Overreading

Chris Bowers proclaims that if Barack Obama picks Tim Kaine as his VP nominee that "would also signal that Obama has no intention to govern as a progressive" whereas "by contrast, Obama / Sebelius would be fine, and Obama / Dodd would be exciting." This seems to me to be reading way too much into the VP selection. Ronald Reagan's selection of George H.W. Bush much more presaged Bush becoming a conservative than Reagan becoming a moderate.

The best guide to how Obama intends to govern isn't who he picks as VP, it's the stuff he's said about how he intends to govern and what he hopes to accomplish. That'd put him to the left of the Clinton-Gore era of the Democratic Party but to the right of the Open Left vision of where the party ought to be, and that'll still be the case no matter who Obama picks.

Comments

The best guide to how Obama intends to govern isn't who he picks as VP, it's the stuff he's said about how he intends to govern and what he hopes to accomplish.

And also who his advisers are.

Posted by Spenc/r Ackerm/m | July 29, 2008 5:32 PM

Does this rule hold true for George Bush circa 2000?

Posted by Preston | July 29, 2008 5:37 PM

The only thing a Kaine pick would say about Obama is that his political savvy is grossly overrated.

Posted by felix | July 29, 2008 5:40 PM

Does this rule hold true for George Bush circa 2000?

Now, if there was any evidence that Obama intended to turn foriegn policy in its entirety (or domestic policy) over to Kaine, you might have a point.

Mind you, on the issues that matter to me I see PLENTY in "the stuff he's said" to cause concern (understatement). To the point that I even respect people who intend to vote third party or stay home (though I intend to vote for Obama as the lesser evil). But Matthew's entirely correct about his VP decision.

Posted by LarryM | July 29, 2008 5:45 PM

Great post.

People go crazy about it only because it's so easily observed, and neglect actual policies and agendas.

We need to get rid of the VP in our system of government because it inspires a torrent of insane bullshit every four years.

Posted by Chris | July 29, 2008 5:47 PM

Preston beat me to it: It's the height of foolishness to assume that anything said on the campaign trail is indicative of how a candidate will govern.

Posted by right | July 29, 2008 5:50 PM

Bush promised to wreck the budget with a huge tax cut for the wealthiest; to push for privatizing social security; and to impose more testing on students. All of which he did.

Dubya's foreign policy was nothing like he promised in 2000, but mostly emerged only after 9/11; the pre-9/11 stuff was mostly him stupidly ignoring North Korea because the Clenis had tried to negotiate with them.

The corruption, incompetence, and disdain for civil liberties were, of course, a bonus, but I'd argue they weren'y more predictable from Dubya's pick of Cheney than from Dubya's campaign and previous career - although I'd argue that at least the first two were predictable from Dubya's previous career, and the last one is just a core principle of the modern Republican party.

Posted by Warren Terra | July 29, 2008 6:01 PM

Veeps also tend to move towards the center of their party once they reach national office. In many ways, that's basic politics.

Any politician is going to cater to his or her constituency. A politician's record in office is going to reflect the political leanings of their state and that state's political climate.

Kaine isn't a closet left-winger; but his record also probably reflects the fact that he represents a state that, while growing more liberal, is still relatively conservative.

It's the same story with Bayh, who represents one of the most conservative states in the country.

It works the other way too -- if you had an ardent liberal from a very liberal state wind up on the ticket, they'd likely move to the center somewhat in office, to align themselves with the center in national politics.

Cases in point: Al Gore, whose record in 1992 was that of a fairly conservative, hawkish Democrat (not all that dissimilar to the Joe Lieberman of the early '90s) -- hawkish on Cuba and Iraq, pro-life noises, ardently pro-free trade, generally anti-gay, etc. His record was actually to the right of Clinton's at the time (Clinton, remember, was actually on the left-wing of the DLC).

Yet in office, Gore moved left, running a genuinely center-left campaign for the presidency in 2000 and, of course, subsequently moving sharply left on several issues when out of office.

Bush I would be an example of this happening for the Republicans - he was a relatively moderate, pro-choice Republican, who moved right as vice president and as president.

