But mayors govern cities, not metro-areas. I’m not saying that this is the most major political experience in the country, just that governing (mayoring?) a million-plus city is big political experience and equivalent, roughly, with governing a small state.
Very possibly – but I don’t think junior Senators do any more (and probably less) in terms of “big” political experience then these “minor” Cabinet secretaries do.
The issue of winning the Presidency comes first. Really. That’s how important it is to the country to defeat the Republicans. If Castro is the best person to help defeat the Republican nominee, then he’s the best person to be the VP nominee.
Castro would be an okay pick. Not great, but good. I would need to hear him speak or debate to offer a real opinion. On paper, he seems solid.
My other “likes,” albeit longshots, from off the beaten path:
Rep. Bobby Scott from Virginia. African-American/API congressman since 1993, progressive, backer of criminal justice reform, swing state rep.
Richard Jones, ambassador to Lebanon, deputy director of International Energy Agency. Long career in Mideast diplomacy.
Complete left-field candidate: Richard Trumka, president of AFL-CIO. Great public speaker, blue collar appeal (comes out of the Mine Workers), would excite labor in swing states with high percentage of union membership (NH, NV, IA, OH, CO). Progressive economically to counter Hillary’s foreign policy experience.
I’ve made this point before, but candidates like Clinton (older and experienced party stalwarts) pretty much always pick young-ish VP candidates – both to balance the ticket with youth, and to set up the party for a solid future Presidential candidate.
That may be, but the impact of good or bad governance is much greater when governing a city at the heart of a major metro area than one where the city is surrounded by desert.
First, that would be a very small state - San Antonio proper has fewer people than freakin’ Idaho - and even then, even small states have much greater diversity of constituencies, particularly along the urban/rural divide that is America’s primary political divide these days, that a mayor only sees one side of.
It really depends on the Senator. The job is what one makes it, after all - but what of it? We don’t want some random Senator as the backup here. We want someone who can take over if Hillary has a stroke.
ETA: But we know the HUD job doesn’t count for very much. I’ve lived in the DC area, off and on, since before there was an HUD, and nobody gives a shit who the HUD Secretary is.
The VP nominee rarely makes that much difference politically, though I agree that this one might. But an essential part of Hillary’s argument against a Trump or a Rubio is that they’re naifs who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about: no matter what you think of the direction they say they want to take this country in, they’re liable to fuck it up, just like a certain other recent President. A VP with a thin resume undercuts that argument.
Mayors of large cities probably also see a lot more ethnic, religious, and other types of diversity among their constituencies than governors of some small states like Idaoho (or many of the 11 states smaller than Idaho). Again, not saying that it’s superior, just that it’s roughly “equivalent” in terms of experience for President.
That’s all fine, I just don’t think Castro’s resume is so thin that it’s not ‘up to snuff’ when compared to other Presidents and VPs. It’s on the thin side compared to all of them, but so was Obama’s, and so was Kennedy’s, and so were lots of other great/winning Presidents and Veeps. If Castro is really smart, and has good judgment, then he’d be a terrific VP pick.
So at best, it’s roughly equivalent to another kinda thin experience. Okay.
JFK had been in Congress 14 years, 6 in the House and 8 in the Senate, when he became President. Obama had only been in the Senate for 4 years, but he hadn’t just stepped out of community organizing the day before that: he’d been a state legislator for 8 years, and frankly I think that trumps HUD. Finally, he organized one hell of a no-drama Presidential campaign - a major demonstration of leadership and management capability right there.
Eight years ago, I’d have said that his name would be a millstone, but then we went and elected a guy named Barack Hussein Obama. And the two guys with names similar to that are much bigger modern boogeymen than Fidel.
“Kinda thin” compared to a senior senator or big state governor, but pretty good compared to most other levels.
Sure, and Castro was a city councilman for 8 years. He hasn’t run a national campaign yet. I’m not saying his experience blows me away – I’m saying that if he’s smart, has good judgment, and has good political instincts (and presumably Hillary, should she win the nomination, will be in position to evaluate this), then he exceeds what I would consider the minimum required, and he’d probably be an outstanding VP pick.
Not only his demographics, policy positions and his political skills - which he has in abundance…but also, he was selected to deliver the 2012 Keynote at the Convention.
Recall who delivered the Keynote at the 2004 Convention? A ‘skinny kid with the funny name’ as I recall.
The 1988 keynoter was some obscure young Governor from Arkansas, too. Yes, TPTB can and do identify rising talent that way.
It would help Castro to have some time as a Governor or Senator, but as he is he’s vulnerable to criticism over his experience, appropriately or hypocritically or not. But, if he can get Texas to vote for Clinton, the Election Night broadcasts will be over early.
Really. That’s how important it is to the country to defeat the Republicans. If Castro is the best person to help defeat the Republican nominee, then he’s the best person to be the VP nominee.