"EXCITEMENT FACTOR": 2012

PICKING A SUCCESSOR TO GATES



The basic premise of my previous blog and this one is that "excitement" matters in electoral politics.

One has only to consider what the various so-called "grassroots" demonstrations of the Tea Party movement has done for the Republicans. The movement has, to the despair of party moderates, moved the GOP center of gravity farther to the right. But it also played an important role in the mobilization of party/movement adherents and fellow travelers. Also, as noted in the previous blog on the "excitement factor" in this year's congressional elections, the re-energizing of the right has not been offset by an equal and opposite re-energizing of the left. To the contrary, the left wing of the Democratic party has vocalized its unhappiness with President Obama and congressional leaders for what is seen as serious backsliding from campaign promises and policy expectations.

The bottom line is that Democrats will suffer this fall not only because they will be blamed for the economic woes of the country, but also because voter and party enthusiasm is clearly tilted toward the advantage of the GOP. Now, moving right along to the 2012 presidential election.

Re-election prospects for President Obama, at least at this point, are clearly tied to a significant economic turnaround, although a major unforseeable event may radically alter the outlook in either a positive or negative direction. There is, however, in the opinion of this blogger, something significant that can be done to inject some excitement into Obama's 2012 prospects.

Next spring Obama must pick a replacement for Defense Secretary Robert Gates. It will not be an easy choice. Gates has taken some strong initiatives to change how the defense establishment is organized and fulfills its mission--with less money. It will take a strong-willed successor with a firm political base beyond just the President to continue what Gates has started. Think Hillary Clinton. And then think of her as a replacement for Joe Biden as Obama's running mate.

This is not intended as a template for a "Joe Must Go" bumper sticker. Biden has served well. He is politically savvy, loyal, respected, and likeable. He is a person who speaks frankly and has been willing to tell the President what he thinks, not what he thinks Obama wants to hear. He was a good man-of-experience choice who also gave some religious and geographic balance to the ticket in 2008 when Obama himself provided both the necessary and sufficient excitement factors. Thus, it is not a question of his job being in jeopardy in that Obama would drop him for nonperformance of duties or because they are not compatible in politics or policy. It is more a question of whether Biden would "throw himself on the sword" if he thinks a replacement will make the difference between winning and losing. Such a decision would be a very delicate undertaking since it might not be self-evident that he jumped ship by choice and was not thrown overboard. If viewed as the latter, it would work against Obama.

From this vantage point in time, it is not evident that a significant economic turnaround will occur in time to move disenchanted Democrats and independents back toward Obama, but it seems clear that a new excitement factor will be needed for 2012. Clinton would bring both experience and new energy to the ticket. She would not be the first woman to be on a major party ticket for Vice President. Geraldine Ferraro holds that honor running with Walter Mondale in l984, but any excitement she might have added was far outweighed by the landslide re-election of President Ronald Reagan. And regardless how much pain it causes me to say this, Sarah Palin certainly added much needed excitement to the lackluster campaign of John McCain. While Palin, the quitter Governor of Alaska, claimed she could see Russia from her front porch (or something like that), Clinton's credentials would be impeccable--twice elected Senator from New York, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, topped off with the varied experience gained as First Lady to the very political/policy wonk Bill Clinton.

In a recent piece in the Washington Post (August 28), Professor Joel K. Goldstein from St. Louis University and a student of the vice presidency said that the history of replacing incumbent Vice Presidents shows that "Biden is here to stay". He also rejected the possibility of Clinton's being selected by Obama, among the reasons being that this would be viewed unfavorably as Clinton's return to partisan politics, meaning presumably that as Secretary of State she has taken a nonpartisan job and thus taken herself above the rough and tumble world of political partisanship. But it is hard to imagine that Clinton is not still perceived as being a very partisan person despite her position in the State Department. She has been at the center of too many campaigns and policy disputes to have shed her partisan image. It should be added that naming Clinton Secretary of Defense would also be a half-way house in any perceived need to shift from supposedly nonpartisan to partisan.

So while the "excitement factor" clearly lies with the Republicans this year, Democrats need to regain that factor for 2012. Meanwhile, the Republicans may be riding the wave of a big comeback in the midterm elections and only need to avoid picking another over-the-hill pol to head their ticket. Perhaps we'll get a clue in the spring of 2011 as to whether or not Obama thinks he needs to lay the groundwork for a new element of excitement in 2012. Or, maybe he thinks he is still the excitement factor.