Obama Should Pick A Vice-President

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:42


I wrote yesterday that, according to the delegate math, Barack Obama already is the presumptive Democratic nominee. Now, Obama himself is joining the increasingly frequent arguments that his lead is virtually unassailable, and that it is important for the nomination campaign to end before the nomination:

Barack Obama said last night that it would be better for the potential Democratic nominee to be able to shift into the general election, instead of letting a divisive primary last for months longer.

"I think giving whoever the nominee is two or three months to pivot into the general election would be extremely helpful, instead of having this drag up to the convention," Obama told reporters on board his plane.

Let me offer a word of advice that should be pretty obvious. If we want the nomination campaign to end, and if we want Obama to be perceived as the presumptive nominee by most Democrats and media outlets, then Obama needs to start acting like the presumptive nominee. While certainly this means an increased focus on McCain, more to the point it means that Obama needs to start doing the sort of things that presumptive nominees do: naming administration positions such as his Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor.

Naming a Vice-President is particularly key, as it would accomplish many goals at once. First, obviously, it would make him look like the presumptive nominee. Second, it would provide him with a powerful new surrogate on the campaign trail, one who could possibly match Bill Clinton. Third, the right vice-presidential choice could actually secure a large number of the currently uncommitted superdelegates. For example, and I am just throwing out a name here, but choosing Nancy Pelosi would almost certainly lock down enough superdelegates, especially California supers and U.S. House supers, to end the nomination campaign pretty quickly. And hey, while Pelosi does not have the world's highest favorability rating, not many people would doubt her ability to be President (she is already third in line) and she was a member of the progressive caucus before she had to leave in order to become leader (the leader should not be in any of the ideological caucuses).

Of course, Pelosi is just one example, and I don't want discussion over her specifically to cloud the point generally. If Obama wants to be perceived as the presumptive nominee, then he needs to start doing the things that presumptive nominees do. Probably the most visible thing presumptive nominees do is choose a Vice-President, and so that is something he should probably do at this point. I imagine this is something the campaign has already thought about, and it probably already has something of a short-list. It is a process they should speed up, and be very visible about speeding up. Make it known that the campaign is actively searching for a Vice-President. Leaks names. Hold closed door meetings with high-profile Dems. If Obama starts acting like the presumptive nominee, then more people might start to perceive him as such.  

Chris Bowers :: Obama Should Pick A Vice-President

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I wish he would (4.00 / 1)
Chris, someone wrote a post about possible Obama VPs (maybe it was you) in which John Edwards wasn't listed.  Why shouldn't Obama choose him as VP?  He would help in the South and had a major influence on Obama's platform so there would be reinforcement there.  

Edwards hasn't endorsed him (0.00 / 0)
Though I suppose he might if Obama privately indicated his desire to pick him.

Didn't Edwards himself rule out being a VP nominee again?  It would be pretty strange for two Dem tickets in a row to have Edwards on them (though that's not a good argument for not doing it)


[ Parent ]
Well that settles that (0.00 / 0)
If Edwards did rule himself out, then that is a darn good explanation why he is not being mentioned.

[ Parent ]
I think he ruled himself out in 2004 too. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
yeah (4.00 / 2)
"ruling yourself out" is always tentative.  Particularly when the question is asked while actually campaigning for president.  You kill your campaign by admitting you're interested in a VP slot.


[ Parent ]
i've got it! (4.00 / 5)
Obama can ask Edwards to lead his VP search, then Edwards can choose himself for the position!

[ Parent ]
better yet (4.00 / 2)
Edwards could suggest Obama would be a great VP.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
sorry (4.00 / 1)
I hereby rule myself out as Barack Obama's running mate.  Sorry Barack, but I simply have too many other commitments at this time.

[ Parent ]
i love the idea. But here's two arguments against it: (4.00 / 1)
(1) Edwards undermines Obama's "change" narrative by being the VP nominee form 2004.

(2) Edwards undermines Obama's foreign policy credibility, because he was for Iraq.

