Let's See the VP Sausage Being Made

Barack Obama has promised to tear down the stone wall and dense bushes with which the current administration has barricaded the White House. Good. Democracy without transparency is at best an assumed democracy.

And, Obama has promised to take advantage of our new connective technology -- the Internets and all the associated tubeware -- to enable a level of citizen participation undreamed of since our population outgrew the local town hall.

So, how about if the campaign starts now by opening up the vice presidential selection process?

Instead of having potential VPs enter through the back door of some undisclosed location, how about if we get to see some of the discussions? Certainly some conversations need to be held in private, but the traditional six-sided black box method leads to the impression that it's all back backroom deals and ulterior motives.

And how about letting us have our say? Not an online poll, because that would give the false impression that this decision is up for popular vote. But the VP selection committee should at least set up a discussion board where we can engage with one another and -- importantly -- with the committee.

Why wait? Let the sunshine in.

Comments

[ProudLiberalDan]

What a horrible idea.

Remember 1984 and his "parade" of VP prospects. The media covered it as pandering, AND, there were groups not included who resentful that they didn't have token consideration as well. Yuck!

My top choices for VP are Edwards, Sebelius, and Biden roughly in that order. But I don't want anyone put through that sort of circus.

I do agree with Oafishcad below. However, Gore chose Joe Lieberman, and however Bush Sr. chose Quayle, please Obama, do the opposite.

[coloradosiren]

Bullshit! That is the last thing Obama needs. This is one area in which he deserves our trust.

[dweinberger]

There are a couple of recurring themes among those of you who think this is a bad idea.

1. "Choosing a VP shouldn't be American Idol where the public gets to vote." Please note the sentence in my post in which I say that there shouldn't be a poll.

2. "Personnel decisions need to be private because they expose confidential and potentially embarrassing information." Please note the sentence in which I say that some of the discussions need to be kept private.

So, is there no part of the process you'd like to see done in the open? Not a single bit? Are you absolutely opposed to having a forum with occasional contribution from the panel looking into this?

If not, then what parts do you think might be usefully opened up? What form do you think a public conversation with us citizens might take?

-- David Weinberger.

[jah2008]

I apologize for my previous outburst.

I don't mind polls, but I don't trust these polls. CNN's headline today is "Dems want Obama-Clinton ticket, poll shows". They polled just over 400 people out of 36 million people who have voted in the Democratic primary. I am certain that majority of Obama supporters do not want Hilllary as VP, but how do you accurately poll to reflect this? On HuffPo alone, majority of Obama supporters seem to not want Hillary. I don't want Hillary anywhere near the white house.

[BlackLeatherRain]

If you want educated public input, you need to have EVERYTHING open to the public. Otherwise, the Obama campaign and the DNC are making reasoned decisions based on private conversations and information that may look to the public like they're playing favorites. When it comes to information and discusssions, it's all or nothing in order to avoid what will inevitably be played out as cronyism and favoritism by the GOP-sponsored MSM.

As I stated below, I'd like to see the list of candidates, just because I'm interested in seeing the pool. I don't value a public conversation with US citizens on this particular topic, however - at least, not to the degree that I think you're suggesting. The public is already expressing their opinions on this matter - to his contact us email address, in his blog forums, here on HuffPo, on Hillaryis44, etc. I assure you his handlers are watching this and seeing what the public thinks about it all. Having said that, there are unknowns that are undoubtedly on that list, and public opinion is typically a popularity contest. They'll take it with a grain of salt, and I have faith that they'll choose the best person for the job.

[gulopartisan]

I don't feel "the American public," including myself, is in a position to join in the discussion of the VP choice. This strikes me as silly, just as voting on Supreme Court justices or pulling my own teeth would be. In a word, this is what I hired Obama for. If he comes up with an Eagleton, Quayle, or Lieberman, God help us, but there's no way my being involved would prevent that.

