|
A couple days ago while rebutting some points raised in another OP about why Sebelius should not be the VP pick I qualified my points with the statement that I myself was not yet sold on her being the right choice (the reasons given against were just crappy IMO). Since then I've read, I've pondered... and a sale has been made. She seems made to be Obama's VP choice, and here's how I for one got there:
1. People insisting Obama needs to pick a VP with national security creds are wrong. We have two primary issues this round. The war, and the economy. Some people are all panicked about going up against McCain on the war because he's a war hero, but those concerns are off base. We have two considerations. First, do people agree with us that the war is a problem? Second, do people agree with our proposed solution?
On the war the answers are yes and yes. The war is a disaster, and we need to get the hell out, and a lot more people agree with that than "the war is a disaster, we need to stay in it indefinitely and it'll turn around somehow" which is what McCain is going to try to push. Obama doesn't need to go all out propping up his national security creds there when most of the country already agrees with his solution to what they agree is a problem. It doesn't matter that McCain is a war hero when people don't like what his proposal on the issue is and aren't likely changing their minds. Obama is going to find it very difficult to lose that debate.
We have the same two considerations on the economy. But we do not have the same two answers. Yes, people agree the economy is in the toilet and spiraling. But presenting a plan that will convince people you can actually do anything at all about that is FAR more difficult than convincing people you can get troops out of Iraq in a timely manner. Yes, we have the gift of McCain also being the "I don't understand the economy" candidate but THAT he can address with his own VP choice or staff decisions. On this issue we don't have the luxury of McCain having committed to a clear course of action that people just flat out do not like, he just doesn't know what the hell to do right now and he's stumbling and bumbling around. If his advisers get their house in order and start coaching him on some solid economic policy he can make inroads here. THAT is where Obama needs to reinforce himself. His VP pick should have Domestic/Economic creds over National Security/Foreign Policy. A governor is definitely a way to go there.
2. People insisting we need a "dream team" Obama/Clinton ticket are also wrongThe main concern here is healing the rift that has been caused by two history making high profile candidates ending up running at the same time. Passions behind each of their support bases are incredibly high, and the longer the race has dragged on the more one competing faction has become the enemy that is trying to take the other's long held dream of seeing "X" in the White House away... when at any other time people on both sides would have been thrilled at the idea of the other candidate in the running.
As much as a superficial look at that situation would suggest just sticking them both on the ticket would be the magical perfect solution for that, it isn't. It's an absolutely horrible idea. Clinton would be a strong candidate. Obama would be a strong candidate. But Obama/Clinton together is a HORRIBLE match.
--Obama is change and reform. Clinton is old school Washington politics. She undermines his message.
--Obama is grassroots ground-up organizing. Clinton is party machinery top down management. Their styles of government are completely incompatible.
--Clinton has been pursuing her kitchen sink strategy for months now against Obama, and she's been handling many of the attacks personally instead of having surrogates do it. There will be NO chemistry there and it will be obvious to the voters. That will have a negative impact.
--MOST importantly, Clinton has negatives that hit above 50%. She's quite possibly the single most nationally polarizing figure in the entire Democratic party. Obama's appeal is based in large part on his potential as a uniter. She kills that. She turns out the Republican base for McCain when he can't get it done himself by handing him the "Clintons back in the White House if Obama wins!!!" rallying cry and she trashes Obama's crossover potential. Republicans are FAR less likely to cross over to vote for Obama/Clinton than for Obama without Clinton.
For those more inclined to the metaphorical... Lasagna is delicious. Chocolate is delicious. You do not therefore slather chocolate all over a lasagna to make it just plain awesome. Blech. I know all about the "pick a VP that plays to your weaknesses" approach and there will be those who argue that all the contrasts between Clinton and Obama are signs she does this, but she does NOT play to Obama's weaknesses, she neutralizes his strengths.
3. The Female Vote.In that other post I mentioned rebutting, one of the reasons given for rejecting Sebelius was that Obama needed someone to appeal to the "Bubba vote". I disagree, strongly. Anyone not voting for Obama because he's a liberal black guy with Hussein in his name who they don't think they can connect with running against the old white guy war hero isn't going to change their mind because of the identity of the VP, and if they're over 20% of the total voters in more than a few isolated areas of the country I'd be surprised. Women make up over 50% of the voters. In every single state. And presenting them with a female running mate actually adds something specific and clear and concrete to achieve by voting for the ticket above and beyond electing Obama. Namely, putting a woman on a winning presidential ticket for the first time in US history. And that's worth accomplishing, don't think that won't be recognized.
Most VP choices really offer very little. People won't be voting for or against Clark, or Richardson, or Webb, or Strickland... they'll be voting for or against Obama. Putting any of them on the ticket with him only impacts the voters decision making process in an extremely peripheral, mostly in what it'll say to them about Obama's decision making process and approach to building his government. But Obama himself and his own words and actions will always be the dominating factor in that calculation. A qualified female candidate in the VP slot adds a new dimension to the calculation however since beyond the analysis of what the decision says about Obama there is also the additional direct consideration of being able to put a woman in the VP position for the first time ever. That will sway people to whom that is rightly a very important thing.
That doesn't mean you can just pick some random token female of course, that would be a horrible flatly pandering decision to make. Sebelius is very much NOT a token female. Even before this entire conflict between Hillary and Obama exploded she would have been a serious contender for the position. Time named her one of the 5 top governors in the country in 2005. She was one of the people floated as a potential Kerry running mate four years ago. This isn't just about "we need a woman because of Hillary".
4. The Independent VoteI've said elsewhere Obama needs to play up his "uniter" qualities to the independents, that means no picking anyone perceived as being from the far left side of the party. Picking a governor from the reddest of red states can help him out there. Regardless of her actual positions and policy record it will be hard to convince the average voter that the governor of Kansas is some effete liberal who is out of touch with people on the other side of the isle. It's freaking Kansas for cripes sake. If she doesn't have across-the-isle appeal she's not elected, she won re-election in 2006 as a Democratic Governor by over 15 points in a state where 50% of the voters were registered Republicans and 27% were Democrats. THAT is crossover appeal. And putting someone from that geographic region on the ticket helps the perception that his administration won't just be governing the east and west coast for the next eight years which also helps with the big tent perception and probably gives him a little boost all across the Midwest where he's already threatening McCain's positions. Will she turn Kansas itself? No, but don't really care. And as for losing her as a governor, she's looking at hitting her term limit in 2010. If we don't find somewhere for her to go we're losing her anyway.
Those are the big factors for me. Will there be negatives? Every pick has negatives, find me a politician without baggage and I'll demand they be medically examined to prove they're human but Sebelius is looking like a VERY good match for Obama. And what would absolutely seal the deal? If Clinton came out emphatically for the idea herself once the nomination process is settled. If she cares about the party, and Obama expresses a desire for Sebelius on the ticket, then she will. That will defuse the whole "He's Snubbing Hillary!" idiocy that some are inevitably going to try to pull if Obama goes this route.
Final point: After the Edwards endorsement yesterday I'm seeing a lot of brand new "dream ticket" talk there. I'm not seeing it. First, because he's already done the running mate thing once and doing it again the very next election is going to inevitably draw associations between this ticked and one that lost. Not Edward's fault, but it'll happen. Second, because although I think he'd be a FAR better match than Clinton, and would almost certainly be a net positive despite the first point, I don't think he can match all the advantages Sebelius brings to the mix. Third... Attorney General Edwards.
My $0.02
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