I think those are both worth ignoring, though.

(1) I don't think most people even care that he was the VP in 2004. He doesn't sound like he was from Washington. He does have a certain "outsider" image, probably in part of how gifted he is at advocating for change. This is a guy who can advocate for progressive positions. You'd be surprised how many "conservative dems" support Edwards, simply because he couches progressive ideas in patriotic terms. So emotionally, he offers change. Intellectually, he at LEAST passes the credibility test because of his stance on lobbyists.

(2) This is a guy who apologized strongly for the Iraq war. I think there's something to be said for creating that "bridge" for people who also messed up on the war -- which is 70% of the country. And the truth is I'd much rather have Edwards -- who made a slip when this country was at the height of insanity the likes of which we'll never see again in our lifetimes -- than Webb -- who blew it on FISA when there was no excuse.

That's to add all the other benefits of John Edwards. Credibility in the south. Credibility with "lunch pail" democrats. Credibility in rural areas. The Urban-Rural coalition of Obama could be devastating! Not to mention that Edwards is a guy you want advocating for you. There's no doubt that he can resonate with hope when need be, and switch gears to a strong attack if the GOP tries any bullshit. This is by far one of the most electable tickets.

And then there's the policy benefits. A distinctly economic progressive. Someone who at least believes single payer health care should be on the table. An end to corporate lobbyists.  


[ Parent ]
Edwards for AG for Two Years (4.00 / 7)
then, on to the Supreme Court for life.

[ Parent ]
I want Edwards to be a leader in this country (0.00 / 0)
Even if he can't be "the" leader. I'd have his back, whatever he'd reasonably decide -- supreme court, making a movie, creating a non-profit, attorney general, vice president.

[ Parent ]
Or Patrick Fitzgerald (0.00 / 0)
Let him finish the job he started...

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

[ Parent ]
Meh... (0.00 / 0)
A VP pick should bring more to the ticket than Edwards can bring.  Polling shows that he doesn't improve Obama's chances in North Carolina significantly.  He doesn't "experience" to the ticket which is the main attack against Obama - he's even less experienced.  He's got some progressive rhetoric, but his record isn't particularly progressive.

Bill Richardson (just as one example) would put New Mexico solidly in the Blue column, and he brings experience without undermining the "change" narrative (since he's not a DC insider).

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


[ Parent ]
Edwards has appeal outside of NC though. (0.00 / 0)
I also think it's dumb to focus so much on Obama's weaknesses. Picking someone who "fills in" a weakness is to concede that he has one. He isn't inexperienced. He'd make a great commander in chief.

[ Parent ]
Let me ask the opposite: (4.00 / 1)
What is the benefit of waiting?

This idea is compelling.  Also, beating McCain to the punch would be pretty cool since it would probably decrease the attention paid to McCain when he makes his VP pick.

Why not do this differently too, since part of Obama's message is a different kind of campaign?

The only practical case for waiting I can think of is that Obama is considering the possibility he might have to pick Clinton as his VP in order to unite the party.  If that's the case, he can't pick until she concedes.

If, as some claim, there is no way he would pick her, then why wait?  What's the benefit?


Good point (4.00 / 4)
Obama cannot really pick a VP candidate yet.  He has to see whether he is stuck with Clinton as VP.  He also does not yet have the media narrative as the presumptive candidate.  Indeed, if he did pick a VP at this time he would risk being seen as presumptuous.  He can, however, as Chris suggests, start meeting with high profile likely VP nominees and playing the trial balloon game.  That would give him many of the advantages of nominating without having to make too early a commitment.


[ Parent ]
Ending Clinton's shot (4.00 / 1)
at the VP slot would probably have unpredictable consequences. Would her acolytes be so bitter as to work against Obama in the general? I don't see how they'd justify even complaining if another woman were the choice. If Hillary's reason for staying in is really hoping for the vp selection, seems like there would no longer be any reason for her to stay in the race -- but that's only a supposition, of course.