Posted by ASI | July 29, 2008 6:14 PM

Veepstakes Music

"Yes We Kaine Kaine" - Pointer Sisters
"Bayh Bayh Bayh" - *NSYNC
"Sebelius" (tune of "Notorious") - Duran Duran
"I'm Biden My Time" - Gershwin

"Romney" (tune of "Tammy") - Debbie Reynolds
"Portman" (tune of "Batman") - TV Theme
"I Got Pawlenty of Nothing" - Gershwin
"Funky Bobby Jindal" (tune of "Funky Cold Medina") - Tone Loc

Posted by TKD | July 29, 2008 6:29 PM

McCain hasn't even been really asked whether he meant it or not when he seemingly committed to a total reversal of policy on affirmative action in his interview with Stephanopolous on Sunday.

A few months ago, he heaped lavish praise on the military's unabashedly race-based affirmative action program ... a who's who of military leaders (a number of staunch conservative among them) filed a brief in support of the University of Michigan in its defense of affirmative action in 2003: http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/gru_amicus-ussc/um/MilitaryL-both.pdf

Then this week, he turns around and apparently says he supports the Arizona amendment that'd make any affirmative action illegal -- does he mean this? Will he be allowed to continue saying that he supports affirmative action, but not quotas? I don't see how he can, or what precipitated this complete reversal other than political expediency.

It needs to be recognized for the about face that it is, and McCain needs to be asked whether he means it, and, if so, what guided his decision.

Posted by Zach | July 29, 2008 6:33 PM

My God, is the C.I.A. or Karl Rove secretly funding OpenLeft?

Look -- Obama needs to put a white Christian guy on the ticket. (And, yeah, one without a nasty Fannie Mae Freddie Mac connection. That probably rules out Dodd.)

This is as close to a no-brainer as you can find in politics!

Is Chris Bowers a blithering idiot? What alleged friend of labor would push something so dumb? For sheer provincial, self-defeating stupidity this is worthy of Move.on or Matt when he starts pining for Janet Napolitano.

Posted by who'll save the left from NetsRoots morons? | July 29, 2008 6:37 PM

Kaine does what he has to do to govern Virginia; that's not always what he'd prefer to do. For example, he opposes capital punishment but allows executions to go forward. He might be more progressive than many expect as a VP candidate.

But as a Virginian I have to say I'd rather he stayed where he is.

Posted by Borden Tarde | July 29, 2008 6:48 PM

Chris Bowers proclaims that if [Franklin Roosevelt] picks [John Nance Garner] as his VP nominee that "would also signal that [Roosevelt] has no intention to govern as a progressive"

Posted by Another Chris | July 29, 2008 7:07 PM

Since VP's have no constitutional role in the federal government, other than to break rare ties in the Senate, how can any Obama pick signal anything at all about how he intends to govern?

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 29, 2008 7:24 PM

The best guide to how Obama intends to govern isn't who he picks as VP, it's the stuff he's said about how he intends to govern and what he hopes to accomplish. That'd put him to the left of the Clinton-Gore era of the Democratic Party but to the right of the Open Left vision of where the party ought to be

On what issues is Obama significantly to the left of the Clinton-Gore era? He'd have his work cut out for him just undoing the Bush-Cheney era moves to the right, let alone moving the country further to the left.

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 7:40 PM

I see Matt is still taking his daily dose of koolaid. Stoller's response to this post is right on the money. There is nothing to demonstrate that Obama will govern to the left of (the far too right for my taste) Clinton. And as his FISA lie and betrayal demonstrates, liberals who trust Obama do so at their peril. I am currently on the fence about voting for Obama (the alternative is abstention,not McSame or a Nader/Barr protest). Kaine or Bayh would start be swaying against an Obama vote; Obama's more unlikely pick of Hagel or Nunn would certainly lose my vote.

Posted by Marlowe | July 29, 2008 8:27 PM

Picking Kaine (or, for that matter, anyone on the list Bowers used) would signal Obama would govern as a person with progressive goals but a pragmatic outlook.

Which, you know, is actually true.

Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 8:44 PM

Exactly DTM. He's progressive and liberal, but very, very pragmatic.

There are reasons to like and dislike that, but it doesn't signal that he's some fake liberal or fake anything. I'd say it's actually a pretty normal outlook for most people.

Posted by Simon | July 29, 2008 9:16 PM

It's a shame Clark isn't in the short list. He's the perfect choice.

