With a potential criminal indictment behind her, we now know with absolute certainty that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president and thus she will likely make her selection for vice-president by the end of next week. Let’s take a look at her potential choices.
This first bit might seem redundant for those who read my post on Donald Trump’s VP choices but I’m showing them here again for those of you who may not like reading anything relating to Trump. So, to recap, when selecting a potential vice-president, nominees usually weigh five factors:
- Can we trust the VP choice to do the job if something happened to the president? (the most important, by far)
- Can the presidential candidate work effectively with the VP choice?
- Does the VP choice help “balance” the ticket by filling in some vulnerabilities of the presidential nominee?
- Is there a key swing state that the VP choice can turn?
- Can the VP choice be an effective attack dog against the nominee of the other party, allowing the presidential nominee to stay “above the fray”?
With Hillary Clinton, it’s a binary choice: go safe or go risky. Traditionally, candidates make “safe” choices when they feel like a strong front-runner in the race and make “risky” picks when they need to a game change to shift the narrative and fire up unexcited members of the base. In 2008, Barack Obama was a heavy favorite and selected a safe VP nominee, Joe Biden, which was the best decision he ever made. On the other side, John McCain felt he had to shake things up and was talked by staffers into a risky pick, the disastrously inept Sarah Palin. The selection of Palin didn’t cost McCain the election but it destroyed his credibility when attacking the lack of experience of the first-term Senator Obama.
Clinton is clearly the front-runner in the race. She is ahead in virtually every national poll, is running against a self-destructive candidate and has a massive fund-raising advantage (unless Trump decides to throw a billion of his own dollars into the race). That would seem to indicate that the former Secretary of State, who is cautious by nature, would go with a safe pick. This would normally be an obvious conclusion but Hillary has ample reason to be bold and risky and it’s simply because she is not a popular nominee. Because of her massive trust deficit with the American people (including Democrats), a robust turnout in November is not assured and she could really use an injection of energy into her campaign.
I’m going to list ten potential selections in the order that I consider them likely to happen. Feel free to take with a grain (or full shaker) of salt, because I’m just going on my own instinct and the accumulated download of speculation by the punditry class.
Virginia Senator Tim Kaine: the 58-year old Kaine is widely accepted as the clear front-runner and is the ultimate “safe” pick for Secretary Clinton. Kaine’s resume is one you would like to see in a potential President: he’s currently serving as a Senator, he’s a former Governor, former Lieutenant Governor, former Chair of the Democratic National Committee, and former mayor (of Richmond). He would help lock up the swing state of Virginia and has the added asset of being fluent in Spanish. He is also kind of boring. If Kaine is the guy it means that Clinton has decided to “do no harm” and make the VP functionally irrelevant in the conversation of the November election. Since I think it’s very likely, no matter how unpopular she may be, that Hillary will defeat Trump in November, Kaine is by far the best choice. If needed, he could easily assume residency in the Oval Office and would not need a learning curve. This selection is so obvious to me I would say it’s better than a 50-50 shot that he gets the nod.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: the 65-year old Vilsack, who has been the Agriculture Secretary since 2009, served two terms as Governor of Iowa as well as a Senate term from the Hawkeye state. Vilsack is the other “safe” choice and, with Iowa also a swing state, checks most the same boxes that Kaine does. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hillary picks him because there is a great comfort level between the two: Vilsack was the national co-chair of of her unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008. Like Kaine, he’s a boring, do no harm pick and would be a solid choice.- Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown: known as one of the most liberal members of Congress, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the 63-year old Brown is one of the stars of the progressive movement. He’s been in Congress for over 23 years,
serving in the House from 1993 to 2007 and the Senate since then. Brown, like Sanders, voted against the war in Iraq, a weakness for Clinton. Because of his progressive ideology, he would probably help Clinton with younger voters. And of course, he would help her win the swing state of Ohio, critical for Trump if he is to have any chance to win. I would probably put him at the top of the list except for the fact that the Buckeye state Governor is Republican John Kasich. If Brown becomes Vice-President, Kasich will be able to fill his vacated Senate seat with a Republican. Outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid has placed a premium on re-taking the Senate, which is highly probable (even likely) given that, of the 34 seats up for grabs, the GOP has to defend 24 while the Dems only have to defend 10. 
Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez: I’ve been surprised to see Perez’ name mentioned so prominently in the VP sweepstakes. The 54-year old Perez has been in Obama’s cabinet for only three years and has no experience in elected politics. Besides the Secretary of Labor post, Perez’ resume includes four years of service of U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and two years as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor. This is not a resume one would expect for a potential Commander in Chief. Hillary’s chief asset against Trump is her depth of foreign policy experience. To select a running mate with no governing or foreign policy experience seems contrary to her message. The only reason he would even be on the list is that his last name is Perez; he was born in Buffalo to first-generation Dominican immigrants. So this would be a move to shore up the Democrat’s substantial lead with Latino voters. I don’t see why Hillary would need to do this considering she’s running against Trump. Although Perez is immensely likable (a weakness for Clinton) and would be a loyal surrogate, he seems to me to be someone that Trump would refer to as a “lightweight.”
