Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Obama: Almost As Rushmore-Worthy As FDR? | Main | The POLITICO's Seven Deadly Sins Of Being Obama »

Nov 30 2009, 4:52 pm by Matthew Cooper

Obama's Winning First Year--And Palin As Worst Veep

Over at Slate, my friend Jacob Weisberg makes a compelling argument that Obama is having the most successful first year of any president since FDR. He notes that a lot of that argument depends on the passage of health care reform, which, I think, remains a pretty good bet. I'd only add that Reagan was a pretty close second. He passed major tax changes that revolutionized/defunded the government for a generation. He didn't take on spending cuts in as big a way as his critics and cheerleaders would argue, but he significantly increased military spending and his changes in American foreign policy were at least as big as the ones that Weisberg sees as Obama-sized.

I argued last week that Sarah Palin was not the worst veep pick since World War II. I think those honors go to Spiro Agnew, Henry Wallace, John Edwards and Richard Nixon. This is leaving aside third party favorites like Curtis LeMay who ran with George Wallace, and it also leaves out the overly maligned, like Dan Quayle and Joe Lieberman and the titanic Lyndon Johnson. Best veep picks of the post World War II era? I'd throw in Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, Estes Kefauver, Hubert Humphrey. But willing to accept all suggestions for best and worst...

:: Comments (12) :: Share This

Comments (12)

dnfree

Agnew was a bad and cynical pick and his fate confirms that. John Edwards was not an obviously bad pick until the 2008 Presidential campaign, so that's hindsight.

Al Gore accomplished so much more than he was given credit for, and the uncritical press allowed the misstatements about him during the 2000 campaign to stand.

BreakerBaker (Replying to: dnfree)

It was pretty clear to people who were honest with themselves that John Edwards was a pretty bad pick when he was brutalized by Dick Cheney in the debate. Yes, Cheney blew it by telling an easily refutable lie about never having met Edwards before, but that lie was only revealed as a lie after the debate. After Edwards was made to look like a child in a man's suit for 90 minutes.

purpledawg

Ditto on Al Gore as VP, but he caused many of his own problems during the 2000 campaign. In particular, running away from the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration and choosing Leiberman as his VP pick.

I think Reagan didn't appreciate George H.W. Bush and marginalized him to ceremonial roles. On that note, I think the Republican Party didn't appreciate Bush 41 for the true fiscal conservative that he was. If it were not for the tax increases on his watch, Clinton would not have seen the economy strengthen as much during his administration.

And, as much as I hate to say it, who the hell is Estes Kefauver?

Jon (Replying to: purpledawg)

Re: In particular, running away from the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration and choosing Leiberman as his VP pick.


Your complaint about Liebermann is also 20/20 hindsight. In 2000 Liebermann was a garden variety Jewish liberal, not the Republican neo-con in Democrat clothing that he became after 9-11. I agree that Liebermann did not add much to the ticket, but I don't think he took much away from it either.

purpledawg (Replying to: Jon)

Hmmm ... okay, back then the announcement of Leibermann as Gore's VP was a big "HUH?" for me. He reminded me of a wet fish back then and, in my opinion, did not reflect well on Gore's decision-making process ... which was already taking a beating given Gore's horrible campaign.

alec

"...who the hell is Estes Kefauver? "

Senator-(D) Tennessee, investigated organized crime. Famous for investigating comic books as a source of juvenile delinquency in 1953. Interesting fact, Larry "Pinto" Kroger (Tom Hulce) in Animal House went to C. Estes Kefauver High. Ok, maybe not that interesting...

Zen Cynic

Worst Veep pick since WWII? That's easy: Thomas Eagleton.

Further doomed McGovern candidacy.

IDKinnock

That's not a bad list but I'd quibble with one of your choices. At the time Estes Kefauver in no way helped the Stevenson campaign. He was reviled in the South and his only constituency was sympathetic northern liberals. His "selection" by the convention delegates was interesting/invigourating but other than that he had a negligent impact on the campaign. One the other hand, Lyndon Johnson was probably the best VP pick. Given his Conservative and Southern roots he appealed to Dixie in ways that Kennedy couldn't. Additionally, after JFK's death LBJ was in a position to advance their agenda in a way that no else could have given his knowledge and relationship with Congress.

jay77

Zen Cynic got it: Tom Eagleton. The only one who had to be removed from the ticket.

Some others, though just kind of mediocre - Bentsen, Kemp...I don't know enough about Ferraro as a pick, but wasn't there some trouble with her husband's business dealings?

IglooJohn

Excuse me but has Ross Perot's disastrous choice for his veep in 1992 escaped everyone's memory? Vice Admiral James Stockdale surely sunk Perot's ship from the moment he first opened his mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6n5OQVzVVQ

colby

1) It wasn't that long ago you found it very unlikely they'd pass health care. Plenty has changed, and you're allowed to add your mind to that, but it just goes to show the danger of predictions...

2) Obama hasn't had an FDR-esque first year. FDR passed a LOT of major legislation, really revolutionizing the government, if not American life. Obama hasn't done that, but he has laid the groundwork for such legislation. Health care, jobs, financial regulation, all of those things will pass, but probably not until after his first year is up. Gitmo won't wrap up until then, either. We won't be out of Iraq for awhile, the economy won't turn around, we'll have no idea what Afghanistan is, and his more "engaged" foreign policy won't pay off until he's really cultivated those relationships. That's not to say these things WON'T ever happen, or that when they do, Obama deserves no credit for the legwork he did in the first year. Just saying, Obama, half by design, half by necessity, is playing a long game, not FDR's "just try SOMETHING" tactic.

3) The thing about Palin is that she had obvious problems that drug her ticket down in ways the others didn't. Agnew's corruption was unknown when he ran, and Nixon still won. Wallace was no drag on FDR, or Nixon on Ike. Edwards' problem came up later, too, and I think the problems with that ticket lie at the top. But that's judging her and the rest as CANDIDATES, not as VPs or as politicians as a whole (indeed, we CAN'T judge Palin as a VP). So it depends on what question we're asking.

DCCyclone (Replying to: colby)

EVERYONE should read Colby's comment, it's very smart on all points.

I think colby's key point is critically important that one must evaluate VP picks based on what was known and knowable at the time the picks were made. Palin did, indeed, have known and knowable problems at the outset, which is why her choice was such a surprise.

In particular, I'm astonished to see Matt calling Henry Wallace a bad pick. FDR became the only President ever to win a 3rd term that very year!

And on Obama, I agree completely, Obama is playing the long game, not looking for short-term political points. He did in fact pursue a few of those early on, with things like S-CHIP and the Lilly Ledbetter law, but those things were never high-profile given the major problems in economic and foreign policy he faced. And those major problems simply aren't fixable short term, they require patience.