What's Next? Obama's VP

Having clinched the nomination, the next step will be to secure a Vice Presidential nominee.
The decision will be Barack Obama's but there is strong sentiment within the Democratic Party that he should choose Hillary Clinton. That she has closed very well, and seems to have won South Dakota suggests that at the very least they must have a conversation about this. This isn't my dream ticket -- and something must be done about Bill Clinton -- but this may now at least be considered very possible, if not yet probable. Of course, there are other options for her, but since she has suggested that she'd consider it, he must consider her. And, by choosing her, he makes sure that she's 100% beside him. John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, and Walter Mondale have all seen the results of being the losing VP candidate.
Politics is a strange game, and this year it is stranger than usual.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Her negative baggage outweighs her positives. The strategist in me looks at Strickland or Wes Clark or Kathleen Sebellius and sees good reasons to be hopeful with any of them. But the one choice that makes me cheer and want to work even harder to get Obama elected is John Edwards. Obama gets bolder when rising to Edwards' challenge.
Anonymous said…
Okay, now Hillary's open, drooling campaign for the VP slot is just tacky and embarrassing. Sad.
Robert Cornwall said…
Michael,

From the looks of things, the campaign for the second spot is quickly losing steam. Ed Rendell for one says it is the right of the nominee to choose. But more importantly, there is a major problem for Bill Clinton in the vetting process. He'll have to give up more info than he's willing to offer. That should be the deal breaker right there. More and more it looks as if they'll let this drag out a bit, let the Clinton backers simmer down, and then select someone he's comfortable with.
Unknown said…
It is critical for Obama to select a VP who will provide balance to the ticket. I become increasingly convinced that if Obama wants to be confident of winning the presidency, he needs Jim Webb. If Obama picks Hillary Clinton or John Edwards (or even Joe Biden or Bill Richardson), Democrats will be enthused but not independents, fence-sitting social conservatives, fence sitting economic conservatives, or others who are just not sure about a Democratic ticket re: defense and foreign policy. Those folks who are ambivalent about McCain will go for him if they perceive the Democratic ticket is too liberal, weak on defense, lacking in broader appeal. Now, I don't want to idealize Webb, as I realize that there are some that Webb won't sway as VP, but if Obama wants to really be the agent of change, to really bring the country together, Webb is his man.

Webb would throw a huge wrench into the calculus that says Democrats are not the strong defense party (McCain said recently that Obama was not ready to be president because he wants to talk to bad regimes). As a Navy Cross winning Marine Corps Vietnam veteran, Webb's got everything in the military department that McCain does including (in my view) being much more savvy strategically and tactically about how to use military force. As a gun owner and fisherman, Webb will appeal to the folks who fear Obama is too much of an out-of-touch wine drinking hoity toity liberal (which I don't think is a fair characterization, but it is a perception). And, sadly but pragmatically, Webb will help with the racism problem of KY and WVA.

At the gym I was watching Fox News, and they were saying they thought Hillary was waiting things out to get on as VP. And, the Fox News-ers seemed to like that idea, which might be telling us something. Then, they had Tom Harkin (video of him) saying that McCain's military background discredited his ability to be president. A retired Army Colonel commented that all of our presidents with the exception of Bill Clinton had served in the armed forces, so therefore, Harkin's comments must be assinine. I was first amazed at the pass given to GW Bush as well as the straw-man kind of characterization of all Democrats as the liberal Tom Harkin. But, much more than that, as I watched what seemed to me to be in some ways more like propaganda than news, I couldn't shake the thought, what would those Fox News Channel people do with Jim Webb?

Lastly, it's important to note that if the Democrats focus on pleasing their base and not reaching out across the country, they will likely lose or make this election much too close for comfort.
Robert Cornwall said…
Patrick,

I don't disagree with you that Jim Webb brings a certain salience to the ticket. It's an intriguing choice -- but -- and here's the downside -- You need a team player. One of the reasons Cheney worked for Bush is that he wasn't interested in the lime light or even the presidency. What he wanted, and no one at the time really understood this, was the opportunity to influence policy. What's interesting about Cheney is that he brought very little politically to the ticket -- except experience.

What the Dems discovered in 2004 was that John Edwards wasn't much of a team player and thus didn't help Kerry very much. From what we see of Joe Lieberman today, I now wonder if he didn't prove to be a problem then.

So, I like Jim Webb, but I really doubt he wants the job!
Unknown said…
Thanks Pastor Bob!

I appreciate your engagement!

Patrick

Popular Posts