David Brooks' description of what to look for in a running mate, as well as his calculation of one of Obama's chief deficiencies, is right on:
...a sensible presidential candidate shouldn't be selecting a mate on the basis of who can help him get elected. He should be thinking about who can help him govern successfully so he can get re-elected.
That means asking: What circumstances will I face when I take office? What tasks will I need my chief subordinate to perform to help me face those circumstances?
If Barack Obama is elected, his chief challenge will be that he hopes to usher in a new style of politics, but he has no real strategy for how to do that.
I recently traveled to Phoenix to interview Janet Napolitano for an upcoming print profile. What struck me was how instructive her tenure is to those wondering what Obama's compromise between "unity" and party-building would look like in practice. Napolitano has governed according to that exact model in Arizona, forming coalitions with business and moderate Republicans that have brought state Democrats to the point of possibly retaking the very conservative Arizona state legislature this November. She's done it by cultivating her law and order credibility and, yes, departing from the progressive line on some key issues, such as the death penalty.
Napolitano also chose to send National Guards to the Arizona-Mexico border, which was a highly controversial move among immigrants' rights activists, but later became a keystone of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy immigration reform compromise that the Senate killed last year. All three presidential candidates support that plan. So if there's one politician in the United States right now whose governing philosophy is a match for Obama's, but who augments his flourishes with real world executive experience, it's probably Napolitano. Brooks suggests either Tom Daschle or Sam Nunn as the running mate., emphasizing their ability to coax Congress. They'd also be sensible choices, although a bit old hat.
--Dana Goldstein
