So, as anyone who is remotely aware of the news knows, Obama and McCain are currently in the midst of the VP vetting and choosing process. There is no shortage of speculation about various potential choices, rumors, and so forth. There are of course numerous points I could make about various particular candidates, but there is one common line of thinking that I just really disagree with. The standard version says something to the effect of, “Obama needs to pick someone with lots of foreign policy credentials, to make up for his lack of experience.” There are also versions about McCain needing to pick someone who’s strong on the economy because he is weak there. I think choices like this won’t help.
The vice president just doesn’t have that much power. Cheney obviously did, but more because of influence than actual direct authority, and that I think was largely the result of a president who didn’t have the experience, intellectual ability, or confidence to really have strong independent opinions. I think the trend towards more powerful VPs is real and will continue, but I think it will look more like the Clinton-Gore relationship (where Gore had much more of a role than had been true through most of history) than the Bush-Cheney situation. More importantly, the public votes for a president. That’s who they see as running the country. It’s good if they have good people working for them, but it’s the president that the public has to have confidence in.
I don’t think anyone is going to say “I know Obama isn’t really qualified to handle national security, but he has Sam Nunn as VP, so it’ll be fine.” Anyone who agrees with the first half of that sentence won’t be voting for Obama. Now, you could argue that having Nunn or Biden or whoever as VP shows that people who really know what they’re doing trust Obama, but I don’t think any single person has that kind of sway over the public in general. Maybe it would work in elite foreign policy circles who really know these people, but not with the general public. All it would do is generate headlines like “Obama compensates for national security weakness” and reinforce that perception in the public’s mind. It also has the potential to make the ticket look bottom-heavy.
The long primary has probably done a bit to prevent that last danger from happening. Obama might be new on the scene, but he’s been in the news a lot, defeated Clinton, raised so much money, become so respected as a speaker, etc. The public sees him as one of the big, powerful figures in Washington now. I also think that it makes the people he beat in the primary safe in this way. No one’s going to feel like Bill Richardson should be at the top, because when they were up against each other it wasn’t even close. People were very sure Obama would be better. (Plus, with Richardson, it’s not clear what the narrative in the media is — going for New Mexico? Hispanics? National security credentials? Executive experience? Probably the conflicting narratives will prevent one from dominating.)
This goes just as much for McCain as for Obama. Despite claims to the contrary, no one is going to say “Oh, he has Romney as VP, so the economy will be fine.” They’re going to say “He’s trying to address his weakness on the economy.” The religious right isn’t going to like him all of a sudden because he picks Jindal. Jindal won’t add youth and eloquence in any way that matters. All Jindal would do is remind the religious right that McCain is trying to compensate for thinking they’re all hateful nuts, and remind the rest of the country that McCain is old and managed to get through decades in public life without ever learning how to give a decent speech.
I think both candidates would do themselves a favor by picking people who reinforce their image. What McCain needs is a another somewhat old (though not as old as him) true maverick with tons of foreign policy experience. That way it reinforces his image and allows him to criticize Obama as unqualified without people saying “But what about your VP?” (That’s a tough order. I’d say Chuck Hagel, except you also need someone where the maverick-ness has been kept strictly separate from the foreign policy…) Obama needs to stick with the idea that you don’t need 30 years of experience in national security — you just need good judgment. No one votes for the VP. People vote for the president, and it’s how the VP choice makes the person at the top look that matters.
Tags: barack obama, john mccain, politics, vice president