As we wrap up the nomination process for the Democrats, and Barack Obama assumes the mantle for the Party and for its hopes and dreams for "change," most of the attention is now focused on the Vice Presidential choices to be made by both John McCain and Barack Obama.
While the Democratic selection process is more exciting and dramatic for obvious reasons, the Republican selection process is, for me, equally as interesting -- although Republicans for the moment seem more focused on denying that there was ever anyone "in the loop" in the Bush White House as a way of discrediting the Scott McClellan book. Richard Clark wasn't in the loop, Paul O'Neil wasn't in the loop, and now Scott McClellan they say was not in the loop. I'm now convinced that when the President finishes his memoirs we will learn that Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney were not in the loop either.
The ironic note to ponder is that there may come a time when, as a response to revelations about abuse of constitutionally protected civil liberties and rights, revelations about manipulation of intelligence and information to build support for the war in Iraq, and incompetence in responding to Katrina and benign neglect of the needs of working class Americans in favor of the moneyed classes and corporate interests, many current and soon to be former members of the Bush Administration will be insisting that they were "not in the loop" as a defense of accusations made against them rather than as an attack strategy to discredit others.
But once we sort through these issues, both candidates and both Parties will focus on the VP selection choices, and when they do, some of the points I raise for consideration today may very well attract their attention.
For John McCain, the issue of "age" will be one that will factor into his selection process. Because McCain would be the oldest person to actually take office if he is elected, and because of other health concerns, McCain would like to balance his ticket with someone who presents an image of "youth and vigor" to ease voter concerns about this area. Hogwash. If a candidate is perceived as old and tired, putting someone on the ticket in the VP slot right out of Romper Room is not going to allay the reservations of those voters for whom that issue is a major consideration in their decision to begin with.
Senator McCain is considering Bobby Jindal, the recently elected Governor of Louisiana, as a potential choice. In the campaign this year there have been candidates with kids almost as old as Jindal. And I would also submit that Jindal's lack of experience and seasoning would only weaken that argument for McCain when he makes it against Barack Obama on the other side.
In addition, McCain's age will likely draw even more attention to the possibility that he might voluntarily serve only one term or might be forced to. In that event, the issue of can his VP choice move into the Oval Office and be "ready on day one" is even more of a consideration than usual for this election. For that reason, I do not see Bobby Jindal as his best choice. He needs a candidate who inspires the same level of confidence in their qualifications and readiness for the job (versus agreement with their political issue positions) as McCain does himself.
The fact is, John McCain would be a fool not to at least ask Colin Powell to serve as VP on his ticket. First, even with his image somewhat tarnished by his association with the Bush Administration and the decision to invade Iraq, Colin Powell still remains one of those "larger than life" public figures whose stature is still extraordinarily positive among the American electorate. Second, no one would question whether Powell would be able to step in if the need were necessary and take over the reins of the Presidency with a seamless continuity. Third, we now know that Powell was in fact leery of the decision to invade Iraq and ultimately decided to stay in the administration in order to attempt to have some greater impact in arguing his position than he would on the outside.
And fourth, and very significantly, Powell gives McCain a very potent antidote to the "race" factor in a reverse positive way -- at least for McCain's campaign. I maintain that there is among our electorate, a significant number of white voters who are not comfortable with Barack Obama but do not want to feel like their opposition to Obama is just because of race (this is a different group from that segment of the electorate who specifically are not voting for Obama because of race). For the former group, Colin Powell as VP provides a "guilt release" that enables many independents, older voters, disgruntled Republicans and conservatives who do have some issues with race, a chance to say "see, I'm not letting race affect my vote. I'm voting for the ticket with Colin Powell, aren't I -- so that shows that I would have no problem voting for a Black President."
It's a somewhat disingenuous argument, but don't underestimate the number of voters who would embrace this explanation of their position. And finally, Colin Powell would be a distinguished asset to any ticket as he is a true great American who does have the experience and seasoned ability to be President. Of course, a Powell VP candidacy is unlikely, as he has indicated no interest and has in fact been ex-officio, providing advice and counsel to Barack Obama.
For John McCain, I believe that either Mitt Romney or Charlie Crist remain the best choices who could help him the most -- one nationally and the other in Florida, a state that either Party would kill for to include in their column in November.
For Democrats, the VP selection choice is more complicated, more potentially explosive, and more critical to the ultimate success of the Presidential candidate.
