Obama Needs To Make VP Choice by End of June
The very next thing Obama has to do is to pick a VP. Now.
Traditionally, a candidate does not pick a running-mate until the convention. What else is there to make a convention exciting?
This year nothing is as remotely exciting as the nomination of Barack Obama. Only convincing FDR or JFK to join the ticket could make the Democratic convention more exciting.
The point to doing it now is to avoid being steamrolled into picking Clinton. He's not going to do it. Perhaps that was a possibility, and not a bad one, a few months ago. Now it is impossible for a dozen obvious reasons.
Remember poor Mondale.
He is a wonderful man who was forced into choosing a VP that he did not want and who immediately helped sink the ticket. The difference between Clinton and Ferraro in '84 is that although both had millions of Democrats who wanted her on the ticket, Clinton is strongly opposed by just as many, if not more. Mondale looked a little like a hack for being forced to pick Ferraro but, without strong opposition to her within the party, it didn't matter much. Obama's base (i.e. the people who voted for him, his millions of donors and the netroots) have become increasingly and now vehemently anti-Clinton in the last month or two.
So pull the plug. Allowing Clinton to be the focus of media attention for another month or so would constitute Obama's Eagleton moment.
Pick a VP now. There are a dozen great candidates. Vet them and pick one. Now.
This moment, not the convention, will determine whether Obama or McCain becomes the 44th President. Cool, decisive toughness is required now.
And the one way to demonstrate it is by choosing a VP Obama wants, not one who, if too much time passes, could be rammed down his throat.
Clinton's speech: Remarkable--what Jeff Toobin described as "deranged narcissism".
This speech--its very essence--was predicted on May 23rd:
Why Hillary should not be VP:
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html
Friday, May 23, 2008
Head of State: The Reasons That Hillary Should Not Be Vice President
Regarding Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate:
Originally, this seemed to be a potentially plausible choice--and if presented in the following way, could turn her divisive campaign into a potential coup as a VP candidate. The thinking was the following:
Hillary has run a divisive campaign. Now, just as the nation should mend its divisions in favor a greater unity that would serve the greater needs of our country, so now they would explicitly put these divisions behind them, in the interests of the unity that this nation, after a bitter and divisive Administration, is so in need of. This would serve as a powerful and vibrant example of the very ability to unify that Obama both offers and represents.
However, this would require a candidate that was willing to take such a position of relative shared selflessness in the interests of a greater good. While the Vice Presidency certainly offers its honors (now far beyond the "warm pitcher" of John Vance Garner's famous phrase) and positioning for later Presidential aspirations, such a plan would require the ability to think in terms of a shared effort based on the betterment of the nation, rather than in more grasping, combative and singular terms.
The Clinton camp's behavior over this past week has made such a positive scenario clearly untenable, showcasing the same characteristics that have signified her campaign throughout its long, chaotic march--its contradictions of previous statements when such changes have a slight possibility of adding a week or two of vitality, its sudden and implausible use of populist guises and specious historical parallels for transparently opportunistic purposes, its near-hallucinogenic transmogrifications of personality and central bases for further continuation,
and the central campaign tendency to place personal attainment over virtually all values that lay in its path.
These characteristics--self over nation, positioning over a consistent presentation of position, values and even self, the willingness to put personal viability over the need to transcend and transform the vast wreckage of state and international relations that remains at this critical time--are as present now, at a moment when wisdom rather than a remorseless, obdurate desperation could fill this gap, as they have been throughout much of the campaign. They would continue to make themselves present during a Clinton campaign for vice president, complicating, diminishing and often distracting from, in trivial internecine battles, the message of unity and change.
Perhaps Clinton could adopt a more unifying, integrated and less grasping position on the VP subject. However, thus far, the actions of the Clinton camp have made it clear: It's time to clean the slate. Hillary Clinton should not be the Vice Presidential candidate.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/head-of-state-reasons-that-hillary.html
June 4, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I think the pressure to pick Clinton will be strongest in June, but will fade as the summer wears on. I think he should announce now that the process will take some time, and that the decision will not be made until just prior to the convention.
