With best choice Webb out, Obama should turn to Nunn

Today was a sad (and surprising) day for our political prognostications, as the presumed frontrunner in the Democrat veepstates, Senator Jim Webb, unequivocally removed his name from consideration for the number two slot. In a press release made public this afternoon, Sen. Webb said: "Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President."

Webb's sudden decision comes as a pretty big surprise. In the past few months, Webb had begun to shed his hard-edged image in an attempt to appear more comfortable in the limelight. The recent publication of his book and his subsequent book tour were taken by some -- this author included -- as an indicaiton of a desire to "put himself out there" as a running mate that Sen. Obama could feel comfortable selecting and sending out on the grueling campaign trail. Yet, even before this change, I was a strong backer of an Obama-Webb ticket, and one of the first posts here set out why Webb was the best choice for Obama. As late as this weekend, I continued to believe that Webb was not only the best choice for the second slot, but that this was something Obama's inner circle also believed. The venerable Marc Ambinder is reporting that Webb took his name out of the running soon after the Obama team requested certain background information from the Virginia Senator in order to begin a thorough vetting process. Whether or not this is entirely true, and that Webb truly did not want to relive the rigors of a campaign so soon after his epic race with George Allen in 2006, is irrelevant. What matters for the Democrats is that they lost their best possible running for Sen. Obama and must begin looking anew for a strong candidate.

The state of the Democratic veepstakes is thus in flux right now. In addition to Webb, both former Virginia Gov. and current Sen. candidate Mark Warner and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, ranked second and fourth in our initial rankings (though, I would now say that if they were all still in the running, Strickland would move up to #3), have said they have no interest whatsoever in being the Democrats' candidate for Vice President (while I will not restate the reasons why Warner and Strickland would be strong running mates for Obama, they are spelled out in my earlier post). That leaves a fairly uncertain field, albeit with several strong possibilities remaining, such longtime Sen. Joe Biden, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. Given the existing field now before Sen. Obama, his best choice would be former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, who would bring many of the benefits that Webb would have carried onto the ticket. This suggestion has been bounced around a bit, particularly by the New Republic's Michael Crowley who has been perhaps the most vociferous proponent of putting Nunn on the ticket. Anyway, let's try to go over what Nunn would bring to the ticket.

First, is bringing strong credibility in areas where Obama is weaker, namely in military affairs and in foreign affairs and national security issues. Nunn, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee probably has more background in these issues than just about anyone in Washington today, despite being out of office since January 1997. In the Senate, Nunn was a principal proponent of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which provided support and assistance to the former Soviet Union to help secure nuclear materials and chemical weapons. Since he left Congress, Nunn has become one of the nation's leading voices on anti-nuclear proliferation issues, and currently serves as the head of the influential Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to stopping the spread of dangerous weapons of mass destruction. Finally, despite his conservative stances on issues such the death penalty, balancing the budget, and school prayer, Nunn opposed both the first Iraq invasion when he was in the Senate, as well as the second invasion in 2003. These stances would doubtless be appealing to anti-war liberals who may be weary of a Nunn candidacy. Therefore, like Webb -- and perhaps even more than Webb -- Nunn would bring instant credibility to the ticket on military and national security issues. Furthermore, his leadership on halting nuclear proliferation would be vital in a new administration, as it is arguably the most pressing issue of our time.

Second, Nunn's moderate positions and voting history would help Obama burnish his image a candidate dedicated to reaching out to others. While Nunn was not a hardliner on abortion and environmental issues in the Senate, as alluded to above, he did cut a more moderate image when it came to issues involving school prayer, balancing the Federal budget, increasing immigration to the United States, and other areas. While these positions might rub many Democratic voters the wrong way, it would certainly moderate the ticket, and demonstrate a good-faith effort by Obama to reach out to different constituencies who might not want to vote for one of the Senate's most reliable liberals. In a posting today, one my favorite political writers, Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer, made a similar argument, noting that by selecting Nunn, Obama could effectively show his Independence from liberal causes in an effort to appeal to more moderate and conservative voters.

One area that could be very problematic would be Nunn's efforts in the 1990s to block President Clinton from allowing gays into the military. While Nunn has recently come out and indicated that his stance has softened over the years, many gays and gay rights activists within the Democratic Party would still strongly oppose Nunn. Influential gay Rep. Barney Frank said he would have a hard time supporting the Democratic ticket if Nunn were picked for Vice President. Still, rifts are made to be fixed, particularly in an election where the Democratic nominee appears so strong. Sure, many liberals would be angry at selecting Nunn given his history with "don't ask, don't tell," but it is, at least in my opinion, unlikely that many would decide to either support McCain or stay home just because of Nunn's position 15 years ago. Obama and Nunn could take the time to meet with and reassure many gay supporters that Nunn's stance 15 years is not the same stance today. Whether or not this would fix the divide cleanly and immediately, it should certainly not be a make-or-break issue that disqualifies Nunn.

