Three Reasons Claire McCaskill Will Be VP

This is not a diary intended to discuss who I or anyone else think might be a good choice for VP, the sort of which there have been so many; this diary considers what might actually happen, and welcomes your input as political observers as to how you think this will all shake out.  

I took a different approach than I even have in the past in contemplating this question today when I thought less about what the VP search typically entails, and more about what specifically Barack Obama as an individual would likely consider (to the extent that one's educated speculation can surmise about another's).  From that perspective I came up with the following metrics:

For a candidate who's looking to pick a partner he feels "comfortable" with, style could be a sticking point. - Andrew Romano, Newsweek

1. Honesty: One of the most important things to Obama has always been developing and maintaining the Obama brand, central and vital to which is authenticity.  Finding someone who credibly exudes authenticity to Americans completely distrustful of Washington is a tough standard to meet, but Obama has met it, and likely would prefer a running mate who has the same sort of visceral appeal.  The rewards of having someone with such attributes goes beyond brand, because it means not having to watch your back while President, and also avoids potential media pile-ons about a VP's lack of credibility not only during the election cycle but for years afterwards in office; to put it simply, a trustworthy runningmate is that much less of a liability.  There is also the historical element; the idea of an honest and humble larger-than-life President like a George Washington seemed an ancient tale beyond living memory before Obama's sudden rise, and Obama may see a like-minded VP as a further step in the arc of history towards once again making that a leadership standard America expects.

2. Charisma: If there's another personality characteristic synonymous with the Obama's brand, it is charisma.  As a couple of our recent nominees have learned, you can be a good and honest person yet be mercilessly portrayed as inauthentic if you don't have that rare dose of extra charisma - that likeability which leads to trust, that trust which leads to voters believing the candidate over the noise machine.  This is a trait that makes a VP candidate better equipped to successfully communicate the administration's message to voters not only during the election, but for subsequent years in office.  Finally, there are again the historical considerations which are ever present in a Constitutional Law professor's mind; memorable speeches by charismatic Presidents in recent years seemed a relic of FDR and JFK until Obama came along, and with an eye to history, he may want to restore not only the Democratic party's standard for such leadership traits but the Presidential standard, which has currently sunk with the least eloquent leader in American history.  A charismatic VP pick would compound the feeling that the day of inspirational leaders has returned; a non-charismatic VP would detract from it.

3. Incumbency Matters: With 2008 thus far shaping up to be a strong Democratic year, it would be a wasteful move not to have a VP that can stay on for two terms, if all goes well, and have the incumbency advantage in 2016; Obama may thus be looking at the fact that he could be picking the next leader of the party.  If true, this would underscore the importance of honesty and charisma attributes even more, as those traits would be carried potentially into the next Presidency by the right pick.  Age also becomes an issue when considering this factor, as any candidate older than their very early sixties will be too old to run in 2016.  Last but certainly not least, ideology would grow in importance for assessing a VP pick, because putting in place someone who is not as progressive on key issues as most Americans are would be looked back on as a needless squandering of political capital (particular if Obama were to - here's hoping - win Presidential elections by a large margin).

Available data and educated conjecture suggest that these three factors will be matter more in the final decision than any aspect of resume or region; Vice Presidential picks are always far more consequential in office, after all, than they are in getting the ticket elected to begin with.  I welcome discussion on this conclusion, but completely aside from any personal preference as to who Obama may pick, I cannot think of anyone who meets those three metrics to the degree that Claire McCaskill does.  In a politico article about who the winners and losers in the Democratic Party were after Obama's primary victory, McCaskill was listed first, and described as the Obama's campaign's best, most visible advocate, a difficult observation to argue with - or dismiss.

Furthermore, when one does look at regional and demographical considerations - admittedly secondary to how a VP would affect the administration once in office - McCaskill is not without her strengths.  One of the best things about the Obama campaign has always been that they inherantly rejected the idea of counting on any one state like Ohio or Florida as must win; they believed that Obama could broaden the map, and are shooting for a forty state-plus best-case scenario.  That said, they are probably, like any pragmatic campaign, also outlining a worst-case firewall scenario for victory; the closest victory scenario that does not involve just relying on one state relies on winning two - Iowa and one other state.  That "other state" has to be at least eleven electoral votes, so just Colorado, or New Mexico, or Nevada alone won't do it; it will take something bigger like a Missouri, a Virginia, a North Carolina, a Georgia, or a Texas to be that second state.  Not only is Missouri the smallest of those states, but geographically, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri all make a contiguous three-state area; the logistical considerations of consolodating organizational resources in that greater area are much more reasonable than trying to poach say Iowa and Virginia, which are a thousand miles apart and more culturally divergent.  Furthermore, Illinios being Obama's home state and Iowa being his most heavily organized state this cycle already provides considerable groundwork to expand on, and with people who are right next door, an essential aspect to successful voter outreach; add to that the boost of two Mid-Westerners on the ticket, and that's one heck of a triangle to put up as a firewall this fall even if other attempts to poach red states collapse.  

I must pause here and admit, I had long agreed with pollster Peter Hart's conclusion that Obama would not attempt to break a "double-pained" glass ceiling by considering a female running mate.  However, a consensus has emerged that suburban women are key to states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, and that pro-choice women in battleground states will be pivotal.  On CNN, our own Poblano called these voters "the key voting bloc in the entire election".

It must also be considered that the the televised VP debate will inevitably be against a less security oriented and more vocally pro-life candidate than McCain; why send in a security guy into that fight when the obvious winner would be a moderate sounding pro-choice woman?  Obama also prefers not to dwell on a subject used to cause so much political divisiveness; his VP could address the subject for him.  

McCaskill seems an unlikely pick by conventional standards today.  But so did Obama - and that in itself may have its own appeal to him.  I know there's not a single person here who actually thinks Obama needs an executive or national security person as VP to perform competently in office;  people here only say that to best optimize his electability.  However, as someone who thought for all of 2007 that the Democratic VP candidate would be either Clark or Webb, if the above metrics I have outlined in this diary are accurate, they both fail number three out of the gate.  There is additionally the argument (kos has talked about this briefly as well) that a strong military/national security pick is just providing fodder into the Republican narrative that Obama himself is not credible on those issues.  For those who are ambivalent about that reasoning, one compromise scenario is that Obama could announce another cabinet position (Sec Def and/or National Security Adviser) right before or along with announcing a VP selection who lacks a national security background.

So there's my prediction; what do you think will happen?