Bill Kristol announced on Fox News that Bush first-term Secretary of State and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, a Republican, will endorse Obama and might be a featured speaker at the upcoming Democratic Convention. Powell quickly denied the convention rumor and evaded the endorsement question. In fact, I had earlier speculated whether McCain might choose Colin Powell if the Democrats had chosen their "dream" ticket with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but I had decided that both Colin Powell and Condi Rice were too linked with the highly unpopular incumbent President, and Obama has been trying to link McCain to the Bush Administration for months. In addition, I thought that given McCain's own strong foreign policy and military credentials, he would be better served by picking someone to complement himself. Since McCain has been in Washington for over 26 years, I thought maybe a governor or a business executive, perhaps even someone from the Democratic Party. Obviously McCain would like their endorsements, and losing them would be a strong rebuke to McCain, whom they know from working with him in both Bush administrations. I think both Powell and Rice are justifiably proud that a black person has won a major party Presidential nomination, but I suspect given their strong, hard-earned credentials, they don't want to validate the questionable credentials of someone they don't know that well. In addition, I think there would be strong resistance by the highly motivated anti-war leftists whom have alleged that Bush "lied" about Iraq and see Colin Powell as the mouthpiece at the UN promoting misleading evidence in favor of sanctions. Why would Barack Obama, who has made a signature claim about his judgment and "political courage" in opposing the Iraq war seek the endorsement of General Powell?
The buzz for Obama's Veep choices tends to focus on two names: Senators Bayh (Indiana) and Biden (Delaware). In an earlier post, I have argued that Richardson, the current New Mexico governor with past Congressional, foreign policy and administrative experience, would nicely complement Obama's limited experience, not to mention help carry a swing state and allow Obama to have an ethnic dream ticket with the first Hispanic on a national ticket (Obama loves symbolism!) What about Joe Biden? I don't think so; first of all, I think Obama thinks he knows or can handle foreign policy on his own. Biden doesn't help him much in terms of other aspects, such as administrative experience or the economy. Senator Bayh, as I have also noted previously, is a popular former governor of a Red State and the most likely choice, although he doesn't provide the geographical balance.
Could he go decide to bite the bullet and put Hillary Clinton on the ticket, whom broadly implied at the time of her nomination concession speech she was willing to do? I didn't address this point in the earlier post; it certainly would shore up her supporters' lukewarm embrace of Obama. I don't think so for a number of reasons, the principal ones being her own resume itself is very thin, her presence on the ticket would highly motivate anti-Clinton conservatives and contradict his principal theme of "turning the page" on the Bush-Clinton oligarchy over the past 20 years. I feel that if Barack Obama is going to going to pick a female candidate, California US Senator Dianne Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, has more bipartisan appeal and broader experience
Obama may swerve the conventional wisdom altogether and choose newly independent NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg with administrative and substantial business experience. Or alternatively, he could choose Governor Jon Corzine, a former New Jersey US Senator and before that, Goldman Sachs.
As for McCain, the conventional wisdom and the pick I noted in an earlier post is Mitt Romney: his popularity with media conservatives, his experience as a Blue State Republican governor (plus his popularity in his former governor dad's state of Michigan), his exposure to the health care issue (highly salient in the campaign), and his management success in the private economy. My sense, though, is that Mitt's status is fading. Romney's politically expedient position changes (e.g., on abortion and immigration), negative primary campaigns, and (perhaps unfairly) his Mormonism are viewed cynically by evangelicals/social conservatives and/or independents.
Dick Morris suggests that McCain needs to pull a "wow" factor--and thus suggests, for instance, Joe Lieberman, whom caucuses with the Democrats despite being deprived of his party's Senate nomination in 2006 and whom, as a testament to John McCain's bipartisanship, has crossed the party line to have endorsed him. I don't think this will happen, primarily because Lieberman's most notorious connection with McCain is on their stand on Iraq (they have also worked together on climate "cap-and-trade" issues); we really don't want the 2008 election to be a referendum on Iraq, which is still unpopular and singularly identified with Bush. Furthermore, on most domestic issues, Lieberman is a traditional liberal Democrat, which would make him anathema to the conservative base.
There is, in the year of the first serious female Presidential contender (Hillary Clinton), a way John McCain could play a "wow" factor--the choice of a female business executive. He has two prominent women whom have headed major corporations and are thought to have political ambitions--former HP head Carly Fiona and recently retired eBay CEO Meg Whitman. I think that the controversial circumstances under which Ms. Fiona left HP would be a distraction that John McCain wouldn't want to deal with going down the home stretch. However, the selection of Meg Whitman might be a stroke of genius. Her bona fides as a job creator, not only for eBay itself, as a key partner for many new home businesses, dovetails nicely with John McCain's message in a challenging economy. It might be even an inspiring, transformative pick with wide appeal to discontented Democrats and independents; Meg Whitman would not be a token female politician brandishing a thin resume, but an accomplished businesswoman. Some conservatives would fret about her political stands on social issues, her lack of political experience, and her readiness to succeed McCain as a Commander in Chief, but we know she had previously supported Mitt Romney. What makes this "dark horse" candidate even more intriguing is the fact that John McCain explicitly listed her as one of the top 3 leaders he would listen to during tonight's Saddleback Presidential candidate forum hosted by Rev. Rick Warren.
But if you ask me who's looking strong coming down the home stretch, we might look no further than the Minnesota governor hosting the GOP convention: Tim Pawlenty. Tim Pawlenty is as close as you can come, short of military service, to the McCain-style next generation of optimistic populist Republicanism. He's tackled budget deficits without tax increases (with the exception of cigarettes, a distinction John himself talked about in terms of Big Tobacco), waiting period for abortions, and gun rights. His maverick streak shows in taking on Big Pharma over prescription drug importation from Canadian sources and has supported wind power and alternative fuels. He's personable and, like John McCain, has a proven record in reaching across the aisle. He has infamously championed a "Sam's Club" (vs. country club) Republicanism. In a change election, a McCain-Pawlenty ticket would have a strong appeal to independents and Blue Dog Democrats, one where the conventional boilerplate class-warfare, anti-Big Business Democratic campaign would be utterly impotent, and I think Pawlenty would help McCain in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.
