 |
| Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton |
However, the Democratic list was a joke. Three of the five candidates are absolutely, completely and totally never going to happen in 2016 if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, and let's face it-there is absolutely no reason to believe she won't be. Every movement in the Clinton camp these days seems to be headed toward a 2016 run-Bill out campaigning in states that will be pivotal to Hillary in either the primaries or the generals (you think he was out stumping in Kentucky, a state he won twice nationally and no Democrat has since, and a state Hillary crushed President Obama in in 2008, just because he likes the scenery?), Hillary's entire team moving into position so that she can go ahead the second the Midterms are done, and that book that's probably already a bestseller on Amazon? Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Brian Schweitzer, Kirsten Gillibrand-all of them have the possibility to be a presidential contender, but no one actually believe it at this point. And the Post should have played along because otherwise this is just a list of famous Democrats and not a list carefully crafted to fit likely Democratic contenders.
I mean, forget the fact that Elizabeth Warren is too progressive and too Massachusetts liberal (we know what happened the last two times we ran a liberal Democrat from the Bay State) to run-there is little to no chance that in a country where no all-female ticket has won a governor's race that the Democrats will take a shot at it for the White House. This gets even further from the truth when you have Gillibrand, who is constitutionally-barred from running with Clinton (you can't be from the same state, something Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are surely aware of in the Republican races), in the fourth slot. And finally there's the Castro brothers, both of whom are in too minor of offices (Paul Ryan got in because he is an extreme anomaly in the House-there is no Democrat comparable to him, and we're surely going with someone who has been called Senator or Governor or at least Secretary for the next Veep slot) and aren't even forty yet. Plus, Julian Castro beat Henry Cisneros, a former Clinton advisor, for his seat on the San Antonio city council, and the Clintons are famously close to their advisors.
So I decided to pull together a top ten of the actual candidates who would pair well with Hillary (and yes, for those of you who click on Mr. Sullivan's link, I do keep his two remaining contenders as I'm not a moron). Here's the list:
 |
| Gov. Mike Easley |
The biggest issue with pulling this together is that it seems unlikely that Hillary will pick a Democrat that didn't endorse her in 2008 (again, the Clintons are extremely loyal), but almost every major contender for the nomination in 2016 didn't endorse Hillary. I have looked through a list of the superdelegates, and found no one really obvious that could run with Hillary, but for a couple that supports loyalty more than almost all else, I find it doubtful that one 2008 Hillary endorser won't make the shortlist, even if they don't ultimately succeed. Amongst the more prominent names that could factor are former Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), former Gov. Mike Easley (NC), recently-elected Gov. Terry McAuliffe (VA) and former Gov. Ed Rendell (PA), all of which carry their own set of personal baggage but were Clinton loyalists, and that matters. Of the four, Easley has the least baggage and comes from a state that Clinton really wants in 2016 (she's going to be gunning to win at least one state President Obama didn't in 2012), so I'd probably put him in tenth.
 |
| Sen. Claire McCaskill |
I know I listed above that Hillary likely won't pick a woman, and I truly don't see it happening. However, if Hillary does pick a woman, it's going to be one who brings something else to the table, and I think McCaskill does that in a way that Warren and Gillibrand don't. McCaskill hails from a red state that used to be a swing state, and with her she brings both red state bona fides (Hillary needs to keep the map loose if she's going to take on a swing state favorite son like Jeb Bush or Scott Walker) as well as liberal credentials without entering Elizabeth Warren's level of "too liberal." McCaskill became a hero in Democratic circles when she took down Todd Akin in 2012, and is an outspoken advocate for women in particular on the campaign trail. Plus, she's a tough fighter and a superb advocate (she was a tireless stumper for Obama in 2008 and has already jumped onto the Hillary bandwagon), so I wouldn't count her out. If nothing else, she's likely going to be in a Clinton presidential cabinet (possibly the next Attorney General?).
 |
| Gov. Tim Kaine |
8. Sen. Tim Kaine (VA)
Kaine hails from a major swing state (Virginia), and has an extremely long list of accomplishments under his belt: Mayor of Richmond, Governor of Virginia, DNC Chair, and now junior senator from the Old Dominion. Kaine obviously brings credentials as both an advocate for candidates (you don't get to be chair of the DNC without cheerleading skills) and can carry a swing state. He also speaks fluent Spanish, which will be a plus as Democrats' reliance on Latino voters will surely grow in 2016. However, his progressive credentials are a bit suspect on the environment and capital punishment, and since it's two years out, it's hard to say what Hillary will need. If she is in a jam with progressives at the time, Kaine will surely be off the table; if, however, the party is united and she's trying to shore up a swing state or two, Kaine will be a part of the conversation.
 |
| Gov. Jay Nixon |
One of the quieter candidates on this list, Nixon shouldn't be totally discredited. One of the biggest problems facing the Democratic Party in 2016 may well be the historically low numbers of white men they are pulling. This is likely to be offset by women and minority voters, but if Hillary wants to hedge her bets in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, she may go with someone who will speak more to this demographic, and Nixon, a red-state governor, would be a strong asset. That being said, Nixon is the most conservative candidate on this list by a country mile, though he's making strides in that direction-he announced his support for gay marriage recently, for example. It's also worth noting that Nixon could well run for the Senate in 2016, and as he is the only candidate who could legitimately win that race, Hillary may defer to Harry Reid in the hopes that she has a friendly Congress to work with in her first term (see the Virginia 2008 Senate for an example).
 |
| Gov. Martin O'Malley |
If Hillary doesn't run, or even if she does, O'Malley's name will likely be in the White House mix. While I sort of doubt he runs if Hillary does (I suspect that list will be made up of people like Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, and Brian Schweitzer, and you can bet that anyone who runs against her in 2016 won't be her VP), he'll surely make a big show of endorsing her and be a hearty campaigner. O'Malley has a laundry list of accomplishments during his second term that will be adored by the base (something that Clinton, a more centrist candidate than the national Democratic profile probably demands today, may need come 2016 if she gets bruised by a progressive in the primaries): he's legalized gay marriage, repealed the death penalty, and taken progressive stances on immigration. He'd be an ideal candidate if he weren't a little bit bland and from a very safe blue state. Also, and this can't be underestimated after John Edwards, Sarah Palin, and Paul Ryan all made it to the national stage: he's very good-looking.
 |
| Sen. Michael Bennet |
Bennet, like Nixon, is not a name I'm seeing on a lot of shortlists, but his resume suggests he should be there. He's got great progressive credentials (particularly with health care, the environment, and immigration), is from a swing state, and will have a lot of connections coming out of his tenure as DSCC Chair. A lot will depend on how well he does as DSCC head-if he can somehow keep the Senate (a rough task, as we've outlined recently), that will give him a lot of experience waging campaigns in unfriendly territory, an appealing trait in a number two. However, one thing going against Bennet is that the Clintons backed his primary opponent in 2010 in a big way (and it was one of the few times that Bill stuck his neck out and looked the fool that year, since Bennet not only won the primary but the general as well and has started to become a mover on the Hill). Also, Bennet's Senate seat is up in 2016-anyone know if he'd have to give up the seat to run here, because the Clintons (who care about legacy) have seen what a divided Congress looks like and will want to have a Senate and House that they can work with to pass something.
 |
| Sen. Cory Booker |
Booker is one of two men that I'm holding over from the Post article, and for good reason-he's to 2016 what Barack Obama was in 2008. I don't mean he's the guy that can take out Hillary in the primary (he's not-I just don't think anyone can right now), but he's the Democrat with all of the buzz and the great connections with the youth of America. He's personable, great-on-the-stump, a strong progressive, and outstanding with connecting with younger voters through social media. Plus, he can work the mainstream media like a dream. If Hillary is having trouble connecting with younger voters and being seen as "the future" rather than a retread of past Democratic administrations (an argument that would hold some water, particularly if her opponents are someone new to the national conversation like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz), Booker negates that argument quite quickly. The problem with Booker, though, is that he can't really stick to a script, which is anathema to the Clintons, and that he has publicly embraced Republicans like Chris Christie before.
 |
| Sen. Mark Warner |
On paper, Warner probably makes the most sense of these ten individuals. He has had great success in business (something that Mitt Romney couldn't work to his advantage, but in uncertain economic times, this is something that should have been an asset), is a former governor (there seems to be an appetite for this), and is WILDLY popular in a key swing state, to the point that his presence on the ticket may well seal the deal for Hillary here (he's the only Democrat that's the equivalent of say, Jeb Bush, in this regard, and the Clintons are going to be doing anything they can to get to 270). He's got an election this November to worry about, but polls show that he's sitting fine. He also saw great economic success as Governor of Virginia, and made major investments in education (and has proven coattails, as witnessed by Tim Kaine succeeding him). All-in-all, he makes the most sense, but for some reason has not had much interest in running for national office. He should have been on the presidential and vice presidential shortlists in 2008, and doesn't crave the national profile that a Martin O'Malley or Cory Booker has worked to establish. However, Warner is a great on-paper candidate, and the Clintons would be foolish to not look at him (and, again, the Clintons are not fools).
 |
| Sen. Jon Tester |
If I were picking the Clintons running mate, I'd probably go with Tester. A second-term senator with incredible ability at retail politics, he has the sort of profile that would appeal to Midwestern voters who may not find a connection to someone who has been in the national spotlight as long as Hillary. He's proven that he can run in a red state and win (two competitive elections, and one overtaking an incumbent), and as a former farmer and educator, would play well in swing states like Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin. His progressive record isn't spotless (particularly on immigration and the environment), but he's an advocate on stem-cell research, healthcare, women's rights, and most recently gay marriage. Basically, he's a more moderate, less gaffe-prone Joe Biden, and my dark horse contender for this spot.
 |
| Gov. Deval Patrick |
I almost went with Tester or Warner, since the Post article also listed Patrick in the lead, but the arguments for Patrick are just too strong. He delivered a home run speech in 2012 at the convention and has a near perfect progressive record in his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts. Gun control, energy, gay marriage, and the environment are all major areas of achievement for his time in office, and he did work in the Clinton administration (in the Justice Department). Also, it cannot be overstated how important it will be for Hillary to maintain the level of African-American electoral participation in 2016 that occurred in record numbers in 2008 and 2012, and Patrick's presence on the ticket would surely help that cause. About the only thing going against him is the "Massachusetts Liberal" tag, something that Democrats who have had their hearts broken by Mike Dukakis and John Kerry before know far too well.
Those are my top ten-who do you think I'm missing? Would you be interested in seeing me take on the Republican field? Share in the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment