The Veepstakes

With the primaries finally over and the general election battle between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama under way in earnest, the attention of the campaigns, the media and political junkies will now turn towards the “veepstakes” and who each candidate will pick as his running mate.

There are many factors that go into the selection of the vice presidential candidate. Some would argue that Electoral College strength is paramount. In other words, can the running mate deliver or help deliver his or her home state and its electoral votes? (Example: Michael Dukakis’ 1988 selection of Texan Lloyd Bentsen). Others would argue that experience is most important. How can the running mate help to shore up weaknesses or fill in gaps of the nominee’s résumé? (Example: George W. Bush’s 2000 selection of Dick Cheney). Another argument is that identity or ideological politics play a crucial role. Could a female running mate help attract female voters or would an African-American candidate attract African-American voters? Could a running mate with a different stance than the nominee on issues important to the party help attract the key “swing voters”? (Example: Al Gore’s 2000 selection of Joe Lieberman, who was Jewish, and who also had prominently criticized the behavior of President Clinton, from whom Gore sought distance). And still a fourth theory holds that the nominee should select one of his primary competitors. Doing so, proponents might argue, helps to appease the defeated candidate’s supporters and unite the party behind two of its most popular candidates. (Example: John Kerry’s 2004 selection of John Edwards). The reality is that for McCain and Obama, all, some or none of these considerations could factor in to their ultimate choice, and at the end of the day, they will probably end up going with the person with whom they are most comfortable, like best and trust most.

John McCain’s choice of a running mate is probably more important than the average presidential nominee for several reasons, his age and his history of melanoma foremost among them. If elected, McCain would be 72 years old on Inauguration Day, the oldest president ever sworn into office. The most important role a vice president can ever play, of course, is to assume the presidency in the event of the president’s death, and morbidity aside, this is something that must be considered by McCain and those who choose to vote for him. Choosing a vice presidential candidate who is younger and more vigorous could reassure voters who may worry about McCain’s longevity. The second factor making McCain’s choice crucial is the fragile nature of his relationship with the conservative wing of the Republican Party, also known as “the base”. Many of them are very suspicious of McCain and of the authenticity of his conservative positions. By choosing a running mate viewed more positively by the base, McCain could go a long way toward assuaging their concerns and, more importantly, receiving their votes.

Barack Obama’s selection is also very important, but for different and more complicated reasons than McCain’s. Obama is only in the fourth year of his first Senate term, two years of which he has largely spent running for president. Prior to that, he was a member of the Illinois State Legislature, and that is the extent of his political experience. At age 46, questions about whether he has the experience needed to be president may dog him all summer and fall. Were he to choose someone viewed as “older and wiser” or someone with a great deal of experience, many voters concerned about the question of experience might be comforted. The other (and more complicated) issue for Obama is whether or not to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. She quite plainly wants the spot and has explicitly made that known. Many of her supporters are reportedly still very upset that she did not win the nomination, and many claim they will withhold their support (financial and otherwise), and perhaps even their votes, unless Hillary is chosen as Obama’s #2. These are likely not idle threats, nor are they insignificant threats, and so Obama may be forced to give serious consideration to choosing his erstwhile opponent despite his otherwise likely disinclination to do so.

John McCain’s best choice is Piyush Subhaschandra Amrit Jindal, known to most as “Bobby”. Bobby Jindal is the current Governor of Louisiana, and at age 37, he is a rising star in the Republican Party. Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but his parents were Punjabi Indian immigrants who had moved to the United States while his mother was pregnant with him. Raised as a Hindu, Jindal converted to Catholicism while in high school, from which he graduated at age 16. After attending Brown for his undergraduate studies, he went on to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. In 1996 at the age of 26, Jindal was appointed as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, turning a bankrupt department with a $400 million deficit into a department with three years of surpluses. Two years later, he became Executive Director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, a panel created to help reform the Medicare system. In 1999, then only 28 years old, Jindal was appointed president of the University of Louisiana System, an enormous job – particularly for someone his age. In 2001 he was unanimously confirmed by Senate Republicans and Democrats to serve as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services in Washington. In 2004, he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served on the Homeland Security Committee, as well as the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He won reelection to a second term in 2006 – not a good year for GOP congressional candidates – with an astounding 88% of the vote. After two terms in Congress, he returned to Louisiana where he was elected governor in 2008, the youngest in the nation. With a 98% American Conservative Union rating for his two terms in Congress, his conservative bona fides are unassailable. Equally unassailable his Jindal’s obvious intelligence – brilliance, really – and he displays an ease and likeability on camera that would serve him well in a national, television-driven campaign.

