Who Obama Should Pick for Veep, Part IV

The Short List

At this point, I'll provide some analysis of each of the final five. Strong arguments could be made for all of them, as well as several other people like Tim Kaine who didn't make the cut.

(6) Frm. Sen. Sam Nunn (GA). I am going back on my initial impression that Nunn was a bad choice. I have changed my mind. Nunn would bring extremely strong foreign policy credentials to the table, but in fairness, he has been out of the game since 1996 and is 70 years old (70). Nunn has apparently been getting strong consideration, as the Obama campaign is very serious about fighting hard to win Georgia. To me, Georgia will go to McCain in the end, and it remains to be seen if Nunn could have a big impact in the state after being out of office for over a decade. Still, Nunn would provide good balance to the ticket, and he could be a strong Vice President as he has become one of the nation's leading voices on the most important issue of our time, nuclear proliferation. His past stance(s) against gay rights could come back to haunt him here -- in fact, Rep. Barney Frank has said he could not support Nunn's selection -- but he has said that his mind has changed on gay rights.

(5) Frm. Sen. Bob Kerrey (NE). Webb-lite. I've been a gigantic fan of Bob Kerrey for a long time. Like Webb, Kerrey is a huge war hero – he won the Congressional Medal of Honor and lost one of his legs in Vietnam --, very plain spoken, and a (former) Senator from a red state. Picking Kerrey would neutralize any experience or national security arguments by the Republicans. And despite being out of office since 2000 (Kerrey was both a Senator and prior to that governor of Nebraska), Kerrey hasn't been out of the public arena that long as he was an outspoken commissioner on the successful 9/11 Commission. Kerrey is very outspoken – perhaps too much so – and despite representing a bright red state, his record is surprisingly very liberal on most social issues. Unfortunately, despite remaining popular in Nebraska – Kerrey has been living in NYC since he left office, serving as the Preesident of the New School – the state is just too Republican to ever turn Democratic for a presidential election. Kerrey also endorsed Hillary, and even though this may sound stupid, his name sounds too similar to John Kerry – who is hated by many voters – and some might be confused. Finally, Kerrey was criticized for allegedly taking part in killing civilians during Vietnam. If Kerrey is picked, it would be to burnish the ticket's military/national security/foreign policy credentials, and add some gravitas. While he might not be picked – Webb has a couple more pluses, with less minuses – if Obama is doing his job, Kerrey has to at least be on his short list.

(4) Gov. Ted Strickland (OH). Gov. Strickland has said that he has zero interest in being picked. Nevertheless, let's make the argument hypothetically. Had HRC won early as I and others expected, I believed that Strickland was unquestionably the best candidate for her veep. HRC would have had to implement a regional strategy of trying to hold onto the Kerry states and then trying to cobble together enough electoral votes to get to 270. Clearly, though Ohio is the key state for Democrats in 2008. If they can garner its 20 Electoral Votes, they are almost assured of winning back the White House. 2006 was a huge year for Dems in Ohio, and the state would seem to be ripe for the picking in 2008. Picking Strickland would further solidify Dems' chances in the Buckeye State. Elected governor in a landslide in 2006 after serving several terms in Congress, Strickland is wildly popular in the state. He has a blue-collar background, and is the son of a steelworker. He is also a reverend. Minuses: he was only elected governor in 2006, so people in the state could be very upset if he abruptly left for a promotion. He is also seen as too old – he is 66 – but I think that would play very well for being the veep. This may seem simplistic and overly-shallow, but by being and looking older, he would bring a little more gravitas and apparent experience with him. Him being older is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. One thing Obama will need on the ticket is a little experience and age on his side, particularly going against the experienced, older McCain. This is not the number one issue but it can't be ignored. Having an older, wiser looking veep can only help, so I do not think age is an issue at all. In the end, if Obama wants have a national, change campaign, Strickland probably won't be the best veep, but if he wants to go after a handful of states – with Ohio being the most vital – Strickland should be the top contender.