June 4, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with Dan K. I read somewhere that Clinton's leverage will only last through this week. I agree with that. The media's interest is going to quickly drift towards the Obama/McCain contest with Hillary getting fewer and fewer mentions until she's finally just ignored. If Obama can string this along for a couple of weeks, he can easily come up with someone better without worrying about too much blowback (except for the crazies on Hillaryis44.org and TalkLeft).
June 4, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's how I see it too, elvigy. I know Clinton has 18 million voters behind her. But I assume that about 15 million of them are not the fanatics we hear from in the blog world and saw at the rules committee meeting, but are just regular rank and file Democrats who happened to have voted for Clinton, but will quickly start to rally to Obama's side. I also expect that some of the superdelegates who came out for Clinton earlier will now begin switch their allegiances to give him a more comfortable cushion and eliminate any hard-dying dreams of a convention threat among the true believers. As the reality sinks in, and the intensity of the last few weeks dissipates, I think we can expect the Clinton "pressure" to be relieved. There is no need to rush into the VP decision.
June 4, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree that the chorus of calls for Hillary as VP will abate a bit, Hillary will not give this up until it is more than obvious that its a lost cause. (Perhaps several weeks after the VP choice has been announced.)
Though both will deny it, Obama has already told her she will not be VP. Her insistance on pursuing the slot therefore is a cynical powerplay, a sort of blackmail as she sets up her supporters to believe in this possibility and dares Obama to disappoint them yet again. Moreover, as the convention nears, the chorus calling for her to be VP(vocal even if its numbers are reduced) would likely swell again. Thus, I'm inclined to agree that Obama should probably pick someone a little sooner than usual. But I'm no expert. Obama is the one that just ran the perfect campaign. He'll do the right thing.
June 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im always a little suspicious when someone goes too quickly to "obvious", in a discussion where "obvious" doesn't automatically fit. If everything here is so "obvious", what's the point of this post, or the lengthy discussion that will surely follow it?
As a Clinton supporter speaking only for myself, I can honestly say that I'm not personally tied in knots over the VP issue one way or the other. As Dale Earnhardt used to say in another not totally unrelated context, "That's just the first loser." Also, it seems to me that recent Presidential electoral history shows that overtly tactical VP selections don't work out very well in November.
That said, I also know that many political pros count the VP selection for a great deal more than I do. I'm sure that more than a few of them are looking at Sen. Obama's poor performance in Florida, the Rust Belt, and in the Appalachian Region, and trying to decide if they really DO need those votes after all. They're wondering to themselves if Sen. Clinton might just tip that balance. I think it has occurred to many of them that Sen. Clinton got roughly as many votes as Sen. Obama did, and that many of her supporters are not real happy about what has happened here. They're trying to calculate whether or not those potential benefits might outweigh the drawbacks.
I'm not sure how that arithmetic will resolve itself, but it's clear to me there's nothing especially "obvious" about it at this point.
June 4, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's choice is going to be the first sign of how he makes tough decisions. Let's hope he doesn't cave in to pressure and relies solely on wise judgement
June 4, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I agree with you and I hope Barack will name his choice very soon. But on the other hand, all's well that ends well. If Barack really is not ready to choose his running mate, why not wait. In the meantime Hillary will make it even more obvious (if such a thing is possible) that she is a person of poor character and an unsuitable running mate.
June 4, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The press, CNN in particular, is doing its dead level best to push Clinton as VP. Obama has to asked what she really brings to the table. From my point of view she brings passionate white women over 50 and not much more. Of course those passionate white women are important, but just how hard is capturing them going to be. After all the prospect of a couple of more Republican Supreme Court appointments must send shivers down their spins. I know the prospect of the courts being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party is reason alone to vote for Obama.
As to white working class Americans, I don't think Hillary is a solution. When the choice was between Hillary and a black man, they picked Hillary, but the choice now is between Obama and McCain. The racist vote is going to pick McCain.
Most white working class Americans are not overt racists, but they do harbor resentments that blacks receive too many special favors. Many are scared that their kids don't have a future. That leads to their resentment of groups they perceive as having received special favors.
Obama can do a better job of explaining how they and their kids are going to have a better chance at the good life if they elect him. Convincing them is going to be a long hard slog. Hillary really doesn't help change the minds of working class whites. Edwards might be a better choice to help. Ed Rendell would be better yet.
June 4, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Spines" not "spins" although the thought of a bunch of passionate middle aged and older white women spinning like tops is at the same time both amusing and a little frightening.
June 4, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think McCain will be forced to name his VP early as he starts spiraling down in the polls. I think it would be an "obvious" mistake for Obama to name his VP before he sees the makeup of the other ticket.
June 4, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! McCain has so many problems - not perceived as religious enough for the fundicrat base, flip-flopping on tax cuts, too mavericky, not mavericky enough - he's got to solidify the fractured GOP base, while still trying to grab independents (who are finding out he's not so moderate).
June 4, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
All along, the goal has been to avoid angering Hillary's supporters. It's now clear that angering them has been unavoidable, and that the longer this drags on the more angry they will become. The goal now should be to break the bone and give it plenty of time to heal. I agree, M.J.--Obama needs to make his pick.
June 4, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm looking for the silver lining in last night's insane Camp Clinton presentation (MacAuffife introducing the "next president of the United States; Hillary's failure to even acknowlege the history-making aspect of the event occurring in St. Paul; her refusal to acknowledge that OBama won, much less display a willingness to suspend or concede etc.)
Here it is:
By exhibiting not a single characteristic of either accepted form, or reality-based leadership, HRC has effectively sabotaged her own bid for VP. I'm quite struck by this. What was she thinking? That her chances would increase by being graceless in defeat? Or that her chances would increase by strong-arming?
Does she think that we will want a person so divorced from reality as our back-up?
The only question is how Obama finesses the "no."
June 4, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it either, but I think there's something to the notion of self-sabotage -- maybe her non-concession speech was her way of sabotaging the possibility of an offer so that she wouldn't have to be put in the position of considering (and refusing) it. She certainly rules out "closure" any time soon, which signals to her supporters that "we" are not ready for "healing" or "party unity."
Is it just me or does it not reek of petty, petulant, mean girl behavior?
June 4, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
My sense is that the Clinton team inhabits its own mental world where divergent perspectives, and the big picture that exists outside their campaign, have a bit of a hard time getting through. That's because until very recently people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Lanny Davis, Terry McCauliffe, Harold Ickes and James Carville were the leadership core of the Democratic party. There are few "senior Democratic leaders" who can get through to them and tell them what's what, because they are the senior democratic leaders.
The surprise yesterday, if you could call it that, was that superdelegate pledges poured in during the day, putting Obama clearly on top by day's end even before the primary results. Until yesterday, there was a sense that most of those delegates were going to wait until the last primaries were completed, and then pledge today. So, Clinton probably prepared her speech during the day thinking there was still going to be a primary split, and a more equivocal situation at the end of the night, with Obama still a few votes short. I don't think the Clintons did a good job in seeing what was happening and re-adjusting their message throughout the day. They should have re-written parts of that speech. Once it was clear that it was going to be Obama's night, and that his speech was going to be fairly viewed across the country as a victory celebration and the effective national launch of the Democratic general election campaign, they should have done something different to avoid creating the impression that they were throwing cold water on the national party pep rally.
I saw an interview with James Carville during the day, and it seemed like he had clearly "gotten it". But I don't think others in the campaign had.
June 4, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
OMG - She's insane!
June 4, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ed Rendell would be better yet."
Yeah, just what Obama needs. A running mate who's on videotape in a Naiton of Islam mosque with Louis Farrakhan sitting next to him, praising Farrakhan as "One of the great spiritual leaders of the 20th century." Of course, they didn't run that endlessly when Rendell was campaigning everyday with Hillary in Pennsylvania because it didn't fit the narrative, i.e. Hillary's white so why should she have to answer questions, denounce, reject ad nauseum about stuff her surruogate said about Farrakhan ?
