Description: You want to pick a candidate that compensates for your weaknesses, Kuhn says.

Transcript: It’s clear in my book that I didn’t think the Democratic leaders were the best suited to reach out to the very voters the Democrats lost in the last four years.  I do believe there were stronger Democratic candidates out there, but that doesn’t really matter at this point.  It’s gonna be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.  And I would emphasize again that even when John Edwards was in that race I felt the same way about the top three.  So it’s not simply because it’s . . . It’s not in fact at all because Hillary is a woman and Barack’s an African-American.  In fact, Hillary Clinton lacks what has been quite successful for female candidates in appealing to men as well as women, which is she wasn’t a former prosecutor.  That’s been a wonderful way for female governors, for example, to show their toughness, their grit to basically deal with the stereotypes that they have to deal with as women – which is that they’re not tough enough or willing to make the hard choices.  And as I like to remind people men also deal with their stereotypes – that they’re not sensitive; that they don’t care – look at Joe Biden.  What Joe Biden said – that Barack Obama was “articulate” . . . “clean and articulate” – certainly was like a bit strange.  But what people missed was Tiger Woods in describing Barack Obama in one sentence about two weeks ago used the word “articulate” right away.  What Biden did was stupid for a politician that came at an inopportune time.  But he was held to that standard because he’s a white guy.  And that’s fine because women have to disprove stereotypes, white guys have to disprove stereotypes, and certainly Barack Obama as an African-American has had to disprove stereotypes in this race.  So what matters now is if it’s Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton as a nominee, what can these candidates do to reach out to these men?  I talk about that in the last chapter of my book, and so the policies and stances and the way in which these candidates should try and define themselves to the public; and certainly the attributes about themselves they should emphasize.  But they should also consider their vice presidential selection very, very carefully.  Now Vice Presidents don’t make a huge difference, but they are important.  They’re important because one, you don’t wanna do any harm.  But two, you wanna pick a candidate that possibly compensates for your weaknesses.  And three, you wanna pick a candidate who would possibly help you in a state.  That whole idea about they can be president from day one is nice, but they’re not worried too much about that.  They don’t want someone who appears unpresidential.  So they should very seriously consider that both of them have weaknesses on national security.  And I emphasize even Hillary Rodham Clinton.  And both of them have weaknesses on in experience, and that they should possibly look for a candidate that maybe does fit the Republican archetype of candidate that they have put forward in the last 25 years.  Now that doesn’t mean Democrat . . . That doesn’t mean Republican lite.  That doesn’t mean moderation without principles.  That doesn’t mean really the middle road that so many on the left are infuriated about.  Not at all.  It just simply means a presidential a vice presidential candidate that to a significant extent comes from the America that is warming to the Democratic Party, but not ready to marry them.

There certainly are candidates out there that fit that bill.  I’ll just name some, and I really wanna emphasize I could miss several, and this is purely from the hip.  But of course candidates like Wesley Clark, you know the general . . . the former general from Arkansas, helps . . . would help a great deal.  I think he learned lessons in campaigning in 2004.  And he certainly would compensate for Hillary Clinton’s national security weaknesses and Barack’s.  Though that Hillary and him both come from the same state might pose a small dilemma, though he is Southern.  And Democrats should remember that they have not won a presidential race since 1960 without a Southerner at the top or the second slab of the ticket.  So that’s an important fact to consider.  Two, there are candidates like Brian Schweitzer, the governor of Montana.  I’m not sure if he’d want it.  There’s the governor of Ohio.  He says to me he doesn’t want it, Strickland . . . He says . . . He told me personally twice that he’s not interested; that he’s older, and that he’s happy in Ohio.  But he certainly compensates for moral values weaknesses that have haunted the Democratic Party for a long time.  And when I say “moral values”, I mean the inference that it has for conservatives and moderates out there.  And there is certainly Jim Webb out of Virginia that I think is a strong candidate for the vice presidential slot.  And there are many others that I could name.  Those are just three with no particular preference who certainly help compensate for Democratic historical weaknesses.  I would also add Mark Warner to that mix, also from Virginia; former governor who’s shown a consistent ability to really close gaps on such issues as guns that have haunted the Democratic party for some decades.

Recorded on: 2/5/08