Doubling Down

Contemplating the prospect of a Bill Richardson vice presidential nomination, Ed Kilgore remarks:

Richardson's handicap in the veepstakes, ironically, is part of what made him interesting as a presidential candidate: his Latino identity. Would the first female or first African-American presidential nominee really want to double down by selecting the first Latino vice presidential candidate? It's doubtful, though by no means impossible.

Sentiment against a "double-down" ticket seems strong in this town, but I think it would make perfect sense for Obama to try to re-enforce his message of change and transcendence by picking a red state woman governor like Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano as his running mate. For Clinton it's harder to see the case for doubling down since it doesn't have the same kind of harmony with her message. At the same time, whatever sexist assumptions people may have about the ability of a women to do the job aren't really going to be alleviated by having a white man in the number two spot, so I don't see huge harm.

Comments

Janet Napolitano you say?

Arizona Governor to Endorse Obama

Posted by DaveWoo | January 11, 2008 11:23 AM

Kind of amazing that someone who's followed the race to this point and has, presumably, heard everything Richardson has to say, would suggest that it's his ethnicity that would be a disqualifying factor.

I get where it's interesting to speculate about how race plays in a Presidential election...but it's ridiculous to suggest that what might be a handicap for an imaginary Latino candidate is Bill Richardson's handicap.

Rather than using Richardson's Latino identity as a hook for such speculation, it's much more honest and informative to just speculate in the abstract. An added benefit is that it avoids turning Richardson's VP prospects into an utterly inappropriate referendum on ethnicity. In this specific case, whether or not Bill Richardson gets picked as Veep will depend a lot more on Bill Richardson than on the prejudices for or against Latinos or other ethnic sensitivities in American Politics. It's bad journalism to suggest otherwise.

Posted by anonymous | January 11, 2008 11:26 AM

But, but I thought with Obama being a radical Indoneso-Kenyo-Hawaiian Muslim crack-dealing jihadist, he might prefer Mullah Muhammad Omar?

Posted by El Cid | January 11, 2008 11:28 AM

No, Richardson's handicap in the veepstakes is that he was a shitty presidential candidate. He would get crushed in a debate by Huckabee or whomever McCain picks.

Sebelius won't be picked because she's opposed to the death penalty.

Obama would pick someone who'd increase his cred among the white working class: Jim Webb, say, or even Joe Biden.

Posted by David Mizner | January 11, 2008 11:30 AM

Although Hillary already has a white male on her ticket as far as a lot of people are concerned: Bill. She may insist that he won't be directly involved in her administration, but the people who are uncomfortable with a woman president are going to be the very same people who believe that she's lying and that Bill really will be running things, so it works out for her.

Posted by OhioBoy | January 11, 2008 11:30 AM

What anonymous said.

Richardson just isn't any good on television and that is the ultimate disqualification. He doesn't stay on his toes in debates, he makes gaffes, he looks skeezy. In person and in small groups I like him and obviously he's the best international negotiator we have but Richardson is not ready for prime time.

On the twofer issue, don't we miss Shirly Chisolm?

Posted by Brian | January 11, 2008 11:31 AM

I'm thinking Webb could get the Dem VP nomination if he really wanted it. There's a lot to be said for making a strong play for the North-of-the-South, and Webb's the guy to do it.

Posted by MattF | January 11, 2008 11:34 AM

Is there any way to have the media, traditional and net, move beyond the superficial aspects of these candidates?

How about for once we focus on who is the candidate/ticket that would forward the country the best way?

The best way is certainly debatable, so have at that...but please...can we stop talking about race and gender and get down to the serious issues we face as a country?

As a woman, I am aghast at the idea we women have worked so long and hard for EQUITY...the good and the bad...and now it's reduced to tears...using them as a ploy and voting for someone because of them. I can't imagine hard working people of color don't feel the same way.

We're in trouble as a nation. We need to discuss real issues and vote for real solutions.

The media is responsible to help us do that. Please.

Posted by G Davis | January 11, 2008 11:38 AM

The best VP candidate for Hillary would be Obama because of his connection to independent and some republican voters. I don't see it happening, but I believe Clinton wants to be president bad enough to swallow her outrage at Obama for challenging her if it would increase her chances of winning the general.