(3) Sen. Joe Biden (DE). Experience. Foreign policy cred. Experience. Foreign policy cred. These are two huge assets that would come with Joe Biden. A longtime and well respected Senator, Biden chairs the Foreign Relations Committee and his background and ability to speak about most related issues are second to none. An Obama-Biden ticket therefore would neutralize any arguments by McCain that the Dem ticket would be too inexperienced to run the country in the post-9/11 world. Biden also has some presence, a strong strain of liberalism, service to Dem causes, and he can "straight talk" pretty well on the stump. I am not alone with many Dems in not liking Biden much. He is a world-famous blow-heart, and loves to talk and talk and talk. The Alito confirmation hearings were particularly painful with Biden speaking for 27 of his 30 allotted QUESTION MINUTES and wearing a Princeton hat during the hearings to get attention. Biden is from a safe blue state, and geographically he would not bring great pull in most key swing states. Also, given his nearly 35 years in the Senate, there is little question the GOP will find plenty to use against him during the campaign. Biden will only be picked if Obama wants to bolster his foreign policy cred for the general as well as add some substantial experience. Otherwise, Biden won't be tabbed for #2.

(2) Fmr. Gov. Mark Warner (VA). On election night 2004, I was touting Warner for President in 2008 and I still believe he would have been a tremendous general election candidate had he gotten in. Yet, despite not getting in, he would have to be on any short list for veep. Warner may have been the first Democrat to win a big office in a red state after Bush was elected. Going a bit further, Warner helped usher in a renaissance for the Democratic party in Virginia, which has astonishingly, in the span of six years, gone from a deep red state to a purple state. In 2001, the governor and both Senators in VA were Republicans. Right now, the state has elected back-to-back Dems, and in November, both Senate seats will in all probability be occupied by Democrats. Warner may not deserve 100% of the credit for this metamorphosis, but he should get a huge amount of it. Her opened up deep red, rural regions of the state that have never been welcoming to Democrats. Despite leaving office a few years ago, Warner remains hugely popular in the state, and in November he is favored to crush former VA Gov. Jim Gilmore to take the retiring John Warner's Senate seat. While Tim Kaine is well liked in VA, Warner is very, very well liked in the state, including in those regions where Democrats used to fear to tread. As a result, an Obama-Warner ticket would have a great chance to carry Virginia, an even better chance than Obama-Kaine or Obama-Webb tickets. One not-so-small obstacle to picking Warner is his current candidacy for the Senate election in November. His switching races could rub some VA residents the wrong way and it would be damaging since VA is currently the party's number one Senate pick-up opportunity. Further, Warner is pretty unknown outside of VA. He is not terribly exciting on the stump and has zero foreign policy/military experience. While he would play well in the South, and certainly give us some votes, outside of VA it is probable that Warner would not put us in play in any southern state besides VA. In the end, though Warner should be in any top 2-3 list. An Obama-Warner ticket would certainly play well into the change narrative, as both represent a new breed of Democrats able to appeal to many moderates and independent voters who would not cast a vote for Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy. I realize Warner said at Virginia's Democratic Convention that he was staying in the Senate race, but in case he wavers, I think he would be an excellent pick. He is the standard-bearer of a new breed of successful Democrats who have demonstrated that Dems can win in red states if they have the right views and backgrounds.

(1) Sen. Jim Webb (VA). Jim Webb has become somewhat of a folk hero to Democrats and party activists since his stunning upset victory of George Allen aka Felix Macocowitz. Before Webb is anointed, however, it is important to consider several things which throw some cold water on Webb's popularity and electoral strength. For all the hoopla over the victory -- and make no mistake, it was impressive: Webb knocked off a popular sitting Senator (and former governor) who was the GOP favorite for President -- Webb only ended up winning by some 9,000 votes out of over two million cast, or 0.4%. Also, taking a look at Survey USA's monthly VA approval ratings of Webb is instructive. In September 2007, they were 46/42, in October 49/43, in November 49/42, in December 49/40, in January 2008 they stood at 46/44, February 51/37, March 47/45, April 47/41, and in May 51/39. Webb has been married three times, is not terribly charismatic, comes across as gruff, and has flashed a memorable temper at times. Finally, Webb was first elected in November 2006, and prior to that had never been elected into any office. These things illustrate numerous concerns with a Webb veep candidacy. First, despite all of its movement towards to the Democratic Party, Virginia is still a pretty conservative state. It may be purple now -- as opposed to being bright red -- but it is still difficult to carry statewide, particularly in a presidential election. Second, Webb, for all of politically heroic status for knocking off Allen, is not a beloved figure in VA right now. His approval ratings since he was elected are decent, but not extraordinary, and certainly not at the levels of Mark Warner. What this means is that adding Webb to the ticket would absolutely be helpful to winning VA but it would NOT guarantee that the state would be in the blue column on election night. This is important because a lot of people believe a Webb veep choice would automatically add those electoral votes. In the end, an Obama-Webb ticket would might well carry Virginia, but this would not be assured. Third, given Webb's seemingly sour personality, he might not be a good match for the fresh-faced change candidate Obama, and might weigh down the ticket with his gruff persona. He is also not great on the stump, though he is good in interviews and debates as his command of the issues -- particularly those involving the military and foreign affairs -- are second to none.