As McCain’s running mate, Jindal’s assets are many. He brings obvious youth and energy to the campaign, and as a first generation American, he also adds ethnic diversity to the ticket – and to the party often criticized for being dominated by “white guys” – a particularly important point in a year in which the Democratic Nominee is an African-American. As a staunch conservative, he pacifies the GOP base, and their unofficial leader, Rush Limbaugh, who has called Jindal “the next Ronald Reagan – winning with 100% pure conservatism”, an effusive endorsement from an individual who has the ability to change minds and generate votes. He helps McCain shore up the South – a usually reliably Republican region but one that is suspicious and wary of McCain. While he is young, a Vice President Jindal is almost inarguably more qualified to be president than Barack Obama given the diversity, the depth and the executive nature of his experience. As the son of immigrants, he can potentially attract the votes of Hispanics and other important ethnic voting blocs who can identify with his first-generation American status. Jindal would be a bold and inspired choice that would excite the Republican Party, confound the Democratic Party, and intrigue the media. While there are surely other strong possibilities for McCain to consider, Jindal is far and away the strongest.

Barack Obama should look to the Peach State for his running mate and select former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. Now 69 years old, Nunn’s political career began in 1968 when he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives. In 1972, he was elected to the Senate, and for 24 years he served Georgia in the Senate before retiring in 1997, indicating that he was lacking a “zest and enthusiasm” for politics. Nunn’s career in the Senate was distinguished by his interest in and advocacy for a strong defense policy. He has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate in several of the last elections, as well as a possible Secretary of Defense in several administrations. While a loyal Democrat, Nunn would certainly be considered moderate to conservative, epitomized by his opposition to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy proposed by President Clinton, but also by his occasional opposition to tax hikes and his support for the death penalty. On some of the most highly charged issues for Democrats, however – including abortion, environmental issues and gun control – Nunn toed the party line. Since his retirement, he has continued to pursue his passion of foreign affairs and defense policy, focusing in particular on preventing the spread of nuclear materials globally. He is currently the CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which, per its website, is “working to reduce the global threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons”. Nunn’s work on the reduction of weapons has resulted in three separate nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize, and certainly is a timely and relevant effort given the apparent interest of Al Qaeda and other terrorists in acquiring nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons capabilities. Nunn is well-known to Democrats and to Republicans, and to a large degree, is also respected by people in both parties for his statesmanlike qualities and generally moderate views and record.

Nunn is the obvious choice for Obama. He is, quite frankly, a “boring, white guy”, but that’s exactly what Obama – an exciting and charismatic African-American – needs. He brings decades of experience to the ticket, buttressing a nominee who lacks it. Nunn has a wealth of foreign policy and defense knowledge and expertise, again filling in what many may perceive as a gap in Obama’s qualifications. As a son of the South – and one who has the accent and demeanor to prove it – Nunn can only help Obama in a region of the country where racism undoubtedly persists and surely hurts Obama’s chances. To voters in the South and elsewhere who may be nervous about Obama, seeing Sam Nunn on the ticket – the ultimate endorsement – makes the idea of a President Obama a “safer” proposition. As a moderate Democrat, a Vice President Nunn tempers the senator who the non-partisan National Journal named “most liberal” in 2007, blunting one of the key GOP arguments against Obama. Sam Nunn exudes a quiet confidence that only years of service can provide, and he would supply a healthy grounding to an Obama Campaign that often seems almost too frenzied and too hyperactive. Yet at nearly 70 years old, Nunn obviously does not harbor presidential aspirations of his own, and so he would never seek to (nor be able to) upstage the “rock star” aspect of the nominee, a big part of his success. Nunn would play the role of the wise parent, keeping a watchful eye over his younger charge, simultaneously steering Obama clear of missteps and reassuring those who worry about the ramifications of any such missteps. Last, but certainly not least, he is not Hillary Clinton, and therefore brings none of the baggage, none of the agenda, none of the drama (and no Bill) that she would were Obama to select her. Selecting Sam Nunn as his running mate should be a no-brainer and a sure winner for Barack Obama.

So, readers...what do you think? If you're so inclined, please use the "comments" area below to post your own suggestions for McCain and Obama's best running mate choices.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Tim Russert: Rest In Peace

This afternoon the political and media worlds were shocked by the sudden death of Tim Russert, NBC News' Washington Bureau Chief and Moderator of Meet the Press. As a political junkie, I had a great deal of respect for his career, for his enthusiasm, and for his knowledge. His love of politics was evident, and watching the sparkle in his eyes when he excitedly discussed the latest developments in the political arena was both contagious and endearing. For my generation, he was iconic -- much like Walter Cronkite was to our parents' generation.

Several years ago he wrote a touching book in honor of his father (who was nicknamed "Big Russ"), entitled Big Russ and Me: Father and Son: Lessons of Life, and that was followed up two years later by Wisdom of Our Fathers: Lessons and Letters from Daughters and Sons. Given the obvious devotion he has for his father, and also the dedicated father Russert himself was, it seems somehow appropriate (yet also all the more tragic), that he would pass away on this Father's Day Weekend. By all accounts, he was a dedicated family man, a consummate professional, and just an all-around terrific guy. My thoughts go out to his family, friends, and colleagues. He will be missed, as will the thoughtful reporting he would have continued to contribute in this election year, and for years to come.

A Fly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign Wall

Earlier this week, I had a unique opportunity. A friend of mine was very involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign, and indeed, raised a significant amount of money on her behalf. So significant, in fact, that he still has a voicemail message saved from Hillary Clinton herself thanking him for everything he did. As a result of his esteemed status in "Hillaryland", my friend (as well as others who had raised extraordinary amounts of money for Hillary) were invited to participate in something of a post mortem conference call this week with some of the very top members of Clinton's campaign staff . Knowing that I'm a political junkie, he invited me to listen in on the call. I swore that I would keep my phone muted, and I did, even though I was tempted at several times to speak up! Here are a few of my observations and reactions from this conference call -- the closest I will ever come to being a fly on the Hillary Clinton Campaign wall...

1) Because of Hillary's perceived inevitability early on in the election, she and her campaign raised enormous amounts of money. So much so, in fact, that many contributors "maxed out" for the primary election period, giving their limit of $2300 per person. As a result, the Clinton Campaign began (quite presumptuously) accepting contributions for the General Election, a period in which another $2300 per person can be given, and ultimately she received a reported $24 million in contributions for the General Election. Since Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama, she obviously will not be participating in the General Election now, and so there is a significant amount of money in the Clinton Campaign coffers with no precise purpose or destination. Most campaigns would, I believe, return this money to the donor given that the reason for which it was initially contributed has been rendered moot. And though it shouldn't have surprised me, it still did when I heard what the Clinton Campaign would like to do with that money. Understanding that my friend and the others on the call who had raised this General Election money would likely be receiving calls from people who had contributed to Hillary at their urging, a top Clinton official explained that there were two options. The first would simply be a refund, and if that is what a contributor wanted, the campaign would be cutting checks within the next couple of months in order to refund that money. The second and clearly preferred option for Clinton and her campaign was for the donor to indicate his or her approval for their $2300 General Election contribution to be allocated to Hillary's Senate Reelection Campaign in 2012! 2012? Four years away? And from donors who -- in many cases -- are not even residents of New York, the state in which Hillary would be running for reelection? I thought this was a remarkably audacious suggestion -- even by Clinton standards -- particularly when I and everyone on that call know full well that the money will not be used for her reelection campaign in four years -- an eternity in politics. No, that money would, through some undoubtedly obscure campaign finance law loophole, be used to pay down the enormous amount of debt her campaign incurred -- allegedly over $20 million. If I were a Clinton contributor, I would not be too eager to have my $2300 go toward retiring the campaign's debt, particularly when much of the debt epitomizes the mistakes Hillary and her team made, the same mistakes that find her now watching from the political sidelines as Obama assumes leadership of the Democratic Party. The Clintons simply never cease to amaze me. (In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, an article by Christopher Cooper explains all of this extremely well. Take a look here).

2) The Clinton supporters on this call -- while obviously among the most devoted -- are likely representative of at least a portion of Clinton supporters across the nation. And they are really, really mad. They are mad at Obama, they are mad at the media, and they are just plain mad that Hillary lost. Big deal, right? Of course they're mad -- but they'll get over it, won't they? After hearing them on this phone call, I'm not so sure. They made it very clear to the Clinton Campaign bigwigs on the call that they had absolutely no intention of raising money for Obama, in any way helping Obama, or, most ominously, perhaps of even voting for Obama, UNLESS he picks Hillary to be his running mate. Now that is newsworthy, because guess what? Obama is not going to pick Hillary as his running mate. He'd be crazy to do so. They not only dislike each other, but she actively undermined and openly disrespected Obama and his candidacy -- particularly in the last couple of months. Not only that, does Obama really want to have to deal with Bill Clinton hanging around the White House? I think not. Bringing the Clintons back to the White House is not "change we can believe in". So that presents a potentially prickly issue, then. If the people on this call are sincere, (and presuming Obama does not, in fact, select Hillary as his vice president), Obama is going to go to battle against McCain without the support of some key fundraisers in the Democratic Party. Further, if one presumes that the people on this call are even partially representative of the "rank-and-file" Hillary supporters out there, Obama may have to face McCain without the support, help and, most importantly, the votes, of a significant number of people. The conference call participants genuinely believe that Hillary was wronged, that Obama mistreated her, that the media were conspiring against her, and that in general, she was the victim of sexism in falling short of winning the nomination. Setting aside for a moment the validity or accuracy of those beliefs, their anger was very apparent, it was intense, and it was real. Obama needs the people on this call as well as the many others like them to be behind him between now and November. He faces quite a challenge now, as the only way that he can seemingly appease these Clintonites is by adding Hillary to his ticket. If he does that though, he risks turning off an even larger number of voters in the process.

Like everything else in this absolutely extraordinary election year, this will be interesting to watch, and I'll do my best to help guide you through it all here at Bragging Writes!

A Snitch Is A Snitch

Last week, the mainstream media breathlessly reported that President Bush’s former Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, had “slammed”, “walloped”, “stunned” or “blindsided” – pick your cliché – the Bush Administration with the claims he makes in his forthcoming book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.

I have to hand it to him, for someone enjoying his “fifteen minutes of fame,” McClellan has made the most of them. I personally saw him on NBC’s “Today Show”, CNN’s “The Situation Room”, CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”, MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”, CBS’ “CBS Evening News”, ABC’s “World News” and NBC’s “Meet the Press”, and I’m sure there were other appearances I missed and perhaps more yet to come. In watching his various interviews, I came away decidedly unimpressed with him – though in the interest of full disclosure, I always felt he was a horrendous press secretary, so I don’t know why I thought my opinion would change now. I don’t think, though, that my distaste for him and for what he’s done in writing his book can entirely be chalked up to my support for his former boss. In fact, I don’t think McClellan is a particularly popular person anywhere right now – regardless of one’s view of President Bush or general political leanings.

For those few like me who support President Bush, McClellan is a disloyal loser clearly capitalizing (literally) on his powerful former position and on the media’s appetite for blood when it comes to criticism of Bush. McClellan’s no fool, and he knew very well the frenzy his “revelations” would ignite, and surely hoped it would translate into boffo book sales. Given my negative feelings about his work as press secretary, I was never a fan of his, particularly when his incompetence in pushing the White House “message” forward so often occurred during critical times and with regard to critical issues of the Bush Presidency. In today’s non-stop news cycle of the internet and 24 hour cable news networks, a failed messenger was a crippling weakness for the White House. More to the point, though, I have my doubts about the sincerity of his current claims, particularly when he admits that he never once voiced any concerns about what was going on around him to President Bush or anyone else in the White House while they were happening. Further, while he officially resigned, most of Washington and most of the political punditry felt that his resignation was hardly voluntary, particularly when his successor was the far more talented and far more respected Tony Snow. It’s hard to imagine, then, that he wasn’t at least a tad bitter and potentially vengeful too. In my view, his motives are beyond questionable.

On the opposite end are those who despise President Bush or who are vehemently opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq (or both). Here too lies one of the most ironic aspects of this whole episode, as it was the same liberal crowd now fighting to interview him who once mercilessly hounded him at the White House podium and very openly derided his lame attempts at “spin”. But things have changed, and McClellan has received an entirely different and more positive reaction – at least initially – from the same formerly tough crowd. I think his former boss and predecessor as White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, said it best last week:

“Poor Scott. Scott is about to borrow some friends for 24 hours on the political left, who will throw him out as soon as they are done with him, and he’s burnt an awful lot of bridges to people who really always thought fondly and highly of him.”

Fleischer was right on the money. The knee jerk reaction of this camp was to celebrate and praise this brave bastion of truth, epitomized by the hater of all Bush haters, Keith Olbermann, dedicating the entire hour of his show to an interview with McClellan. Already, though, the tone has begun to change, and some on the left have become critical of McClellan for not speaking out sooner – preferably at the very time he had his alleged misgivings and disillusionments. And, they ask, wasn’t he being dishonest himself in his daily promotions of the Bush Administration’s view and policies – view and policies about which we now learn he apparently had very serious concerns? Perhaps Bush could have been impeached, they no doubt imagine, if only he could have blown the whistle earlier. Those primarily focused on Iraq, meanwhile, have taken to wondering how many lives in Iraq could have been saved if McClellan had been able to find his voice sooner, potentially precipitating an end to the war. Regardless of how unlikely either happening as a result of an explosive McClellan resignation several years ago was, it’s obvious that his usefulness to them is already waning, and by the time he appeared on “Meet the Press” Sunday, the distinct feeling that this was old news was hard to deny.

Even though I do remain a Bush supporter, I certainly have my share of disappointments with him and others in his administration. By no means do I feel that the war has been handled as well as it could have or should have been, the Hurricane Katrina episode was deplorable, and the president’s ability to communicate with the American people is fatally flawed. I absolutely have my own questions about those and other decisions made over the last seven years, but I’m not going to write a book about them, and I particularly would not write a book about them if I had spent nearly 10 years working for Bush, first for his election, and then very prominently as a member of his senior staff – particularly not while he is still in office. Perhaps there is an unwritten rule of decorum violated here that upsets me most, even if I do sympathize to some extent with some of the issues that apparently troubled McClellan. Actually, it seems to me that most anyone witnessing this who is able to remove his or her political lens momentarily and observe it from a personal or human perspective can’t help but view McClellan as somewhat sleazy. Everything seems all too convenient, the issues on which he allegedly differed all too fashionable, and his interviews over the last week – much like his erstwhile White House press briefings – all too unconvincing and meek. No one likes a “snitch”, after all, and it’s hard to view McClellan’s book as much more than snitching on a grand scale – and a lucrative one at that. When Bob Dole of all people emerges from retirement to publicly label him a “miserable creature” and “a total ingrate”, I think it’s clear McClellan made an error in judgment, and one from which his reputation and future career prospects are unlikely to ever recover.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/)

Some Rare GOOD News from Iraq...But Will You See/Hear It Elsewhere ???

I came across this article today on Reuters indicating that American troop deaths in Iraq have reached a wartime low. I should note that Reuters is not a news organization that has ever been accused of a pro-American bias, particularly when it comes to the U.S. presence in Iraq. Here, for example, was the lead sentence of Reuters' take on the almost universally hailed capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003 by American soldiers:

TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops captured Saddam Hussein near his home town of Tikrit in a major coup for Washington's beleaguered occupation force in Iraq.

Given the source then, this news is perhaps even more notable. The bottom line, though, is that there were clearly some positive developments in Iraq during the month of May. Take a look at a few of the highlights from this article:

• "U.S. troop deaths in Iraq fell to their lowest level last month since the 2003 invasion and officials said on Sunday improved security also helped the country boost oil production in May to a post-war high."
  
• "Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani told Reuters in an interview that the improved security had helped Iraq, which has the world's third-largest oil reserves, raise oil production to a post-war high of 2.5 million barrels per day in May."
  
• "The military says violence in Iraq is now at a four-year low following crackdowns by U.S. and Iraqi forces on Shi'ite militias in southern Basra and Baghdad and on al Qaeda in the northern city of Mosul, its last major urban stronghold."
• "U.S. officials credit the turnaround in security to President George W. Bush's decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq, a rebellion by Sunni tribal leaders against al Qaeda, and a ceasefire by anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr."

All of this is good news. What will be interesting for me now is to see if any other "mainstream media" outlets highlight a rare piece of positive news from Iraq. After all, The New York Times, NBC News and other mainstream media stalwarts are always quick (if not eager) to report on the negative, so here's hoping they are nearly as quick and eager with the positive...