Democrats jilted by their Beau

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, has announced that he will not seek the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat that his father held for 36 years, before he became vice president last year.

Ever since Ted Kaufman, who has close ties to the Biden family, was appointed as interim senator, observers have expected Beau to run in the special election that will be held in November. An impending departure to Iraq with his National Guard unit was apparently the only reason he didn't immediately succeed his father.

But as the special election got nearer, uneasy Democrats noted that the younger Biden was not making the necessary moves to launch a candidacy. Today, he confirmed their suspicions that he is backing off.

Republican Congressman Michael Castle now seems to be a shoo-in for the Senate seat.

Chris Cillizza, on The Fix blog on the website of The Washington Post, suggests that this might be just a case of Biden bidin' his time until the next regular election for a six-year term, which is scheduled for 2014. That is based on the notion that Castle, who will be 75 at the time of that election, will perhaps not seek a full term. But if Castle follows the lead of the late Strom Thurmond, he could serve at least four additional terms after that!

Cillizza quotes the vice president as discussing a back-up plan of convincing Kaufman to run. But the interim senator today confirmed his intention to stay out of the special election.

Washington Boomers

Following up on this post, I'll trace the ascent of my baby boomer generation to the top jobs in the federal government (using the standard definition of a baby boomer as anyone born between 1946 and 1964).

The executive and judicial branches are headed by boomers. Barack Obama will be the third consecutive boomer president. His two predecessors are very early boomers; both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were born in 1946. Obama is a late boomer, dating from 1961.

Chief Justice John Roberts is the first boomer in that job. He was born in 1955.

There is no one head of the legislative branch, who would be comparable to the president and the chief justice.

So far, no speaker of the House has been born in 1946 or later. The current incumbent in that office, Nancy Pelosi, was born in 1940. The highest-ranking boomer in the Democratic leadership is John Larson (born in 1948), the new chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

The House Republican leader, John Boehner, is a boomer (1949). So all it would take to make him the first boomer speaker would be to elect a Republican majority at the next election (hint, hint).

One person formally heads up the Senate, but another one really runs the show there. I refer to the vice president of the U.S. (as ex officio president of the Senate), and the majority leader, respectively.

The two boomer vice presidents have been Dan Quayle (1947) and Al Gore (1948). Their two successors, Dick Cheney and Joe Biden, are both significantly older than the boomer presidents whose running-mates they were. Cheney, born in 1941, is five years older than Bush. Biden was born in 1942, and is 18+ years older than Obama.

The only boomer to be Senate majority leader was Bill Frist, who was born in 1952.

Patty Murray (1950) is secretary of the Senate Democratic Conference, making her the highest-ranking boomer in the current Democratic leadership.

John Cornyn, who was born in 1952, is Murray's counterpart on the Republican side, and is the senior boomer in that party's leadership.

Does all this mean anything? Is there a sort of chronological determinism that transmits the qualities for which our generation is (in)famous into public policy? Self-centeredness, a sense of entitlement? I prefer to emphasize (and it's my blog so I can write what I want, how's that for self-centeredness?) worldliness, precocity, self-assurance, etc.

Vice President, but not like you-know-who

As I wrote here, vice presidents have had a different role during the past three decades or so, than their predecessors did. Since the Carter Administration, VPs have been part of the White House team. There are marked differences in the level of influence of the VPs during that period, but none has experienced the type of political limbo to which VPs before Walter Mondale were commonly subjected.

It seems to me that, at first, that change in the vice presidential role was widely seen as a positive reform. But controversies surrounding outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney have given the new vice presidency somewhat of a bad name.

According to this report in Politico, Vice President-elect Joe Biden is putting out the word that his vice presidency will be significantly different than his predecessor's. But all indications are that Biden will be influential in the Obama White House. He has nine times as much Senate experience as the president-elect. Biden has chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, while Obama only recently became a junior member of that panel.

