Paul Light examines the candidates' vice presidential search processes, and says, "Obama's choice will be among the easiest in recent history. He has to pick a candidate who will give him needed credibility among low-income voters in a battleground state such as Ohio or Pennsylvania." Actually, i think it's substantially more complicated than that. There's one school of thought which says Obama has real weaknesses, and he should admit them and choose a VP who compensates. Maybe so. But would a VP really compensate? If white males don't trust Obama, will they trust him because there's a white guy in a subordinate position on the ticket? And will a pick meant to fix a potential political problem just lead to a lot of media chatter about that political problem? In other words, will the admission make the problem worse? There's another school of thought -- and this is partly the direction in which I lean -- which says don't admit those weaknesses. Don't act like an "other" who needs a compensating VP. Just as Obama has aggressively refused to view his foreign policy as a vulnerability, just as he doubled down on his opposition to the gas tax holiday, he should double down on the strengths of his candidacy. He should pick another obvious change agent, someone young and either personally or demographically exciting. I lean towards a woman in this spot, but there are lots of ways to meet those requirements. But they require a candidate who amplifies Obama's strength more than mitigates his weaknesses. It's the model of Clinton choosing Gore -- another young Southerner -- rather than Kerry choosing Edwards or Bush choosing Cheney. And given that what's been working for the Obama campaign has been a steadfast refusal to hide from its own potential weaknesses and unpopular positions, there's a big part of me that doesn't want to see them change what isn't necessarily broken.
