Barack Obama has returned from his tour abroad, where he said and did the right things, even in canceling his trip to a military hospital in Germany. As he has indicated, once he realized that such a visit could be construed as "political" rather than actually caring about the wounded, he changed his plans. Of course, John McCain--with strong prodding from his ill-tempered advisors--attacked him for caring more about photo ops than our troops. This smells like an Evil Karl Rove tactic. Whether or not EKR is actually inolved in McCain's campaign is irrelevant; the tactics are his.
Obama's campaign fired back immediately with the comment that "John McCain is an honorable man running a dishonorable campaign," providing a clear contrast between McCain-the-man and McCain-the-protege-of-the-Evil-Karl-Rove.
This immediate reaction is important. It shows a major difference between the Obama campaign and the Kerry campaign four years ago. When Kerry was attacked by the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies and Deceit (abbreviated SBD: I don't think that was the name of their group, but close enough), Kerry's advisors waited too long before attempting to reply. By then, the damage was done.
In another area of campaigning, it's reported online today that Obama will "give his vice president substantive work and will choose his running mate based on ability to govern, not to help win a state in November." Again, exactly the right thing to say. Of course, I don't believe that last phrase for a minute, mainly because there are so many good choices for Obama that he may as well combine the two qualities: ability to govern AND help win a state in November. That's why I've been pushing a Virginian or an Ohioan all along, though I'll agree that Colorado, Indiana, and several other states have highly qualified Vice Presidential possibilities.
And, in a refreshing change from the current administration's practice, Obama said: “I’m going to want somebody with integrity."
I could stop there and breathe a sigh of relief and joy. But wait, there's more. Obama added, "I’m going to want somebody with independence — who’s willing to tell me where he thinks, or she thinks, I’m wrong."
Omyword! A president who does NOT want a Yes man or Yes woman? A president who actually wants a vice president who will disagree with him and then discuss their differences?
What a concept. Let's give it a try in November.
-- triton --
Showing posts with label vice presidental candidate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vice presidental candidate. Show all posts
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
#27 Unintentional Humor from John Edwards
In Madrid, Spain, today, John Edwards said he was not interested in becoming the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate. "I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won't do it again," he was quoted as saying.
That's a relief. Of course, no one else was interested in having him run again either. He did a lousy job four years ago, and carried...let's see, how many states for John Kerry? Oh. Right. NONE.
But at least he followed up his non-interest in becoming VP with an oddly phrased, and possibly though unintentionally contradictory, compliment about Barack Obama. Edwards praised Obama as a "visionary," the El Mundo interview said. Then Edwards added, "We don't live in a dream world and we have a lot of work to do." I have no doubt Edwards thinks highly of Obama; that statement is confusing at best, however. He needs to choose his words more carefully.
Ted Strickland, Democratic governor of Ohio and a very strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, is one of the first Clinton supporters to come out for Obama. I've been a fan of Strickland on the ticket because he would help Obama carry Ohio, likely a "must" state for the Democrats to carry. If Obama does put Strickland on as VP, it will be a doubly good move then: moving Ohio's electoral votes closer to the Democratic column AND mollifying Hillary and thus helping to bring her supporters closer to supporting Obama.
Of course, I also like several other VP candidates. Edwards is not one of them. But at least he has an inadvertent sense of humor.
-- triton --
That's a relief. Of course, no one else was interested in having him run again either. He did a lousy job four years ago, and carried...let's see, how many states for John Kerry? Oh. Right. NONE.
But at least he followed up his non-interest in becoming VP with an oddly phrased, and possibly though unintentionally contradictory, compliment about Barack Obama. Edwards praised Obama as a "visionary," the El Mundo interview said. Then Edwards added, "We don't live in a dream world and we have a lot of work to do." I have no doubt Edwards thinks highly of Obama; that statement is confusing at best, however. He needs to choose his words more carefully.
Ted Strickland, Democratic governor of Ohio and a very strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, is one of the first Clinton supporters to come out for Obama. I've been a fan of Strickland on the ticket because he would help Obama carry Ohio, likely a "must" state for the Democrats to carry. If Obama does put Strickland on as VP, it will be a doubly good move then: moving Ohio's electoral votes closer to the Democratic column AND mollifying Hillary and thus helping to bring her supporters closer to supporting Obama.
Of course, I also like several other VP candidates. Edwards is not one of them. But at least he has an inadvertent sense of humor.
-- triton --
Thursday, February 14, 2008
#6 Ironically, I can't think of a catchy title for a post about the significance of choosing the right vice presidential candidate...
…perhaps, because, in the last century the VP candidate has been a kind of afterthought, an attempt to balance the ticket at least geographically and occasionally politically: FDR and Truman, Stevenson and Kefauver, JFK and LBJ, etc. That changed with Clinton/Gore, both southerners, though one was a governor, the other a senator.
This year, the choice for Vice President on the Democratic ticket will be essential for victory in November.
If we assume that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee by the end of the summer, the next question is, How can the Democrats persuade the 20% of the American public that isn’t automatically voting Democratic or Republican to swing to the left?
One way is for the Democrats to find a vice-presidential candidate to provide some political balance, not a far right conservative, but a legitimate centrist, who can (one hopes) prevent the Republicans from seizing the center of the political spectrum, as dubya was allowed to do. There has been nothing centrist about dubya’s policies, but he was allowed in 2000 to appear to be, and to claim to be, “in the middle.” Given the mess he’s made of EVERY aspect of his presidency, “in the muddle” is more appropriate.