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren: one of the most popular members of the progressive movement, a Warren pick would be the Democrats’ version of a double down selection (as Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie would be for Trump). Warren as the VP nominee would be a fairly blatant play to court the millions of Bernie Sanders supporters and, from that perspective, picking her would be a “shore up the base” move. Warren has also proven that she is a vicious attack dog against Trump; she’s better at it (way better) than Hillary is. I’m almost embarrassed to say that I’m amused by Trump’s rejoinder to Warren’s barbs, which is to call her “Pocahontas.” Even Chris Matthews from MSNBC admitted he thought it was funny. (Trump’s “Pocahontas” label is a reference to Warren’s much-ridiculed claim that she had part-Cherokee heritage; she was touted as a Native American faculty member while tenured at Harvard Law School in the mid-90’s). Now, I will also admit that I was frankly surprised to learn that Warren just turned 67 years old last month. She seems much younger than Clinton but she isn’t and you would have the optics of two female senior citizens running on the same ticket. America has already proven that it is ready for black president and is no doubt ready for a female president but I would say it’s really risky to assume that a majority of the country is ready to select an all female ticket, especially one where both candidates were born in the 1940’s. There’s another risk for Hillary and that is that her VP choice would out-shine her. Warren is a dynamo on the stump and you’d have a significant portion of the Democratic electorate that would prefer the veep to be the prez. Ultimately, I really doubt Hillary would choose her. Warren was the last of the female U.S. Senators to endorse her and Warren is too much of a rival for a control freak like Hillary to put in the VP role.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro: the selection of the soon-to-be-42-year old Castro would be the ultimate “shore up the base” selection for Secretary Clinton. It would be such an obvious pander pick to the youth and Latino vote that I consider it highly unlikely. How in the world could Hillary answer the question, “is this the most qualified person who could select to be a potential Commander in Chief?” In case you’re confused, Julian Castro is the identical twin brother of House Rep Joaquin Castro. I guess you could have the advantage of having two VP’s at the same time and fool foreign leaders continuously. I’m kidding of course: the only reason Castro is on the veep list is because of his heritage as a Mexican-American. He does have governing experience (he was the mayor of San Antonio) but he’s too young and inexperienced for a risk-averse candidate like Clinton. Yes, he would appeal to young voters and Latino voters but it’s not his time. Castro, a Stanford grad and Harvard Law School grad, has a great future in the Democratic party but not this year.
New Jersey Senator Cory Booker: I would put the charismatic Booker near the top of the list except for the same problem that Sherrod Brown has: if Booker became the VP, Governor Chris Christie would be able to replace him in the Senate with a Republican. The 47-year old Booker, who served two terms as Mayor of Newark before joining the Senate in 2013, is another rising star in the Democratic party. Like Castro, Booker is a Stanford grad but, like Clinton, he went to Yale Law School. Booker is one of my favorite Democrats because he’s shown bi-partisan tendencies and seems open-minded. In an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press in May 2012, Booker denounced an ad being run by the Obama campaign that was critical of Mitt Romney’s role at Bain Capital.
“I have to just say, from a very personal level, I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity. To me, it’s just we’re getting to a ridiculous point in America, especially that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses. And this to me, I’m very uncomfortable with. The last point I’ll make is this kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright.”
— Cory Booker (on “Meet the Press”): May 20, 2012
Booker was hammered by Obama campaign manager David Axelrod for going off message but he solidified his reputation with me. He would add a youthful counter-balance to the older Hillary. To me, he is a no doubt future presidential candidate but I think that Clinton might feel overshadowed by the more telegenic Booker.
California House Rep. Xavier Becerra: he is the highest ranking Latino member of the House, having served in Congress since 1993. The 58-year old Becerra, who represents the city of Los Angeles, is highly respected in the Latino community and would be a decent choice for Hillary despite his lack of foreign policy experience. Becerra has become one of the most prominent Democratic critics of Trump’s anti-immigrant policy; the The New York Times has called it “personal” for Becerra. I was surprised that he didn’t toss his hat in the ring to run for Barbara Boxer’s open Senate seat. If Hillary feels that she needs to pick a Latino, he would be a better choice than Tom Perez or Julian Castro.
Retired Admiral James Stavridis: I have to admit I was puzzled when I saw Admiral Stavridis’ name on the Clinton VP list. The former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the 61-year old Stavridis spent 30 years in the Navy. Considering that Hilllary Clinton clearly trumps the Donald on foreign policy chops, I don’t really understand why her campaign would even consider a political novice to be her running mate. The only reason I can think of is that Trump is considering retired General Michael Flynn as his VP selection. Still, it makes no sense to me. I couldn’t have picked him out of a police lineup until I heard his name being floated. I can’t imagine he’ll be chosen but he’s being vetted so it’s worth a mention.- Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders: sorry, friends, Hillary is not Feeling the Bern. The 74-year-old self-avowed socialist finally officially endorsed her rival on Tuesday. He has succeeded in moving her further to the left of the
political spectrum than she might have preferred. As he returns to the Senate full time, he does so as a rock star rather than the nobody that he was 12 months ago. He will likely get a key Senate committee chairmanship (assuming the Dems re-take the Senate). If Hillary chooses Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown as her VP, that will be a bow to Bernie and progressives in general. What he achieved is remarkable and, unlike the candidate he couldn’t beat, he is wholly authentic and became likable, even to Republicans who disagree with everything he stands for. Plus he gave us the Larry David imitation on Saturday Night Live.
Bottom line: Hillary Clinton’s should be and will be Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. She is presenting herself as the sober, seasoned candidate against a bombastic, unpredictable and offensive Trump. To solidify her “sober, reasonable” mantra she needs to pick somebody who has a presidential resume equal to hers. That’s Tim Kaine.
Thanks for reading!
Chris Bodig