You might be wondering why I'm bashing Webb since he is #1 on the list. I think it is important to be realistic about any possible nominee, and to show that no nominee is going to be perfect and without flaws. All that being said, I think Webb is the absolute best choice for Obama's running mate for a host of reasons. A Webb choice would present a very strong, and rare balance to answer the experience vs. change question I highlighted earlier. He would bring key experience in military affairs and foreign policy along with elements of change and liberalism stemming from him not being a career politician and having famously toppled a powerful Republican stalwart and thus returning control of the U.S. Senate to the Democratic Party. Let's look at each of these two areas. First, experience. Despite being elected to his first office less than two years ago, Webb has important experience where it will matter most. McCain is going to have to blast Obama as a lightweight: too inexperienced and possessing zero relevant experience in foreign and military affairs. He will use lines like 'you were in law school when I was sitting as a POW in a North Vietnamese dungeon' and the like. Whether or not the attacks will be successful is questionable, but there is no doubt that Obama's biggest potential weakness is that he could be seen as a lightweight, and that subtracting his minuscule three years in the Senate, his only other experience was President of the Harvard Law Review and as a State Senator in Springfield. To counter this perception, tapping a running mate with valuable experience is imperative, and it is the reason he probably cannot risk choosing someone with no substantive experience in foreign matters. Jim Webb would fit perfectly in this respect. He is a decorated veteran, he served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, and he is an accomplished and well respected author of numerous books and articles on a plethora of foreign affairs and military issues. Webb is no shrinking violent in these matters, and it would be pretty difficult to criticize those credentials as insubstantial. Furthermore, Webb could work quite effectively as an attack dog against the Republicans and charges that the Democratic ticket is weak on national security. Indeed, given Webb's expertise as well as his reasoned opposition to the Iraq War, he could be the best person to respond to Senator McCain, who is one of the war's and President Bush's staunchest defenders even today. Thus, Webb would solve the experience issue pretty neatly.

Second, change. Despite Webb's experience in military matters, admittedly he was just elected in 2006. Combined with Obama's election in 2004, that could be problematic, but I think in this respect the ticket could turn a potential negative into a robust positive. Webb has not spent a lifetime in Washington, D.C. like a Joe Biden, and therefore could not be tagged as an old hand or an insider. Nor would he be an aged, white haired old man on the stage bringing down Obama's youth. Despite his age (62), he has major presence: he's strong and a former Marine, and despite his gruffness, would offer a good physical contrast to Obama on the trail. Further, despite having several right wing views -- he supports the death penalty and Second Amendment rights -- Webb has strong support among the Dem base and activisits who love his history. Indeed, in many respects Webb represents and epitomizes a newer breed of Democrats with numerous Republican credentials and success in getting elected in traditionally red states.

Finally, despite some arguments to the contrary, I think Webb has embraced his national status -- as evidenced by his recent book tour for his new book -- and has made subtle and not-so-subtle moves indicating his interest in being considered.

As noted above, Webb would not guarantee Virginia, and is not as popular statewide as Mark Warner. However, unlike Warner, Webb would bring substantial foreign policy credentials to the ticket. In this very important regard, Jim Webb should not be seen solely as a regional nominee who would help win VA, but rather a nominee who could help a national presidential campaign and at the same time perhaps help win Virginia as well.

For these reasons, I think Obama's choice for Vice President is clear...

...it is Virginia's Junior United States Senator, James H. Webb, Jr.