There is no argument I can imagine that outweighs the certainty that the only group engaged and empowered by public discussion would be the media, and that is about as bad a thing as I can imagine happening to the process. You can cry "not American Idol" all you want, but that won't stop it from happening.

Frankly, I don't even want to know who they are considering. I just want to know that it is being done by intelligent, careful people. Like my dentist.

[SpoxLogic]

Totally WORST idea, EVER!

We don't need to see something that I feel has some personal feeling involved in it. There are no "rules", per se, for choosing a VP, so for what purpose would we want to see how the process is working.

And the voters choosing is also a bad idea. WHy not jsut have a VP primary along side the regular primary, if that's the case?

[gulopartisan]

As for the voters deciding, they used to. And the famous example of the result is Thomas Jefferson getting saddled with the opponent he beat for the Presidency, Aaron Burr. A disaster that echoed through the country for years. I don't want to pick his damn cabinet, either. If I hire a CEO, I expect that person to hire the rest of the staff.

[BlackLeatherRain]

I agree completely. I am NOT interested in seeing how the sausage is made - I am tired of viewing this campaign until a friggin microscope!! It's been refreshing after Tuesday's victory to have a bit of breathing space where we can sit back and trust that a competent leader is doing the right thing.

Would I be interested in knowing who is on the short list? Sure. Do I want to know the intricacies of all the scandals and financial records that are being vetted? GOD NO. Focusing in on the Democratic VP process is taking focus OFF of McCain and his culture of corruption.

Ditto on the voters choosing being a bad idea - one of the priviledges of being the nominee is picking someone who you believe is right for you and right for the country. Obama's stance is that he doesn't want a brown-noser, which is wonderful, and I trust him to choose a smart, independent, opinionated and compassionate Veep to be his right hand as they bring this country back from the murk of the Bush Administration.

[holyhandgrenaid]

The big reason this is a bad idea is that the point of the closed door selection process is to properly vet the potential VP candidates. Doing this in a public forum would bring all of the issues, however insignificant, right to the forefront, allowing the Republicans to make a big stink about it and thereby ruling out any potential choices. Some things need to be done behind closed doors

[Repub4Obama]

Absolutely. During VP-level vetting, it is imperative that the research does NOT get out into the public. Those not selected, but whose vetting was public, would stand to lose their existing elected office.

Bush worked on many of his nominees (SCOTUS, AG, etc.) in the public arena, and many of them were 'squished' in the public arena. He would have been better served by doing his own research first, in private, and then announcing a nominee who was qualified, able, and confirm-able. Looks like BHO is making the right moves.

[ATL78]

Bad idea! However, the campaign has established a place where you can contribute your opinion and views. Check out www.barackobama.com's blog section. HQ follows the posts and have responded to several.

[Gemma08]

My HEART says John Edwards... Im a chick... I do use my emotions when making decisions :)

It was the 'My last counsel before I make decisions in the White House" that was the decider for me. For these reasons:

1. He and Barack on stage that day when he endorsed... chemistry!
2. If anything happened to the President... Edwards most closely resembles Obama in ideology and character
3. He would be a natural to follow after 2 Obama terms
4. He's bloody good looking! (I said I was a chick... its nice to see someone pretty on the teevee.)
5. I like a Southern accent
6. They 'gel'

[Repub4Obama]

Edwards would make a better AG. He's passionate about the issues, and I think he would LOVE to redact the executive orders passed by Bush that have weakend not only the Constitution, but to a lesser extent, Congress itself.

[Gemma08]

My heart is SO not listening to you :P

Hearts and logic dont go so well together :D

[BlackLeatherRain]

*le gasp*

How about Edwards... on the SC?!?!

People are talking about throwing Clinton a bone and putting her on the SC, but Edwards... Edwards would be TREMENDOUS.

[Gemma08]

I know he said he didnt want to run for VP... but my hears says JOHN EDWARDS...