[ Parent ]
yeah, i think a lot of clintonites haven't let go (0.00 / 0)
of the idea that they've deserved this since 1998. That's not just elites, but voters too. Shutting her out completely could really galvanize these people.

They still like Obama... as VP.  


[ Parent ]
Picking Clinton will not unite the party imo...... (0.00 / 0)
There is so much bad blood between them and their supporters, everyone will vote for McCain.  Secondly, how does he keep Bill and Hillary in line?  Think Cheney was the real Pres, well the possibilities with the Clintons explode.  If HRC was my VP, I'd want a food taster.  

[ Parent ]
That aught to put a bee in someone's bonnet (4.00 / 3)
lol - could you imagine him picking Pelosi, HRC's head might actually explode on that news.

You are right, picking a VP is an excellent idea.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


Or Barbara Boxer (0.00 / 0)
She's been a pretty good fighter the past few years.

Don't know how that would play in the general though.

Who's the most popular progressive female politician in Texas?

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!


[ Parent ]
Uh... Ann Richards. (0.00 / 0)
I don't think she'd be very good on the stump though...

[ Parent ]
Does the Constitution require that the candidate be living? (0.00 / 0)
Just saying...

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

[ Parent ]
That's an interesting possibility... (0.00 / 0)
I don't know if the campaign really has a solid idea of who it wants. I'm more open to the possibility of Richardson if he can be more like he was in Portland than during his own campaign.

It's still a bit early, though...Lieberman was selected in August 2000; Edwards was chosen in July 2004...when was the last time a VP nominee selected so early - and before the nomination was sewn up?


Good point (4.00 / 8)
"It's still a bit early, though...Lieberman was selected in August 2000; Edwards was chosen in July 2004...when was the last time a VP nominee selected so early - and before the nomination was sewn up?"

I think that's the critical issue.  Picking a VP now would not be acting like a traditional presumptive nominee at all.  It would be a highly unorthodox move not just because the electorate still by-and-large sees the race as ongoing but because of the timing.  Above all, November increasingly looks like a fight and by summertime Obama will have more information about the contours of that fight that will allow him to make a better strategic decision concerning a running mate.  

The one thing the Obama team might consider is to leak a shortlist.  That would get some press but not seem so presumptuous.  

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."


[ Parent ]
leaking a shortlist (4.00 / 1)
Good idea.  It would trial balloon the reaction if he did formally pick.  I think given a number of media figures writing "hillary can't win" articles that the press is more or less aware that Obama is the nominee but they're just tentative in saying so for whatever reason.  If it were to backfire, it probably wouldn't be the media types that lead that charge.

Obama's campaign could certainly afford to poll on this.  


[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 2)
Leak a shortlist, but do not announce a VP.    Obama can act like the nominee by attacking McCain and releasing more plans, but anything seen as putting the crown on his own head will be very poorly received.

BTW - Nice handle fuzzy.


[ Parent ]
Yes, indeed (4.00 / 1)
The shortlist falls short of being a total dick about it, but still gets out the message that he's running as the presumptive nominee.  Heck, he can basically imply "Look, I'm the candidate, but Hillary can certainly be VP if she really wants it, but this is a limited time offer, call now and SAVE up to 25% on your car insurance..."

Of course, he should do the same for cabinet positions.

In fact, he may be doing that.  Bill Richardson would fit nicely at State or in a VP slot.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
Initially, I thought picking a VP now might be a good idea.  Richardson would be good and Pelosi would give a good chunk of HRC's supporters pause at not supporting Obama (not to mention the jab in the gut it would give Clinton herself).  However, after reading your post, I think it would be unwise to pick a VP now.  A lot can change between now and June or July.  Picking a VP now could lead to regrets later.  Any advantage gained by picking a VP now could lead to problems later.  Better to pick a VP later when you have a better view of how the GE is shaping up.  In a perfect world, I would love to see him pick Pelosi, just to jab Hillary, but I don't see her being what Obama would need in the general.

