Obama Needs a Foreign-Policy Heavyweight
Conventional wisdom can be and often is wrong, especially when it comes to running-mate speculation.
Maybe you can remember back to 1992, when just about every wise man and woman opined on the supposed importance of Bill Clinton, then a 45-year-old Southern governor, balancing his ticket with a gray-haired Northerner. Clinton, of course, ignored them and picked an even more youthful Tennessean named Al Gore, forming a visually powerful partnership that netted 370 electoral votes and made an utter mockery of conventional wisdom.
But there are times when, just like the proverbial broken clock, conventional wisdom actually gets it right. Case in point: the widely repeated view that Barack Obama needs to compensate for his perceived national security and foreign policy inexperience by selecting a running mate with reassuringly impeccable credentials in those areas. There is more than a little something to this idea.
Seventy-two percent of voters in an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Tuesday said that John McCain would make a good commander in chief. Only 48 percent said the same thing about Obama.
It's certainly possible for Obama to chip away at it by building confidence with the public over the next four months. But it demonstrates a potentially devastating perception problem for him: Too many voters have trouble instinctively conceiving of him as the commander in chief. Many of these same voters undoubtedly have a favorable impression of Obama personally and are probably inclined to vote Democratic this fall, given the mass appetite for change that typically emerges when so many domestic and international problems amass on one party's watch. But Obama's youth and recent arrival on the national stage, especially when compared with McCain, gives them pause.
Clinton, at this juncture in '92, faced the same basic doubts. He was a young man with no meaningful foreign policy experience (or military service, for that matter) running against a 68-year-old World War II hero who had led the country to triumph in the first Gulf War; hence the conventional wisdom that Clinton needed a Wise Old Man running-mate.
But the situation in '92 was different in one critical way: foreign policy and national security had, with the end of the Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, vanished from voters' minds. To the public, the '92 campaign was exclusively about the (seemingly) stalled domestic economy. Clinton correctly calculated that he'd pay no price with the public if his ticket didn't measure up on foreign policy.
Obama doesn't have the same luxury. The economy may have usurped Iraq as the top issue in polls, but not far from the surface is a palpable apprehension about national security that was absent in '92. Wars still rage in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the prospect of a military confrontation with Iran now seems jarringly real. And even though it's been seven years since 9/11, vivid memories of that traumatic day endure; it is critical for any presidential candidate to convince the public at an emotional level that they will be safe under his leadership. This anxiety wasn't present in 1992.
Already, there are signs that this commander-in-chief gap is hindering Obama. In the post-World War II era, two terms is generally the limit to the public's patience with either party controlling the White House. That is truer this year than ever. The Republican label hasn't been this poisonous at least since Watergate and Democrats are on the verge of their second consecutive rout in Congressional elections. And in Obama, they are poised to nominate a standard-bearer whom - unlike many previous nominees - most voters actually like on a personal level, a seemingly trite but actually powerful factor in an election. And yet Obama leads McCain by just a few points in most polls.
Against this backdrop, it would be an irresponsible political risk for Obama to enter the general election with a running mate who didn't have a national security resume deeper than his. Specifically, this means he should steer clear of Tim Kaine and Kathleen Sebelius, two popular governors who reside at the top of many insidery lists of prospective V.P. choices.
Their attractions are considerable. Kaine could provide a critical boost in Virginia, where an Obama win would severely complicate any McCain victory strategy. And a partnership with Sebelius, a moderate and camera-friendly Kansan, would stir much interest for its sheer boldness. With no major developments on the international scene between now and the election, an Obama-Kaine or an Obama-Sebelius ticket could plausibly withstand McCain's concerted effort to exploit the commander-in-chief gap.
But it would be a risk. There are signs of stability in Iraq, but who knows for how long? And the situation in Afghanistan seems to be worsening by the day. Then there's Iran: how will Americans respond to a game of chicken between Iran and Israel in September or October? Any of those situations could bring Americans' latent national security insecurities right back to the surface. Then how would a Democratic ticket with no significant foreign policy experience look?
From an electoral standpoint, what Obama needs is his own Dick Cheney - a running-mate who will be celebrated by the press, as Cheney was when George W. Bush picked him in 2000, for his "gravitas" and who in the fall campaign will project a calm, mature, and commanding demeanor that will offer emotional reassurance to voters. Chuck Hagel would fill this role brilliantly. Sam Nunn could pull it off too, and probably Joe Biden as well.
It seems clear that more than 50 percent of voters want to vote for Obama this fall. They will feel much more comfortable about doing it if Obama teams up with a running-mate who looks, sounds and acts like a President. Thia time, the conventional wisdom is right.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.6
- 44.2
- Obama +2.4
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.8
- 35.8
- +20.0
- McCain
- 54.8
- 36.6
- +18.2
Foreign policy isn't Obama's only problem.Being pro-gay,pro-abortion,pro-tax,pro-big government,anti-enforcement on the border in other words an avowed leftist.There's just as many people in this country that are worried about the liberal culture as they are the economy and other issues.The mortgage meltdowns have more to dowith liberal board members paying themselves big salaries and bonuses than defaults on loans.McCain on the other hand can't put a message together to portray Obama who he really is. That's why he needs Romney as the VP who can boil Obama down to the socialist he is.
The self serving liberals are fixated on the Iraq War because they want the money to spend on liberal special interest groups. The big one is creating phony green jobs.Don't believe it,just look at what Australia is doing.You'll have an army of idiots keeping track of carbon credits and off sets and the cost will go to the consumers,a hidden back door tax. The liberals believe Robin Hood wrote the Constitution and Obama would use the faith based money to funnel millions to leftist liberal and black churches while excluding religious right entities.
This fool called obama needs more than a VP. He needs integrity and honesty, two things he sorely is missing. Just because this clown looks pretty and has a good command of the English language, which is remarkable for a black man,is no reason to vote for him for anything. He should be hustling bags at JFK.
WOW!!!!!another example of the fact that racism still exist in this country."good command of the English language, which is remarkable for a black man" at least ur honest with yours but get this straight black people are alot smarter than racist, ignorant , bigots like you who are jelous of the accomplishments of black people in this country. Obama has more integerity and honesty in his pinky finger than you,or Mcsame put together. Don't hate cause Obama is your next POTUS!!!hahaha
ROTFLMAO
This comment is racist and unfit for publication on the internet or anywhere else.
When did Columbia/Havard law graduate hustle bags at JFK, after you elected your C student Texans named Bush, you want to elect a down to five before last McCain for president. Who still think Checkoslovakia is in existence, and Iran is training Al Quaida. Anyway, this is USA. For the first time in your life you have the chance to recognize someone for who he is, not the skin of his color. If you can't you will have to live with it for eight years.
Lord help us if we elect a man who needs a "foreign policy heavyweight" as his running mate because he completely lacks experience and judgment in this most important qualification for President. What is shocking is the press' willingness to ignore the fact that this man has virtually no qualifications to be President. If he is elected, he will have the thinnest reume of any President in the last 100 years whether militarily, economically, legislative or otherwise. Mr.Obama is intelligent, but his intelligence is shallow in nature. Although he gives a wonderful speech, if asked to discuss an issue extemporaneously or in depth it becomes clear he really doesn't know what he is talking about. He fumbles, becomes less articulate and much less impressive. I'm no Hillary fan, but she routinely cleaned his clock in the debates on substance. Nor am I a John McCain fan. He has many deficiencies as well. However, one thing is certain with McCain, we won't be getting a beginner in the office of the Presidency. We can't afford it during these dangerous times.
JOEL GOODMAN must be a old white dude...you know your kind is playing out in this country as well as the global community...you need to REALLY wake up and smell the proverbial coffee.
Biden bring gravitas? Biden play Cheney? Yow, the Democrats are in trouble.
The premise seems pretty obvious, and the answer is even more so: Hillary Clinton. She has the experience, the toughness, and the credibility to work with Obama, the way Cheney has with Bush, only she brings real competence, and no oil agenda, to the table, and she would be working with a President who is smart and credible, but only a little inexperienced. As a team, they could be excellent. It would require Obama to show real leadership, and of course something not always apparent, a little humility - he would need to actually work with Hillary, and make use of her knowledge, and not be afraid of her outshining him, and it would also take a strength of character to show that he is not afraid of someone else having a good idea, and that he might learn something, from both Bill and Hillary. He would also have to have the strength of character and leadership ability to not be afraid of Bill outshinng him, which should not be so difficult. If he looks at the Clintons as a threat, and treats them as such, then it will not succeed. But if he sees that he is in the driver's seat, and shows no fear that they will outshine him, then they won't, and the country will greatly benefit from the team approach.
Anyone who voted for Bush, who was a spectacular failure through his life, who traded on his name and fortune to be elected Governor of Texas -- only the third most important office in that state-- and who now tells us that Obama lacks sufficient experience, should immediately have their heads explode from hypocrisy. Can anyone imagine Bush being named president of the Harvard Law Review? He couldn't even get admitted to the U. of Texas, in spite of family threats.
Sounds like panic is setting in.
I would also suggest that McCain's gaff-a-day campaign so far indicates that he is starting with the degree of brain atrophy that Reagan finished with, which had the benefit then of helping St. Ronnie avoid removal from office for impeachable offenses. Unfortunately for McCain, senility doesn't appear to be of any great aid to a candidate who hasn't yet taken office. Perhaps a direct appeal to the senile voting block?
Spidey
The problem with Romney is that the McCain team is trying to portray Obama as a flip-flopper on issues, but Romney brings that idea to an art form. The VP is traditionally an attack dog on the campaign trail, but how can he attack Obama for flips when he has done more then an Olympic gymnast. All that Romney brings to the table is money for the campaign. I think McCain loses some of his maverick label if he picks Mitt. It wouldn't shock me if McCain picks Hutchinson from TX as a grab for women. Portman is a solid choice, but he worked on the Bush economic team and that is something that needs to be avoided right now. Sanford just shot himself in the foot by not answering Blitzer's question on differences in the Bush economic plan to McCain's.
I think the best pick for Obama is someone like Cheney, instant credibility in Washington and someone the base loves...Al Gore. Gore will tick off the GOP base, but those people will never vote for Obama anyway so why worry about them and if they do get fired up and start spewing invectives, that plays into Obama's hand for the independents. Gore is very popular with the base and with independents and he knows Washington and foreign leaders. Can't say I like Gore, but he would be a solid choice for Team Obama.
As a State Senator the man gave an anti-war speech one time. We will never know how he would have voted if he had been in Washington.
He said he will get rid of all nukes. If you believe he will eliminate nuclear weapons during his term as President you are probably too blind to realize the man has no experience and is nothing more than "smoke and mirrors".
Obama supporters, remove yourself from the spell for 2 weeks and look objectively at the candidate. You may not like what you see.
While, I'm a DEM, and the writer is clearly not, I do agree with his basic point. Obama needs foreign policy heavyweight. That's why I don't get why Bill Richardson has seemingly fallen off the map. He is both a foreign policy heavyweight AND a HUUUGE help geographically. If he's the VP candidate, NM(which Obama has led for months) would probably be a lock, and Colorado/Nevada would swing heavily toward Obama. When you combine that with Iowa which is looking like an Obama lock, all Obama needs is to hold Michiga & Penn, and he wins even without Ohio OR Florida. PLUS, he has the foreign policy & ENERGY CRED. Plus, he will lock up the Latino vote.
All around he's a HOME RUN PICK.
Bill Richardson would be the best choice of all.
That's right, when are we going to wake up to the fact liberal;s are stupid and everything is thier fault. Osama Obama is a terrorist cell, and his wife hates white people. Liberals are going to ruin this country. We need to change the constitution, and keep W in office, or draft Cheney at the convention.
Why is it that the people who are "worried about the liberal culture", as Spidey says above, always end up being the same guys who turn up having sex with men in airport bathrooms or soliciting sex via email with somebody's young son? They hate gays on the outside but ARE gay on the inside, and child molesters to boot. At least liberals are not compulsive liars and pedophiles. This appears to be the domain of the religious right.
Please all constructive criticism and advice is welcome, but you go to far sir to suggest that this country, the Dems, or Senator Obama need another Dick Cheney.
1) The country is steering liberal.
2) The mortgage meltdowns are a direct result of a lack of regulation, and the board members you're talking about are conservatives (see: all the board members you're talking about).
3) Romney is a mormon. People don't want to talk about it in the media but the best way to piss off the religious right (in most of the country) is to elect a mormon.
Good job on the fail.
The Gore comparison doesn't hold. People forget that Al Gore (when he ran for President in 1988) was primarily known for being the lone Democrat foreign policy hawk. To say, "Clinton picked him despite his lack of foreign policy bonafides" is more a statement about how we think of Gore today.
I don't think Gore buys anything for Obama.
His best bet is Bill Richardson although it will be a cold day in hell when I vote for Obama. His lack of experience in anything other than public speaking is wrong for the US. Why do the Dems continue to pick lousy candidates? If McCain picks Romney you will see an energized GOP with the exception of the evangelicals. Many right leaning Dems and Independents will vote for him as well
McCain/Romney '08
Colin Powell would be a perfect selection.
Why are Republicans so closet gay? It's quite ammusing. Live life. Enjoy! It's not all about war and fear and worrying about THEIR TAKEN MY GUNS! LOL More than 50% of this country LAUGH at you.
Experience. Bush, Cheney, and the law-breaking house and Senate they enjoyed for 6 years had a whole load of "Experience." Can someone explain to me the mess we are in economically, through out the world, in a failed war, wth a broken military? Anyone? Experience remember?
The political commentators and pollsters just don't get it.
The reason Obama's poll numbers are not high right now is because his own Democratic Party is divided. Although I will probably vote for Obama in November, if a pollster asked me today if I was going to vote for Obama I would say, "I don't know yet. I voted for Clinton in the primary and I'm still p/ssed at the way the leadership of the Democratic Party sat by silently or joined in personally day after day while she way being attacked and vilified. If Hillary is on the ticket as Veep, then yes, I will definitely vote for Obama. Right now, I just don't know."
Obama must first unite his party. That is not Clinton's responsibilty nor mine. It's a no-brainer. Put Clinton on the ticket, the party is united again, and it's a sure thing come November.
Why are 45% of Americans SO AFRAID of electing someone who is thoughtful, intellectual, and clearly the better candidate. Words DO MATTER. Words spawn into action. McCain is a bumbling idiot. Ask the rest of the WORLD. Yes, the WORLD is behind Obama. There's a reason folks. I am embarassed that we re-elected Bush. Now 45% want him back for another 4? Enjoy your gas prices, your mortgage crash, the banks closing, and continued FAILED policy in Iraq. Our media is as retarded as the Republicans. This "SURGE." Sure violence is down, but my God, THEN WHAT? What is the GOAL of this war and now "Surge?" Surely only a Republican would be stupid enough to believe that occupying a middle eastern country would spread "Peace" through out the middle East and turn opinion about the US in that Region. Sure, I feel safer! My God.
AMEN from a proud, Christian Liberal. I'm sure JESUS WOULD BE A WAR MONGER YOU IDIOTS. Think about it. JESUS = PEACE Right?
How is McCain fit to be President? McCain graduated near the bottom of his class and crashed several planes, the man wasn't fit to be a good pilot let alone a good President. The man talks about his military experience yet he never commanded any sailors during an active war and the Navy didn't see fit to make him an Admiral. McCain readily admits that he doesn't understand the economy and his top economic advisor says that we are "whinners" and in a "mental recession".
Nonsense. Obama is a genius. He has all the answers to all of our problems. If we only have the wisdom to vote for him, he will reverse global warming, make peace with Muslims, capture bin Laden, provide us all with free, Johns Hopkins-quality health care, reduce the price of oil, eliminate the need for oil, crush our enemies, create racial harmony, eliminate war, give everyone a job and make all of us rich -- just like we all were before Bush took office.
He doesn't need anybody to bolster anything, except a vizier to shout his praises. Obama '08.
The best choice is HRC. The suggestioin of Colin Powell is crazy. This country is going to have a hard time voting for one black man for president. Put two on the ticket and watch white people go crazy. They would be afraid that blacks were taking over! Bill Richardson is out for the same reason. A black and a Latino on the same ticket is just too much of a stretch. Then people who are prejudiced against either group will vote republican. While Hillary is a woman and therefore might scare sexist voters, she can more than make up for it with her strong support from other women. Plus she brings the Latino communities strong loyalty to the Clintons to the table. She has a strong resume including her senate experience and her experience as the first lady. She has already traveled on behalf of our country to many countries and has the foreign policy knowledge to balance Obamas inexperience.