There will probably forever be disagreement about Cheney's role in George W. Bush's administration. Was he the evil genius controlling his puppet president? Or was he the loyal sycophant who supported the current President Bush's policies on Iraq, to the same degree he supported George H.W. Bush's very different approach to the same issue? I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

New Senator From Delaware

Governor Ruth Ann Minner, Democrat of Delaware, has announced her intention to appoint Edward "Ted" Kaufman, to take over the Senate seat being vacated by Vice President-elect Joe Biden, until a special election is held in 2010.

The Associated Press describes Kaufman as a former Biden aide, who is now president of a political and management consulting firm in Wilmington. Here is a description of Kaufman on the website of Duke University, with which he has been affiliated.

All indications are that this is a move to keep the seat open for Joe Biden's son Beau, the state attorney general, who is headed to Iraq with his National Guard unit, but who, if things go according to plan, can run in the special election.

Not Whistling Dixie

More than one country has a region within it that has a distinct culture. That distinctiveness can raise difficult political issues and lead to violence. Such has been the case in Canada with Quebec, and in the United Kingdom with Northern Ireland (and, further back in history, with all of Ireland).

For the U.S. that region has been the South. In this and other posts, I've written about the manner in which slavery and its aftermath have affected the politics of the South, and of the country as a whole.

For much of the 20th century, the most influential southerners on Capitol Hill tended to be Democrats who were committee chairmen, after having built up a lot of seniority over long careers during which they faced little or no Republican opposition.

By the 1990s, southerners had extended their reach to several leadership positions in the political branches of the federal government. At the apex of their power, from June 12, 1996 to January 3, 1999, southerners (defined as those from states that had been part of the Confederacy) held all of the following offices: president, vice president, Senate majority leader, speaker of the House, and House majority leader.

As of January 20, 2009, none of those five offices will be held by anyone from an ex-Confederate state. Those who come closest to being able to be called a southerner are Vice President-elect Joe Biden of Delaware, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Delaware and Maryland were classified as border states during the Civil War, i.e., slave states that did not secede.

This New York Times article, which mainly addresses racial issues in this year's presidential election as it played out in the South, discusses how that region is becoming marginalized in national politics.

Senate Committees

Two of the most prominent committees in the U.S. Senate will get new chairmen in January.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden has chaired the Committee on Foreign Relations. And Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, has announced he will relinquish his chairmanship of the Committee on Appropriations.

Normally, the successor in such a situation would be the Democrat with the next-longest seniority on the committee. On Foreign Relations, that is Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. Dodd already chairs the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and plans to stay in that role.

Next in seniority is John Kerry of Massachusetts. Kerry's name has been mentioned as a potential secretary of state in the Obama Administration. But, if he stays in the Senate, he will probably become chairman.

If Kerry does not take over the chair, next in line is Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Here is an article in The Hill, describing the implications of that.

The number-two Democrat on Appropriations is Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who is expected to become chairman in January. Here in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin is home-state pride about Inouye taking over that committee, as well as Hawaii native Barack Obama moving into the White House.

Speaking of the Foreign Relations Committee: Its House counterpart is the Committee on Foreign Affairs. A political science professor of mine had a story about how a senator helped him remember which name applies in which house of Congress. The average senator is older than the average representative in the House. Therefore, according to this senator, he and his colleagues could still have relations, but were too old to have affairs.

Senate Vacancies

12 Democratic U.S. senators were up for reelection this year. All of them successfully sought reelection. Some commentator (I forget who it was) said before the election that the only two Democrats likely to be leaving the Senate were Barack Obama and Joe Biden. And now we know that that will be the case.

Senators in that situation usually resign their seats some time between the adjournment of the outgoing Congress, and the convening of the next Congress. It is considered likely that the current Congress will go back into a "lame duck session" later this month. Obama and Biden will presumably want to hold on to their Senate seats until that session adjourns.

If they resign a few days before the new Congress convenes on January 3, 2009, their successors will be higher in seniority than incoming senators who begin their terms on January 3.

Standard procedure for filling Senate vacancies is for the governor to make an interim appointment, that is effective until a special election is held. Special election laws vary among the states. However, since Obama's Senate term is up in 2010 anyway, there would be no special election in Illinois.

