A Stitch in Haste

My down-in-the-dirt political prediction skills are not particularly good. Just ask Homeland Security Secretary Giuliani. My comparative advantage lies elsewhere.

Still, here are my hasty stitches on the vice president process this go-round.

The main difference between McCain's algorithm and Obama's is that McCain needs less from his VP, but faces more constraints in whom he can select. Obama has more choices but needs more from whomever he picks.

OBAMA:

There are four benefits that a VP choice can bring to Obama. In no particular order:

1. Appeasing disgruntled Clinton supporters.
2. Executive experience.
3. Foreign policy and/or defense credentials.
4. Helping in, or creating, a "battleground state."

Note of course that no candidate brings all four qualities to the table — anyone who could would actually be the presidential nominee instead of Obama. Note also that no one I can think of — not even Clinton herself — brings any three to the table.

So the field now consists of those who offer two of the four benefits. Jim Webb? #3 & #4. Kathleen Sibelius? #2 & #4? Hillary Clinton? #1 & #3. Sam Nunn? #3 & #4.

(Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both offer only one benefit — #3 — and therefore are both highly unlikely choices. John Edwards of course brings zero out of four — and no I don't think Obama would appoint him Attorney General.)

There is one name, however, that I have left out — because I think he is the likely pick based on this analytical framework:

Bill Richardson.

Richardson is also a "two benefit" option: #2 and (especially) #4. But he also brings a bit — not much, but a bit — of #3 as U.N. ambassador. I think "defense credentials" are more important than "foreign policy credentials" in the case of Obama's choice, but U.N. ambassador is hardly inconsequential. Secretary of Energy certainly doesn't hurt either given the current circumstances. He might also have some carry-over credibility in neighboring Colorado — also widely considered a battleground state this year.

And while Richardson wouldn't do much for Obama relative to the Harriet Christian femi-racist wing of the Hillary Clinton base, he could instead help Obama with another group he's had problems with: Hispanics.

So there it is: Richardson for VP pick. Now tell me why I'm wrong.

McCAIN:

Again, I think the VP choice is much less crucial for McCain than for Obama. But the field is much narrower, because McCain faces two constraints:

1. He must pick someone at least tolerable to, if not beloved by, the Theocratic Right. He's on thin enough ice with Dobson and his gargoyles as it is. He simply cannot pick another "not one of us" personality. This is why I find predictions that he will choose Mitt Romney utterly laughable (Commerce Secretary, maybe, but not VP). He has to find someone who is at least willing to pretend to sing from the Evangelical hymnal and who has no pro-choice or pro-gay "stains" on his resume.

2. McCain cannot pick any candidate who is either too old or too young. To do either would only emphasize McCain's own geriatric situation and keep concerns about his health in the spotlight. Someone in his fifties — no younger, no older.

At the end of the day, I still think Mike Huckabee is the logical choice. He appeases the Evangelicals, alienates few if any economic conservatives (his advocacy of a national sales tax notwithstanding), and he doesn't embarrass or outshine McCain in any appreciable way. McCain was remarkably cordial toward Huckabee at the end of the primary campaign (the same apparently cannot be said for McCain and Romney — to put it mildly).

So there it is: Huckabee for VP pick. Now tell me why I'm wrong.