[ Parent ]
devil's advocate: couldn't it backfire? (4.00 / 3)
every time it seems like the nomination is about to end, voter turnout for Hillary seems to amp up. When you act presumptuous about your victory, it tends to make you look arrogant. Nobody likes entitlement.

... although, let's be honest, Obama IS the presumptive nominee. The question is, will people see it that way? Or will they see him "faking" it to try to end it early? It depends too much on the media, IMO.


Bloomberg (0.00 / 0)
That's one rumor.  But I don't recall a VP ever being announced before convention time. Especially this early. Has it ever happened?

More on Obama-Bloomberg:

http://marcambinder.theatlanti...


Pre convention (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure about when someone officially becomes the VP candidate, but people have been named prior to the convention for the past several cycles. Edwards was on board in early July last time. Cheney was picked up in June 2000.

Gore had a long period of public searching before choosing Lieberman, satarized by comparisons to "The Bachelor."

Me | My Work | Future Majority


[ Parent ]
no (4.00 / 5)
The narrative that Obama is the presumptive nominee hasn't taken enough of a hold in the media yet. There's still too many people who think this is still a competitive race that such a move would look highly arrogant and could really hurt him in the remaining states he still needs.

As long as we still see people on television saying Clinton has a chance, even a small one, it's way too much of a risk to backfire.


Agreed... (4.00 / 1)
...He has to wait until at least after Indiana to do something like that...

But, it's awfully early... and he still may be pressured into a "dream ticket" with Hillary, which I'm becoming much more open to the idea, if for no other reason than to prevent her from sabotaging our chances at the presidency this year.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Yuck (0.00 / 0)
There are much better olive branches to extend to Hillary's base (Sebelius, Boxer, Pelosi) that don't carry her negatives, and won't provide endless soundbite fodder praising McCain and attacking Obama.

--Dave


[ Parent ]
too early (4.00 / 2)
Picking a veep right now would be awfully presumptuous don't you think? Sure his path to victory looks clear, but if Clinton did manage to win a huge victory in Pennsylvania after another month of the Tonya Harding option then win North Carolina and Indiana things could change. Why give Clinton yet another stick to beat him with? Bill is already going around saying Obama wants to end democracy in the remaining primaries. Picking a veep before he's formally secured the nomination would only add fuel to the fire. Besides the importance of veep picks are wildly overrated and Obama would need time to do a thorough background check of all the veep candidates anyway. I'm all for Obama turning his fire on McCain and otherwise acting like the presumptive nominee, but announcing a veep right now would be premature.

I think the idea (0.00 / 0)
is to slowly begin the public process of making a list and conferring (privately) with obvious contenders, not coming to any early conclusion. We don't want an announcement any time soon, just the start of a presidential process.

[ Parent ]
This would also help get Lou Dobbs (0.00 / 0)
and others off Rev. Wright.  HRC and Obama on the same ticket would be a disaster as a campaign strategy and a worse disaster for governance.  One can hardly put Bill Clinton in a closet, no matter how hard they try.    

[ Parent ]
Phenomenal Idea (0.00 / 0)
This could also provide a shot of incentive to fence-sitting SDs.  It would say that this train is leaving the station, and if you want to be on it, it's time to pay for your ticket.

I've come around to a new argument... (0.00 / 0)
Which involves the scenarios you posted here last week.

In order for Obama to win, and for Clinton supporters to feel that the win was legitimate, Obama has to win. The most likely time for that to happen is May 6. But if he can close the gap in Pennsylvania and pull off an upset, Hillary will have to drop out.

His campaign has to be careful about telling Hillary to drop out. That's not going to happen. Close the deal by May 6, though, and the damage will be minimal.  