Illinois' governor is Democrat Rod Blagojevich. The most prominent name that has been mentioned as a potential appointee is U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Other candidates include U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and state Senate President Emil Jones.

Governor Ruth Ann Minner, Democrat of Delaware, will leave office on January 20, 2009. Assuming Biden resigns before the new Congress convenes, Minner will make the interim appointment. But even if, for whatever reason, the appointment is delayed until after January 20, it won't make much difference, because Minner will be succeeded by fellow Democrat Jack Markell.

There is much speculation that Biden wants to maneuver his son, state Attorney General Beau Biden, into the Senate seat. Beau Biden will soon be sent to Iraq with his National Guard unit, so his first chance at the Senate would probably be at the 2010 special election. If so, the vice president-elect would want Minner to appoint a "placeholder" who would not challenge Beau Biden in the special election.

Candidates for appointment by Minner include state Secretary of State Harriet Smith Windsor and Lieutenant Governor John Carney. It can never be guaranteed that such an appointee will cooperate and step aside when the special election comes around.

My Vote

I have attempted to write this blog as an impartial amateur journalist/historian, as I explained here.

But now I want to step out of that role, and explain for whom I will vote, and why.

I plan to vote for Barack Obama. I have not voted Democratic for president since the last time the Phillies won the World Series.

As I see it, there are two aspects to a presidential campaign: 1) job interview, and 2) referendum on the issues.

Over the years, I've increasingly appreciated the importance of the job-interview aspect of the campaign. In other words, the part where voters decide which candidate would do a better job, aside from considerations of political philosophy.

I voted for George W. Bush both times but, in retrospect, he should have failed the job interview.

During his 2000 campaign, Bush struck the right chords for the various elements in the Republican coalition. But the results were something entirely different. There was significant growth in the scope of the federal government. And that was not limited to the inside-the-beltway growth that inevitably accompanies war. There was also the expansion of pork-barrel spending by congressional Republicans while the presidential veto pen sat idle.

I also believe that, while some of the U.S. military action that has been taken during Bush's presidency was necessary, much of it was not. His expansion of the war on Islamism into Iraq was unnecessary, and while, of course, the human cost in terms of people killed and wounded is the biggest issue, one also needs to take into account the resulting further increases in federal spending, and restrictions on civil liberties.

The main point that is relevant to this discussion is that that is very much contrary to the modest foreign policy that was promised by candidate Bush.

Now, John McCain is also saying many of the things Republicans want to hear. But, as I watched a McCain rally on C-SPAN last week, it struck me that his campaign promises were ones I've heard many times in past campaigns (and I've seen quite a few presidential campaigns by now).

As I've been tending to discount the usual campaign promises, I return to the question: which candidate would do a better job? I've decided that the answer to that question is Barack Obama.

One thing I've found in both the business and political worlds: the longer résumé is not necessarily the better one.

Arguably the best presidential résumé during my lifetime was that of George H.W. Bush, with experience in business, Congress, diplomacy, spying, and as vice president (though perhaps the least influential VP since the transformation of that office in the 1970s).

On paper, he had more experience that is relevant to the job of president than Ronald Reagan. But the Republican Party did not see it that way, when the two were battling for its presidential nomination in 1980. The verdict of history, I think it's safe by now to say, will also favor Reagan.

So what skill set does applicant Obama bring to his interview?

Many commentators have of course been talking about Obama's talking, i.e., his eloquence. His opponents dismiss him as a glib speaker who is more show than substance. But I consider eloquence to be a very important qualification for the job.

Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan could be called the two most effective 20th-century presidents. They were both very effective speakers. Had Roosevelt made the same choice of a first career as Reagan did, he could probably have done very well.

Both Bushes have been hampered by their ineloquence. The current president's folksy style is occasionally effective, as in his impromptu "people who knocked these buildings down" speech on September 14, 2001, at Ground Zero. But, for the most part, he has been a failure in rallying a nation for war, especially when contrasted with Roosevelt.

