The Unnecessary Gamble: How Picking Sarah Palin Could’ve Been Safer

When presidential candidates are seriously considering someone for VP, they feed them to the media wolves. They do this to test how effective their answers are on a myriad of questions. Barack Obama did this with several folks on his short list. Anyone paying attention to the VP sweepstakes this summer noticed how frequently the likes of Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh were on television. They did the fluffy morning shows, daily cable shows, and relatively tough Sunday morning shows. The notable exception for Obama was his actual VP Joe Biden. The difference with Biden, of course, is that he is a politician who has consistently shown his deftness with almost all media outlets. And even Biden did Meet the Press on June 22, 2008— a few weeks after Hillary Clinton conceded the race to Barack Obama. Yet, Sarah Palin participated in no difficult media venues.

The only national shows that Palin was a guest on this summer were Kudlow & Company and The Glenn Beck Show. She could not have possibly picked two easier interviews. Both Larry Kudlow and Glenn Beck are conservatives that arrantly support domestic drilling and low taxes. These two interviewers naturally asked her about energy and whether she would consider being McCain’s VP. She performed well in these roughly five minute pieces because they were gimmes. Oil and natural gas are the most important issues in Alaska and deflecting VP questions takes an 80 IQ.

The unknown is how fluidly she can answer the more difficult questions that she has not needed to directly deal with in her capacity as governor of Alaska. She has no foreign policy experience, so can she give a concise answer to the difference between Sunnis and Shiites like Rudy Giuliani gave in the first debate of the Republican primaries? How forcefully can she defend McCain’s revolutionary healthcare plan that puts the individual at the heart of insurance plans? Will she be able to nuance the issue of torture? These are three of countless questions that can be answered well, but require practice, intelligence, and discipline. She may very well be equipped to answer such questions now. Or, she might be able to take a crash course on government like President Bush did during 2000, which Bob Woodward detailed very well in State of Denial. The only problem with that is Bush had much more time to learn, and he had the privilege of learning from the political genius Karl Rove . McCain’s decision is vulnerable right now when it should not be.

If McCain’s camp conducted the VP process more professionally, she would have a done at least one Sunday show. Bobby Jindal, Rob Portman, Joe Lieberman, Mitt Romney, and Tom Ridge all did, giving the McCain campaign more data to work with. And the counter notion that putting her out there would have ruined the surprise is  asinine. If McCain chose Jindal or Portman, it would have still been a major surprise. She also should have done the Today Show to gauge how well she can answer questions directly related to the voters she is supposed to win over—working mothers who are very busy and casually follow politics. She could have clearly achieved the ideal middle between no and excessive media exposure. Instead, McCain potentially made a fatal error in judgment by choosing her.

Sarah Palin could very possibly be the catalyst  the Republicans need to retain the White House. She has an undeniably attractive life story, a history of real reforms, and a great track record on arguably the most important policy issue in this election—energy. Not to mention she is a relatable woman who could take a sizable chunk of Hillary Clinton voters away from Obama. Yes she is unapologetically pro-life, but many Hillary Clinton supporters care about a lot more than just abortion. This is substantiated by the fact that some four million Clinton voters went with Bush in 2004. But the fact that Palin poses this much risk is absurd. By its nature, politics is pretty unpredictable. It is inexcusable, however, not to make certain what can be made certain. John McCain turned 72 the other day, so voters will pay extra attention to a VP that has an above average chance of taking over the helm at any moment. If Palin contretemps become the source of late night jokes, McCain has only himself to blame. He could have made a wiser choice with more data.

The Secret Benefactor of VP Joe Biden : John Kerry

During John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, it was a foregone conclusion that if he were to win, Senator Biden would be his Secretary of State. As chairman of the foreign relations committee, many said he had impeccable qualifications for the job. In fact, current Secretary of State Condoleezza praised the Biden VP choice because he is a “fine statesmen.”  So given that he is no longer a possibility, who is now the frontrunner for the job in an Obama administration? Well, John Kerry must be on the short list.

First of all, it is politically feasible to give him the job. He is a respected member of the Foreign Relations committee, so the experience argument is taken care of. Obama will also be working with a clear Democratic majority in the Senate, so he would be able to get him through. And since the governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat, the party would not be sacrificing a seat; Governor Deval Patrick would have several  options. This contrasts with Chris Dodd, who endorsed Obama early and is also on the foreign relations committee but comes from a state with a Republican governor.

Since it is feasible, the next question to ask is whether Kerry wants it or not. In a June 23rd article in Newsweek, a close Kerry aide said “he is keen to be the nation’s top diplomat.” The facts on the ground appear to substantiate this claim. There is no way he’ll ever have another shot at the Presidency. And he’ll be sixty-five on December 11th of this year, meaning that he might want to retire soon any way. If that is the case, what would be a better way to end a political career than as head of the State Department. Plus, he has assiduously worked for Obama, since his endorsement on January 10th. It should be noted that the 10th was only two days after Hillary Clinton’s stunning win in New Hampshire—a time when his victory was no sure thing. Politically sensitive endorsements and hard work usually correspond to some returned favor if the candidate wins.

So finally, would Barack Obama owe the job to Kerry? He certainly would not be forced to, but if he’s going to feel indebted to anyone, it would be John Kerry. Kerry put Obama on the map by making him the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It can be safely assumed that Obama was going to defeat the loony Alan Keyes and eventually be recognized as a party leader regardless of that speech. The rapidity of his rise, however, is directly related to the platform he was given. On top of that, Kerry was one of his earliest supporters, coming much before the likes of Bill Richardson, Ted Kennedy, and Chris Dodd.

