VeepStakes!
Each of the prospects — Mark Kelly, Tim Walz, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer, Pete Buttigieg — brings some pluses and minuses to the table. (Somebody mentioned Gina Raimondo, former governor of R.I., but I don’t see it.) A common theme is the aim for normality, as a contrast to the relatively exotic Kamala and the weird duo. All of them check that box, Kelly and Walz more than the others. The quintessentially ordinary Biden served this purpose with Obama.
Taking them in order, Kelly is the least promising option, since in terms of program or ideology he brings little to the table. As the most centrist, he is too much of a lurch to the center to keep the current enthusiasm going among voters. He is the safest choice, which makes him the least desirable and the most negative signal to the party’s liberal legions, a huge buzzkill. He should stay in the Senate. He matches up with Arizonans, God love ‘em.
I’ve seen Walz twice in interviews. He is also a strong normie contrast to Kamala and appealing in a familiar way. He could have been your social studies teacher in high school. He has a military service record that puts Vance to shame, much less the former guy, and a good policy background. He seems more real than a straight dude who uses eyeliner makeup. One fact that makes him simultaneously abnormal and normal is that he is not an attorney.
I saw part of a speech by Shapiro. He was strong. The Democrats need Pennsylvania, where their numbers don’t seem to have surged as much as in other states. The rap on him is Israel. I think this is mistaken on a number of counts.
The Democratic ticket will have ample opportunity to put some daylight between themselves and Biden on Israel. Of course they will try to do it. All signs point to Netanyahu provoking a regional war any time now, which unleashes completely unpredictable political scenarios. It was pointed out by Yair Rosenberg that Shapiro as VP would be an effective buffer for President Harris against the insane Israeli right, which will be with us indefinitely regardless of Netanyahu’s fate.
On the specifics of Palestine, Shapiro is no different than most of the party. That he is Jewish maybe makes him stick out more on the issue, but that bias is just stupid. Actually, on Israel, he is a little better than the center of the party. As I’ve said, on this and other issues, it helps to be Jewish. This is a guy who went on the public record saying “I personally believe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the worst leaders of all time.”
There is an ignorant, common tendency to equate Jewishness with an affiliation with Zionism. Something to get straight: if you’re Jewish but don’t emigrate to Israel, you’re not a Zionist, o.k.? As Rabbi Arthur Waskow once said, “If you’re a Zionist, either go to Israel or shut up.” If you root for Israel v. Hamas or whomever, you’re not a Zionist. You merely have a debatable view of foreign policy. “Christian Zionist” is an utter non-sequitur. If you think Israel has a right to exist, you’re not a Zionist. I happen to think Moldolva has a right to exist, but that doesn’t make me a Moldovist.
Some fools are trying to make “Genocide Josh” a thing. (No links, find it yourself if so inclined.) I’ve already elaborated why the genocide thing applied to anybody running against Trump, Mr Catastrophe himself, is a profound disservice to the world’s Muslims and POC in general. There is reporting that Palestinians in Gaza prefer Harris to Trump. Of course that cuts no ice with radicals safely ensconced on U.S. campuses.
There could be other reasons to reject Shapiro, but Israel is not one for which he compares unfavorably from the other options.
Whitmer seems like the most exciting Democratic politician right now, but matching her on a ticket with Harris — two women, land sakes! — is risky. Risky can pay off big but fail big too. That’s why they call it risk. I like her kicking ass in Michigan.
Pete B. is a great talker and would be a bear in a debate, but owing to his sexuality, a risk like Whitmer. He doesn’t help in any particular state. I saw him in person, way back before 2016, and he was good then too. He needs to find a state with an open Senate seat that he can win.
I don’t know anything about the Southerners who have been mentioned — Andy Beshear or Roy Cooper — good or bad. Based on snippets of information, I come around to Walz, but most of the choices are interesting and appealing. The way things are going, I think we’ll be good no matter who it is.
I’m increasingly drawn to Walz, who also strikes me as the most Midwest-progressive of the bunch. Watch this video where he addresses a roomful of geographers last month: https://mediaspace.esri.com/media/t/1_d2sqkrju
I like the idea of building on the general excitement that the Harris candidacy has engendered. The “safe” choices dampen it. If Buttigieg or Whitmer go too far in that regard, Walz splits the difference in a non-threatening way.
And he’s got a dandy LtGov to take over for him in Minnesota.
My problem with Shapiro isn't the Gaza War, where he is indeed near the center of the party. But his treatment of the pro-Palestinian student protestors is a genuine shanda. The voucher stuff is kind of creepy, but a tolerable quirk. Buttigieg is, AFAIK, still a left-neolib, of the Clinton-Obama-Raimondo persuasion. (These folk believe in high marginal rates and deregulation, which is arguable on paper, but in practice leads merely to deregulation.) Other than that, he is great.