This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: August 23, 2008 - By selecting Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has added foreign policy experience to his ticket as well as help in winning a key state, according to an expert on the vice presidency. But Republican leaders in Missouri immediately pounced on the choice of Biden, D-Del., and said he would do little to help Obama win over voters in Missouri.
Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor who has written extensively on the vice presidency, says Biden shores up Obama's lack of experience in foreign policy and is certain to give Obama a lift in in Pennsylvania, a state that's important to winning the presidency. Biden was born in Scranton, Pa. Biden himself has twice sought the presidential nomination and fared poorly in both attempts, but as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he is considered one of the most informed politicians in Washington on a range of foreign policy issues.
"Biden brings credibility on the foreign policy issue to the ticket," Goldstein says. "In addition, he's known for working across the aisle and can appeal to Republican voters. The choice shows that Obama was serious about getting someone with strength on the foreign policy issue." Goldstein said the choice does raise interesting questions since Obama chose a running mate (Biden) who didn't get many votes as a presidential candidate over one (Hillary Clinton) who got millions of votes in her run for the nomination.
"But it's perfectly plausible for Obama not to choose Clinton," Goldstein says, adding that while Clinton might make a good president, "she wasn't perceived as one who would work well with Obama."
Goldstein says it's unclear at this point whether the choice of Biden will satisfy those women who were disappointed that Clinton lost the Democratic primary race to Obama and got little consideration for the second spot. "Already, I see Clinton people saying she should have gotten more consideration," Goldstein says. "My guess is that there will be some unhappiness."
(And it's hard to imagine that Clinton's supporters would have been happier if Clinton had been considered -- and rejected.)
For his part, Biden has a strong record on women's issues, says Goldstein. Biden is pro-choice and has led some crucial Senate fights on issues important to women. These include his opposition to the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork, who wasn't confirmed, and Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed in spite of a contentious battle. The bottom line, Goldstein says, is that "the Russian invasion of Georgia really emphasized national security. That gave additional importance for Obama to have somebody with experience in national security."
On the negative side, Goldstein pointed to Biden's weak spots, one being a tendency to say things he wished he hadn't. Republicans already are calling attention to one of Biden's remarks from early in the primary campaign -- that Obama was "not yet ready" to be president. In addition, Biden may have been well intentioned, but his comment that Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" backfired big time when many blacks called the "compliment" condescending. Biden later apologized for that remark.
Goldstein said Obama had a choice of choosing a candidate who mirrored his campaign theme of change, choosing Clinton and running with her as "a dream team," or selecting a senior statesman, like Biden, who can bring balance to areas where Obama is weak.
"Obama's whole campaign is based on change and he could have picked a running mate who reflected the new -- a person of his generation to emphasize his commitment to change," Goldstein says. "But he chose to pick someone who reinforced experience on the national security issue, which adds credibility to the ticket and guards against that weakness."
Selecting a senior statesman can have drawbacks, says Goldstein. He doesn't expect that to surface in Obama's case. But the disadvantages became apparent in President George W. Bush's own senior statesman running mate, Dick Cheney.
"Some of the problems we have had in last eight years don't reflect well on the senior statesman model. Cheney has been less accountable, prone to secrecy. Had Bush chosen another candidate like Sen. John C. Danforth, for example, Danforth would have operated different from the way Cheney has operated."
Late Saturday morning, Gov. Matt Blunt and former Sen. Jim Talent, both Republicans, attacked Obama's choice in a telephone conference call with reporters.
"We're stunned," Blunt said, adding that Biden was a "pretty uninspiring choice. I was stunned by the distance it places between Obama and Missouri. It undermines any sort of change message. By his own admission, Barack Obama is not prepared to be president."
Asked who might have been a better Democratic choice, Blunt said, "I'm no expert" but added that Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia was one possibility and might have helped Obama in Missouri since Kaine attended the University of Missouri and has Missouri connections. In addition, Blunt says Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana might have been more appealing from a Missouri point of view because of similarities between the economies in Indiana and Missouri.
Instead, Blunt says Obama has settled on "somebody who has no real" connections and ties to Missouri -- and its Midwestern sensibility and values. Biden will come across as too liberal and too much of an Easterner.
Talent said he was surprised that Obama didn't choose Evan Bayh of Indiana. Talent added that Biden was a "very pleasant and friendly guy," but he said Obama's decision reflects his weakness. "It shows that Sen. Obama doesn't have experience and credibility to satisfy people on foreign policy. Both senators (Obama and Biden) don't have experience as governors."
Talent added, "This choice undermines the message of change because Sen. Biden is a Washington insider. Without him, Obama has no record of foreign policy experience. People expect the presidential nominee in these times to have (foreign policy) experience."
Both were asked how Obama's decision to go with someone with foreign policy experience differs from President George W. Bush's choice of Cheney for essentially the same reason.
"The difference is that this was after the Cold War ended and before 9/11," Talent said. "The issues (then) were about domestic policy. The other thing is that President Bush brought credentials as a governor who knew how to make tough decisions."
Blunt added that when Bush chose Cheney, "it was a different time. … I think there's a clear difference in credentials" between Bush and Obama. Also, Blunt said Bush had been governor of one of the largest states in the union.
Blunt added that the Republicans can made a strong case for the candidacy of GOP presidential contender John McCain. Unlike Obama, "McCain is ready from day one to be a commander-in-chief," Blunt said.