Further Reading


Excellent advice (0.00 / 0)
I hope the Obama campaign follows it. This is the kind of perception-based strategy where the GOP always seems to be out in front. Starting a vp-selection process would further add to Obama's credentials as not-Kerry. I suppose the opposing argument is that once a vp is picked, fans of the alsorans will lose energy, but we've passed that point in the process. If anybody here (Mike?) has lines into the Obama campaign, I hope they'll pass this idea along. Perception is everything, and it's time to shift away from the perception that this is still a real horserace. Of course he'd get a load of flak for "presumptiousness", but that probably wouldn't stick.

Pelosi would be an ideal choice in many ways: western, white, female, experienced, already third in line to be president. The only area where she might be weak is the attack dog role. But there are lots of good choices: Edwards, Dodd (age?), Webb, or somebody nobody thought of til now.


Pay Bowers more money. (0.00 / 0)
Wonderful idea!

This is very very good idea.

We need decisive actions from the nominee presumptive.
And no other action is more decisive.

(I could argue that my support for Obama/Gore is even more justified under these circumstances, but thats unnecessary, my writing is predictable and transparent.)

Damn good idea!

Make sure this happens, if you are in the campaign, make sure this gets to Obama and Plouff.

Start announcing the Cabinet, name the VPOTUS.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


Richardson (4.00 / 4)
The beard is unstoppable. America is ready for black/brown leadership.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

Leak a list (4.00 / 1)
The major reason to wait is that the party may need sewing back together after recent events. Not only are Hillary supporters off-limits whilst she's still in the race, announcing a VP pick could end up being spun as Obama delivering a giant fuck-you to Clinton's voters.

That said, leaking a list could have some benefit, especially if it was annotated. Putting Clinton on the list with the codicil that it's obviously impossible if she keeps at it like she has been has obvious benefits.

Richardson, Clark, Miller, Boxer, Dorgan, Conrad, Sebelius, Brown and Schweitzer also spring to mind as good picks for this hypothetical list.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


One Problem With Pelosi (4.00 / 3)
Steny Hoyer.

So, appoint him Ambassador to Botswanna.  Then pick Pelosi for VP.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Botswana is nice (0.00 / 0)
Don't be mean to Botswana.

[ Parent ]
Germany then (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
He Could Really Mess Things Up In Germany (0.00 / 0)
Letting him close to any of the G-8 would be a big mistake, IMHO.

Botswana, I'm thinking, not so much.

But, it's true.  What has Botswana ever done to deserve him?

I guess this is what they mean about those "hard choices" you have to make in politics.

Hey, I've got an idea!

How about Narnia?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Ambassador to Vacation-stan (0.00 / 0)
The Bahamas, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, maybe Ireland if he's Irish-American.

An eight-year-long paid vacation in the Bahamas?  Hell, he might actually take that.  


[ Parent ]
While we're on topic, (4.00 / 1)
has Joe Lieberman ever wanted to be an ambassador?  He could have London, Paris, Copenhagen, Vienna, anything he wanted... besides Tel Aviv.  Or Tehran.

I'd give him Baghdad though, just for laffs.


[ Parent ]
sadly (0.00 / 0)
its just this sort of sense of humor that prevents one from attaining the power to act on it. really is one of the great shames of the world.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Mo Udall: too funny to be president. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
hoyer??? (4.00 / 1)
sorry, but can we get a decent ambassador?

[ Parent ]
uh, excuse me (0.00 / 0)
hey, we don't want him!

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog

[ Parent ]
thank you for saying what I was thinking. (0.00 / 0)
Majority Leader Hoyer would be awful.
In fact, i'm hoping for a relatively harmless appointment for Steny just to get him out of leadership.

Because I truly doubt we'd have the mojo to oust the guy, and he doesn't have any plans to go.


[ Parent ]
It's not an inheritance (0.00 / 0)
Just because he's the second in command doesn't mean he becomes the Speaker if she leaves.  The Democratic members would pick somebody new, and they're not that stupid.

[ Parent ]
They Made Him #2... (0.00 / 0)
they're not that stupid.

.... So that's pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

Don't forget, Pelosi's pick, John Murtha, is older than her, and was clearly a strategic choice to help end the Iraq War.  He was not someone she was grooming to succede her.  Supporting her choice would have left her succession open, something one would normally suppose that most members would support, as all the top aspirants would see it as leaving the door open for them, and their supporters would thus support it in turn.

But the majority of Dems turned their back on this logic.

Moral: Never under-estimate the stupidity of the Democrats.  They are as stupid in the mass as they are brilliant individually.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Good Idea -- Suggestions for Criteria (0.00 / 0)
Beginning the process of choosing a VP (interviews, leaked shortlists) would help to get a lot of the other stuff off the front page (Wright, Hillary, etc.). But actually choosing a VP is a bit early -- Obama has to actually secure the nomination, not just be "presumptive".

In choosing a VP, I think Obama might consider these criteria:

*A woman. This will help pick up the people who support Hillary and feel like it is (past) time to have a woman President. Hillary could take some credit for electing a woman VP -- she would obviously have paved the way.

* Someone more progressive than Obama. This is good for us progressives, but also provides some protection against those who would try to oust Obama through unconventional means (impeachment, manufactured scandal, assassination) in order to get someone more conservative in place.

* Someone relatively young who can run for President in 2016. They are more likely to take the VP slot if they might have a shot at President later and having a presumptive President in 2016 would help bolster the dynasty of Democrats over the next 20 years.

* Someone who has been well vetted by previous runs for national office -- we don't need any more Spitzer-style scandals right now.

Pelosi pretty much meets all these criteria (as well as being from the Pacific West which might win a few Pacific and Western states). Edwards meets all of them except being a woman (and he might help with Southerners and rural folks). Who else?


Pelosi was born in 1940 (0.00 / 0)
In 2016 she'll be 76. I don't think she can run for president then.

I'd delete the Spitzer codicil. Any VP is going to have their every move investigated and if there's smoke, there won't be an opportunity for there to be fire. Also, there aren't many prominent female politicians who are to the left of Obama. This is obviously a problem. One solution (and the more likely one) is for Obama to pick a woman who is to his right. Another is for him to pick one who is comparatively unknown - perhaps someone from the House. A third is for him to pick an older VP - I doubt Pelosi would go for it, but possibly somebody like Woolsey - and to say that he hopes in eight years time there will be many more viable female candidates running.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Boxer would work. (0.00 / 0)
the downside there is that Arnold could name her replacement, but the Democrats control the legislature, so we could probably install a Massachussetts style special election rule that would have prevented Romney from naming Kerry's replacement.

[ Parent ]
Napolitano (0.00 / 0)
Janet Napolitano would be an option, but of course there are the rumors of her being a lesbian

[ Parent ]
great idea Bowers (0.00 / 0)
I would say start the process, leak names, meet high level prospective VP choices but NOT name one just yet. It would be presumptive to do that just yet, and HRC "fans" would be too pissed and threaten to move to McCain. I think if he starts the process but names after Indiana it would be perfect.

On the other hand if he by some way could stage an upset in Penn State then all this would be over.


Obama Veepstakes Poll (4.00 / 1)
During the entire month of March I've been conducting an Obama Veepstakes poll series over at Daily Kos. Out of 30 original plus 15 wilcard round candidates we're now down to the final eight. Right now you can vote in the final matchup of round II:

Sherrod Brown vs. Kathleen Sebelius

The winner will join Jim Webb, Russ Feingold, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Tim Kaine, Janet Napolitano, and Bill Richardson in the quarter finals.

You can vote here and also view all previous results.

My Silver State - Nevada's Progressive Community Blog


Brown isn't interested (0.00 / 0)
I live in Columbus, OH, and he was on the local affiliate Channel 6 news one morning this week.  He was asked what he would do if he were called by Obama or Clinton and asked to be VP.  He said that he would tell them they should call Governor Ted Strickland.  He also said "my wife would leave me," and that his aspirations are to serve another 2-3 terms in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
I like it... (4.00 / 2)
And here's another idea someone brought up yesterday:

If Hillary won't debate with Barack in North Carolina, debate with McCain instead.