I don't think McCain is a much better speaker, if he's better at all, than the two Presidents Bush.

Another issue is that of temperament. Obama has appeared unflappable in his public appearances. That gives me more confidence than the more-emotional McCain, with his, apparently well-earned, reputation as a hothead.

At the risk of droning on long enough to produce a pro-McCain backlash, two more points:

This issue could be labeled either style or substance, depending on your mood.

It's the issue that one side would, quoting the Declaration of Independence, call "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind". Another faction, those who eat freedom fries with their hamburgers, call it surrendering our foreign policy autonomy to the French. They would perhaps add one or more colorful words between "the" and "French".

While, as I mentioned above, I support some of the military actions the U.S. has taken against Islamist militants, I have for some time thought that the balance should to some degree swing back toward soft power and multilateral diplomacy.

I can't quantify precisely how much of a change there should be, but I think Obama is more likely to get that balance right than is McCain.

To finally end this, let's discuss the governor of Alaska.

My decision not to vote Republican this time was pretty much sealed when McCain chose Palin as his running mate.

With a 72-year-old cancer survivor at the top of that party's ticket, I think more than the usual degree of attention needs to be given to the number-two on that ticket.


One problem, but not the only one, I have with Palin is her inexperience. While it's somewhat of a gamble backing Obama, who until quite recently had no experience above the level of state legislator, I'm still more comfortable putting American foreign policy in the hands of someone who has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, than someone with two years in Juneau.

My bigger concern has been her leanings toward the religious right.

I'm a member of a minority group within a minority group by being a gay Republican. As such, I'm attracted to that faction that has not been much in evidence lately, the libertarian Republicans. And, as you might guess, my least favorite faction is the religious right.

Palin gave a very moderate answer to a question about sexuality issues during her televised debate with Joe Biden. However, I still believe that, of all candidates on Republican tickets in recent decades, she is the one who is closest to the religious right point of view, more so than Reagan, Quayle and both Bushes. Along with my other doubts about her, that makes me want to look elsewhere for a vice president.

Next Time

My late father was one of the most fanatical football watchers in America. A sometime sports journalist himself, he was critical of college football commentators who, all season long, would speculate about who would win the Heisman Trophy, the annual award to the best college football player.

I've come to share that opinion, and a year or two ago, I remember hearing a radio report speculating on the following year's winner, the day before that year's winner was to be announced. Well, now I'm going to do the political equivalent of that: commenting on the outlook for 2012 and beyond, in advance of election day 2008.

First, the scenario that the polls say is highly likely, an Obama victory.

In the post World War II-era, there has been an iron rule about an incumbent president's hope for reelection. If he is unopposed, or faces only token opposition, for his party's nomination, he wins the general election. Otherwise, he is thrown out. Phrasing it that way muddles cause and effect, but the correlation has held.

There's no way of knowing which way that will go. Of course, his strong supporters will tell you that an Obama victory would mark the second coming, with the lion lying down with the lamb, etc. And his staunch opponents are certain that he will fail utterly, and that the country will tire of having Bill Ayers in a position of influence in the White House, etc.

While it's impossible to say which issues will be important at any point in the future, it's safe to say that, for a while at least, he'll need to deal with economic issues. And I suspect that, as usual, the next president will get too much credit for economic good news, and too much blame for what might go wrong.

Who is waiting in the wings, if Obama stumbles? The first name that comes to mind, of course, is Hillary Clinton. She will be 65 in 2012, and that could be her last chance.

Some of the Democratic senators who were elected in 2006, and those who might win in 2008, are possibilities. Mark Warner of Virginia, who is expected to win a Senate seat this year, was considered presidential timber in the runup to 2008, but opted for the Senate race instead. Also, I wonder whether one of the Udall cousins in Colorado and New Mexico might try to accomplish what Morris Udall fell short of achieving in his 1976 run for the presidency.

Might Kay Hagan of North Carolina be seen as the next big thing, if she succeeds in unseating Elizabeth Dole in their Senate race this year?