Posted by Helter | January 11, 2008 11:39 AM

Clinton should pick Obama. Obama should pick someone like Webb.

Posted by Katherine | January 11, 2008 11:41 AM

Veep would presumably be best place for Obama to park himself as well if he loses out to Hilary - assuming he doesn't fancy a hostile primary run against the incumbent in 2012...

Posted by DavidS | January 11, 2008 11:42 AM

What Mizner said - Richardson is a terrible, terrible candidate and will be no one's choice for VP.

Posted by cms | January 11, 2008 11:45 AM

David Mizner is 100% correct. If Richardson brought anything to the ticket, well, maybe we'd have a discussion. But Bill Richardson ain't ready for prime time, as should be obvious...

Posted by P | January 11, 2008 11:46 AM

I would love to see an Obama-Sebelius ticket. Mainly for the fact that I would love to see Sebelius in position to run for the top spot eventually.

Posted by Brautigan | January 11, 2008 11:47 AM

After reading a little on Kathleen Sebelius, my first impression is I think she would make a great VP. I don't know how much Death Penalty opposition would really hurt her, especially as a VP candidate. It doesn't seem to hurt her in Kansas. It would also help with people like me, who are also death penalty opponents.

Janet Napolitano also sounds like a good candidate, especially if McCain is the opponent. At the very least, it would mean McCain couldn't take it for granted.

I also think its a good idea to pick a governor, as opposed to someone in D.C., and to keep in mind this person is your hypothetical political successor.

Both sound like good VP candidates on their own merits, not because they are women.

Posted by matthewcc | January 11, 2008 11:48 AM

oops: "it" being the state of Arizona.

Posted by matthewcc | January 11, 2008 11:53 AM

Richardson was a horrible candidate, and he'd continue to be as VP. I don't think Sebelius being opposed to the death penalty would cause many problems, and her ability to bridge Repubs would be a big boon for Obama who can already pull some conservatives in on his own. Webb would be great, but I don't think he wants the VP spot. Obama would definitely be Clinton's best VP pick but I'm not sure she could swallow her pride and I'm not sure Obama would want to be her VP, I don't get the impression he likes Bill or Hillary enough to put up with it.

Posted by Fred F. | January 11, 2008 11:53 AM

You know, I was really hoping for Edwards / Obama or Obama / Edwards, but one really appealing aspect of Obama / Sebelius is just the sheer difference of those names from the typical American candidates' names.

Bush / Quayle? Ha! Read "Obama / Sebelius" and weep!

Say it quickly enough and it's Obamasebelius! And it would rhyme okay enough with anything that ended in "iest"!

Posted by El Cid | January 11, 2008 11:54 AM

Maybe if Napolitano and Sebelius were Hillary-like political heavyweights one of them would make sense for Obama, but I don't think putting a female centrist small state governor with no foreign policy credentials a heartbeat away from the presidency would really make swing voters on the fence feel better about voting for Obama. Obama's best bet, if Gore and Bloomberg turn him down, is Bob Graham -- a moderate southern Democrat from a swing state with a ton of legislative and executive experience who, like Obama, opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I think Obama is somewhat hamstrung on his VP choice because his argument from good judgment loses credibility if he picks a VP who was wrong on the war. What's more, Graham's advanced age would give Obama the chance to dump him in 2012 and pick a new veep to be the 2016 Democratic frontrunner. Jim Webb is a problem for the same reason as Richardson -- undisciplined and hard to control. If you want a former Republican who was against the war, how about Linc Chafee?

Posted by Dave | January 11, 2008 11:57 AM

This post is a perfect example 2007-8 campaign, Obama, Clinton & Richardson...no metion of the other guy...blogs really do follow the MSM lead.

Advice to bloggers [& the people who love them]:

Pull head out of ass, before you develop into full blown hacks.

Posted by S Brennan | January 11, 2008 11:57 AM

There's not much evidence that veep choices impact who voters ultimately vote for. Therefore what is important is the veep 1) seems like somebody who could make a credible President should the President die or become incapacitated 2) not have any embarrassing scandals in his/her background 3) be able to make a forceful case for the top of the ticket in the veep debate which is the only time most voters pay any attention to the veep selection. I also question the wisdom of taking a Democratic Governor or Senator from a red state on the ticket. Those seats are very hard to win and the party would be better served by letting those politicians remain in office until they are ready to run for higher office on their own right.

Posted by Ron | January 11, 2008 11:58 AM

Well, I'll admit I haven't been following the campaign that closely, but is there any real evidence that Richardson has any particular attraction to Latinos?

He may be 3/4 Mexican, but since his name is purest Anglo-Saxon, I'll bet most Latinos don't even know he's part-Latino. He vaguely looks Latino, but he just as well could be South Italian or something. I can't remember reading whether or not his Spanish is fluent.

Anyway, there's a much broader question here. In general, Latinos in America tend to be much less ethnic/race conscious than (working)-class conscious, and Richardson's ultra-elite preppy Anglo/Mexican background isn't exactly along those lines.

Also, the vast majority of American Latinos come from an immigrant background totally unlike Richardson's own origins, further reducing any commonality. Furthermore, I'd argue that the group most Latino immigrants most dislike/hate is the ruling elite of Mexico/Latin America, which oppressed their families for generations, eventually driving them to the U.S.---and that's exactly Richardson's family. I'll bet many Latinos would feel much more resentment toward the Mexican side of Richardson's family than toward his Mayflower side.

Finally, Latinos tend to be overwhelming working-class, and partly for that reason often like "macho" politicians. Although I personally think that Giuliani is the worst of all the candidates running on policy grounds, I'd bet he'd be exceptionally attractive to many Latinos, probably crushing Richardson in a matchup, just like a big fraction of Democratic CA Latinos voted for Republican Schwarzenegger against that pudgy Democratic Latino career politician he was running against.

My guess is that Richardson is the sort of Latino candidate that non-Latinos who are mostly ignorant about Latinos would vaguely assume that all the Latinos would support. A little how like a big fraction of the DC Christian Right leaders decided that Romney was their guy...

Posted by RKU | January 11, 2008 11:59 AM

Whoever the nominee, they should pick Michael Bloomberg and put him in charge of coopting all these other unity, etc. wannabes.

Posted by Jalmari | January 11, 2008 12:04 PM

Dave, you say no to Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano because they don't have foreign policy experience.... then site Michael Bloomberg as an alternative?

Bloomberg would be a terrible choice. He's an okay mayor, but I don't get at all what people see in him as a President or VP, except his money and freindliness towards other super-rich people.

Posted by matthewcc | January 11, 2008 12:12 PM

Obama/Sebelius, just falls off the tongue like like god's own name.

Posted by willie | January 11, 2008 12:12 PM

Richardson'd be a bad VP candidate. He's a gaffer and inspires.. not much on the campaign trail. Give him State or some other high diplo post. He'd be a hard sell for Defense. Best option is to persuade him to run for Senate.

Webb (ex-GOP, ex-military, macho Southern white guy) would help either Clinton or Obama bring in a certain cast of Republican, and inspires populist Democrats too; he'd help Edwards in this way too, but probably somewhat less since they share some attributes. But I hope he doesn't get it -- we need him in the Senate.

Obama really should persuade Edwards to join him, if not as VP than as AG. Or else he should drop out now and run against Liddy Dole for Senate. The man needs to be in public office but it doesn't look like the presidency is the way he's going to get there.

I know less about Sebilius and Napolitano but in general a governor is a better choice than a Senator and it'd be exciting to see a woman on the ticket.

Posted by Ryan | January 11, 2008 12:21 PM

Webb would be a great choice, better even than my dark horse pick, Tester, because he has more foreign policy cred.

One of the reasons Richardson would be a terrible pick is his inability to forcefully defend Democratic views and initiatives. He always seems to start with Republican frames. (And let's not even talk about the weird (published) reports of inappropriate behavior.)