It's been said that CBS is really looking for a debate to boost their ratings and they would like to give Katie Couric (ugh) an opportunity to moderate, so I doubt they'd have a problem inviting McCain.


Great idea (0.00 / 0)
I'd further add: Publicly name Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy as VP selection chairs then start summoning Webb, Richardson, Edwards, Pelosi, McCaskill, Napolitano, Becerra, Sebelius, et al. to Chicago for meetings...

Chris, didn't you yourself post about voters rebelling against inevitability? (4.00 / 1)
I've been kind of torn myself over how Obama should approach the race now.  While it's clear that, barring a disaster for Obama he'll be the nominee, I wonder if "acting" like it would actually just turn off voters that he needs now to basically wrap up the nomination.  While it's obvious to us that he's going to be the nominee, based on recent polls that doesn't appear to be trickling down to most people yet.  Whether because of how the media is reporting on the race or whatever, I don't think Obama has hit the "psychological" threshold that he's won yet... Even some in the blogosphere don't believe it... look at Jerome Armstrong and Todd Beeton.

So, would picking a VP now actually set his candidacy in their minds, or would they rebel against it and vote against him in the next election?  If he were up 10 consistently in the national tracking polls, I'd say he should go for it.  Given that he's been tied in the national tracking polls for a long time, I'm not sure this would help him.


Speak of the devil... (0.00 / 0)
New AP poll puts him ahead 10 in the Democratic race...

Now, if those tracking polls started to show that...

http://ap.google.com/article/A...


[ Parent ]
that's my worry too. I want him to win, but... (0.00 / 0)
I don't want to just galvanize Clinton voters, or drive up his negatives as trying to quell the primary before it's technically over.

It IS over. But that doesn't matter if the media doesn't report that it's over.


[ Parent ]
The problem isn't that he couldn't pick clinton if he picked early... (4.00 / 1)
...it's that he couldn't pick any of her surrogates or superdelegates. It's been my quietly held opinion for some time now that Eddy Rendell would be a perfect choice for Obama. There's one problem: he's Jewish. Before the rev. Wright debacle I would have said that didn't matter, but now Obama might really need a died-in-the-wool American Protestant of some kind.

But aside from the whole "being a Jew" thing, Rendell is perfect. Tons of executive experience, delivers PA on a platter, and - because he is a strong Clinton supporter - picking him could - symbolically at least - "unite" the party.  

If Obama picks now, Rendell and a host of other Clinton supporters who could make great VPs would be left out. I think he has to wait.


This is indeed sensible. (0.00 / 0)
Basically, he's giving up any number of attractive potential VP candidates (and I think someone like Pelosi, and probably a lot of others, would refuse to take a VP bid while the nomination outcome isn't completely certain) in order to do an act of political theater ("Obama needs to start acting like the presumptive nominee.")  I think it would come across poorly, too - that he was being arrogant.

Also - it didn't work for Reagan in 76.


[ Parent ]
Strickland (4.00 / 1)
Almost as good on most of your criteria, delivers Ohio, actually IS a protestant minister, and isn't as crooked as Rendell either.

[ Parent ]
Forget Rendell (0.00 / 0)
Rendell has very explicitly stated he is not interested in VP.

One of his comments was along the lines of "I say what I think way too much for that job."

I believe him.

Maybe he has interest in taking over Arlen Specter's seat in the Senate.


Karl in Drexel Hill, PA


[ Parent ]
Since when (0.00 / 0)
Do nominees name cabinet members before the election?  I recall GHW Bush named Baker as his presumptive SoS before the election in 88, and it was considered poor form.  GW Bush implied that Powell would be his choice, but never said so outright.  Neither Gore nor Kerry named any cabinet appointments on the campaign trail.  

