It's Biden

I think it's a great pick. Biden is the Cheney pick of 2000. It reassures people that Obama's not a gimmick. If Obama had picked anybody else, except the unexciting Chris Dodd, it would have been spun mainly as a gimmick (i.e., Obama wants to win Virginia with Kaine, wants unity with Hillary, wants Hispanics with Richardson, wants Ohio with Strickland). But with Biden there's no gimmick. The main thing against Biden is that he's too good to be president; he's too outspoken, and needs to be more of a careful politician (like Obama, the epitome of cautiousness married to ambition) to get elected. The running-mate slot is perfect for him. He can train his tongue on the Republicans, and when they attack him it will only contrast with Obama.

Republicans are attacking already with this YouTube ad. It's very good, because it ties Biden back to who Obama is. And having it up and running for today!

But Biden will bring both security (his experience) and funness to the ticket. Obama lacks funness. He's a movement, an event, an epoch, a messiah. But messiahs aren't fun. Biden is. So I think the Republican attacks, using Biden's statements against him, can only go so far.

Biden will campaign in Appalachia, and I think he will be able to connect with people here, even more than Hillary would. Hillary as the candidate of Reagan democrats was surprising to begin with, and mainly had to do with Obama's lack of connection than anything about Hillary.

Hillary would be too much change. A younger veep than Biden would too. Obama is balancing the change message, which is just what he needs to do. With all of Biden's experience running for president, and experience in foreign policy, this is a better pick even than Jim Webb.

Here's the email Obama sent out last night. (I got it at 4:53am.):

I have some important news that I want to make official.

I've chosen Joe Biden to be my running mate.

Joe and I will appear for the first time as running mates this afternoon in Springfield, Illinois -- the same place this campaign began more than 19 months ago.

I'm excited about hitting the campaign trail with Joe, but the two of us can't do this alone. We need your help to keep building this movement for change.

Please let Joe know that you're glad he's part of our team. Share your personal welcome note and we'll make sure he gets it:

http://my.barackobama.com/welcomejoe

Thanks for your support,

Barack


P.S. -- Make sure to turn on your TV at 2:00 p.m. Central Time to join us or watch online at http://www.BarackObama.com.

Obama's Veep Pick

In a WSJ article a few days ago on Obama's running-mate choice, Jim Webb's name wasn't even mentioned. Chris Dodd was presumed to be the front-runner. The folks at the Journal made up for it, though, on one of their blogs today by commenting on an Atlantic blog praising Webb for being able to assemble a coalition in the Senate on a bill for Veterans' Educational Benefits:

[T]he Virginia Senator has successfully maneuvered the presumptive Republican nominee into the profoundly unpopular position of being against a measure designed to honor the service and the sacrifice of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Can Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius say the same thing? Or Ohio Governor Ted Strickland?

The benefits will make it harder for the military to retain soldiers, so McCain has to be against it. He lashed out against it today, Memorial Day. Wow--being against benefits for soldiers, that's pro-military? That's supporting the troops? What a coup by Webb. He should be Obama's pick, as I've said many times.

Hillary a strong general election candidate, Obama a realigning candidate

First of all, the stunning special election in Mississippi's 1st district. In the last two elections the Republican won with over 70% of the vote, and Bush won 59% in 2000 and 62% in 2004. But yesterday the Democrat won by 8 points. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said this: "For the first time in more than 30 years the Democratic Party has picked up three Republican seats in special elections in one cycle. The NRCC broke the bank and spent nearly 20 percent of their cash on hand on a ruby red district."

Now to the blowout in West Virginia. It's clear that Hillary is the strongest general election candidate. And here's why--she wins Appalachia. The second picture above show's Hillary's wins in dark blue (from Jay Cost who got it from Sean Oxendine). You can mentally fill in the white West Virginia cutout with a lot more dark blue.

The Democratic candidate needs to win these states. The swing states are pictured in the top map. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are in Appalachia. If Hillary wins these states and Arkansas, then all she has to win is New Hampshire or Wisconsin (both of which John Kerry won in 2004), to be elected president. The path to the presidency is pretty clear for Hillary if she wins Arkansas and Appalachia.

Without Appalachia it's difficult. Kerry came 19 electoral votes short. Adding to what he won without Appalachia (and Arkansas) would mean either winning Florida (Kerry lost by 5%) or a combination of Iowa (7 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 1%), Missouri (11 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 7%), Colorado (9 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 5%), Nevada (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 3%), or New Mexico (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost be 1%).

This means, hold all the states that Kerry won, and then go on and win the three states in which Kerry got close (Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada), or get the bigger but tougher states Missouri or Colorado. That's definitely more of an uphill battle if you are Obama. Hillary's path to the presidency is much, much easier.

Yet Obama's probably going to be the nominee. Which might not be such a bad thing for Democrats long-term. New voters coming into the fold is always a plus, and young people are identifying with Obama. He did the better with them than any other demographic group last night in WVA (save those with "some postgraduate study"). Obama's the candidate of the future, Clinton the candidate of the past. Obama's the candidate of inspiration, Clinton's the candidate of short-term political calculations. At least that's the image.

There's only one answer for Obama: add Jim Webb to the ticket.

A co-presidency?

Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama last night in PA by 8.6%. The way this was reported makes a big difference--it was reported as ten points last night and this morning. Psychologically that's a lot bigger than 8.6%. If it had been 7 points all night and then crept up to 8.6, it would be a different story. Eight points is in the gray range, vulnerable to calls to step down, while ten puts Hillary above her critics.

Hillary's victory speech was exhilarating. She is the comeback kid for a third time. She's a fighter, and had this amazing line about "The American people deserve a president who doesn't quit." It's hard not to sympathize. When Barack attacks Hillary, he runs into a double trap--Hillary can gain sympathy as a woman, plus it tarnishes Obama's golden-boy image. That image has lost some of its luster. He outspent her 3-1, at least according to Hillary last night, and started attacking her a little bit (about half of the polled voters said he attacked her unfairly, with two-thirds saying the same of Clinton).

At this point Hillary desperately needs cash. If she doesn't get the money, she has to close up shop. Candidates bow out when they run out of funds, as Brownback said bluntly to the first question at his news conference dropping out of the race. Hillary was on Good Morning America this morning begging for money, sounding really excited about all the donations "flowing in," and giving the web address, etc. etc. etc. It was almost verging on pathetic.

So it's entirely possible that Hillary will run out of dough and be forced out of the race. But at this point the candidates seem tied. And I have to mention an idea that's on my mind.

Why can't the two of them agree to be co-presidents? Hillary would be president (since Obama's young enough to have his own eight years in office after Hillary's two terms). Obama would be vice-president. But Hillary would handle domestic policy, and Obama would handle foreign policy.

The response that comes back is, "What experience does Obama have with foreign policy?" Well, that's true. A veep choice of Jim Webb would be better for either of these candidates, to shore them up on it. Yet no one is really prepared to be president when they get in, and Obama could "focus like a laser" on international issues, where he is seen abroad as being a big change in America's relation to the world.

The international situation is so important right now that a VP slot and a foreign policy portfolio would mean major power, and set him up for future presidential runs of course. Could the two of them work together? Perhaps things would get really strained, and Hillary as pres would always have the upper hand. Obama thinks he can win this thing outright, so he's unlikely to accept it.

I'm intrigued by the idea, and interested in what others think.

Obama's running mate choice

I don't think I've speculated on this before, because I never really thought of Obama as winning the nod for the Dems. I'd like to think I didn't fall into the Hillary's-inevitable media spin, and had my own reasons for thinking that Obama couldn't win (overcoming lack of experience, the Clinton war machine, voter demographics with lower turnout, and the name "Barack H. Obama" were tops on the list), but perhaps I was not being as independent in my thinking as I like to think. I still think a lot of the support for Obama has to do with Hillary being unlikable as it does him, but again I am probably underestimating the wide appeal he has.

O.K., Forbes writes this, with my commentary added in-between:

Among the defeated candidates, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut or Delaware Sen. Joe Biden offer that elder-statesman gravitas.

You're not really balancing the ticket with Dodd and Biden, since New England liberals will go ga-ga for O-ba-ma. Gravitas is certainly an issue, and in that sense would balance Obama. Senators have trouble getting elected president because of their long records, but people wouldn't care about a running-mate's record as much. Dodd maybe, but Biden has a tendency to shoot his mouth off. And his foreign policy knowledge might overshadow Obama. Dodd might not be such a bad choice. Richardson is a buffoon and would be a terrible choice.

And of course there's always former Sen. John Edwards, who's been 'round the block once before as John Kerry's partner in 2004, but has said in the past that he wouldn't want to be the bottom half of a ticket again.

It would be too weird for Edwards to be a running-mate again, though he would make a great choice. He southern, wouldn't overshadow Obama, could garner working-class support (which Obama needs) is young-looking, has a proven ability to garner votes, and would be a worthy heir to pass the mantle to in eight years perhaps (he'd be 63). I'm convincing myself here. Still, it would be weird...

But either Clinton or Obama could look to someone like Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia--one of the "Blue Dog" Democrats--a Vietnam veteran whose articulate position on the Iraq war could at least ameliorate some of McCain's appeal.

This is a no-brainer; Obama should go with Webb. He'd be an articulate expositor of the Iraq issue (Obama needs help here), and that'll be the crucial issue of the election. It could perhaps help Obama win VA (Kerry lost it by 260,000 votes). It would balance the ticket ideologically and geographically, and Webb hasn't been in the Senate long enough to have a long track-record.

Likewise, from a service perspective, General Wesley Clark is also a possibility as a Clinton running mate.

I don't think so. Clark is funny, engaging and articulate when talking about himself but not when talking about politics. He sure is good-lookin' though, but that's not enough.

Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio might also be a good call in appealing to crossover voters.

Interesting, with Ohio being crucial. He's already endorsed Clinton and is a Clinton superdelegate. This might be a point in his favor, as Mark Daniels notes, because it would be seen as a sign of party unity.

Two Midwesterners could also feature: Evan Bayh of Indiana is one of those names that seems to come up every four years, while Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin--and of course, the other half of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance-reform double-act--has impressive progressive credentials.

Evan Bayh is a real possibility. He's a centrist from the Midwest who would shore up national security. But the Democrats aren't going to win Indiana--Bush got 50% more votes than Kerry. And he's cushy with special interests, as this blogger notes. Feingold? No way.

Unlikely long shots could include Ambassador Joseph Wilson, General Colin Powell, or even former Vice President Al Gore.

Now you're being ridiculous.