Democratic Veepstakes Hotting Up

Ever since Barack Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination in June the press have been speculating wildly about his choice of running mate. But with the convention fast-approaching and evidence that his vice-presidential search committee is vetting a number of candidates the Veepstakes are well and truly hotting up.

So who's he gonna pick?

Firstly, he's got to go white male. Such was the groundbreaking nature of Hillary Clinton's candidacy it would be a tad disrespectful for him to nominate any woman but her. And it seems unlikely, secondly, that he'll ask Mrs Clinton. The primary fight was just that bit too bruising, she carries way too much baggage and, to be honest, the role is beneath her. Thirdly, he'll be looking to find an outside-the-beltway running mate who will complement his message of 'change'. It would help, fourthly, if this individual came with experience in government, foreign policy and defence, both to compensate for Obama's shortcomings and to be accepted as a credible potential successor (just a heartbeat away and all that). It would also aid his cause, fifthly, if his number two had a track record of bipartisanship and - ideally - was able to deliver a swing state in November. In order to appease Hillary fans and guarantee her support, sixthly, it would be desirable to have a Vice-President who wouldn't challenge her for the nomination in 2016.

It would appear therefore that the procedure for picking a running mate - once based on a simple 'do no harm' mantra - has become more complex: the Democrats are looking for a male Washington outsider with foreign policy and executive experience, a reputation for working across the aisle, popularity in a toss-up state and an absence of presidential ambition.

Not asking for much then!

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) ticks some of the boxes. She's the popular governor of a traditionally red state. She's cut her political teeth winning the votes of conservatives. Her executive experience - outside of Washington - is valuable. "I think she is as talented a public official as there is right now", said Obama recently. But there are drawbacks. She'd take the 'groundbreaking woman' title away from Clinton and that wouldn't go down well. Plus she's not very well-known outside Kansas and blew her chance to address this with her ignominious response to President Bush's last State of the Union address.

Perhaps - addressing the need to keep the ticket open for Hillary next time round - the prominent Clinton-supporting Govs. Ed Rendell (D-PA) or Ted Strickland (D-OH) would be good choices. Both from decisive general election states - winning the industrial belt being vital to winning the presidency - they've got sound governmental credentials. And Rendell in particular is an impressive campaigner and communicator. But they too have drawbacks. Both states - while toss-ups presidentially speaking - have a history of electing Democratic governors, thus removing the imperative of bipartisanship. Plus state politics doesn't provide that all-important foreign policy experience. And their biggest flaw? They were perhaps just a little too pro-Clinton. The McCain campaign would be sure to dig out any number of statements in which they levelled criticisms against Obama when stumping for Hillary. That'd be embarrassing to Obama and might re-open the wounds from the bitter primary battle.

There's been a lot of chatter about Sam Nunn, too. The retired Georgia senator would, in many ways, be an ideal pick: he's a moderate-to-conservative Democrat which could help to balance out Obama's alleged uber-liberalism. He's got sound business acumen and a lengthy political CV. He's well-respected as a bipartisan compromiser. Having chaired the Senate armed services committee for eight years he's well placed to inform Obama's thinking on defence and foreign policy. He might also help nudge his home state - which hasn't given a Democratic presidential candidate more than 50% of the vote since native son Jimmy Carter's re-election bid in 1980 - into the blue column. Plus, he's 70. As well as being useful in countering McCain's emphasis on the importance of experience he'll also leave office with Obama and thus keep the door open for a Clinton candidacy in eight years. But age is also a negative, as McCain is finding out. Plus Nunn's near 25-year Senate career doesn't smack of the new kind of politics Obama is trying to usher in. And even if this experience was valuable it's possible - having retired in 1997 - that he's been out of the game just a little too long.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) might also make a great pick. He's a long-serving senator blessed with charisma, a sharp intellect and a larger-than-average public profile. He's respected both within the Democratic party and on the Republican side of the aisle. Despite his age and length of Senate service he somehow avoids the 'Washington insider' label. His chairmanship of the foreign relations committee gives him enormous credibility in the field. On the downside, his state of Delaware is hardly a key battleground state in November and it's proximity to Illinois doesn't represent the geographical spread now customary on presidential tickets. Moreover, he's currently running for re-election to the Senate; a vice-presidential nomination might throw the state party into a messy scramble ahead of the general election. Plus he's said publicly that - whilst he'd accept Obama's invitation - he'd rather not be asked. He's too used to being his own boss, apparently, and mightn't be able to adapt to subordination.

Then there's Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC). The 2004 vice-presidential nominee won plaudits for his campaign for the nomination, championing poverty and the plight of the poor. He'd surely help Obama win over the Clintonite blue-collar workers who eschewed him during the nominating season. On the other hand, his performance in the 2004 election was questioned by some; and indeed his home state of North Carolina opted for the Bush-Cheney ticket that year. So maybe instead Evan Bayh (D-IN)? He might be able to put his generally-Republican state into play. Despite only supporting a Democrat for president four times since 1900 Bayh is hugely popular in Indiana, winning re-election in 2004 with 62% of the vote. He's got plenty of experience and, as a Clinton-supporter, would help recruit her disgruntled followers.

Until his categorical statement rejecting the possibility of accepting the VP slot Jim Webb (D-VA) looked promising, too. He'd recently ousted an incumbent Republican in a GOP-leaning state following a distinguished military career - including service in Vietnam. As Secretary of the Navy under Republican President Reagan he demonstrated his centrist views and his ability to work across the political spectrum to get things done. But the senator intends to focus on his relatively new role representing Virginia in the Senate. Fair enough. So to the rescue Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA)? Also a Virginian, Kaine might put the state in play. He has a close personal relationship with Obama - shared experiences of legal practice and community work - and has a youthful, Washington-free image to compliment the 'change' message. On the other hand he lacks any significant political accomplishments as governor and would certainly put paid to Clinton's 2016 ambitions.

