Returning to the coverage of the vice presidential selection process, one much discussed guiding principle that I think is basically on target is that in the current political and media environment it is perhaps best politically to pick a running mate who plays to your particular strengths and helps you overcome perceived weaknesses. That is, picking a running mate who reinforces the national image that you are trying to promote. There were times in the past when picking a “balance” candidate made a lot of sense, but with regionalism declining, the parties less divided internally, and the constant TV campaign I think playing up your confidence in your own strengths and stands makes a great deal of sense. Establishing a clear, appealing brand image should help you win votes in several swing states, not just in one state or region.
If this is accurate though, who does Kerry pick? The classic example of this strategy was Bill Clinton’s selection of Al Gore in 1992. Two prominent DLCers from the South, they held similar views, were from adjoining states and were about the same age.
Who could be Gore to Kerry’s Clinton? It strikes me that if Sen. Kerry wants his running mate who is a mirror image of himself (ok, it’ll have to be a funhouse mirror that shortens him considerably) Sen. Reed of Rhode Island would appear to be ideal, at least on paper. Honestly I don’t know much about him, and I’ve only seen him interviewed once or twice (he seemed quite capable). But they are both New England senators interested in global affairs with distinguished military records. Jack Reed is in his second term in the Senate. He serves on the Armed Services Committee. He’s a former Army Ranger and a graduate of West Point. And politically they seem to have a shared vision. Reed and Kerry appear to have voted the same way on most issues in Congress.
Now I’m not really suggesting that Kerry would choose him. Actually, I’d be stunned. I imagine such a choice would provoke an anti-New England outcry. For better or for worse, being from New England is going to be something that hurts him with a lot of people between the coasts. But all that’s really somewhat beside the point. What made Clinton-Gore appealing as a team wasn’t the fact that it was two relatively young Southerner WASPs. It was the fact that the pick reinforced a certain appealing stands and clarified his national image in a way that struck many Americans in a positive way.
But if the key idea that made the Clinton-Gore team so appealing was a deeply-held shared, dynamic vision of where they wanted to take the country, who is really like Kerry? Or perhaps more importantly, who does Kerry want people to believe is like him? It strikes me finding someone who can best accentuate Kerry’s political strengths, perhaps serve to alleviate some of his weaknesses, and convey a unity of purpose to improve America is likely to produce the best possible coverage at this stage of the campaign. Campaign coverage like that could be worth many more votes across the country (including in swing states) than the 2-3% if the vote he might win in a particular state by picking Gov. X or Sen. Y.
So who could best accomplish that? I’ll get to that shortly.
Posted by armand at May 4, 2004 10:31 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics