratic establishment wouldn’t want an all-minority ticket, but I think Obama’s looking to shake things up, sees a lot of political upside to having such a ticket and it tracks with his “out with the old, in with the new” approach to politics.

  • Well, Clinton and Obama may have to start the VP process without knowing what’s going to happen, but McCain is also handicapped, by not being able to find his derriere with both hands and Joe Lieberman’s as well. I call it a wash.

  • The best VP choices for the Democrats are Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia (who has Minnesota, Kansas and Missouri roots), former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, Governor Sebelius (a Kansan with Ohio roots–her father is former Governor John Gilligan) and Senator Bayh (a chance to steal a state from the Republicans as well as a sound choice).

  • We all knew McBush would have to chose a younger VP, but considering embryos seems a bit extreme. He must want that pro-lfe vote pretty bad.

  • For the record, Edwards was a no-brainer in ’04 (not so much in ’08)…no search committee or vetting was necessary.

  • With the economy looming as the main issue, maybe Obama would be better off staying away from the war cred choice and picking someone from a battleground state with strong econ cred.

  • Richardson isn’t the right choice for Obama, Obama needs a centrist white guy to deal with the closet racists, those who think he’s a muslim, and who have concerns over voting for a black man.

    Richardson wouldn’t bring that

  • First, the provocative statement: There’s no way in the infernal regions that Obama should pick Edwards for veep.

    Now, the justification: Putting Edwards in the vice-presidency would be a waste of talent on a wholesale level. Put him at Ag, HUD, or HHS where he can fight the fight that he’s been itching for—going “mano-e-mano” with poverty. Better still create a “poverty czar” position and bring the above departments under one cohesive roof.

    Give Richardson the VP slot.

    Revive the energy dept., put in in-line with EPA, CDC, “maybe” Ag, and “maybe” NASA. Roll all of that into Gore’s hands.

    State is globally problematic. After the Rice years, I’d almost ask for Kissinger again.

    Put the guns and knives away—I said “almost,” didn’t I? At least I didn’t suggest Rush Limbaugh. Geesh, people….

  • Centrist White Guy? Webb? Wes Clark? My simple mind keeps coming up with military types. I agree he needs a big ol honkin’ white guy somewhere up front to counter the inner racist in so many voters, and I just don’t know who best fits. No one who could be labeled elitist or feminine. Must be a good bowler – carry at least a 150 average – and from a swing state with large electoral vote count. Help me.

  • @ArkyTex:

    I know you’re being sarcasitc, but its true, he needs a VP who is white if he’s going to win, someone like Hagel or Webb

  • Richardson has problems with women. He won’t help the ticket bring back the disappointed Hillary supporters, especially after essentially double-crossing the Clintons. Obama has been promising outreach to unify the Dems. This would be thumbing his nose at the ones who didn’t support him.

    Seems to me selecting someone with a lot of foreign relations cred is ceding that area of expertise — admitting weakness there. I think that would hurt him during the campaign. Better to appoint Biden or Richardson to a cabinet position after the election. The VP needs to be someone who will help the ticket.

  • I think Al Gore would be a good running mate, even though he doesn’t poll well right now.

  • Centrist White Guy? Webb? Wes Clark? My simple mind keeps coming up with military types.

    Mine too, though I keep seeing these guys as better placed elsewhere. Webb should be in the Senate — with him and Mark Warner, we own that state for 30 years. And Clark has Sec Def written all over him … though I think he’d be a great VP too.

    Yeah, Obama-Clark would be a winner. Hagel at Defense, Edwards at AG, Richardson at State.

    And Dodd as Senate Majority Leader.

  • I thought Obama-Clark a while ago myself– a smart, white guy who can help remind people that not all career military people think starting wars is laughing matter. Hell, Clark could help articulate how we could actually get out of Iraq.

    Although with the economy going the way it is maybe Obama-Bloomberg? It would have a historic twist– Bloomberg is one of the Chosen People– and it might help counter the Muslim rumor and could help with the Jewish vote as well. (Which hasn’t been discussed much but he doesn’t seem to have much strength there as far as I can tell.)

    Wait, a second, I think I just forgot where I live. (Can anyone really imagine that this country would elect a black man and a Jewish man to run it? I can’t.)

  • Let’s not forget Senator Biden. He’s smart, likeable and a street-fighting pitbull if he needs to be (which Obama’s veep candidate is going to need to be to counter the coming Republic lie/fear/smear fest).

  • Chloe, I agree Richardson is the right answer for several reasons, and that you may have articulated the best one: he alienates the Clinton voters now that he’s “Judas” and so many dems are polling that they won’t vote for Obama if he’s the nominee. I still think HRC is getting a lot of support from angry dems who want revenge for all the suffering of the last 8 years, and they can think of no better pay back than making the GOP salute HRC as Comm-In-Chief. I strongly disagree with that sentiment as a strategy, I think it is bad for the country and the party in the long run, but I do not put it down as not legit at all. As for a running mate, a white southerner like Webb or Clark with the obvious defense cred AND, especially in Clark’s case, a strong favorability among Clintonites, might be the best package deal.

    • Comments are closed.