Other names are mentioned of course, all of whom have their pros and cons, from his vanquished rivals Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), to GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). Hagel and Bloomberg have in particular been the focus of media speculation though the heat surrounding their prospects has somewhat diminished of late.

In short, then, it's hard to predict who Obama'll go for. He's going to have to agonise over a very talented field of candidates. His decision might be shaped by McCain's choice; reports suggest that the Republican nominee is close to naming his running mate. At this stage it's still anyone's guess.

A rogues' gallery of possible VP picks for Obama (t-b, l-r, Sens. Bayh, Biden, Clinton and Webb, Fmr. Sens. Edwards and Nunn and Govs. Kaine and Sebelius):

Silly Season Underway

A grim day for Labour in Glasgow East - with Margaret Curran's promised fightback falling a crucial 365 votes short of countering a monstrously-large swing to the SNP - has provoked rumblings of discontent from nervous backbenchers. Rumours abound of a plot to usurp the great leader; crowing Tories slam the disunity and demand an immediate election; and Labour heavyweights close ranks around an embattled Brown. Yup, the silly season has well and truly begun. Let's be honest: the by-election was a nightmare. A 22.5% swing to overturn a 13,500 majority in Labour's second-safest seat in Scotland is not very good. There can be no dressing up the result. This applies irrespective of whether Margaret Curran's namesake - Frances Curran of the Scottish Socialist Party - swung the result in the SNP's favour by confusing Glaswegians intending to vote Curran. But there's really no need to panic: it was a by-election. Governments are supposed to get whacked, particularly when they've been in power for a while and are presiding over a shaky economy. Voters like to give the party in power a drubbing and there's really no rhyme or reason to it - though it's slightly more galling when said party has done so much to try to regenerate the area and alleviate the social problems afflicting many of its residents. I feel quite sorry for Curran. Propelled into the candidacy following George Ryan's last-gasp decision not to contest the seat she fought a good solid campaign based on local issues. And yet whilst the defeat isn't hers it will nonetheless probably prevent her from standing for the Scottish Labour leadership (Cathy Jamieson is my preference, incidentally). And now, apparently, Labour supporters are itching to ditch the prime minister. Whilst it's true that Gordon Prentice and Graham Stringer - hardly PLP power-brokers - have openly called for Brown to go, theirs are almost entirely lone voices. It might well be the case that a few cabinet ministers are thinking about their futures - they are ambitious people and it's entirely plausible that they aspire to the leadership - but this does not represent a plot. They're aware, firstly, that the economic situation is not going to get better any time soon. It's hard to imagine that they'd want to take charge in these circumstances. They're aware, secondly, that the procedure for challenging an incumbent leader is very difficult. And they're aware, thirdly, that Gordon Brown, even whilst wounded, remains a formidable force. He's well respected around the world for his economic expertise, he's unmatched in terms of experience and he retains a good deal of support in the party. Sure, he's a crap communicator, and is regularly out-done at PMQs, but these impediments can be worked out. So let's ditch all this talk of a cabinet challenge. It was good to see old John Prescott - a man for whom I have a good deal of respect despite his shortage of braincells - providing some much-needed no-nonsense 'get behind the leader and stop all this silliness' talk this week. The cabinet is somewhat lacking - such is the towering presence of the PM - in straight-talking battle-hardened veterans able to steady the ship. Hopefully we'll see Harriet Harman, Jack Straw, Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson - the only ministers with sufficient weight and credibility - step up to the plate in the coming days. And then perhaps we can turn fire on the Tories. Silly season is always more enjoyable when you're not on the receiving end...

Day Two: Ecstatic and Exhausted

Already - the end of Day Two of UK Youth Parliament's eighth Annual Sitting!

I had intended to take the time to write a full blog of the Sitting as it progressed but there quite literally hasn't been a second to spare; with fun and frolics from morning till night, I (along with the fabulous staff and trustees of this wonderful organisation) have been embroiled in a whirl of activity pretty much non-stop.

Not to worry, though. A far better blog, live from right here at Exeter University, is being regularly updated at http://www.ukyp.org.uk/live/ - and you can also subscribe to free text updates by texting 'FOLLOW UKYP' to 07624 801423 - how interactive!

A full report of the weekend will appear in due course - most likely after a good, long sleep on Wednesday - but suffice it to say that everything is going swimmingly; campaign development and manifesto groups are working well, the fringe meetings have been engaging, the speeches inspiring, the food spectacular, and, most importantly, young representatives from across the UK are exercising their right to take meaningful action on the issues which matter to the young people they represent.

Roll on Day Three of the Annual Sitting 2008!

Seeing Through The Stereotype

A very insightful piece from the BBC's Mark Easton reminding us that the majority of young people, despite what you might read in the press, make a positive contribution to society: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/07/10_reasons_to_cheer_our_teenag.html The negative stereotyping of young people - as hoodies, yobs and thugs - is widespread and is contributing to a moral panic being whipped up by the media. Of course the recent spate of gun- and knife-related violence, largely perpetrated by and inflicted on young people, is a serious and worrying problem which needs to be addressed, and addressed urgently. But it also needs to be put into context. We're in grave danger of creating a false consensus amongst adults about the attitudes and behaviour of young people most of whom, as Easton notes, are both engaged in productive activities and imbued with admirable virtues. Such a consensus risks inviting a raft of reactionary, punitive and tough-talking political responses which, far from addressing the problems which do exist, will unfairly isolate and marginalise the majority and unhelpfully create a self-fulfilling prophecy for the minority. If we're going to tackle what's wrong we need to also acknowledge what's right. So perhaps it's time for a little more bigging-up and a little less demonisation.