Over the past 32 years, ex-governors have been in the White House for 28 years. But the current crop of large-state governors does not seem very promising. Rendell of Pennsylvania, Strickland of Ohio, and Blagojevich of Illinois, seem to lack both the ambition and the support within their party. And Granholm of Michigan is an immigrant, and therefore ineligible.

Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York was seen as a rising star in the Democratic Party, until his resignation in the wake of a prostitution scandal. His successor, David Paterson, is seen as merely a transitional figure.

On the other hand, if Obama is reelected, the question turns to 2016.

Joe Biden will be 74 in 2016. While the Republicans were willing to nominate a 72-year-old this year, Biden's age might disqualify him from being heir-apparent to Obama. And, after his two failed attempts at the Democratic presidential nomination, his party might not be all that interested anyway.

I think it's likely that the Democrats would then turn to a new generation of leaders, and we'll need to keep watch over the next 4-8 years, to see who emerges.

On the Republican side, all of the talk has been of Sarah Palin emerging as her party's front-runner for 2012.

Some of the also-rans this year might give it another try, such as Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

On the more moderate side, I'll be interested to follow the future of two Minnesota Republicans. Gov. Tim Pawlenty was on McCain's short list for running mate in 2008. He is not term-limited and has indicated a possible interest in becoming the first governor of his state to win a third term, when he's up for reelection in 2010. The other is Sen. Norm Coleman, if he can cut short the Al Franken decade.

What about the unlikely possibility that McCain wins?

The first question would be whether, at 76, he would run for reelection in 2012. His refusal to say now that he will limit himself to one term might be based on the experience of his hero Theodore Roosevelt. As I wrote here, Roosevelt (though in his case certainly not for age reasons) made such a pledge, and came to regret it.

But, if McCain wins this year, I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually bowed out of the 2012 campaign.

Either way, Sarah Palin would be well-placed to launch a candidacy to succeed McCain.

Delaware Senate Election

Democratic incumbent: Joe Biden

Republican candidate: Christine O'Donnell

I described Biden's background here, when he was about to be named as Barack Obama's running mate.

O'Donnell, 39, has worked as a political commentator on television and as a media consultant. This is apparently her first bid for elective office.

Polls listed in Real Clear Politics show a commanding lead for Biden. Oddly, that page describes Biden as being unopposed, even though it shows O'Donnell's poll numbers. However, given the size of those numbers, it seems as though the Democratic incumbent is, in effect, unopposed.

I wrote here about the implications of Biden's running for senator and vice president on the same day.

Biden was junior senator to Republican William Roth for 28 years. Democrat Tom Carper, who was then governor, defeated Roth in 2000, and was reelected in 2006.

Biden v. Palin

I didn't watch the vice-presidential debate live. I'm an early riser, and was not prepared to stay at it until 10:30 pm (I'm in the Eastern time zone). I was only awake long enough to see the Phightin' Phils conclude their second victory over the True Blue Brew Crew.

I have so far seen the first few minutes of the debate on my DVR. What I've seen is consonant with the reviews I've been reading on the Web. It was, in a sense, a draw.

I think we can make an analogy to the military concept of asymmetrical warfare. That was what allowed al Qaeda to attack the much, much, much more powerful U.S.A., on September 11, 2001.

Biden, who is completing his sixth term in the U.S. Senate, has more experience dealing with issues such as foreign policy, taxation, regulation of financial services, etc. than all but very few in either house of Congress. As expected, he spoke smoothly and eloquently about those topics, with effortless command of the basic facts. (How far either candidate may have been molding the truth to fit their stories is a somewhat different question.)

Palin was eight years old when Biden was first elected to the Senate. She has been mayor of a tiny town, and, very briefly, governor of the second-least-populous state. The balance of power was seemingly all against her.

But that background gives Palin certain advantages that Biden can't match. She can portray herself as an outsider at a time when both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government are held in low regard.

Her folksy charm is something that would not fit Biden's style, and he wisely did not go there. But she felt no inhibitions about saying such things as "bringing folks together", "darn right", "Joe Six-pack" and, of course, "hockey moms".

