TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

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
13.06.2008
Webb or Sebelius as VP Sounds Exciting. Is That Good?

Political insiders and pundits continue to talk up Kathleen Sebelius and James Webb as ideal running mates for Barack Obama. And I understand why. Unlike most of the other names that get tossed around--Joe Biden, Ed Rendell, and, of course, Hillary Clinton--both Sebelius and Webb are fresh faces. Quite apart from their apparent abilities to win over more conservative voters, they would--by their mere presence on the ticket--underscore Obama's message of change. The slogan practically writes itself: New Leaders for a New Era, or something like that.

But while excitement is good, it also comes with risk. As I've written before, I think the most important priority in picking a running mate should be choosing somebody clearly qualified to be president. A close second to that is the ability to perform the job of vice president, a job description that includes serving as a capable surrogate and helping the president to govern more effectively.

Do these two candidates live up to that standard? Sebelius' record in state government is impressive, yes, but it's entirely in state government. She's obviously intelligent and has shown plenty of good judgment. Still, how can anybody--including Sebelius--know what her foreign policy views will be when she's never had to formulate them except as an intellectual exercise?

Webb has the opposite problem. He'd lend an Obama administration more credibility and expertise on national security. But who knows whether he is up for campaigning, and serving as an effective elected official, when his experience in those roles goes back all of two years? (Here's Slate's Timothy Noah with some pretty good reasons to worry.) And while his conversion from the GOP makes for a great storyline, it also raises some questions about partisan loyalty--questions that may reflect perfectly well upon Webb personally, but don't necessarily make him the most reliable of Democrats in the long term.

I realize there's an obvious rejoinder to this: You could have said some of the same things about Barack Obama when he first declared his candidacy. He was a newcomer to the national stage. He had virtually zero foreign policy experience. And so on.

But that was sixteen months ago--and, since then, we've learned a lot more about him. All of those debates may have been tedious and, on occasion, downright depressing. But by the time they were over, we'd gotten a pretty thorough picture of Obama's specific issue positions as well as his broader governing philosophy, spanning virtually every major issue likely to confront the next president. The grueling nature of the campaign also tested his leadership and management abilities, even under intense political pressure. We don't know everything we need to know about Obama, I realize, but we know an awful lot--enough, I think, to render an intelligent judgment about his fitness for the presidency.

The public won't get sixteen months to vet Obama's vice presidential candidate. Neither, for that matter, will the media, the party establishment, or even Obama himself. And yet the stakes in this choice are incredibly high. If my math (and history) is right, fourteen of the fifty-six forty-six men who've served as vice president--exactly one in four just under one-third--went on to become president, either by assuming office or running subsequently on his own. Even those who didn't become president someday frequently became dominant political figures in their era.

This isn't to say a relative newcomer like Sebelius of Webb should be out of the running. Far from it. Obama and his selection team will presumably get to know the possible candidates, and their histories, better than outsiders like me ever could. And based on that information, Obama might be able to determine that either Sebelius, Webb, or even some other novel figure is up for the job. But insofar as people outside the process--like those of us in the media--are hyping these two candidates, we should remember that sometimes boring and predictable can be virtues, too.

Edit: Corrected my hilariously poor arithmetic. 

--Jonathan Cohn

Posted: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:17 AM with 26 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!

johnalthousecohen said:

Yes, I can feel the Sebelius EXCITEMENT right now:

youtube.com/watch

Ooooh, exciting!!!

June 13, 2008 10:33 AM

thetraytiger said:

The argument for Webb really just boils down to what is now a congenital insecurity among liberals with respect to foreign policy. I

t doesn't take much to explain what is a rather simple infatuation... whatever Webb's *worldview*, as far as that can be ascertained, liberals have fallen for him because he's emerged as a credible and articulate spokesman for Democratic foreign policy. He comes off like the kind of Democrat who will kick ass, Chuck Norris style. After years of getting pushed around on foreign policy, liberals are desperate to hear their positions vocalized forcefully, even if it's by, yes, a scruffy Scots-Irish Son of the South.

While that line of argument is all well and good, I think a Webb nomination would signal an acknowledgment by Obama that F-P represents a weak spot for him. F*ck that. I like Obama's foreign policy just fine, thank you, and I sure as hell trust him more than John "Transcendent Challenge" McCain on that front.

Obama's VP needs to have a pair of safe hands, to be sure, and I don't think we should get too wild and crazy with the pick. I don't think Sebelius works politically (why not Hillary?, her supporters will say).   That said, governors have an advantage in an election dominated by the economy since they can say "I oversaw a XX% increase in my state's economy and a X% drop in unemployment" etc.

Is Mark Warner really still off the table? It's a lost Senate seat, I know... but STILL.

June 13, 2008 11:10 AM

liberal reformer said:

We have an inexperienced person at the top of the ticket so I think that a hugely experienced pol at the bottom makes great sense. One vote for Sam Nunn.

June 13, 2008 11:12 AM

dylanposer said:

I know this is a long shot, but is Florida officially out of the running?  I realize Bill Nelson made the Florida/Michigan issue a headache for Obama, but might it possibly be good to put Florida back in play, or will that just hamper the electoral potential of MI, OH, PA, VA?

June 13, 2008 12:07 PM

thetraytiger said:

dylan, Republicans dominate the legislature and the Governor's Mansion in Florida. Sen. Nelson doesn't have a political machine that could rival Gov. Crist's.

Florida could only go blue if A) McCain doesn't pick Crist (unlikely, anyway), and B) it's part of a larger realignment-inducing landslide.

Sen. Nelson as VP would be a wasted opportunity. We need 2 out of 3 of MI/OH/PA, no question.

June 13, 2008 12:24 PM

achester99 said:

Sebelius is a terrible idea.  First of all, you can't pick a woman and not make it Hillary.  It'll rile up the wrong feathers.  Second of all, her name is too difficult to say and doesn't look good on a bumper sticker.  Third of all it leaves a gaping foreign policy hole on the ticket.  Fourth of all, polls show she is no help whatsoever.  In fact, Obama with NO veep is about 10 points better than Obama with Sebelius as veep in her own state!

Anyway, most of these reasons shouldn't matter, and maybe they don't.  Frankly, the veepstakes don't matter (as a matter of politics) anyway.  And if it's a matter of policy, do we actually know anything about her policy?  The only argument in her favor is introducing a new rising party member to a national audience.  Which is the biggest argument against Nunn.  You want, ideally, to be introducing the president(s) for the next 12 years.  Even if Bush had been a great president, the fact that he had no veep to follow him would have made the election more difficult than it should have been for the GOP in 08.  Gore 2000 (won popular vote), Bush 88, LBJ 64, Nixon 60 (tie), Truman 48, etc.  A sitting VP always does well in presidential elections.  

Obama should shoot for the moon, and pick a VP who can help him with policy as well as lead the ticket in 2016.  Don't worry about the politics of the pick.  No one makes their voting decisions based on the bottom of the ticket anyway.

June 13, 2008 12:25 PM

blackton said:

I like Nunn, but it has been over 10 years since he has held office and at 70 he can't be viewed as a successor to Obama (which might mollify Hillary). But does he help at all in his own right? Can he energize anybody?

June 13, 2008 12:36 PM

tomeg said:

I'm with you, blackton. Even Sebelius herself (in the youtube vid) said it: "Nunn of the above."

June 13, 2008 12:56 PM

dylanposer said:

tray,

Florida's leadership has definately been wrested from Democrats in thr last 12 years--I was there for the Bush ascendency and then in Seminole County.  It's only wishful thinking on my part that its veins still run blue, but you are probably correct on this matter: Nelson won't help.  

But, if Michigan is posing a problem, does a MI figure help?  (think about it...)  Obama/Levin, the ultimate in fiscal and foreign achievement!  Oh, what's that, a Black AND a Jew?!?  Well what about Obama/Granholm, because who else knows about the pangs and effects of recession?  Or  Obama/Stabenowe!  At least its phoenetically stimulating!  

Alright, I'm for Biden.  He'll chew to pieces any bullshit pearls of wisdom the GOP tries to proffer.

June 13, 2008 1:04 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Sure Blackton - Nunn will energize every LGBT person in America - and their famliy and supporters, me included - to fits of rage.  

Nunn is a dinosaur in many ways, but the really in-your-face homophobia is the deal killer.  There are other, much more well rounded and up to date Democrats with FP cred than him - Biden at the top, who brings along blue collar Catholic cred as well.

Change for a new generation with the Mummy II (hat tip Jaunty B) clunking along behind him wiping his hand when shaking with gay donors?

Not.

June 13, 2008 1:06 PM

stgla said:

achester99: Barry/Kathy '08 fits on a bumper sticker.

That having been said, Wes Clark would be a good choice. If Hillary gives her blessing to it, Clark would add a lot to the Obama ticket and would complement Obama well. Clark has campaigned for a lot of Democrats in '04 and '06 and has built up a nice network.  It would be a good way to bridge the Obama-Clinton divide.

June 13, 2008 1:08 PM

nikkiwhite said:

I don't have the answer--but I don't think Webb is the proper choice. His negatives among women will be high, and you're right to raise a red flag about his reliability as a Democrat.

I am one of those crazy modern thinkers who believes that married people are not a single unit. My husband and are are two separate people, and while I value his opinion, he does not make decisions for me nor do my job (nor I his). Would we be asking these questions if HRC were a man? Would we not assume that the nominee is an independent thinker who is perfectly competent human being, who can leave his/her spouse at home when he/she goes to the office, so to speak?

I don't see why everybodty cannot separate the Ms. from the Mr.

I think she would be a perfectly reasonable choice.

June 13, 2008 1:31 PM

nikkiwhite said:

p.s. The antecedent to all that would be Hillary Rodham Clinton, in case some did not figure it out from context...

June 13, 2008 1:34 PM

tomeg said:

Wandrey, I empathize with your negative reaction to Nunn. However, I recall that Nunn's stand against allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve (I don't think the policy was meant to exclude Bis and Transvs, though I could be wrong)  was mainly to support the generals - especially Colin Powell, who took the lead against Clinton's exec order. What other evidence was there to nail Nunn as strictly a homophobe?

I ask this not because I supported Nunn then (or now if he's still adamant) but because I think the real problem with Clinton's move was he had laid no groundwork for it, hadn't consulted the generals, hadn't really investigated the issue. I blamed Clinton as much or more than Powell et al. in that debacle. It paradoxically made matters worse for quite a while.

If Nunn is shown to be a closed-minded bigot today I would say he isn't fit to be Obama's running mate. But if he is biased as a matter of principle (for him), I could tolerate him if he could tolerate in turn Obama's taking up the issue of service again.

June 13, 2008 2:04 PM

tomeg said:

I'm really fed up with my/our LGBT "tribe" (as tep puts it) being treated like pampered pets by Democrats. We loyal queers deserve our fair share of acknowledgment and just compensation for the money and work we contribute as Democrats, but by now we've been catered to enough. If our support for the party hinges only on PC squeaky-cleanness and we say jump/you say 'how high' we're not taking full responsibility for ourselves and our participation.

June 13, 2008 2:15 PM

johnalthousecohen said:

<i>Would we be asking these questions if HRC were a man? Would we not assume that the nominee is an independent thinker who is perfectly competent human being...</i>

Who ever said Hillary isn't "competent"? It was the universally accepted conventional wisdom that she was competent, knowledgeable, etc.  There were other reasons people didn't like her.

Hillary herself wanted to assume credit for the Clinton administration, without being scrutinized for any of its errors, so she actually repudiated your own principle.

The questions raised about Hillary probably would have been raised about a man who had her same qualities, including being married to a former president. A separate question is whether she would have been the runner-up for the nomination if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton. If you don't think the parade of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton we've seen over the last couple decades is based on dynasty rather than pure merit, then you have a lot of explaining to do.

June 13, 2008 2:49 PM

johnalthousecohen said:

Woops, I forgot that TNR's retro-'90s website doesn't allow HTML.

June 13, 2008 3:12 PM

johnalthousecohen said:

Also, referring to Hillary as "the nominee" is a little weird. There's only one nominee, and it's not her.

June 13, 2008 3:16 PM

thetraytiger said:

stgla, Wes Clark sucks. No way. The guy's a doofus, and he's been cashing in on his OMG-Former-General-who's-a-Democrat identity for far too long. There's a reason he was left off the First Read insider VP speculation list.

And as for the Nunn talk... No old people for VP! We have our own doddering old fart to flog, no need to turn these attacks against us. (Plus, he *probably/might possibly* hate gay people).

It's fine for Obama to pick someone to shore up a weakness here and there, but it can't be a single-issue pick which looks like a glaring acknowledgment of a shortcoming. For all his faults, Webb isn't all that bad because he gets you Rust belt cred, military cred and outsider cred.  Biden helps you out with F-P expertise, blue collar Catholics, and general awesomeness (God, I love that guy).  

That said, they'll both be over 70 in 8 years, leaving Obama without an heir, and we'll be stuck with this maddening wide-open nomination process again. Obama needs a 50-ish governor whose state performed well economically under his/her tenure. Could someone please armtwist Mark Warner into (obliquely) expressing interest in the VP slot?? Senate seat be damned!

I'm more than confident that Obama will be able to outperform McCain foreign policy wise, and anyway, this election's going to be about our economy and the future, not a 5-year old war that no one cares about anymore.

dylan,

Yes, it's sad about FL. I grew up in Tampa Bay. Florida Dems RIP.

June 13, 2008 3:17 PM

cspencef said:

Don't take Sebelius.  I'm enjoying having a Democratic governor for the first time in a decade, and not ready to give it up.

Granholm wouldn't be eligible, would she?  Main thing a VP has to do is be ready/eligible to become President if need be, and isn't Granholm Canadian-born?

God help me, please, not Nelson.  Please, no.  He won't help enough in Florida, and he's just...ugh, my skin is crawling.

June 13, 2008 3:19 PM

tarfon said:

Sebelius -- Did any of you see (or hear) her State-of-the-Union response?  She sounded like Dianne Feinstein, or, worse, Susan Collins -- like your 2d grade teacher.  No way.

Webb -- As has been repeatedly pointed out (but apparently as must continue to be pointed out repeatedly), he's mercurial and volcanic.  This is not the temperament you want as a VP, let alone a POTUS.  And perhaps it would be even worse in a candidate.

June 13, 2008 4:49 PM

teplukhin2you said:

I'm more partial to Grieg or Dvorak than Sibelius.

June 13, 2008 11:31 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Biden. And be done with it. No time to get fancy. One pathbreaker's enough.

June 13, 2008 11:32 PM

jadamsf said:

There have NOT been 56 Vice Presidents. There have been exactly 45. Why isn't anyone else noticing this?

June 14, 2008 12:54 AM

Jonathan Cohn said:

jadamsf - Oops. Just double-checked -- it's actually forty-six. I think I must have counted it, then mentally changed to fifty-six. Anyhow, thanks for pointing out the error.

June 14, 2008 11:24 AM

cspencef said:

Come now, tep, Dvorak is highly overrated, and Grieg never proved himself in the symphony the way Sibelius did...

June 18, 2008 1:03 AM