In the same vein of helping Obama appeal to moderate and conservative voters, picking Nunn as his running mate would also fit very well within his 50-State Strategy framework. Picking Nunn would add not just ideological diversity, and not just geographical diversity, but it would also signal that Obama's campaign is indeed different by signaling that Obama is making a conscious appeal to conservative and southern voters that are very often completely ignored by Democratic presidential candidates. Picking a moderate, experienced, well-respected former southern Senator would fit into Sen. Obama's argument that he is committed to reaching out across political as well as geographic lines. It would be a bold statement for many observers who are expecting something else.

All of this being said, it is vital to point out one important thing here: Nunn should not be picked on the basis that he could or would put Georgia and its 15 electoral votes into the Democratic column. Yes, Nunn would undoubtedly be helpful to Obama's efforts in the Peach State, but even an Obama-Nunn ticket would have a hard time winning the state, despite recent polls showing Georgia very close. Consider the following: in 2004, Bush defeated Kerry in Georgia by a 58-to-41 margin. While blacks make up around 28 percent of the state, they made up about one-quarter of the voters in the election, a slight drop-off. Yet, while Kerry carried black voters 88-12, he lost the white vote 76-23. Even if Obama were to win the black vote 95-5, and black turnout were to strongly increase, he would have to do much better with white voters. Nunn would help here, as would the anti-GOP environment. But in the end, it is unlikely that a liberal black Senator from Illinois would do vastly better with these southern whites. It would just be too difficult. Nunn would certainly give Obama a boast in the state, but his helping in the state should be seen as a secondary bonus to his candidacy. His experience and moderate credentials would be much more valuable to the ticket. Though, it must be acknowledged that former Rep. Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, could siphon off enough conservatives voters from McCain to sway a close race in the state. This is not likely given the racial voting gap apparent in 2004 (as well in past recent elections in the state), but certainly worth paying attention to should Nunn be selected.

Third, Nunn would fit well with the idea that Obama cannot go with too much change. Whereas McCain must avoid picking another older white man for his running mate, this may be the exact thing Obama needs: a wise, older, yoda-like figure that can stand beside him and give him experience gravitas. He cannot go with too fresh a candidate who lacks experience or (like Obama) has not been in office terribly long. This includes figures like Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, Kansas Gov. Kate Sebelius, and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, to name a few. Furthermore, Obama would run a big risk by picking a female running mate. Presenting to the voters the first major-party black candidate is one thing, but having a black man-female ticket would be quite another. It would be an enormous gamble. Obama must look to select an older white male politician. For this reason, a leader like Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh should be axed from the veep list. Why? This may sound overly simplistic, but he looks too boyish. Despite serving as a governor and senator, does he even have any gray hair? This may seem silly, but image and perception is reality, particularly in politics, and an Obama-Bayh ticket would exude youth and relative inexperience. Obama-Nunn would do just the opposite. Nunn would provide an aura of stability to a ticket that already has aces in charisma, youth, and change. That balance would work well, and make the ticket very strong.

(In terms of Webb, obviously he has not been in the Senate terribly long himself, but as noted in the earlier post, his life story, life experience, and plain demeanor make up for that and would have made him a solid balance with Obama.)

Conclusion. Sam Nunn is not the perfect running mate. He almost certainly would not bring the vigor of a Jim Webb or the guarantee of a huge swing state like Mark Warner or Ted Strickland. What he would bring is instant credibility on several of those issues where Obama is weakest, moderate personal background and positions that would appeal to conservative voters and fit well into Obama's 50-state-reaching-out narrative, and the ability to provide carefully presented stability to a national audience.

While Nunn's past positions on gays in the military would be a big issue, every candidate has baggage somewhere, and it is unlikely that the wounds made by these views expressed 15 years cannot be healed. Furthermore, the standard opposition arguments that would be dredged up are just plain wrong. Just because Nunn would not guarantee a big state is irrelevant. When this became a legitimate qualifier for picking a presidential running mate is not entirely clear, but it is silly logic. A presidential campaign is a national endeavor, not a state one. Yes, a candidate must put together a strategy to garner 270 electoral votes, but this should not be done by picking a regional running mate and then dumping him or her in their home state for the entire campaign. A running mate must be chosen for a national audience and to fit into a national narrative.

The argument that Nunn's age -- 70 years young -- would disqualify him as being an heir apparent to Obama in 2016, and thus disqualify him as a running mate today, is stupid. Why in the heck should this matter? Why would Obama or any one worry about winning a third election in a row when they have not even won number one? Even if this were a valid thing to consider, Lord only knows what the future holds. Maybe Obama wins in 2008, but loses in 2012. Maybe Obama leaves the White House with a 15 percent approval rating in 2016, making his running mate toxic as an heir. It is impossible to know these things. Picking a young running mate so that the party will be set up nicely in eight years is non-sensical, especially when Obama himself is so young. Therefore, Obama should have one consideration alone in making his choice: who will best help me win in November of 2008. That is it. An Obama-Nunn ticket would be a very strong ticket for the Democrats to go forward with, perhaps the strongest possibility left on the table. For this reason, Obama should tap Sam Nunn as his running mate.