Posted by miguel | July 29, 2008 9:43 PM

DTM and Simon, I don't do ad hominem, but I will make an exception this once: Are you people fucking stupid? Look at Obama's advisors. Tell me that's a "progressive and liberal" set of people. Looks center-right from where I sit, sometimes all the way right.

Tim Kaine would probably be about the worst possible pick. If you need a white Christian doofus on the ticket, pick Dodd or Biden. Tim Kaine has positions on abortion and sex ed that are nightmare positions, complete deal-breakers, for informed women and non-misogynists.

Of the names mentioned, only Biden and Dodd make any sense at all from a governance perspective. Neither seems likely.

Posted by Shaz | July 29, 2008 9:47 PM

What worries me most about Obama's VP selection is that -- to disarm McCain's energetic efforts to discredit him on foreign and military policy (see http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/29/questions_abound_about_mccain.html?hpid=topnews today for McCain's continuing attempts to do so, even through what the reporters openly call flat lies) -- he badly needs to pick a VP with recognized military-policy credibility. Say, Gen. Jones or Zinni, or Sam Nunn (who is awful on the subject of gay soldiers, but extremely good on the rather more important subject of nuclear nonproliferation). Picking somebody like Kaine or Sebelius is the absolute worst thing he could do.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | July 29, 2008 10:19 PM

"Obama / Dodd would be exciting."
Check off another sentence I never thought I'd read this campaign.

Bruce, Obama has said he feels very confident on foreign policy. A "shoring up" foreign policy/military pick sends the message that he feels he needs shoring up, and I don't see it. Everything he's said points to a governor (executive experience) who shares his philosophy of governance. I wish people could get off Sebelius's gender; she's an excellent choice. (I liked her SotU response, in which she sounded calm and sensible. I would love to get someone who is calm and sensible and not a cowboy in the White House.)

Posted by Deborah | July 29, 2008 10:42 PM

Look at Obama's advisors. Tell me that's a "progressive and liberal" set of people. Looks center-right from where I sit, sometimes all the way right.

I wouldn't call them "center-right" but they're certainly not very far to the left.

I was rather pleased when Obama added Jason Furman to his economic team. Furman will forever be hated by the far-left because he rejects one of the most entrenched pieces of far-left economic dogma (the middle-class is stagnating) and says nice things about one of the far-left's iconic "corporatist" villains (Wal-Mart).

Posted by Mixner | July 29, 2008 10:55 PM

An alternative view: Keane is progressive, but the conventional wisdom (wrong, as it often is) is that he's centrist. The question is what attracts Obama's attention, that he's progressive, perceived as centrist, or just a guy who might help in Virginia.

Posted by JJF | July 30, 2008 2:13 AM

Kaine.... (It's late.)

Posted by JJF | July 30, 2008 2:16 AM

Kaine.... (It's late.)

Posted by JJF | July 30, 2008 2:16 AM

Kaine.... (It's late.)

Posted by JJF | July 30, 2008 2:17 AM

Tim Kaine has positions on abortion ... that are nightmare positions, complete deal-breakers, for informed women and non-misogynists.

I was going to write about how opposing the killing of the members of society least able to defend themselves doesn't make one a misogynist (if male) or "uninformed" if female, but there's just no use debating it.

I've found that for a liberal who respects life, it's no use bringing it up in polite conversation, either.

Possible discussion question: what's a better strategic tactic for Democrats on ideology: Big Tent or Ideological Purity?

Posted by Adam Villani | July 30, 2008 3:41 AM

Agree on the substance, but "That'd would put him to the left of the Clinton-Gore era" is purest speculation that may turn out to be rash.

I'm counting on a return to the Era of the Radical Moderate.

Posted by robert powell | July 30, 2008 5:28 AM

Obama/Clinton would be winning. If it is not Clinton, then we have an indicator of O's, Axelrod's confidence that he can win by himself.

Posted by bob h | July 30, 2008 7:54 AM

"Possible discussion question: what's a better strategic tactic for Democrats on ideology: Big Tent or Ideological Purity?"

Better one.

Which party is more likely to put someone who deviates from the party line on abortion in a national position?

You really don't understand why a lot of people don't take your respect for 'life' at face value and instead see it as an attempt to control women?

Posted by witless chum | July 30, 2008 8:08 AM

I was going to write about how opposing the killing of the members of society least able to defend themselves doesn't make one a misogynist (if male) or "uninformed" if female, but there's just no use debating it. I've found that for a liberal who respects life, it's no use bringing it up in polite conversation, either.