[melpomene1]

I'm surprised how many people posting comments here are against getting a chance to make their voices heard -- that seems incongruous to me.

Looking back, certainly one thing that kept me from getting excited about Al Gore's candidacy was his choice of VP. I'm so afraid that Obama is going to pick someone to appeal to right leaners and who will completely deflate my enthusiasm. He says he's taking his time to make sure his choice is right; I hope he does that.

The other night when I received an email from the Obama campaign asking me to take a survey, I thought maybe it was a chance to weigh on what we thought was important in the VP choice. It turned out it was a chance to weigh in on what ways we could help out with the campaign. I can't answer that until I know who the VP choice is, so I didn't finish the survey.

[LeonBNJ]

I don't agree with a 'open' process. What should be considered is a sufficently large and broad 'looks like America' committee under Obama's control to suggest and initially vet canidates. It should include perhaps Sen. Clinton, but also senior party leaders, leading Black, Hispanic and Women politicans, large city mayors, governors and some working class leaders, leaders of poverty groups. Yes the group could get large, perhaps as many as 50 people, but it would allow for a vetting that needs to be done. When you get to finalists, they should be subject to extensive investigation, incuding using private investigators (with permission) to root out any business or personal gotchas before the media does.

[mairs]

The VP choice isn't American Idol!

[mairs]

Every TV and print pundit has been busy telling both Obama and Clinton what to do.....sure, let's prolong this agony of listening to every bonehead who thinks they know what they, and now he should do. I'm sure it got quite habit-forming and now the press is facing coming off that high of being able to influence the process. Let him choose in private.

[AxelDC]

Do you expect all your personnel decisions at your office to be public? Do you video tape interviews and then broadcast them to the entire staff? Do the candidates sit in on the search committee's discussion of their qualities and deficiencies?

Why would you expect a nominee to expose all the dirt on people they are vetting, people in their own party? Why would a potential VP want the entire public to watch the humiliation of having their internal lives being made public?

This is a ridiculous suggestion that just provides voyeurism to the public, provides political ammunition to their opponents, and reduces the pool of candidates willing to subject themselves to such public humiliation.

[RickO]

The problem with that idea is the media. Incapable of observation and objective reporting, they feel the need to involve themselves and pee all over the process by way of astoundingly idiotic punditry that does more harm than good by a wide margin. I'm sick of seeing these hacks ruin our chances of electing good people by their low-brow tabloid character assassination style of non-journalism.

I trust that when Obama makes his decision, I, for one, will probably be impressed. It's been the case so far.

[gulopartisan]

No thank you! I've been in enough "democratic" committee meetings, where the airhead who used to design prom invitations thinks she should pick the colors for the new letterhead and the sales guy who wears a bow tie want to be sure we end up with something "manly." Obama picks, we endorse. I'm fine with that.

[MandyW]

REALLY bad idea. Especially with type of spotlight the airhead media would shine on the process. Can't you imagine all the breathless huffing and puffing about which candidate's flag pin is prettiest and whose prepared sound bytes are the snappiest?

And do your really think "citizen participation" is an unalloyed good? Too often it gives the most attention to the loudest voices -- not necessary the wisest. And "scientific" polling makes special effort to ensure that the uninformed get an equal chance to influence the result. Thus, public opinion about the "best" VP would be swayed more by name recognition than by the character, qualifications and philosophy of the candidates.

Our government is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. That recognizes the practical reality that most average citizens don't have the time to inform themselves in detail about all the issues, and perforce must delegate a lot of responsibility to elected officials. I for one don't think a government where the "will of the people" micromanages every detail would be an improvement.

[AlphaDoc]

>Can't you imagine all the breathless huffing and puffing about which candidate's flag pin is prettiest and whose prepared sound bytes are the snappiest?<

LOL! Truly. And Fox would be falling all over itself to turn the whole thing into a new reality show--"America's Most Eligible VP," or maybe "Survivor, DC."