(The extreme prejudice of the media against Hillary, right ? A candidate is out on the trail everyday for a month or so with a guy who's on video praising Farrakhan and doesn't even get asked why she's embracing him ? While turning Farrakhan, etc. around on her opponent. Nobody in the press ever cuts Hillary any slack. Right?)
But if Rendell were running with Obama, you can bet your ass that tape of the Guv kissing Farrakhan's ass while he drums up NOI votes would be looped for weeks if not months.
June 4, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually like Rendell. It was fun watching just a lumpy old-school pol who enjoyed the game, even though he was arguing on behalf of Clinton. I wish he didn't have the Farrakhan video, because he could make an entertaining VP otherwise.
June 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who would you pick and why?
June 4, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is silly. Vetting is a huge job. It will take them months.
That made me laugh - thinking that Hillary can't be on the short list, there isn't time. Think about it - how many months would it take them to (1) persuade the Clintons to open up their library donors' list and then (2) go through them....
June 4, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're arguing that that Clinton's roughly 50% support from Democrats translates into 50% opposition. But where does that leave Obama? He's our nominee. I sure hope he doesn't have 50% opposition.
I doubt he does.
I agree that there are tons of reasons for Obama to pick some one else as VP. But the Democrats do owe something to Clinton's supporters. They are, after all, half the party. So what should it be?
I think I'm going to keep pushing the Supreme Court idea. My gift to New Gingrich and myself.
June 4, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I so totally disagree with this, with all due respect. She and her supporters aren't "owed" anything. Politics is a zero-sum game. There is a winner and there is a loser. If the losers are "owed" something, what do we get Edwards? He was third, so maybe something a little lower. Ambassadorship maybe.
Now obviously, there are political considerations to be made. Many of her supporters have definitely been pushed into a frothing madness by some of Hillary's claims (particularly the popular vote winner argument). That has to be defused somehow and to be honest, I think it's going to take some real work from Hillary herself to do that.
But Obama needs to make his decisions based on what's best for an Obama administration and what he believes is best for the country. Not some kind of blackmail payment to the Hillary camp. All IMHO, of course. And it's probably just as well I'm not running for president, 'cause I'd just give her the finger and be done with it. :)
June 4, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I do think Edwards should be offered a cabinet level position. Would love to see him as attorney general. That he had real popular support in the primaries is good enough reason, in my mind.
I also don't think that this is a zero sum game.
Or, more correctly, it can be, but I don't think it has to be or should be.
June 4, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think Destor is right. Edwards is owed something; Richardson is owed something; Clinton is owed something. Everyone who leads a major constituency is owed consideration, and Clinton has a bigger constituency than anyone else. But I don't think the VP spot for Clinton is a good fit for either Clinton or Obama, or the best move for the party. Nor do I think the vice presidency represents anywhere close to the best use of Clinton's talents.
June 4, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would argue, no, they aren't owed anything. Is it nice or expedient to offer them something? Will it gain some political advantage for Obama? Maybe so, and that is the motivation for doing it. Not merely because someone ran in the same contest and lost, whether it was a close second or distant third.
To be more clear, politics in general is not a zero-sum situation. There's always bargaining and seeking an advantage, compromising where you must, steamrolling your opponent when you can. But a political contest, be it a primary or an election, is a zero sum game. Ask Al Gore what he got for coming in so close in 2000. Or, to keep it within one party, what about the Democratic primary in 2004? Kerry didn't choose Edwards or Dean just because they came in second.
My point being that Clinton is not OWED anything. It probably will come around to her getting something out of it, just to make peace. But that doesn't mean she deserves it just because she ran and managed to come in second.
I guess on this point, I will have to agree to disagree with those who think she is owed something just because she came so close.
June 4, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, wish I could edit this. Kerry did, of course, have Edwards as his running mate. I meant to change that sentence to read he wasn't chosen just because he ran in the primary, but because it was believed he might help in the South and other reasons.
