now that hillary has conceded, political speculation will turn to obama’s pick for a running mate. some democratic activists think an obama-clinton ticket is unstoppable, but i’m not convinced of that, nor am i convinced that it’s needed to bring hillary’s supporters out to vote for obama (no vote = mccain vote).
that said, the hillary factor can’t be ignored given the extreme vitriol among hillary supporters. to give obama the time to court her supporters, hillary should publicly state that obama should not be pressured to name his running mate until a complete vetting process has taken place and it’s clear his selection is what’s best for the party, the country, etc. that would get some of the die-hard hillary supporters off his case and create the space for favorability polling & political reality to inform the consequence of his options. take, for example, kathleen sebelius, kansas’ governor, or claire mccaskill in missouri: both are pro-choice women who may be able to carry traditionally red states, but taking either out of their current positions opens those up to special elections or political appointments to replace them — which could lead to ultra-conservatives being the replacement. so here’s a brief vice presidential handicapping of women reportedly being considered:
clinton: social justice advocate-turned-first lady-turned-u.s. senator-turned-presidential candidate, clinton can write her own future now that she has shown the leadership she claimed on the campaign trail, officially suspending her campaign and lending her support for obama and a united democratic party.
pros: she pulled half of the turnout in a year where record numbers of democrats participated in the presidential primary contests. voters know her and know where she stands. she has a strong, loyal base among pro-choice women who see hillary as the best hope to break political glass ceilings. by having hillary on the ticket, obama’s task of courting hillary’s base is made that much easier. despite threatening to do so, it’s questionable whether hillary’s base really would vote mccain (either by staying home or actually pulling the lever for the venerable senator from arizona) once they learn obama’s policies are nearly in lock-step with hillary’s, rather than the 180-degree difference exhibited by on issues like reproductive rights, universal health care, the war in iraq, and economic stimuli.
cons: voters know her and know where she stands. republicans have been strategizing ways to defeat hillary since at least 2007, which means the storyline of the presidential contest will shift from policy differences between obama and mccain to what a clinton vice presidency really means. likewise, the bill factor still hasn’t been resolved — a sticky question not only of how obama would control a former president who’s wife serves in the administration, but how republicans will spin bill’s potential influence. clinton on the ticket will galvanize voters still skeptical of mccain’s conservative credentials, making it that much harder for obama to pick up independent and swing voters. despite her claims that primary victories in battleground states like ohio position her as general election asset, it’s unclear how democrat-only primary results will extrapolate into general election turnout and voting behavior.
net effect: neutral leaning positive — but i don’t think this is the best use of hillary’s skills and strengths. i think she could influence american society and public policy in a much more substantial way either staying in the senate and carrying significant legislation; holding other key positions within the administration like attorney general, white house counsel, or chief of staff; being appointed as a Supreme Court justice; or entering the non-profit sector to lead a social justice advocacy organization in an area that revolutionizes the socioeconomic system that affects health care access.
sebelius: first elected as kansas’ governor in 2002, she was re-elected in 2006 by a 17-point margin over her republican opponent, 58%-41% — although political history reveals that democrats have held the gubernatorial seat for 30 of the last 35 years in kansas, red-state label be damned.
pros: as a pro-choice governor in a red state, sebelius can act as hillary’s proxy to attract the pro-choice feminists who expressed betrayal when naral, the political leader of the pro-choice movement, announced its endorsement of obama on the same day edwards made his endorsment public.
cons: according to national review online, sebelius could drag on obama’s coattails, rather than helping him carry the state in the electoral college fight. despite democrats’ near-monopoly on the state’s highest office, kansas reportedly is already in the republican column, with obama trailing mccain by 20 points. a rasmussen poll reveals adding sebelius (polling at 56% combined “good” or “excellent”) to the ticket is more likely to make voters not vote for obama rather than support him.
net effect: jury’s still out
mccaskill: another red-state pick, mccaskill leap-frogged from state auditor to u.s. senator in 2006. perhaps best known as the candidate who won on stem-cell research — though political pundits will tell you with 20/20 hindsight that highlighting the stem-cell issue was more of a turnout wash because it gave the evangelical base yet another reason to vote against mccaskill.
pros: mccaskill could act not only as another proxy for hillary for pro-choice feminists, but also attract swing voters in the south to buttress the black vote that, despite its intensity, lacks the sheer numbers to carry obama to victory in the region.
cons: mccaskill narrowly became missouri’s junior senator, eking out a 49.6%-47.3% victory in 2006 — which means the chances of another democrat reclaiming that seat by popular vote would require a round of well-financed politicking featuring the.perfect.candidate. in the interim, the vacancy could be filled by a republican through gubernatorial appointment, given matt blunt’s affiliation. the loss of a democratic senator in a chamber that already holds the majority only because 2 independents caucus with the party would be a blow toward goals of using a democratic majority in the senate to confirm liberal-leaning justices, ratify strategically important treaties, and speak with authority on the iraq war.
net effect: not worth the cost