In the words of the document I've linked to above, she fought on her own terms.

Neither side had much to gain. Biden is obviously a "safe pair of hands". He could not significantly add to the reputation he has built up over several decades. On the other hand, Palin could not have sold herself as a born-again policy wonk. That would not have been credible, regardless of the quality of her performance.

On the other hand, there was a downside risk for each candidate. I think Biden would have come off badly, had he seemed too condescending toward Palin. And the danger for Palin was that she would have appeared to be in over her head. They both avoided those traps.

So that seems to leave things unchanged: Obama is still in the lead, and McCain remains in need of something with which to break the Illinoisan's momentum. It was always clear that this debate was not going to be that "something". The Republican ticket's goal was survival, and they achieved that.

The Senate Bails In

Here is an analysis of the U.S. Senate's roll call vote last night on a version of the financial bailout bill, that was somewhat different from the bill that was rejected by the U.S. House earlier this week.

The breakdown by party is as follows:

Democrats: Yes 39, No 9, Not Voting 1 (Kennedy)
Republicans: Yes 34, No 15
Independents: Yes 1, No 1

This is obviously different from the House vote, on which the majority of Republicans voted "no". But it's similar in the sense that the "no" votes were fairly evenly distributed between the parties (however, as in the House, there were more Republicans in opposition than Democrats).

The regional breakdown is:

Midwest: Yes 18, No 6
Northeast: Yes 16, No 1, Not Voting 1
South: Yes 21, No 11
West: Yes 19, No 7

The only "no" vote in the Northeast is Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, the self-proclaimed socialist who caucuses with the Democrats. (So, I suppose the whole thing can't be socialist after all, huh?)

As I wrote about the House vote in an earlier post, regional interests largely trump party affiliation on an issue such as this, that affects the Northeast more directly than it affects other regions.

In each region, a majority voted in favor, although the South was the least enthusiastic part of the country. Most of the southern opposition was from Republicans.

There's no gender gap on this issue. 25% of the male senators voted "no", and 25% of the female senators did likewise.

Presidential candidates were 2-0 in favor. Among vice-presidential candidates, there was one "yes" vote, and governors have no vote in the Senate.

But, as with the House vote, there are serious differences among astrological signs. Aries and Gemini senators were unanimously in favor. Only among the Taurus caucus was there majority opposition.

And, in case you're extremely curious about this, and I certainly hope you're not, Obama is a Leo, McCain is a Virgo, and Biden is a Scorpio.

Presidential Election -- Pennsylvania

Electoral votes: 21

2004 result: Kerry 51%, Bush 48%

2000 result: Gore 51%, Bush 46%

Most recent Republican win (1988): Bush 51%, Dukakis 48%

African American percentage: 10.7% (national average is 12.8%)

Link to polls in Real Clear Politics

Despite all of the writing I do about Minnesota, Pennsylvania is the state where I've spent most of my adult life. The Republican ticket won the first presidential election after my move here in 1987. But it's been all Democratic, ever since.

There are three interesting effects in play this year:

The Democrats have been gaining strength in this decade, in the wealthier suburbs of Philadelphia. There seem to be two reasons for this: 1) George Bush is not the sort of Republican that particularly appeals to many of the long-time Republican voters in those areas; and 2) Democrats such as Gov. Ed Rendell do not scare away those voters. Therefore those suburbs no longer as strongly offset Democratic strength among urban Philadelphia and Pittsburgh voters.

This is the state about which Obama made his comments about bitter people clinging to religion and guns. That might make it difficult for Obama to gain support in Central Pennsylvania and other rural parts of the state. James Carville is not my favorite political figure, but it's difficult to dispute his contention that Pennsylvania consists of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and in between it's Alabama. Will Obama gain enough suburban votes to offset any loss of votes in "Alabama"?

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden is a Pennsylvania native. Although his family moved to Delaware when he was very young, he did not go far away. Delaware is covered by the Philadelphia media market. That might be of some help in shoring up support for Obama in the Philadelphia area.