There are a few counter arguments on why he might not give Kerry the job. Obama’s monomania with a diverse cabinet akin to Abraham Lincoln’s might lead him to choose a Republican like Dick Lugar or Chuck Hagel. At the same time, he might achieve this with his selection of Secretary of Defense. Rumors have circled around current Secretary Robert Gates, a man defined as pragmatic and thoughtful. Those are two traits that Obama publicly reveres. In addition, the fact that two key Obama foreign policy advisers, Richard Danzig and Ivo Daalder, extolled the man certainly did nothing to quell the speculation. Another central disagreement with this possibility is that Biden and Kerry are too similar to both have such big jobs in his cabinet. They are both very old and very liberal senators. This is possible, but does not seem to be an adequate enough deterrent from stopping Obama. Finally, an Obama win means that a new chairman will be needed for the foreign relations committee. The complicated mechanics of it mean that Kerry is in line to take it over. Yet, being chairman of the foreign relations committee is no substitute for being Secretary of State.

Predicting future cabinet choices is no easier than figuring out the VP choice, so all guesses must be taken with a grain of salt. Given that, if the political oddsmaking website Intrade creates a line for Secretary of State, Kerry would be a good bet. Much better that is then some of the absurd lines for VP like Al Gore or John Edwards.

The Clintons in Cahoots with McCain? Why Not, Wouldn’t be a First…

Those skeptical of politicians, and more specifically of Hillary Clinton, have been questioning the authenticity of her support for Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy.The logic follows that if she can pull off the feat of appearing to do everything in her power for him to win, then she’ll be positioned well for the 2012 Democratic nomination and general election  if Obama loses. Why is this the case? Well if Obama loses this unpredictable sporting event, McCain will in all likelihood have won Florida and Ohio—two states Clinton consistently polled very well in. Therefore, in 2012 she would be able argue that she is the most equipped general election candidate while also claiming she’s a Democratic faithful who did everything she could for Obama in 2008. In Maureen Dowd’s op-ed on August 20th, she imagines a clandestine conversation between Hillary Clinton and John McCain discussing tactics in which the two discuss tactics  for defeating  Obama. Is the notion of a mainstream figure from one party helping the opposition wild fiction or is it precedented? 1968 points to the latter.

Despite the fact that Hubert Humphrey was Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vice President, or perhaps because he was, Johnson did not really support him versus Richard Nixon. He publicly did, but privately assisted Tricky Dick. This manifested itself with Vietnam War politics. In Rick Perlstein’s authoritative book Nixonland, he notes that Johnson duped Humphrey. When Humphrey called the lame duck president roughly five weeks before the election to discuss his upcoming speech about pledging to quickly withdraw from Vietnam, Johnson feigned interest. He asked “perfunctory questions” and concluded “I’ll turn [the television] on. Thank you.” Humphrey thanked him profusely for this. Johnson, however, spoke to  Nixon “45 minutes earlier…In a much longer and more intimate conversation…Johnson told Nixon he thought the consequences of Humphrey’s move would be disastrous…Nixon spoke of Johnson’s position as ‘our position’.” 

As with most historical parallels, this one is not perfect. Johnson was the active president with no further presidential ambitions. Some speculate he was not a true supporter of Humphrey because of his visceral distaste for Humphrey’s lack of toughness. One could argue it was to salvage a part of his Vietnam War legacy. By 1968, Vietnam was in pretty bad shape, but maybe he thought if the next president kept US troops there, things could improve. It is often difficult to uncover politicians’ true intentions, even forty years later. But the point is that sometimes party loyalty is only necessary for the cameras. Johnson is the exception to the rule, but probably a more common exception than most would think.

I’ll let  Maureen Dowd  speculate on the  details of conversations between Clinton and McCain. People should, however, consider this general idea to be a serious possibility. Clinton is clearly ambitious and wants to maximize her shot of becoming President. After acknowledging this, the next question is:  is there any real moral failing on her part if she is doing this? To answer this, we must ask will there be major legislative differences between the two since either one will be working with a Democratic House? The highest income bracket will be taxed at 39% instead of 35%?  Greenhouse gas emissions will be cut by 80% in 2050 instead of 60%?  The most important decisions will be made about things we do not know about yet. Or, more precisely, about known unknowns. An example of a known unknown is a judgment call about a foreign policy matter.  And for those being objective, both McCain and Obama have had a mixed record on judgment calls. As time goes on, party membership is forgotten and excellent leadership is remembered.   President Bush and many other Republicans have the utmost respect for former Democratic President Harry Truman’s judgment calls. And for the exception of President Eisenhower’s troublesome record on Civil Rights, which was not really any worse than President Roosevelt’s, most Democrats admire his record. The executive branch does not give the President radical power on policy positions; it gives him or her the power to handle the unknowns. Character means a lot more than party affiliation. So thirty years from now, don’t be too surprised if you read about Hillary Clinton having spoken to McCain. And don’t judge too harshly; there are a lot more immoral things a politician can do.

About the Take

I will share my thoughts on all things politics, policy, and economics on this blog. This will come from my interviews(alexbeinstein.com) and observations. I will not start doing interviews again until mid-late September, the beginning of school. But with the conventions coming up soon, this seemed like a good time to start. Lets get to it.