That's because it's technically unconstititional. (0.00 / 0)
You're not allowed to make promises of any high office in exchange for votes, or something like that.  Or maybe it's just a law, I dunno, but there's definitely rules against it.

Of course, skirting those rules a la Powell isn't that hard.


[ Parent ]
picking a cabinet (0.00 / 0)
I believe it is illegal for him to promise cabinet positions until he is elected. The vice presidency is an elected position that must be nominated by the party. Technically, he's just endorsing a candidate for vice president and the party actually nominates. Conceivably, the presidential nominee could be denied there choice by the convention.

i think it is brilliant an dit helps with white voters (0.00 / 0)
sadly enough some white people probably wont vote for him in PA because of race (whether they admit it or not).  Having a prominent, inspriing white person on the trail would help lessen the racism factor.

If Obama wins PA, then the game is over and the media will annoint him.  Odds are he won't win PA but it would be huge

Having a VP would be interesting and probably would help him somewhat (depedning on who it is) in PA..

I don't perceive Sebelius as exciting. Boxer could be and she is Jewish which could help in some Philly suburbs (as well as in NJ, CT and FL) in the general.  Richardson wouldnt help in Pennsylvania (and is the country ready for a African American/Hispanic ticket?... would be interesting to see). Edwards would but he doesnt help the experience argument much (one term senator basically). napolitano wouldnt help much at this point and she may not help in her home state. Bill Bradley could be interesting and his name may have some power in Philly suburbs.. I don't know about that...

Who would be the ultimate VP that won't happen... AL GORE!!! Obama could make a deal with Al to essentially be his co-president who will be in charge of the environment, and other areas.  Unrealistic I know, but we can dream....

This would be a good move at this point and would catch the Clintons off-guard.  


Hes starting to do it already (0.00 / 0)
I just watched him on CNBC and he was talking in terms of what he will do "when" he takes office. There were no qualifiers. He never once said "IF" I'm the nominee or "if" I'm elected.  

Wes Clark (4.00 / 1)
...makes sense at so many levels. He's extremely bright and well spoken. Unlike Jim Webb, Sam Nunn and other southern white males who's names get bounced around in these type of "ticket balancing" discussions, Clark is a bona fide progressive liberal Democrat, and he brings major league gravitas and foreign policy depth. Plus, (and this I think is a big one) he's from the Clinton camp, which would help bridge that divide. For many reasons it would be a mistake for Hillary to ot be on the ticket, (nor would she want to be IMO) but Clark should be very acceptable to her and her supporters.

Oh, and BTW, the guy is absolutely qualified to step in and serve as President, if need be.

I'd bet anything Wesley Clark's on the Obama veep radar already, but that said, yeah, why not as a political strategy start "interviewing" him and other potential candidates in a more high-profile way?    


No Clintonistas (0.00 / 0)
Its not that Clinton supporters should be shunned in looking for VP's but the fact that Clinton supporters are on record as not supporting Obama is the problem.  

For instance imagine the video clips that would surface of Clark skewering Obama.  Then Obama and Clark would have to do a dance explaining that Clark didn't really mean what he said...  See how that doesn't seem right even if the person is otherwise good?

So no Clark, no Rendell, no Bayh, etc.


[ Parent ]
Jesse Ventura (0.00 / 0)
The choice is obvious.

"Leaking" a list could work (0.00 / 0)
If he starts acting "inevitable" or "entitled", it could hurt him, especially in PA where he can afford to lose but he needs it as narrow as possible.

On the other hand, if he leaks a list or a spreadsheet with possible VP and other slot candidates on it, he can sow all kinds of confusion by including Hillary supporters (like Rendell).

Sure, the deniability is about this (><) wide, but so what?


[ Parent ]
Couldn't This Backfire? (0.00 / 0)
I think choosing a female VP could help Barack split the women's vote, but this gambit could also backfire badly.  Didn't Ronald Reagan preemptively name Richard Schweiker as his veep candidate in 1976, but lose the nomination anyway?  

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox