Vice President Obama?
There are only two chances Barack has to be president: this year if he wins the nomination, and this year if he agrees to be vice-president. He is currently ahead in the delegate count and there is no way Hillary can catch him unless she wins every remaining primary by 57 percent, counting yesterday’s Wyoming primary that she lost with only 38 percent of the vote. Now her must win margin has inched up closer to 60 percent.
If she does pull out some sort of miracle, including a rule-breaking decision on Florida and Michigan where Obama was not even on the ballot, then she would need approximately 60 percent of the remaining uncommitted superior delegates while Obama would only need about half that number. Math is not Hillary’s friend: fear and deception are.
If he does not get the nomination as the result of some further Clinton chicanery, he can’t run again in four years or eight years: Obama’s change message would just not resonate and “our time has come again” is not a winning slogan. So he would have to be her Stepin Fetchit: there is no way he is her Dick Cheney. He would be so marginalized by both Clintons that he should not take it in my judgment. Look how marginalized Al Gore was in the first Clinton reign: he could not even address his pet project, global warming, and he was relegated to applying quality management to government as his big trust.
Now with Bill “Avis” Clinton, being number two and trying harder, preemptively suggesting yesterday that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable force, I do see a possible scenario where Obama might agree to being Vice-President. There would have to be some kind of power-sharing agreement, in writing, and made public at a joint press conference with the two.
One possible model would put Obama in charge of foreign policy and Clinton in charge of domestic policy. A Black, Muslim-backgrounded leader in charge of restoring America’s image and reputation around the world is a perfect match for Obama, playing to a perceived strength of his. (The Arab world is a man’s world.) Clinton in charge of domestic policy plays to her perceived strength of the economy, healthcare (including Social Security) and education. Both would share responsibility for homeland security, immigration and all trade agreements.
It hasn’t come to a power-sharing agreement yet, but it might. If Barack wins then there is no way Hillary runs, no way. Obama could then be free to put another woman on as Vice President, say the popular and recently re-elected Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, or the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. If this were to play out, I would still see the above kind of power-sharing playing out in some form along the same lines.
Posted: March 9th, 2008 under Uncategorized.
Comments: 25
Comments
Comment from bdr
Time: March 9, 2008, 9:36 am
I think Clinton INC is pushing Obama as vpotus to (a) belittle Obama and (b) poke Obama’s camp and (c) recreate the meme of HRC inevitability. It’s a work.
HRC would rather lose to McCain so she could run again in 2012 than lose to Obama and never be president.
Comment from timr
Time: March 9, 2008, 10:57 am
Josh, what do you think about this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802724.html?hpid=topnews
The most important factoid is the statement in the 3rd paragraph, said by gwb in a meeting on Dec 18, 2002. Do you think that this will have any legs??
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 9, 2008, 11:10 am
Obama has already said he won’t be vice president. And I totally agree with BDR - It is a “demean Obama” tactic. They tick me off more every day.
Plus I think it is a crappy ticket. (I’m still hoping for an Obama/Dodd ticket.)
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 9, 2008, 11:44 am
Timr, I don’t think this has legs. It will be dismissed by the Bush Media Machine as Douglas Feith just trying to sell books. Besides, it is nothing new, maybe a little more specific, but this story has been there in many forms and from many other sources. Since Bush is not running again, this will not be an issue in the Fall because McCain will say the decision was right but the execution was wrong, besides, he will say, the issue is “What are we going to do now? Surrender (powerful word) is not an option (said commander like).
To Sasha’s comment I would say what Obama says now and what he may have to do later if it comes to that are two different things. All potential also-rans always say this and many change their mind.
Dodd has nothing in my book to an Obama ticket. Obama needs a general or governor, and if it gets bloodier he may need a woman governor.
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 9, 2008, 12:59 pm
What Dodd adds to the ticket is white white whiteness, hair and all. And the illusion of age without really having too much of it.
Comment from Nosebetter
Time: March 9, 2008, 4:58 pm
Josh:
Obama is trying to be seen as a presidential candidate rather than a VP, but if he loses the nomination to Hillary and he is offered VEEP, he’ll be all over that like white on rice. She would, also, if the situation is reversed. It may come down to it whether Obama wants her on the ticket or not. He’ll do what it takes to win. There will be no shared power arrangement. It won’t happen.
Also, it’s not a point of just getting any women on the ticket. Hillary supporters want Hillary on it as either Pres or VP. If they don’t get it, many may stay home and not vote–possibly giving the election to McCain.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: March 9, 2008, 9:38 pm
Obama/Webb, thank you very much. Interesting idea, Josh, but just think what McCain would do with such an arrangement as you propose. He’d simply ask, “Why does it take 2 Democrats to take on one crotchety, pissed off old man?” America would be rolling in the aisles and the Dems would lose by 20 points.
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 10, 2008, 4:21 am
I find Jim Webb horribly offputting, not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and frankly not such a great military rep. I can think of lots better and I don’t think his Asian wife would be an asset. I also find this notion that Obama would take the Veep slot as incomprehensible. He doesn’t seem like the sort who would play second fiddle to Bill, the real Vice President. (Sorry Nosebetter)
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 10, 2008, 6:06 am
Lefty, I think the last thing we need is two senators on a ticket, especially two freshmen senators. My idea about power sharing addresses the issue of change. It’s done in business and it is done in other countries. And I believe that Reagan proposed it back when.
I don’t expect it to happen.
With regard to Hillary voters wanting Hillary, I am not sure about that. I would say that Hillary voters want a woman to be president first and foremost, and as some have said here, “I want a woman to be president, but not THAT woman.”
Comment from I.B.Lever
Time: March 10, 2008, 8:47 am
“I find Jim Webb horribly offputting, not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and frankly not such a great military rep. I can think of lots better and ( I don’t think his Asian wife would be an asset. I also find this notion that )….”
…………….
Timr, my heart goes out to you and your family and let me emphasize, that this is not how the majority of us here feel. There are some who open their mouths in total disregard as to others choices in life and this is obviously one of them. I can’t imagine the satisfaction and self assured perfection, one must feel when making a statement of this sort - now that in itself, must be an asset.
Brought on by ones lack of ever being appreciated, I suppose ?
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: March 10, 2008, 8:51 am
We’ll have two senators on the ticket if Hillary teams with Obama, which he’ll never agree to. Just imagine the jokes, “How many Democrats does it take to (fill in the blank)” As I have said many times, we have two fatally flawed choices, which is so typically Dumbocrat. No one on this ticket has risen to the occasion. Despite Obama’s soaring rhetoric, he’s been knocked to the floor by a single Pug-lite commercial–imagine what happens to him when he faces the real thing. And Hillary’s tone deaf, me above everything campaign is absolutely nauseating. I said it early (I think in January), say hello to President McCain and to the continuation of the Junta. Buying farmland in New Zealand next week…
Comment from suzanne
Time: March 10, 2008, 8:54 am
Nosebetter knows better on this one. For me, it’s all about Hillary. I believe she’s the best person for the job. A token woman VP will appear to be just that, someone to appease the women folk. And I’m pretty sure it was Sasha (the Hillary hater) who said “just not THAT woman”. I find the rabid Hillary hate disturbing - terms of endearment like “Monster” and “Pig” should be reserved for GWB and his ilk - not a woman who has spent her life doing her best to help others. She ain’t perfect but who amongst us is?
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 10, 2008, 10:24 am
Lefty, not to put too fine a point on it, but Obama teaming up with Webb is not the same as Clinton teaming up with Obama. Clinton might want Obama (if it gets to that) to keep the young vote. As I see it it is less likely that Hillary would agree to be a vp than it would be for Obama to do so. Neither is likely.
So for Obama he needs four things in a vp: 1) executive/governor experience or someone with executive military experience such as a general; 2) someone to soothe the Clinton supporters; 3) someone from a strategic state; and 4) someone not from Washington to help address the “politics as usual” thing Obama talks about.
Suzanne, I do not see a woman running with Obama as a “token” thing. This entire campaign has been about race and gender. This is not a Mondale/Ferraro redo. Times and tempo are different.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: March 10, 2008, 10:40 am
Couldn’t disagree more, Josh. If Obama doesn’t have executive ability and needs an executive VPOTUS to make up for it, he’s not qualified. Period. VPOTUS should not have to make up for that sort of deficiency–look at Cheney…Webb fits 3 out of 4 of your criteria, plus he has military chops and by extension the kind of cojones that Obama has yet to display.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 10, 2008, 12:17 pm
Lefty, I didn’t say that Obama didn’t have executive experience. Implicit in my comment is obviously he is not a governor or that he has managed a government. Neither Clinton or McBush have either. All three are senators with no outside management experience to speak of. Managing a senate office doesn’t add anything. (But we have had an interesting insight into how different Clinton’s and Obama’s management styles are by following their campaigns.)
To change the subject slightly, I hope McBush picks first. That should help.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: March 10, 2008, 1:16 pm
My concern is Obama’s toughness and his military/foreign policy bona fides. If one were to choose a VP based on bolstering perceived weaknesses, those are Obama’s. I agree that Obama has completely out-organized and out-strategized Hillary, which is why I find your insistence on having a governor as a running mate so curious. Hate to say it, but Obama needs a tough, kick-ass, centrist white guy to run with. That will solidify the independents and perhaps knock the stick out of McCain’s hands when it comes to national security. That’s Webb and perhaps a few others with strong military backgrounds (Wesley Clark is too wimpy).
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 10, 2008, 1:18 pm
Obama just anwered Clinton on her faux invitation to be her VP. He basically said, how come I am qualified to be Vice President when you claim that I am not ready to be president. After all, every nominee says the selection of a VP is the MOST IMPORTANT decision they will make because that person is one heartbeat away from being president.
Gotcha!
Comment from Nosebetter
Time: March 10, 2008, 1:51 pm
Josh & Leftcoast:
The most qualified person in the country is NEVER in either the VP or POTUS slot. All this talk about qualifations is just campaign rhetoric. What they look for in a VP is some one who will help bring in the votes.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 10, 2008, 3:26 pm
Nose Better, you are right. It’s time to amend the Constitution with a job description for president that includes real qualifications beyond age and birth place. No one running for president right now could be the CEO of a Fortune 100 company. And no one can rise to be the CEO of a major company with no experience in the job at lower levels.
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 10, 2008, 3:48 pm
I hate that idea Josh. Just like I hate the idea of term limits. Let the people speak.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 10, 2008, 4:55 pm
Sasha, is voter/people speak the same as share-holder speak?!
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 10, 2008, 5:01 pm
No. I’m all about the democracy … well sort of. I’m still on the fence about the electoral college.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 10, 2008, 5:43 pm
Sasha, in democracy 50 percent plus 1 vote carries the day. Not so in business. A vote that close would create a customer/business crisis. I’m just saying…
In fact, when companies discover that their customer satisfaction rates fall below 90, 80, 70 percent, they find a loss of market share and share-holder value. In politics we make that discover when the rates fall below 30 percent!
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: March 10, 2008, 6:57 pm
Josh: The president as CEO model doesn’t work in a democracy as business’ ultimate goal is monopoly. If you’re going to change the system, I vote that it be made more parliamentary. Think how much less damage would have been caused if we could have kicked Bushco outta here a couple of years ago. Install “loser-pays” tort reform while you’re at it, and make legal victimless crimes like prostitution and smoking marijuana. It’s about time we grew up…
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 11, 2008, 6:30 am
Lefty, while I like the parliamentary system, it will never work here. What we have is a de facto CEO business management model in effect, emphasis on “management model”. Besides, the federal government is a monopoly.
I used to believe that prostitution and smoking weed were victimless crimes, but with the mob and gangs involved in providing both, there are plenty of victims in both businesses. And in many cases the prostitutes are victims, enslaved and forced to do the business. I am for decrimalization of most illegal drugs.
Write a comment