The Democratic VP nominee also has to be from, or at least influential in, a narrowly-won blue state, or a red state with a significant electoral college number, or a few smaller red states whose total electoral votes are enough to tilt the election blue. The VP candidate has to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters, and has to deliver his home state and additional states. And, yes, I wrote “his”: whether Obama or Clinton gets the nomination, the VP will probably be a male.
The best known political figures tend to come from the national stage, likely the Senate (rather than the House of Representatives, whose numbers dilute the possibility of any but the Speaker and Minority Leader from achieving much national attention). While governors may be more well known in their own states than on the national scene--except perhaps for actors from California, and the occasional charismatic if sexual-predatory personality--governors have been more successful in seeking the presidency than have sitting senators.
JFK was the last sitting senator to be elected president, and Warren G. Harding was the only other sitting senator to be elected president. James Garfield was elected to both the senate and the presidency in 1880, but declined the senate position to become president. By contrast, in the last seventy-five years FDR, Carter, Clinton, and dubya have all moved from the statehouse to the White House.
It is from these two groups, governors and senators, that the Democrats should look for a Vice Presidential candidate who will add strength to the fall ticket. John Edwards (yes, I realize that some of you liked him for this year’s presidential run) added nothing to the 2004 ticket. The personality he showed during 2007-2008’s early campaigning was yet undeveloped or, worse, missing in action in 2004, and he was unable to carry either his birth state (SC) or his elected state (NC). Together, those two states would have won the election for John Kerry. However, Kerry lost SC by seventeen percentage points, and NC by twelve and a half, so it may not have been possible for Edwards, even had he a stronger public persona at the time, to have affected those extreme results.
The Democrats in 2004 needed to have focused on a swing state, preferably a narrowly red state from 2000, to find a VP candidate who might have helped swing the election. In 2000, dubya won Missouri by fewer than 79,000 votes, putting Missouri in play for the Democrats in 2004. But in 2004, against the Kerry/Edwards ticket, dubya won Missouri by nearly 200,000 votes. I don’t know if Missouri’s own Dick Gephardt could have altered results, but he had national exposure (as former Speaker of the House and then minority leader), he had a lot of congressional experience, and he probably would have inspired more confidence in voters than John Edwards did at the time. Missouri alone would not have changed the outcome of the 2004 election, but Gephardt might have had a coattail effect. Edwards certainly didn’t. Gephardt should have been the Democrats’ VP candidate four years ago.
Next post: a look at Democratic governors, as we begin to examine specifically who might be an electable VP choice on the Democratic ticket.
This year, the choice for Vice President on the Democratic ticket will be essential for victory in November.
If we assume that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee by the end of the summer, the next question is, How can the Democrats persuade the 20% of the American public that isn’t automatically voting Democratic or Republican to swing to the left?
One way is for the Democrats to find a vice-presidential candidate to provide some political balance, not a far right conservative, but a legitimate centrist, who can (one hopes) prevent the Republicans from seizing the center of the political spectrum, as dubya was allowed to do. There has been nothing centrist about dubya’s policies, but he was allowed in 2000 to appear to be, and to claim to be, “in the middle.” Given the mess he’s made of EVERY aspect of his presidency, “in the muddle” is more appropriate.
The Democratic VP nominee also has to be from, or at least influential in, a narrowly-won blue state, or a red state with a significant electoral college number, or a few smaller red states whose total electoral votes are enough to tilt the election blue. The VP candidate has to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters, and has to deliver his home state and additional states. And, yes, I wrote “his”: whether Obama or Clinton gets the nomination, the VP will probably be a male.
The best known political figures tend to come from the national stage, likely the Senate (rather than the House of Representatives, whose numbers dilute the possibility of any but the Speaker and Minority Leader from achieving much national attention). While governors may be more well known in their own states than on the national scene--except perhaps for actors from California, and the occasional charismatic if sexual-predatory personality--governors have been more successful in seeking the presidency than have sitting senators.
JFK was the last sitting senator to be elected president, and Warren G. Harding was the only other sitting senator to be elected president. James Garfield was elected to both the senate and the presidency in 1880, but declined the senate position to become president. By contrast, in the last seventy-five years FDR, Carter, Clinton, and dubya have all moved from the statehouse to the White House.
It is from these two groups, governors and senators, that the Democrats should look for a Vice Presidential candidate who will add strength to the fall ticket. John Edwards (yes, I realize that some of you liked him for this year’s presidential run) added nothing to the 2004 ticket. The personality he showed during 2007-2008’s early campaigning was yet undeveloped or, worse, missing in action in 2004, and he was unable to carry either his birth state (SC) or his elected state (NC). Together, those two states would have won the election for John Kerry. However, Kerry lost SC by seventeen percentage points, and NC by twelve and a half, so it may not have been possible for Edwards, even had he a stronger public persona at the time, to have affected those extreme results.
The Democrats in 2004 needed to have focused on a swing state, preferably a narrowly red state from 2000, to find a VP candidate who might have helped swing the election. In 2000, dubya won Missouri by fewer than 79,000 votes, putting Missouri in play for the Democrats in 2004. But in 2004, against the Kerry/Edwards ticket, dubya won Missouri by nearly 200,000 votes. I don’t know if Missouri’s own Dick Gephardt could have altered results, but he had national exposure (as former Speaker of the House and then minority leader), he had a lot of congressional experience, and he probably would have inspired more confidence in voters than John Edwards did at the time. Missouri alone would not have changed the outcome of the 2004 election, but Gephardt might have had a coattail effect. Edwards certainly didn’t. Gephardt should have been the Democrats’ VP candidate four years ago.
Next post: a look at Democratic governors, as we begin to examine specifically who might be an electable VP choice on the Democratic ticket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)