Yet here you are, bringing it up.

Though maybe you think this doesn't count as polite conversation. In which case you're right, so fuck off, you misogynistic asshole.

Posted by jeebus | July 30, 2008 11:55 AM

Yet here you are, bringing it up.

Look up the definition of "apophasis."

Also, it's worth pointing out that Shaz opened the doors on this be declaring anyone on the other side from him to be either uninformed or a misogynist.

fuck off, you misogynistic asshole

Exactly. It's impossible to attempt to have a polite debate about these things.

You really don't understand why a lot of people don't take your respect for 'life' at face value and instead see it as an attempt to control women?

The problem is that the pro-life and pro-choice sides don't agree on the bases for the other side's arguments. If both sides agreed that an unborn human life was a human life, then there would be little support for legal abortion. Conversely, if both sides agreed that unborn life did not exist or did not matter, then the only people arguing against abortion would be dyed-in-the-wool patriarchs who felt it was their duty to populate the earth or something.

Obviously if you take it as a given that human life has no worth until it gets born, then sure, anybody who opposed abortion would be a misogynist. But what's a given for you isn't a given for the population as a whole.

Frightfully little of the conversation on the issue even allows for a compromise position to exist. In the popular discourse, either you're a baby-killer or a woman-hater.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 30, 2008 12:15 PM

Look up the definition of "apophasis."

Yes, there is indeed a Latin term for your douchebaggery.

Posted by jeebus | July 30, 2008 12:49 PM

Frightfully little of the conversation on the issue even allows for a compromise position to exist. In the popular discourse, either you're a baby-killer or a woman-hater.

Some things are black and white, which you yourself seem to acknowledge when you say:

The problem is that the pro-life and pro-choice sides don't agree on the bases for the other side's arguments.

Right, so why do you expect there to be compromise?

Anyone who opposes abortion is either looking to punish women for having sex, or is willing to punish women for having sex in the service of preposterous superstitions and a nonscientific, religious concept of "life" (where "life" is something over and above mere biology). Such people are beyond reason and it only legitimizes their "arguments" when we take them seriously. Like Intelligent Design.

Posted by jeebus | July 30, 2008 1:10 PM

Yes, there is indeed a Latin term for your douchebaggery.

Well, originally the term was Greek. And the side claiming that the other side is arguing in bad faith --- that it's misogyny, not respect for life that's the base of the position --- makes me ask, "Now who's being the douchebag here?"

Anyone who opposes abortion is ... willing to punish women for having sex in the service of preposterous superstitions and a nonscientific, religious concept of "life" (where "life" is something over and above mere biology).

That's not true at all. If there's a scientific consensus on when life begins, much less a consensus on that beginning being the moment of birth, it's news to me.

Personally I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, but I can differentiate between faith and public standards and see that that's not a definition that would pass public muster in this country at any time in the near future.

On the other hand, the notion that the moment of transition from non-life to life happens when the body is completely free of the birth canal strikes me as absurd and just as divorced from science as you accuse me of being (I have a degree in Geology from Caltech, by the way). I think that from an honest public policy (my line of work now) perspective, there is room for debate on some sort of sliding scale between conception and birth on where the basic right to control one's own body trumps the even more basic right to life.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 30, 2008 2:23 PM

Fetuses are alive. As are worms, trees, fungi, bacteria. No one disputes that. So presumably you have some other concept of "life" in mind, unless you believe that anti-bacterial handsoap is a form of murder.

Posted by jeebus | July 30, 2008 3:38 PM

And, "apophasis" is Latin.

Posted by jeebus | July 30, 2008 3:41 PM

Fetuses are alive. As are worms, trees, fungi, bacteria. No one disputes that.

None of those are human.

Do you deny that a fetus, with human DNA, distinct from his or her mother, is human?

Posted by Adam Villani | July 30, 2008 3:51 PM

jeebus, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but at least admit that it would be electoral suicide on a major party platform. Plenty of Democrats are pro-choice because back alley abortions are a greater evil than legalized abortion, but acknowledge that there is a moral component to the issue that needs to be addressed. I thought conservatives were the close-minded authoritarians.

Posted by Jake | July 30, 2008 3:55 PM