TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.06.2008
Caroline Kennedy to Lead Obama's VP Search

Via Ben Smith at Politico. And, like Ben, I imagine this has at least something to do with Hillary Clinton's interest in the position. This makes it harder to accuse Obama of slighting women if he offers the job to a man. And insofar as it's older women, predominantly, who make up Clinton's base, they may be more likely to accept a non-Clinton alternative if it has the imprimatur of a Kennedy.

For the record, I'd expected to see some elder party statesman like Tom Daschle or George Mitchell in this role. And I have no idea whatsoever whether Kennedy is particularly qualified for the job. But the search committee also includes James Johnson, who's apparently done this sort of thing before, and campaign legal adviser Eric Holder.

--Jonathan Cohn 

Posted: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:04 PM with 18 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

hellx said:

Thank god Cheney's not on the list...

June 4, 2008 3:16 PM

fougasseu said:

Good choice, Caroline Kennedy. Bad choice, Jim Johnson. Johnson is a Clinton insider, the consummate fixer's fixer. Johnson's just another master of the game, Crony Capitalism as practiced inside the beltway. I hope Caroline Kennedy isn't merely window dressing.

George Will has it right: Obama needs someone with impeccable foreign policy credentials. That's not Daschle.

June 4, 2008 3:31 PM

liberal reformer said:

Terrible choice. Just when I had been thinking that maybe Obama was less Obambi than Mo Dowd thinks, then he goes and does this.

June 4, 2008 3:50 PM

ackyri said:

I don't know about Mitchell, but Daschle very well may not have the job since they might be picking him. As we all know, terrible things happen when VP search committees pick one of their own.

I agree that Daschle would be a poor VP pick; he'd be a much better Chief of Staff, as TNR's blogs have already suggested. But it does seem premature to rule someone of his talent out already.

June 4, 2008 4:09 PM

roidubouloi said:

Daschle won't be the VP pick.  Not even close.  He is a good guy, probably make a fine chief of staff, but his political appeal across the country is about nil.  What would be the point?

I'm a bit baffled as to why and how Caroline Kennedy is qualified to do this.  Seems like an "honorary chair" with others doing the work.  I don't think that does any great harm, but I also don't see the point.

June 4, 2008 4:19 PM

timteeter said:

Didn't Johson give us Geralidine Ferraro?  Or am I thinking of another campaign.

If he DID, then this is either brilliant--Caroline Kennedy plus the man who put a woman on a national ticket--or really stupid.

June 4, 2008 4:19 PM

AlanSP said:

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand picking Caroline Kennedy at all.  At least we know she won't pull a Cheney and pick herself.

June 4, 2008 4:43 PM

michael said:

There seems to be more to this addition of a 3rd member to the team of two. At least more than the obvious gender-name value.

They've been working with a not-short list for awhile, I assume 'that' list wasn't leaked with any names who declined to be identified. (OK so far?)

1.) It may be that Caroline would 'bring' a name into the group who was reluctant (not interested) or 2.) she may provide the degree of approval to a name that may challenge traditions (from party to experience or a an issue or two not in line with Barack-The Party).  

3.) Sure, it may be to simply quell the angry Hillarylanders but they saw that coming back when Johnson & Holder set to work with the first list. And yes, 4.) Maybe all applicants will go though an interview with Caroline and Barack can tell Hillary the line starts here >>>-----> (Sell her, first).  

I'm leaning toward 1 or 2 with the thought that Johnson and Holder could 'clear' the person in question, but only in a technical sense. Caroline will be better (necessary) if only to sell the person on Obama or sell Barack's choice to us. She's stayed out of the fray most of her life and would only sign up for a task that appealed to her goodness (and doesn't need the potential grief anyway).

I think she was added for a reason and it is far from trivial.

June 4, 2008 4:44 PM

BHLnyc said:

Fougasseau,

Are you thinking of Robert Johnson, the BET exec who's been pushing Hillary for Veep?

June 4, 2008 4:51 PM

riossb said:

I Guess this would be news for Sebelius, right?

June 4, 2008 4:59 PM

icarusr said:

Tim: Yes, this is the same Johnson.

LR: You scream "uncivil" at the drop of an indefinite article, and yet you keep using the Obambi shit.  Please stop, out of respect for your own intelligence (quoting the Harridan Dowd); if not, please stop out of respect for the eighteen million people who voted for him.  And if either is not enough to persuade you to drop this nonsense, then don't expect any respect from anyone else.

Roid: If I understand correctly, Ms. Kennedy is, in fact, quite active in Democratic politics - if only behind the scenes.  She has, on top of her name, quite a lot of personal gravitas.  The choice is unconventional (compared to the über-conventional Johnson), but not baffling.  But then, what the hell do I know. :-)

June 4, 2008 5:18 PM

anonevent said:

I wonder, if in part, Caroline is also serving as a link to Ted.

June 4, 2008 5:18 PM

AlanSP said:

Yes Tim, Jim Johnson was the head of the VP selection committees for both Mondale and Kerry, which is a frightening thought.  I would have preferred that he pick someone, you know, competent.  Ferraro was one of the worst VP picks in the past several decades.

June 4, 2008 5:20 PM

aref_j said:

Personally, I don't get why Caroline Kennedy to one of a three-person team to help lead the vetting process is a bad move, especially given the other 2 members.

At worst, she's a figurehead and political cover for not picking Hillary...with most of the work being done by Holder and Johnson.  In which case, where's the downside?

However, this overlooks the fact that she might be there because:

- She provides a link to Ted Kennedy/his associates/others who might have useful information, which it would be harder for the other 2 to access.

- He thinks she's a good judge of people.

- Obama wants some specific trait/skill/nuance in a VP candidate....most likely one that's a soft skill, that he  doesn't think Johnson/Holder will be able to ascertain or doesn't want them to focus on.  (e.g. how will Webb deal with questioning of his motives/abilities by a woman!)

June 4, 2008 5:49 PM

fougasseu said:

When you start to connect the dots with Jim Johnson (aka James A. Johnson), you end up with a portrait of Crony Capitalism by Seurat. One dot: Johnson's role in the UnitedHealth Group scandal involving Donna Shalala and others. Other dots: Fannie Mae, the Kennedy Center, Brookings...the list is endless.

June 4, 2008 5:52 PM

stgla said:

I like Eric Holder.  Good to see he's being rehabilitated.  I can see him holding an important position in Obama's Dept. of Justice.

June 4, 2008 5:54 PM

roidubouloi said:

Maybe icarus, but then she really keeps a VERY low profile.  I have no doubt that she knows all the notables of NY Democratic politics, but I simply have never heard of her DOING anything.  I have trouble imagining what her role would be in this process.  It doesn't offend me, I just don't see the point.  Obama doesn't need a "link" to Ted Kennedy.  All he needs to do is pick the phone.  Does anyone think that Ted Kennedy wouldn't take his call?

June 4, 2008 8:13 PM

J.J. Gould said:

I'm sure Johnson, Kennedy, et al. will do a very thorough and competent job. But I could do it much more efficiently (for the low, low price of one Guinness). ... Ready?

Clark.

June 4, 2008 9:04 PM