I think the primary roles of the VP selection now are to demonstrate some level good judgment (i.e. someone who seems plausible as president) and to pick someone who can go on the attack against the other side.

Posted by Doh | January 11, 2008 12:24 PM

Bob Graham -- a moderate southern Democrat from a swing state with a ton of legislative and executive experience who, like Obama, opposed the Iraq war from the beginning

Yes, but Graham is sort of a weirdo, which is a problem. Also, he opposed the war in Iraq because he though we should be waging war against Hezbollah and Hamas. I think Biden is a much better choice.

Posted by right | January 11, 2008 12:25 PM

Just as an aside, the other thing Sebelius has going for her that would be helpful in the (hopefully) upcoming negotiations over healthcare - she was formerly the Insurance Commissioner in Kansas.

I'm a hopeless Sebelius fanboy, I'm afraid.

Posted by Brautigan | January 11, 2008 12:25 PM

I think you need to consider the Dave Chapelle factor here (or was it Chris Rock? I can't remember right now). The theory is that Obama should nominate a minority VP as insurance against assassination. Its pretty clear that the president does not have a particularly great life expectancy. And staying alive is pretty important. The question is, would a would-be assassin really be deterred by a minority VP replacing the Obama? I think there is too much uncertainty in the factor involved to really take this into consideration. But I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand.

Posted by mpowelll | January 11, 2008 12:46 PM

The theory is that Obama should nominate a minority VP as insurance against assassination. Its pretty clear that the president does not have a particularly great life expectancy. And staying alive is pretty important.

Well, I think that picking Richardson would be tremendously helpful in this regard, since it would help Obama lose, and if Obama doesn't get elected, his life is *much* safer...

Posted by RKU | January 11, 2008 12:52 PM

I don’t see his ethnicity as having any negative effect at all for either front runner. The kind of people who wouldn’t vote for a ticket with a latino veep are not going to be voting for a black dude or a chick anyway.

Demographically Richardson seems like a good match for either. Popular governor of a swing state, geographic balance, latino heritage, etc… Richardson’s real weaknesses are his campaign skills. A Veep needs to be a strong campaigner and be an attack dog. He needs to deliver the hard pointed attacks that you don’t want coming out of your President’s mouth. On that score, I don’t see Richardson being much of an asset. Biden, while less demographically attractive (an old white guy from an eastern democratic state), has at least shown some spark. Also, it would have the advantage of clearing the field for a Richardson Sec. of State (which he would be quite good at imho).

Posted by IMU | January 11, 2008 12:56 PM

I think an Obama-Richardson ticket would be awesome. Richardson would cancel out any questions about "experience" and it would be a great geographical coalition (mid-west and southwest). Also, on a less politically correct note, it would fulfill Dave Chappelle's idea for how a black President should protect themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QullehqLQ78

Posted by Peter | January 11, 2008 1:25 PM

As much as I love Janet Napolitano as a red state governor, she's got two main problems as I see it:

(1) As the governor of a pretty red state, she's had to do a lot of triangulation and obstruction. In order to keep the crazies in check, she has to hand out a lot of vetoes. She's about as centrist, in policy terms, as Hillary. Also, as governor, she's tried to put off dealing with border issues as much as possible, saying it's the Federal government's problem.

(2) She's not as well 'packaged' as Obama. She's an older single lady with a pretty gruff voice. Think 'Janet Reno'. It might be tough to have your second on the ticket's 'national coming out' be their national 'coming out'.

Posted by ben | January 11, 2008 1:46 PM

i think katherine and has it about right: clinton with obama as vp; obama, with webb as a vp.
obama should not, should never, even consider a white female running mate. republicans are going to touch on every racist innuendo they can imagine - it's started even now, if you ever doubted that they would - and having a white female as his running mate would open up an entirely new line of attack for them. i can just imagine the subtle, and not so subtle, racial/sexual implications in the kind of attack ads they would run. it would be ugly and extremely effective.
you would also see subtle and not so subtle attacks following maureen dowd's "obambi" line, implying that he's a delicate "kid" who needs his his strong mommy figure around in order to function.
if you are obama, why dive right into a pond when you know the danger?
especially when there are better options.
i also think webb might be a great vp choice for clinton. he is the perfect hardassed, barely-reformed redneck who would authenticate both clinton and obama for much of the country.
what i really like about webb is that he obviously does not take any sh*t from anyone - he obviously has retained that republican gene - and that trait would serve his running mate well.
i'm sure the people who served with him were very happy to have him cover their backs. and after the pitiful performances of edwards in '04 and leiberman in 2000, someone like webb as a vp candidate would be a joy to watch.

Posted by frankie d | January 11, 2008 1:51 PM

I agree Obama needs to select someone that represents experience and foreign affairs cred....but also someone of his same mold. The VP must be able to articulate a vision of out of the conventional wisdom box thinking while at the same time not representing too radical of a change from mainstream. Webb would be great, but I wouldn't put it past Obama to select someone who's not a politician at all with great creds.

Clinton will pick who will accept her invitation...Bayh probably. He's young, attractive and won't embarrass her. Plus he'll be receptive to joining an admin that will put him in a decided 3rd place position behind HRC and Bill. Not many will do that I don't think.

It will be interesting to watch that process.

Edwards needs to decide if his continued run is helping the folks he claims to stand for or hurting them by splitting the change vote. He would be a fabulous AG and stands a great chance of getting that position in an Obama admin, no chance in an HRC admin. It's time for him to decide if fighting over how to get change is worth not getting change at all.

Love the guy, but he's not viable. AG for him to work his legal magic where it will count.

Posted by G Davis | January 11, 2008 2:14 PM

bayh is probably one of the people clinton will seriously consider.
i think it would be a horrible choice, and unlike most vp choices, i think he would actually hurt a ticket.
he is dull as dishwater, for one thing, so he would pale in comparison to just about anyone who would run as his republican counterpart. he has one of the worst, if not the worst, television presences i've ever seen. i cannot watch or listen to him talk and i do not think i am unique, in that regard.
and most importantly, i think he would pull an edwards on clinton and basically use his run as vp as a launching pad for his own run at the presidency. his priority, like edwards, would be to maintain his viability as a future candidate, not the ultimate success of the ticket. and therefore, he would probably try to stay very positive and not perform one of the main duties of a vp candidate: to function as the attack dog for the ticket and to say and do things that the presidential candidate cannot say.
yes, bayh is a possible choice - he obviously wants the position - but i think he would be an actual drag on the ticket.

Posted by frankie d | January 11, 2008 2:33 PM

I'd think Obama would want to avoid any giving the impression (however misguided) that he is making an "affirmative action" pick, or planning to pack the executive branch with his minority buddies. Picking a regular white guy would cement his image as a non-threatening post-racial compromiser, which he needs to get the white centrist vote.

Posted by ed | January 11, 2008 2:58 PM

The Chris Rock joke was that there would never be a black VP becuase if there was he (Rock) would kill the President, thus becoming a hero in the black community. He would be sent to prison where he would like like a king.

Posted by phg | January 11, 2008 3:12 PM

The Chris Rock joke was that there would never be a black VP becuase if there was he (Rock) would kill the President, thus becoming a hero in the black community. He would be sent to prison where he would like like a king.

Posted by phg | January 11, 2008 3:13 PM

If Obama continues to inspire this much enthusiasm & Clinton narrowly defeats him & picks Bayh, she is a complete idiot.

Posted by Katherine | January 11, 2008 3:37 PM

If Obama continues to inspire this much enthusiasm & Clinton narrowly defeats him & picks someone like Bayh, she is a complete idiot. She will confirm all my worst fears about her.

Posted by Katherine | January 11, 2008 3:37 PM

Eddie Murphy also went there in the eighties, with his impersonation of the first black president: a few seconds of waving at a cheering crowd, and then a gunshot.

Posted by Mike B. | January 11, 2008 3:56 PM

If Obama gets nominated, he will pick Al Gore for vp.

Experience!

Posted by kyle | January 11, 2008 4:36 PM

"Change and transcendence" ????

You must have been talking to Ezra again.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 11, 2008 5:22 PM