So far, the net effect of all that has been a virtual tie in the polls. Pennsylvania will be, as they say, a "keystone", if the race stays close.

Sarah Palin Revisited

You may recall that I was very skeptical regarding John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. My initial reaction was that, from his standpoint, that decision was a mistake. So far, at least, she seems to be proving me wrong.

There appears to be a consensus that she handled herself well in TV interviews this week with ABC's Charles Gibson. Those were her biggest media exposure, so far, outside of the formal speech format.

I'm sure there will be more interest in this year's vice-presidential debate, than there has been in prior election years, since those debates began in 1976.

The contrast between the male, older, experienced Washington hand, and the younger female outsider, will be interesting.

Two Campaigns Are Better Than One

Joe Biden's Senate seat is up for reelection this year. Now that he will be the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, does he need to give up his Senate seat? That is a matter of state law. According to various media reports today, Delaware law allows Biden to run for senator and vice president on the same day.

Lyndon Johnson faced the same scenario in 1960. Texas law was changed to allow him to run for both offices simultaneously. He won both elections, and subsequently resigned from the Senate.

That turned out to be a more important consideration for another Texan, Lloyd Bentsen, the unsuccessful Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1988. "Lyndon's Law" was still in force in 1988. Bentsen was reelected to the Senate on the same day that his ticket headed by Michael Dukakis lost the presidential election. Bentsen continued to serve in the Senate until 1993, when President Clinton appointed him secretary of the treasury.

UPDATE: The Associated Press now reports that Biden will run for both senator and vice president.

Joe Biden

Barack Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his running mate. The Obama campaign followed through this morning on its plan to make the high-tech announcement via text message and email, with a confirmation on the campaign web site.

On July 9, I wrote that I wanted "just as much chance to be wrong as anyone else". I was correct in stating that I was incorrect.

Can Do, But Won't

Barack Obama could quote that John Cleese line from Monty Python's Flying Circus as he declines to comment this morning on his choice of a running mate. Obama says he has made his decision, but is not ready to announce it, yet. Tomorrow morning is a pretty hard deadline for making the announcement, with a joint appearance reportedly planned for tomorrow in Illinois. There is some speculation that the announcement will be made later today.

Many pundits seem convinced that the choice is Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Biden, 65, was first elected to the Senate in 1972. Two noteworthy events occurred between that election and the convening of the new Congress on January 3, 1973. One was that Biden turned 30, and therefore met the constitutional minimum age requirement for senators. The other was that his wife and daughter were killed in a car accident.

Biden is now completing his sixth term in the Senate. He is number six in seniority in the Senate, and number four among Democrats. He chairs the Committee on Foreign Relations, and formerly chaired the Committee on the Judiciary.

An odd scandal ended Biden's candidacy for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. His offense was plagiarism, which seems like small potatoes compared to other Washington scandals, but he withdrew from the campaign. He ran for president again this year, but failed to get any significant support in the primaries.

If Obama has indeed settled on Biden, I think it points up a flaw in much of the speculation (by me, as well as others) about potential vice-presidential nominees. Much of that speculation has centered around which states will be pivotal in the electoral college, and whether a running mate could deliver his or her state for the ticket. Chances are that Delaware will vote for Obama anyway, and in any case it offers only three electoral votes.

Obama may be concentrating more on which candidate can best play the role of presidential advisor which, as I noted here, is a relatively new role that has become increasingly important over the last few decades. The notions of ticket balancing and/or delivering a key state may by now have become historical relics.

Biden, with his long Washington experience, and his committee work involving both foreign and domestic issues, seems like a good candidate for the advisor role.

UPDATE: In an odd twist, the name of Texas Congressman Chet Edwards has surfaced as this day has gone on. He has more Washington experience than Obama, having been in the House since 1991. But he does not seem to belong near the top of the list in terms of being a potential senior advisor to a President Obama, or bringing an image of gravitas to the Democratic ticket. If Edwards is chosen, then perhaps the days of ticket-balancing are not, as I speculated above, over. He is said to be a favorite of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Edwards's district includes President Bush's ranch at Crawford, Texas.