A few months back, my position on this was if Hillary Clinton was the nominee, then Bill Richardson should be a "lock" for the VP slot. But after hearing his positions during the debates, and after the way he handled his Obama endorsement, I'm not sure he's the right choice for a potential future President regardless of who is at the top of the ticket. In terms of adding to the ticket, seasoning it a bit, bringing extensive experience, having real expertise on foreign policy and an articulated position on Iraq, Joe Biden might be as good a choice as Senator Obama could make. John Edwards? -- just not sure he would actually add anything to what Obama already has or is pretty sure of getting. For Edwards, an open announced commitment before the election that he would be Attorney General might actually help Obama more. Chris Dodd, Jim Webb, Sebelius, others -- only Jim Webb really makes sense but he lacks the "intangible" qualities that enable a VP choice to help the ticket.
And Virginia is in play for Democrats -- at the state level they may wind up having the Governor's mansion and BOTH US Senate seats. But quite frankly, at the Presidential level, much is made of that state being "in play" now. Do not be misled by Senator Obama's success in the Democratic Primary in Virginia . He will have a tough time carrying that state even if he has Robert E. Lee on the ticket -- actually, a correction. Lee would be immensely helpful -- which goes to the problems Obama will have there and in other southern and middle belt swing states. And Hillary would actually be the stronger candidate in those states for precisely those reasons, plus the "women" and "Hispanic" factor.
In fact, with respect to the VP slot on the Democratic ticket, we all know what we are dealing with. Will there be a "dream" ticket with Obama for President and Hillary for VP?
Two points. First, no one has really been looking at this from Hillary's perspective. It is my judgment that if Hillary is not the presidential candidate, she actually has little to gain from being the VP nominee and may have a great deal to lose. First, if the ticket wins, as Vice President, she will probably have less influence than several Senate Democrats, particularly those like Chris Dodd and John Kerry who threw their support to Obama early. And God willing, if he pulls through his current cancer surgery and treatment, an Obama Presidency would give Ted Kennedy the role as the most pre-eminent Democrat in the country, and the most powerful, after the president.
On the other hand, if the ticket wins with Hillary not on there as VP, and she remains in the Senate instead, her 17 million votes will give her almost a prohibitive "odds on favorite" chance to be Senate majority leader with a mandate from the public electorate unlike any other previous member of the Senate has had while serving in that body. And in that capacity, as well as being from a powerful state like New York, Clinton will set the strategic tone and approach to either make or break the legislative agenda of a President Obama.
As the VP selection, Obama needs Hillary before the election but not much afterwards. As Senate majority leader with a real power base of her own, if Clinton is not the VP candidate, Obama really needs her after the election but not so much before -- although he might need her either way -- in which case we have another argument for her not to accept the VP slot.
All of this is based on if Obama wins. If Obama loses, it doesn't matter whether Hillary is on the ticket or not -- she would still have a chance (although not a prohibitive favorite one) to run again in 2012, and probably have a more likely chance of getting the nomination than Obama would if he wanted the nomination for a second try.
Finally, and this may be a bit more sinister. But there may be another reason for Hillary not to accept a VP slot if offered. Usually, the nominee wraps up the primary fight and secures the nomination in June, and the conventions are in early to mid July. This year, Obama will indeed wrap things up in early June, and then there will be two full months before the Democratic convention at the very end of August. Long enough for some real buyer's remorse to set in once the fighting is over and all the focus will be on scrutinizing Obama. As we have seen, two months is a long long time in this political season. If anything can happen, something usually does. One thing seems clear -- whoever Obama's VP choice is, he or she will be vetted extensively to make sure they do not have any ties whatsoever even as a guest visitor to Trinity Church.
But here is the bottom line. Everyone can speculate as much as they want on the Democratic VP choice. In the end, Barack Obama will gather with his top and most trusted advisers and insiders, and they will make this decision based on the following criteria. If Obama can reasonably and confidently calculate that he can win the November election without Hillary on the ticket, she will not be on the ticket as he will not ask her to run with him, even if she wants it more than anything else. On the other hand, if the Obama final calculation is that they are not likely to win without Hillary on the ticket, then I can assure you they will not accept anyone else but her on the ticket. And she might have to accept -- for Party unity or sanity -- no matter where her own personal political best interests might lie.
Yes, both sides may be contemplating their "Dream Tickets." But they are also calculating the chances of those dreams turning into nightmares -- and if you're having a nightmare, the best cure is to "wake them up" before it goes too far and ruins your day -- for at least four years.
Carl Jeffers is a Seattle-and Los Angeles based columnist, TV political analyst, radio talk show host and lecturer. E-mail: cjintel@juno.com