Searching for Godot

The job searches are on for the next vice president of the United States. Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain is holding job interviews with three candidates this weekend, while Sen. Barack Obama has set up a search process.

Both searches will share an age-old philosophy: Picking a running mate is less about winning votes than looking good. Vice presidential nominees rarely account for more than one-two percent of the national vote and rarely deliver their own states (think Lloyd Bentsen and Texas, Jack Kemp and New York, and John Edwards and North Carolina).

However, the choice of a running mate is one of the few big decisions a presidential candidate gets to make during the campaign.

A good choice can give voters a reason to take a closer look at the presidential candidate (think Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro), reinforce a broad generational theme (think Bill Clinton and Al Gore), or convey a certain seriousness (think Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale).

In turn, a bad choice can raise questions about judgment (think George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle), doom a campaign to defeat (think George McGovern and Thomas Eagleton), or invite future scandal (think Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew).

Obama's choice will be among the easiest in recent history. He has to pick a candidate who will give him needed credibility among low-income voters in a battleground state such as Ohio or Pennsylvania. The easiest choice of all would be to put Hillary Clinton on the ticket, but that would be a reluctant alliance that could produce extraordinary conflict on the campaign trail.

Obama would be well advised to nominate a governor instead. He can hardly run against Washington with another senator in tow. Put Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell at the top of the list. He has a strong relationship with the voters that Obama needs, would likely deliver Pennsylvania, and served in the U.S. Army. He can also swing a political hatchet, letting Obama be Obama while cutting McCain down to size.

McCain's choice is much more difficult. He will have little trouble picking someone younger, no disrespect intended. But he also needs a Franken-Veep -- a running mate who can give the ticket a boost in a battleground state such as Florida, assuage the right wing, show some strength on economic issues, appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats, and shake up the race.

It is a nearly impossible search given the Republican talent pool. Louisiana's Bobby Jindal is almost young enough to be McCain's grandchild, Florida's Bill Crist has too little experience, Condoleezza Rice has nothing to add on economic issues, and Mitt Romney is too hungry. Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty looks like the best bet, but he has not attracted much national attention over the years and is no show stopper on the campaign trail.

The two job searches will not be judged just on November 4, however. Obama and McCain must pick candidates who are both good for their campaigns and good for the job. The two goals are not necessarily related.

Thirty years ago, being good for the job did not matter. The vice presidency was little more than a waiting room for a presidential accident. Today, the vice presidency is an extraordinary, perhaps even dangerous platform for influence. Guaranteed a West Wing Office, immediate access to intelligence, a shadow White House staff, and even a vice presidential anthem ("Hail Columbia"), the vice presidency has become one of the most important jobs in the country.

Not to put too much pressure on Obama and McCain, but the next vice president will be among the most important in U.S. history. He or she must not only restore confidence in the vice presidency itself, but must help reassure the nation that Washington will faithfully execute all the laws. The federal government has never needed a vice president's leadership more -- its missions are underfunded, its hierarchy is encrusted, its employees are frustrated, and its hidden workforce of contractors has never been larger. Asked to do more with less year after year, the federal government is on the verge of doing everything with nothing.

As the vice presidential job searches continue, Obama and McCain should ask each candidate what can be done to repair government. Anyone who cannot answer the question should be checked off the list, no matter how much he or she might help win the election.

Comments

[cabaretic]

I personally favor Bill Richardson of New Mexico because he would put the Hispanic vote in play.

I would not put Hillary on the ticket because it would be an utter disaster to have Bill and Hillary, plus their combined egos looking over Barack's shoulder and second-guessing his decisions at all times. I just don't see the Clintons as knowing how to properly delegate responsibility.

[CraigMM]

Did I miss something? No, I didn't. Perhaps no one told you, but you have to win the nomination nefore you can start talking about choosing a VP. It looks like HRC is going to win the popular vote by a wide margin and the SD's have said all along (and HuffPo has said so too for months) they will not overturn the will of the people. The SD's will vote for HRC and she will be the nominee.

Just because you are saying Obama has it won, doesn't make it so, especially when all of the facts say otherwise.

Are you suggesting that the SD's overrule the will of the people? Are you suggesting the SD's tell people that their votes didn't matter? Are you suggesting that Obama should try to steal the election from HRC?

If the votes matter, than HRC is the nominee.

[HansB]

You mean, "The popular vote in states Mrs Clinton has decided should count, and not in states She has decided should not count, and the method of counting shall be determined by Her."

I know "the popular vote" is shorthand for all that, but still.

[LeonBNJ]

Clearly the choice of VP is one that has to be carefully made. You need someone who shares most of your top proposed policies, helps you with weak areas, won't be a bigger ego-star and gets you some marginal votes. In a close election that can be critical.
I have believe that Obama may be best matched with a white, male, southern/western moderate with experience as an executive, an administrator, with foreign policy and/or military background. Sen. Webb would be a good choice as an example.
For McCain, I have believed for a while that he should consider a moderate to conservertive female, from the mid-west or Northeast preferably with executive experience. McCain has the beltway experience and the military background to cover that side. Such a choice would get them a block of moderate to conservitive woman voters and balance him in other areas.

[Paul C. Light - Huffpost Blogger]

You make a good point about McCain, but the Republican talent pool really isn't that deep. Do you have anyone in mind? I just can't think of somebody right now.

[SciVo]

Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. I don't mind suggesting her since I think that today's Republican leadership is too patriarchal to seriously consider putting a woman a heartbeat from the Presidency. I win either way, whether I'm right and they pass up a frighteningly good option, or wrong and they become more progressive.

[Marlyn]

"Obama may be best matched with a white, male, southern/western moderate with experience as an executive, an administrator, with foreign policy and/or military background­."

Another good choice besides Webb would be Gen. Wes Clark, born in Oklahoma, now from Arkansas, who was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He is a great patriot. Do you remember his stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic convention? He is a man who can be trusted.

[Samson1]

I could go with Sebelius, although she is underwhelming as a speaker. Webb has a lot of baggage (3 marriages, a considerable amount of sexist writing), Biden would add some for. poiicy and some experience, gravitas. Clinton would be interesting, it would require some clear agreement on ground rules up front. I think the hardest part would be getting the Obama supporters to calm down. At this point, they may be a bigger danger to him than anything else. They seem to be alienating practically everyone with their somewhat evangelical fervor.

[djawjuh]

I know Eddie Rendell having been a senior trial assistant in the Philadelphia DA's office when Eddie was Chief of Homicide. I think he would be great except for one reason. He is an Ivy League graduate (Penn) and you know the Rs are going to try and make hay with an elitist ticket such as that. Otherwise he's a good, not great choice simply because he has no foreign affairs experience. Bill Richardson is the man. Brings that to the ticket plus he's a Latino. Look around. Nails down California if it needed nailing down, competes in NV, Colorado, NM, maybe even Arizona. I don't know what the percent of Latino vote there is in that state. West Texas, Florida too.

If not Webb, then I'm for Richardson. Webb because he's a good ol' boy and can handle the good ol' boy vote in Ohio, Pennsylvania, WVA, Kentucky, all those kinds of places.

[Paul C. Light - Huffpost Blogger]

I just don't know how Webb plays in the rust belt. He does help Obama match up against McCain, and he's got a son in Iraq. He's got the legitimacy to take a hard stand on Iraq for sure. But that's not going to help much really--the Democrats are with the public on that. This is all a bit like the Dating Game--what questions really matter to finding a candidate who helps in the campaign as well in the job.

We haven't talked much about Clinton's choice if she pulls off some great miracle. I suspect that she would try everything possible to get Obama, but that Obama would stand off. He's got plenty of time to wait.

[arkgrfx61]

me'thinks the reason why there is no mention of her running mate is because it's really not gonna happen. Honestly, I don't think she would have a choice other than Obama, but I really don't think he'd accept it. There is a reason why John Edwards endorsed Obama...be­cause he knows that he WILL be the nominee.

[zjr909]

The best running mate for McCain would be the GOP's newest "golden boy": Governor Rick Perry of Texas. But since Perry's probably being groomed for a 2012 run on his own, he wouldn't want to be bogged down by a McCain campaign. So it'll probably be a non-entity. For sure, McCain wouldn't touch a true maverick like Ron Paul. And though John Edwards would be perfect demographically for Obama, you couldn't have two "pretty boys" on one ticket. I honestly don't think he'd pick Governor Sebelius either: putting another woman in line for the presidency ahead of Mrs Clinton is bound to create tons of ill-will. His best bet would be Senator Jim Webb - but like Governor Perry, Senator Webb probably has his own future presidential ambitions.

[Aaror]

Actually, putting a woman in striking distance of the presidency will probably mollify most of Clinton's supporters. She has been the anti-feminist candidate, but still attracted women voters, think how much better it would be if a woman was on the ticket for a reason other than her husband?

[Paul C. Light - Huffpost Blogger]

I like Jim Webb but just don't think he'd help much. Virginia is a tough state and Webb is not well known nationally (not that Quayle was either). It used to be that the vice presidential nominee was next in line for the party's nomination, but that hasn't been the case for a while. Quayle was never from again, Kemp couldn't mount a serious campaign, Gore lost, Edwards is out. Webb might be better off waiting for 2012, assuming a McCain win. Kathleen Sebelius is very good, but a virtual unknown (Quayle again). I think she'll a strong contender for 2012, though. Very smart and tough.

[TwilightZoneResident]

Paul, we don't really know that Gore lost. We DO KNOW that B/C was "positioned" to the throne by a political SC.

Just my thoughts.

TZR

[McSameisthegame]

Another Texas governor will NEVER be elected president in the next 25 years. Fool me twice-"won't be fooled again"

[aofh]

There was a wonderful editoral cartoon a few months back juxtaposing Johnson (Vietnam) and Bush II (Iraq) and concluding: No New Texans.

[MNfreeze]

I also think this would be a good time for Obama to make a play for moderate-thinking Evangelicals, since McCain seems to be throwing pastors under the bus right and left.

[MNfreeze]

Obama/Webb. That's a slam dunk ticket!

It shores up Obama's perceived weaknesses on military and leadership experience. Webb was Sec of the Navy in Reagan's Administration. If ever there was a VP candidate who could cut McCain down to size, it would be Webb. And most importantly, Webb could help shore up Obama's reputation in some of those "hard-working", lower income white areas, like Pennsylavaina, Virginia and Ohio.

2nd Choice: Strickland, Gov of Ohio
3rd Choice: Sebelius
10,000th choice: Rachel Ray
10,500,000th choice: Doc from "The Love Boat"
300,000,000th choice: Hillary Clinton

[RationalIsReal]

Thats Great. lol.

[NotMcCain]

Don't forget Webb (a Senator, but a maverick). Or Richardson (although Hillary's made him a flash point for her supporters). Or possibly Strickland. Rendell might be okay (some of his PA comments weren't too offensive), and has the cache of being a Clinton supporter. But...can he be trusted? I'm not so sure.

As for McCain, once he realizes he's going to lose the Bush Republican­s--especia­lly the evangelicals--no matter what he does, he'll move to the center. Good time to get a younger (but not TOO young) woman on board, with lots of experience and a former president as husband. (Plus, they're all friends!)

It wouldn't surprise me if that's why Hillary's stirring up all the trouble and discontent re: Florida and Michigan--setting the stage for leaving the party and taking her disgruntled supporters to the candidate she's consistently spoken so highly of--John McCain. (Mark Penn will be right at home on McCain's staff, too, alongside his buddy Charlie Black. And Ickes and Wolfson will fit right in with Rove).

Perfect.

[Paul C. Light - Huffpost Blogger]

Richardson is a very good choice, but NM isn't much in play. He would certainly help Obama with Latino voters, but the real problem for Obama is mobilizing the base in the midwest. I'm assuming that Illinois goes with Obama, but that Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are up for grabs. Stickland is strong and has a great political machine, but I don't think he plays quite as well as Rendell. Rendell was a tough as nails mayor of Philly and does well in other urban areas. I don't think he's a safe choice, but a very good one.

[cktirumalai]

Some history. FDR chose Truman, and although not many expected him to be a significant president he proved to be a consequential one. LBJ was a formidable politician in his own right and a serious contender for the presidency. JFK chose him, although there was bad blood between him and Robert Kennedy. But many would say that it was LBJ who carried out the civil rights and social welfare agenda more vigorously than Kennedy had been willing to do.
And then there is Gore, the man who was nearly president. And the extraordinary Nixon, Eisenhowere's vice president for 8 years, who lost to Kennedy in 1960 but came back in 1968.
Vice presidential choices can prove historically consequential.

[Paul C. Light - Huffpost Blogger]

You are right on target. Mondale was a great vice president and really set up the post as something significant. Carter took the choice very seriously--first president to do a serious interview process (Obama's head-hunter, Jim Johnson, was a top Mondale staffer).

I think it's very important to think of the next vice president as a key to rebuilding trust in government. Gore really worked the government performance issue, but may have erred in not pushing for more legislative action. By focusing more on executive orders and bottom-up ideas, his reinventing government campaign was quickly swept aside by the Bush administration. The only place you can find reinventing government today is at the University of North Texas in cyber storage. I happen to think the federal government has been allowed to atrophy to the point where Hurricane Katrina may soon look like a minor mistake compared to the next big meltdown. That's what my book on a government ill executed is about.

[fairwitness]

Obama should consider selecting and announcing his entire cabinet and main advisors (or most of them) well before the fall. It would be in keeping with his revolutionary change motif and would offer us a clear view of where he will go as President.

We all know that the government is not one man (of course, one man can fatally harm an entire country, as Bush has, but he did need help in carrying out his crimes and malfeasance), so Obama could initiate a new era of politics by running WITH his team, rather than waiting to make it up later. Great confidence could be fostered in his judgement and ability to insipre greatness in others, ready to take over in Jan 09 without the ususal dithering and delay.

[MNfreeze]

Great idea!

[Joyful]

I agree. I've been thinking along those lines myself.

[delphillips]

My prediction for Obama's choice: Kathleen Sebelius (D)- Kansas. She has won two successful terms as governor of Kansas, despite the state's heavy republican lean. Further, she recently stood up against big industry and lobby to veto a bill that would further pollute the state with coal emissions. She is standing firm and the citizens of the state support her for it. Kansas could be a swing state as a result (and maybe even Nebraska, given that Iowa may also be in play). FInally, she's a woman, which could help with all of the negativity he may receive from women since Hillary is out.

[fivecard]

That's not a bad pick.

[feminancy]

I think the Democrats need someone with more name recognition than Sebelius. Someone who has established credibility on the world stage. Someone who's been vetted, and who won't become a distraction during the campaign. And someone with solid foreign policy / national security credentials.

I think highly of Biden. He's one of the most experienced guys around. He meets all of the criteria I've listed above. Plus, he's a fearless campaigner. And, he really knows his way around capitol hill.

Also, he's been an effective champion of women's issues, and I'll bet he would attract a lot of Clinton supporters.