June 4, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The longer attention is on Democrats, the better. Any drama surrounding Clinton/Obama will be a boon to Obama, especially since it is obvious that Obama is the nominee and that Clinton will do everything possible to help him win. All this hysteria is just tantrums and shortsightedness. I hope the Obamabots don't make it impossible for our man to pick Clinton, if that is the best course in HIS judgement. Likewise, maniacal HRC supporters could force his hand in the other direction. Let's just leave it to the nominee's judgement, which has worked pretty well so far.
June 4, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael, I'm glad you feel that Clinton would not be a strong, wise, nor the correct prospect of being Obama's Vice President. The voters and delegates alike saw this Democratic primary for what it really was, The Clintons' cling to power. If Hillary doesnt feel it, some crazy person may feel Hillary Clinton is entitled to the Presidency by trying to knock off Obama if Clinton negotiates her way onto the ticket as V.P.....she's polarizing to the end and beyond..................................
June 4, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watching his speech to AIPAC right now live on MSNBC. Quite interesting, to say the least, some phrases I jotted down:
I know that when I visit AIPAC, I am among friends, good friends....defense cooperation between Israel and the U.S. must be deepened...I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot...I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security....ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage...Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided...we must never force Israel to the negotiating table...stop to Syria's support for terror, it is time for this reckless behavior to end...there isno greater threat to Israel than Iran...the Iranian regime supports dangerous extremists...pursuing a nuclear weapon...its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map...everything in my power to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything...
June 4, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vice President recommendation short list,in this order: Mark Warner (VA), Sebelius (KS), Evan Byah (IN), Jim Webb (VA), Chuck Hagel (NE).
June 4, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am opposed to picking any Democratic Senator for the VP slot. We need all of them in the Senate that we can get.
If Obama is elected, that's one senate seat lost (at least potentially lost). Given the Republican opposition tactics, we need as many as possible.
June 4, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has been shown on (numerous) video tapes throughout the Democratic primaries, dissing Obama. The most prominent video was the one where she said herself and John McCain were more "qualified" to lead the nation and more experienced on national security matters.
If Obama puts Clinton on the ticket, the Republicans can thank the MSM and YouTube for all those video clips; basically using Clinton's and Obama's words against each other in McCain’s political advertisements, ending each political ad by saying "I'm (hahhaaa) John (hahahaa) McCain and I (hahhaaa, sorry I can't stop laughing) approve (hahhaa) approve this Message (hahahahahha ROLMAO)".
As for Obama's acceptance speech last night about Hillary's health care proposal, he may tap her in a new govt dept called Health Care for America. She may have a second opportunity to reform health care, a second bite at the apple, but the American voters and delegates spoke last night and basically saw the Democratic primaries by The Clintons for what it was, a power grab and clinging onto what remains of it.
June 4, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, whom would you pick?
June 4, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think picking Warner or Schweitzer or whoever right now would just inflame the Hillary people even more? Wouldn't it be better to let her sort of flop around and fade away over the next couple weeks?
I see your point, but I'm just curious how making a move now would not deepen the current divisions.
June 4, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a registered Democrat.
When I vote in a primary, I choose the candidate whom I think best represents my personal and my party's platform.
When my candidate doesn't win the primary, I do not do a 180-degree turn and vote Republican.
In other words, I do not cut off my nose to spite my face.
Would those few rabid Hillary supporters who are having trouble with the concept of Obama being the Democratic Party nominee please do whatever you need to do to let it go already and get onboard with your party's opportunity to change the course of history for the better?
Thank you.
June 4, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
this seems to be the right forum to say once again:
bob graham, goddammit. i know he's old, but picking him will defuse charges of ageism from the spring chickens around the obama campaign. graham probably wouldn't run for pres in '16, making hillary happy (sorta). graham was head of the senate intel committee, and as a former governor will give the ticket some exec experience. plus, he'll help us win fla.
and he was against the war, despite being a dc insider. graham, i tells ya.
June 4, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink