Obama Help Wanted: Veep Attack Dog; Credibility and Experience Preferred; Only Those With Sharp Elbows Need Apply

In numerous past posts, I have discussed the Democratic veepstakes in great detail. Our initial post way back in June (though first written in February), argued that Jim Webb, Mark Warner, and Ted Strickland, in that order, were the first, second, and fourth best possible running mates for Barack Obama. I still believe this to be true, and in fact now feel Strickland is in the top three, but with all of them having unequivocally taken themselves out of the running for the number two slot, it is useless to proselytize about the strengths they each would bring to the Democratic ticket.

In follow-up posts, I have supported Sam Nunn for veep (admittedly, in great part because of my own moderate policy positions and the importance of the nuclear non-proliferation issue of which Nunn is an international expert), but also acknowledged that Obama would likely tap Tim Kaine when it is all said and done. In my opinion, this is because of several factors including Kaine's early support of Obama, him being outside of Washington as a sitting Governor, because he is from a key swing that Obama is working hard to win, and probably most of all, because Kaine is a middle-aged white man -- precisely the key and large demographic Obama will need to address with veep pick. In many respects, quite bluntly, Kaine might be the best middle-aged-white-guy Democratic politician in the game. In about a billion articles in the last couple of weeks, Kaine has been noted as a frontrunner for the nomination; though, his own parade of subsequent media appearances could only have hurt his standing with Team Obama.

Today, I am going to go in another direction. This change is pace has been dictated by recent negative tone of Senator John McCain's campaign, which necessitates a re-evaluation of what direction Obama should go in, and further, who Obama should select as his running mate to fit within that updated rubric. We all know that a running rate should be selected to provide some balance to a ticket, and to help fill some gaps or weaknesses in the top guy's armor. And those axioms still apply here. Obama should still be looking for a white male, someone who has political credibility, and the perception of valuable experience, particularly in foreign relations or military affairs, where Obama is weakest and McCain is strongest. This is all basic stuff, and it is no less important today than it was a week ago, a month ago, or six months ago.

Senator McCain's attacks signal a new direction for the general election campaign

What has changed is that it is becoming more and more obvious that McCain's campaign, despite early promises to the contrary from the Republican, is going to be all negative, all the time until election day in November. McCain's change should not be terribly surprising, as the reasons for this are fully obvious. While McCain has maintained strong approval ratings, so has Obama. Both men are fairly well liked by the electorate. The "tie-breaker," if you could call it that, is the toxic national environment and the treacherously damaged GOP brand, harmed daily by President Bush's continued tenure in the White House. While McCain can deflect several of the negatives that come along with these problems after years of building up his maverick independence in the eyes of many Americans, he can't escape the bad GOP brand or President Bush, who is an anchor on his prospects.

Therefore, McCain's campaign has clearly decided that the best way to overcome these problems is to do whatever it can to make the election a referendum on Obama, and work meticulously to raise his negative numbers. That is precisely what these new celebrity ads are about. McCain's new commercial ridiculing Obama as "The One," is particularly noteworthy. While some people have said that the ad tries to portray Obama as the Antichrist in an effort to appeal to Evangelicals -- a large and vital GOP constituency which does not like McCain -- I don't think that is what the ad is about. Like the celebrity ad, it is merely an attempt, and a good one at that, to ridicule Obama, in a light-hearted, but nonetheless effective manner.

Because of the tightness of the race, I would not expect McCain's new tact to suddenly change; it is here to stay. The die has been cast for Bush and the GOP brand. The fact that their numbers have remained perilously low for so long, illustrates this.


Senator Obama must appreciate the campaign's new tone when picking his running mate

While I always assumed that McCain would go negative, I guess I did not fully appreciate its impact on Obama or how early these ads could start. Seeing their impact -- while recent polls still show Obama ahead, it is hard to say the ads are not good; Chuck Schumer has said as much -- has made me rethink the Democratic veepstakes. As I stated above, while Obama should not forget or forsake what he has been looking for so far in a running mate, and by no means should he just go in an entirely new direction, he should start consider the effect of McCain's negative attacks, and how best to counter them. In the key qualifications he is looking for in a running mate, he should add one new vital requisite: Attack Dog.

Senator Obama should look for a candidate who will assume the mantle of campaign attack-dog-in-chief: an individual who is able, adept, and and experienced in the art of the political attack. This is something Republicans have seemingly done better than Democrats in many recent national elections. Being an attack dog has basically been one of the key parts of Dick Cheney's work since he was surprisingly picked to be George Bush's running mate. This not a cheap shot at Cheney, it is fact, and it is not intended to be an insult; rather, Cheney illustrates the importance of finding a running mate who can hurl the rocks that the presidential candidate can't toss.

Obama is no different, and in point of fact, he is probably the exact type of nominee who needs his own (campaign) Cheney, as he has tried to frame his candidacy from the first day as one that rises above the political fray and the partisan politics that have been so unpopular in the last seven to thirteen years. While, up to this point, the Democratic veepstakes has been one that has not focused on finding an attack dog, the new calculus of the race changes this, and not a moment too soon. It is not a moment too soon because over the last couple of weeks, media speculation and speculation in other quarters (including here), has focused on candidates including Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. For the reasons we've outlined in an earlier post, both choices would be weak at best for Obama, and for Obama's sake, hopefully his campaign is focusing on more seasoned political pros.


Kaine, Bayh, and others being mentioned, despite their strengths, would not well fit an attack dog mold

Kaine and Bayh, as already noted, have a lot of characteristics that Obama is looking for. They are polished and have good political resumes, with Bayh's being excellent, having served as a two-term Governor before being elected in two landslides to the U.S. Senate. But both of them are more vanilla than Haagen Daz's best, and more tissue soft than those nice Kleenex with Aloe Vera. Teaming Obama with either man would provide fine balance, and the ticket would have new obvious strengths, but both men would be weak and ill-equipped to jump into the street fight that the final three to fours months of the campaign will be.

Let's forget the very low-key demeanor and mannerisms of each man for a moment, which are on full display here and here. Where has either man really brandished sharp political teeth or elbows? We all know that one of Obama's own weaknesses before he survived his epic primary with Hillary Clinton was that he had never really had to endure a difficult political race. In his 2004 Senate race, he won his primary easily, and in the general election after his likely opponent dropped out following a bizarre sex-related scandal involving his divorce, Obama crushed the stand-in candidate, the unelectable and quite frankly unbalanced, Alan Keyes. Prior to that, Obama had run for office once before, making an ill-advised run for the House of Representatives and being trounced in the 2000 Democratic primary for Illinois' First Congressional District by the popular incumbent Bobby Rush. So, while the fight against Hillary and even his loss to Rush provided great political education to Obama, he has not been in the arena, to use TR's famous phrase, for too long. Facing a nasty race against a more seasoned politician and a chomping-at-the-bit Republican attack machine, Obama should now consider plugging this hole of electoral inexperience by tapping a running mate experienced in the hand-to-hand combat of partisan politics.

Neither Kaine nor Bayh would fit this bill. To be fair, like Senator Obama, Senator Bayh has had a charmed political life. He inherited a very popular political name in Indiana (as we discussed, his father was a longtime Senator too), and was elected Secretary of State and then Governor when he was in his early 30s. He won both of his Senate races with mediocre opposition, each time breaking 60 percent of the vote. He has been politically untouchable back home, and unless he commits an awful faux pas, he will remain unbeatable until he decides to retire. While this all well and good, it does exactly make Bayh someone who is ready to wage a rough campaign or serve as an attack dog on John McCain. Nor does Bayh's seeming lack of vigor or fire make him a likely strong veep candidate in this respect. And no, I am not talking about his moderate policy positions, but rather his tepid demeanor. It is simply not a good fit for a vigorous stump nominee.

The same conclusion applies to Tim Kaine, albeit for slightly different reasons. Like Obama, Kaine has a limited electoral history. He served one term as Lieutenant Governor before being elected Governor of the Commonwealth in 2005. His campaign for Governor against former Virginia State Attorney General was certainly bitter. Kaine ran a very strong campaign, and scored what had been seen as an unlikely victory when the general campaign had begun and Kilgore was initially favored. So, Kaine does have some experience in running a tough race. What hurts him, at least from the aspect being an effective attacker is that has no experience that would make him a credible critic of McCain. This is a big problem. Obama's nominee, if he is picked with the intent to engage the McCain campaign and heap criticism on McCain, has to have some level of credibility in order to be taken seriously and not be susceptible to attack as being an inexperienced agent. For all of Kaine's positives, because all of his elective offices have been at the city (before becoming Lieutenant Governor, Kaine was on the Richmond City Council) and state level, he clearly does not have that level of political experience. Therefore, while Kaine would be a stronger pick than Bayh (and this is an argument we made in our post on Bayh), he is still lacking as a potential pick who could protect Obama and serve as that attack dog on McCain.

The same goes for several of the other picks that are being mentioned now, and in the last few weeks and months. Like Kaine, Kate Sebelius won her first gubernatorial campaign 53-45 and in a race many felt initially would would be won by the Republican (though she was ahead in most polls, a Democrat winning the governorship of Kansas was surprising to many nationally), but it is not clear, at least to me, that she has either sharp elbows or biting political instincts. Sam Nunn is an old-style, low-key southern politician, and besides, he is over 70 years old and is probably not physically equipped to fulfill that specific role (all of his positive attributes considered).

Where does that leave Obama? Well, I think that there are three nominees who should get extra consideration because of their perceived political experience and credibility, and their ability to wield sharp political elbows when necessary: Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chuck Hagel, and Senator Hillary Clinton (plus Bill Clinton, as they would unquestionably come as a package, bringing all of Bill's good and bad attributes). All three of them have been getting varying degrees of national media coverage up to this point, but each of them should receive increased consideration and scrutiny because of their unique abilities to counter-act Republican attacks if added to the ticket.


Biden

Joe Biden is the most obvious choice and is most likely to be picked of the three. Biden has been on just about all of the comprehensive veep lists since even before the Democratic primary was officially over. Biden has been a natural option because of his long service in the Senate (he was elected in 1972), his relative youth considering his long Senate tenure (he is 65, but to his credit, he looks and acts much younger), and his strong background and credibility in foreign affairs (he chairs the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and has long been one of the national Democrats' most respected experts on these issues). The speculation for a long time, some of it spurred by Biden's own utterances, was that Biden has had his eye on being appointed Secretary of State under a Democratic President. That being said, I have little doubt Biden would take an appointment as Vice President, and Biden himself has said as much.

In my first veep rankings, I put Biden third. I admit that I am not a huge personal fan of the Senator, though I have been warming to him a little more in recent months. He strikes me, and many others for that matter, as a blowhard par excellence who never stops talking about himself and what matters to him. Still, despite personal dislike, I had him ranked so high for a reason: he pairs up well with Obama because of his strengths and knowledge of foreign affairs and policy. His inclusion would therefore protect Obama in an area where he is vulnerable.

Going further to what we've been discussing in the present post, Biden would also be an agent that could valuable offense against the Republican ticket. Biden has been on Capitol Hill for a long time, and he has survived many scarring political battles, including, notably the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings which he chaired.

(Sidetrack alert: I'm sorry, but mentioning the Clarence Thomas hearings reminds of an all-time classic Saturday Night Live sketch on the hearings which I discovered in a google search of Biden+Clarence Thomas. There is no clip of the skit, but here is the transcript with pictures. Biden was played ably by Kevin Nealon, but Dana Carvey's imitation of Strom Thurmond, Chris Farley's work as Howell Heflin, and especially the legendary Phil Hartman's take on Ted Kennedy always slay me. The sketch if you've seen it or can find online, is hysterical.)

Anyway, Biden knows partisan warfare, and in many respects, he excels at it, as evidenced by his colorful speeches during and after his time in the primary field. His attacks on Rudy Guiliani for, in Biden's view, exploiting 9/11 for political gain were particularly eye-opening, at least for me, and extremely effective.

Biden's primary attacks kind of clinched for me that Biden is well able to be an attack dog, and a good one at that. This would be a ultra valuable asset to combat the McCain campaign's attacks. What's more is that his attacks would have more resonance, and would easily stand any counter-attacks from McCain because Biden has more political credibility in lieu of his long career and chairmanship of Foreign Relations. In layman's terms, he could get away with attacking McCain on a host of fronts much more easily and cleanly than a Tim Kaine.


Hagel

Similarly, Senator Chuck Hagel could become an effective running mate/chief campaign attack dog. When we first did our veep lists, Hagel was left of them completely. This was not deliberate, and to be totally honest, Hagel's name just totally slipped my mind, which was too bad because he would be a very strong pick, even without discussing the attack dog considerations we're interested in today.

Hagel has been a Republican Senator since 1997, and is very respected on military issues (he served in Vietnam) as well as foreign policy (he sits on the Foreign Relations Committee). He is from Nebraska, where he remains very popular and could have easily won re-election this fall had he run for a third term instead of opting for retirement. Admittedly, Hagel has built a very conservative record in the Senate during his tenure. To name a few, Hagel has voted in favor of drilling in ANWR, in favor of reaping the estate tax against raising the minimum wage, in favor of confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, against increased federal funding for stem cell research, in favor of abortion restrictions, and against providing more rights to terrorist detainees. This record, and many more votes, would rub most mainstream Democrats the wrong way, as they would be fearful of putting a fairly staunch Republican just a heartbeat behind Obama for the presidency.

Still, Hagel would undoubtedly bring geographic and ideological balance to the ticket. Furthermore, his expertise and credibility on foreign and military affairs would be welcome to Obama. Finally, adding a Republican to the ticket would play perfectly into Obama's argument that he is a different kind of candidate running a different kind of political campaign. it would be a bold and risky gamble, but an ultimately smart choice that would do more god than harm leading up to November.

From a personal stand-point, Hagel would fit the bill as an attack dog. His blunt, shoot-from-the-hip style is obvious when you first hear him. He has certainly shown this side over the last year or so as he has become a strong critic of the Iraq War and President Bush's Iraq policy. Hagel has also concentrated specific and harsh fire on McCain, despite the long friendship between him and the Arizona Senator. Therefore, the transition into the vice presidential nomination would be tough considering the party issues, but a natural fit given Hagel's recent criticisms of McCain. Being an attack dog is a role he could do and do effectively. Having made the jump into the Democratic race as Obama's running mate -- an act of absolute ultimate betrayal to his fellow Republicans -- Hagel would be largely liberated, both politically and psychologically, to go on the attack of McCain. And what individual would have more credibility to attack the Republican ticket than a sitting Republican Senator? It is hard to argue, at least from this perspective, that there is a better attack dog veep out there to choose from.

The biggest problem of course might be whether Hagel could make the quick and seamless transition into not only an attack dog on McCain, which he has been actively doing anyway, but actually make the move to be the vice presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. Yes, Hagel has been very critical of McCain and Bush on the Iraq War, but the campaign is going to touch on hundreds of other issues, many of which Hagel has voted with Republicans and against Democrats throughout his 12-year career. If he were under consideration, the question Obama would have to ask him is: 'Chuck, this is going to get rough. Can you make this transition, and stand with me 1000 percent, even on issues you don't agree with me or the [Democratic] Party on, and also come out swinging against McCain on these very same issues?' Interestingly, when asked in an interview if he would accept an offer to join the Democratic ticket as Obama's running mate, Hagel did not say he would reject the entreaty, and seemingly indicated that he would strongly consider it.


Billary

Finally, we get to the juiciest of the troika (or quartet, depending on your terminology): Bill and Hillary Clinton. I know, I know; up to this point, Obama has likely not given the slightest serious though to tapping Hillary, despite numerous statements to the contrary. Why would he? While Hillary would bring benefits to the ticket so obvious they are not worth going over one more time, Obama beat her after a seemingly endless, and terribly bitter primary race. The personal affection between the two was certainly not strong during the campaign, and it is doubtful that the ice has thawed much even today.

The other big knock on picking Hillary is Bill, or as some people (this author included) like to call it: Billary. If Hillary is added to the ticket, the conventional thinking goes, all of Bill's baggage and recent anger comes with her. Obama supporters were none too pleased not just with Bill's outbursts throughout the primary, but also his current obvious rancor even though, as evidenced by his tense interview with ABC last week. Bill appears more unsteady and angry, and thus could be a big liability and not an unquestioned loyalist to Senator Obama.

All of that being said, there is a belief by some that adding Hillary now would better unify wavering Democrats under the Obama banner, and also attract women and the blue collar voters she so successfully attracted in the primaries (in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc). In an article this week, Steve Kornacki explores the general issue a little.

The conventional arguments against a Barack-Billary ticket (many of which were regurgitated on this site), and even those in the papers in the last week, overlook one vital fact: Obama would be hard-pressed to find two more vicious, focused political attack dogs than the Clintons. All their baggage aside, they would be relentless and on message in their defense of Obama and their attack of the Republican ticket.

It is in this respect, that having they come as a package would be mostly beneficial. While Hillary would be the vice presidential nominee, Bill would her as Obama's most important and vociferous surrogates. There is no question that while he has not been on the campaign trail so far (likely because of his bitterness at Hillary losing, and what he perceives as unfair treatment at the hands of media), he would jump onto the stump to campaign for a ticket Hillary was on. Most importantly, it goes without saying that both of the Clintons have the credibility to attack McCain and other Republicans; heck, they've been doing that for decades anyway. Like with Biden and Hagel, it would be a natural role of sorts, and there is no lack of experience that would be a hindrance to them.

Without going over all of the negatives that would come with adding Hillary to the ticket, and the likelihood of it happening (low), there is little question that having them in such visible rolls would work wonders in having not one, but two credible attackers on the ready to counter-act the McCain campaign's anti-Obama message.


Conclusion

I would like be clear that this entire line of analysis is tailored for a very narrow purpose: namely, to determine what is the best way for Obama to counter-act the increasingly negative tone of the the McCain campaign through his running mate choice? It is my belief that his choice of a running mate can help Obama plug existing holes and problems with candidacy as well as aid him in effectively fighting Republican attacks. In other words, the veep choice he makes can also be an attack dog, if he wants that to be a priority. This does not necessarily mean that Biden, Hagel, and Clinton are the best names; as I said, none of them would be as helpful as Jim Webb, Mark Warner, and Ted Strickland, for example. But they would each accomplish a key objective.

Of the names we discussed, clearly only Biden is one that has likely been on the shortlist, and maybe not even him. Hagel has been dismissed by many as too risky and too conservative, and we all know the strikes against Obama picking Billary. Still, if Team Obama is paying close attention to the polls and McCain's tone -- and surely, it is -- they should be well aware and even concerned about the need to fight back. Up to this point, Obama has not had to take the low road to attack McCain, and it is has worked, if the polls are any indication. The high road may even well work right up to November, but given the continuing closeness of the race, this is not a tact Obama should stick with, particularly given what happened to John Kerry when he tried to ignore the brutally effective Swift Boat ads.

Of all of them, I would say that Chuck Hagel is probably the best of the possibilities, at least for this limited purpose. He would bring the best balance of credibility and a willingness to upbraid the GOP and McCain. Hagel would probably have the most credibility given his expertise in foreign and military issues, as well as the most sheer effectiveness as he is a conservative Republican sitting Senator and a longtime friend of McCain's. It would hard to match that, and his criticisms of McCain and the Republicans would sting especially painfully.

Biden too would be good in the attack role, and also has credibility to attack McCain. This is not far from what we said in our first post which ranked Biden as Obama's third best choice. But, as I noted earlier, the biggest question is whether Hagel can become part of the Democratic ticket -- thus becoming an instant and complete pariah to his Republicans colleagues in the Senate -- and then work full throttle with Obama, even on issues where he possesses a diametrically opposite position than the Illinois Senator. If he can do it, and says he can do it, then he'd be the top choice. But if he hedges, then Obama would have to pass him over. It is that important. Hagel has already become somewhat of an outcast in the GOP caucus, but joining the ticket would be a step of apostasy 1000x worse to Republicans, and it is unclear he, or anyone else, would have the stones to do it.

Finally, I believe the Clintons would probably be the best at the attacking part of the veep job, but of them all, Hillary might be even more unlikely a pick than Hagel (thought probably not), and I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. Still, Obama would be wise to at least consider the angle of having Billary on his side full blast.

In the end, it is pretty clear that Biden would be the most likely pick of the three because he possesses none of the obvious baggage that Hagel and Clinton have, and also because his name his been out there as a potential veep for so long too. My own personal ranking would be (1) Hagel (assuming he can pledge to go 1000 percent for the ticket); (2) Hillary and bill; and (2)(B) Biden. Though it is a close call between Hillary and Joe, and Hillary has much more baggage (plus the risk of a black man-white woman ticket could turn off a lot of white male voters), she brings a bit more in terms of being an effective attack dog -- after all, it is in her make-up -- plus she would bring Bill with her in the deal. The two of them together would be hard to match.

In many respects, we have bounced around like a pinball in analyzing the veepstakes. I can't deny that, though in my defense, I had Joe Biden ranked third in the beginning, and I have ranked third today, albeit under a whole new criteria, but still consistent nonetheless. But as a campaign changes directions and new themes and issues arise with ever greater urgency, so too does the need for the two major party candidates to re-evaluate their own criterion for the running mate selection. This is why it is wise for candidates to wait carefully before making their pick. After all, there is no going back (imagine if Obama had picked John Edwards a month or two ago?), and while a candidate should have a consistent checklist for what he or she) is looking for, the circumstances underlying that choice are consistently moving about like diatoms on a petri dish.

The McCain campaign has gone nasty early and in great force. Senator Obama needs to keep this in mind when he is picking a running mate. Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, Kate Sebelius, and even yes, Sam Nunn will likely not do given this dynamic. That leaves Chuck Hagel, Billary, and Joe Biden. With Webb, Warner, and Strickland out of the running, Obama should pick one of them.