Updated: Obama for VP?

The Clinton campaign’s offer of the VP slot to Obama is clever politics. Bill pressed the idea more explicitly than before over the weekend, saying that the ticket would be “almost unstoppable”. The idea gels nicely with the Clinton’s argument that Obama is inexperienced: here is his chance for some on-the-job training as number three in the Clinton White House. In due course, they are saying, he might be a pretty good candidate for president.

Best of all, from a tactical point of view, it affirms the idea that Hillary is winning the race—implying there is nothing odd about her offering the VP place to the man who just happens to have the most delegates at the moment, and still will after Pennsylvania. The press mostly went along with this imposture—and so, in a way, did the Obama campaign. Instead of rejecting the overture out of hand, they said that such talk was “premature”. That was a mistake. If I were Obama, I’d be saying that the question of accepting the VP slot on Hillary’s ticket will never arise; if it did I wouldn’t accept it; and that there are no circumstances in which I’d offer her the VP slot on my ticket. (Isn’t it telling that Hillary doesn’t even need to say she’d reject such an offer from Obama?) Even to signal the possibility that he might come around to this idea looks weak.

Update:

Good. This is more like it.

Comments

Hillary for Ambassador to Papua New Guinea !

Posted by PulSamsara | March 10, 2008 12:00 PM

actually, obama responded...

"After bouncing back from defeats last week to claim an easy victory in Wyoming at the weekend, Mr Obama said: "You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate. I'm running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count.""

from : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/10/wuspols110.xml

i think responding to the offer validates it. i think their offer is supremely arrogant, and smacks of her sense of entitlement to the office. not even recognizing that they are far behind and dismissing the smaller states shows the arrogance and mismanagement of her campaign. spin things however you can, even when it defies logic, shows her brand of politics.

honestly, it reminds me of the spin and lies about iraq with bush. i don't want another president who attempts to spin cold hard facts into something that they are not.

Posted by jim | March 10, 2008 12:24 PM

I support Obama, and I thought he was the better politician, but some doubt is creeping in. This should have been easy for him to bat away. Why did he use the word "premature"? Why did he say "I think we can maintain out delegate count"?

Floating the idea was clever on the Clintons' part. It opens some space for her to divide the party, as she's doing, and say, in effect, "The solution to the infighting is simple. Obama should give up and run as my VP."

Turn it back on her. Don't just call it "premature."

Posted by Hal | March 10, 2008 1:11 PM

Seems that the Clinton camp is now saying that Obama is NOT qualified to be VP (Wolfson, this morning).

Hopefully that kind of statement will get Obama to respond more effectively.

Posted by jean | March 10, 2008 1:27 PM

Don't buy into the way a story gets reported, as you can see from jim's post Obama's response was more than the comment "premature". The Clintons are once again trying to manipulate the situation to such an extent that we don't know if we are coming or going. Obama should reject this talk strongly, I believe, but that is up to him.
I am more troubled by the Florida/Michigan delegate issue. The Clintons are trying everything conceivable and it makes me sick. I did hear a proposal for the delegates to be ceded with 50/50 split. That sounded reasonable to me. If there is any monkey business I am going to be very upset.

Posted by ann | March 10, 2008 1:36 PM

Well, we have a white house now where the VP is the de facto leader and the President is the mouthpiece and cheer leader. Hillary could wait, or either of them can, and probablby become VP.

Posted by Jason Spinnett | March 10, 2008 1:49 PM

Hillary 'offering' Barack the VP position reminds me of that scene in Star Wars when Darth Vader attempts to get Luke to cross over to the dark side. Barack, don't do it!

Posted by LX | March 10, 2008 1:55 PM

i agree that this is a very clever move by the clinton camp, but even more importantly, as some of us have noted all along, it's been a little premature to declare obama a political genius and perfect being. he's taken a few hits: can he bounce back?

Posted by howard | March 10, 2008 2:00 PM

Why did he use the word "premature"? Why did he say "I think we can maintain out delegate count"?

Because he's a nice person, and a decent human being, and because he believes that modesty is a virtue. I'm not so sure you want to go into battle this fall with a nice person.

Posted by name witheld | March 10, 2008 2:10 PM

A TalkingPointsMemo site has video and transcript of of Obama mocking the VP suggestion:

Now, they have been spending the last two, three weeks -- you remember that advertisement with the phone call, telling everybody, getting all the generals to say well we’re not sure he’s ready, “I’m ready on day one, he may not be ready yet.”

But I don’t understand. If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?

(via Andrew Sullivan)

Posted by ndm | March 10, 2008 5:14 PM

Just for once, I'd like a president with personal integrity. Though I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt, Hillary clearly lacks it. Her recent comment that O isn't Muslim to the best of her knowledge (!) seals it.

McCain is better than George "Things would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, and I were the dictator...the Constitution is just an old piece of paper."

But that's not saying much, is it? McCain seems willing to pivot on fundamental issues such as abortion, taxation and (worst) torture.

The most negative thing I've seen substantiated about O is that he claimed more credit for a nuclear regulatory bill than he should have. Heaven forbid!

If she heads the ticket, I shall not vote. I know many who have the same view. At least her loss would clear the path for O in '12, and I see no reason to believe her about Iraq withdrawal.

Posted by Fred | March 10, 2008 5:18 PM

I think the Clinton's might have been a little too clever or too cute with this 'dream ticket' move. It completely undermines what has become the driving thrust of her campaign - that Obama is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief. Obama's main problem now is hitting back without undermining the premise of his campaign. This gives him an excellent opportunity to do just that, and to look tough (but not cocky) while doing it. If she wins the nomination, everyone will tout it as another example of Bill Clinton's brilliance as a tactician. I predict, however, that it will ultimately be seen as a miscalculation.

Posted by Will @ Situationville | March 10, 2008 8:33 PM

Just more of H. Clinton's "Over my and/or the Democratic Party's dead body campaign".

-

Posted by Daniel from Chicago | March 10, 2008 9:49 PM

Even though Obama has quickly declined the "offer" to be marginalized it's still a good question. Who will want to be VP in the Clinton White House when you would have less power and influence that the first spouse? Perhaps if Mrs. Clinton became Ms Rodham again that would help in recruiting.

Posted by Bill from Berkeley | March 11, 2008 12:57 AM

The Clintons is politic as usally.they will never change and will do ANYTHING to WIN. we need a CHANGEwe need B Obama

Posted by Dot Adams | March 11, 2008 2:09 PM

The Clintons is politic as usally.they will never change and will do ANYTHING to WIN. we need a CHANGEwe need B Obama

Posted by Dot Adams | March 11, 2008 2:10 PM

BTW I found some fantastic articles…A MUST read for EVERYONE “The Hussein Dynamic” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171 and “Follow the Money” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165

The writing is BRILLIANT and goes beyond what the MSM feeds us. It was about time!!!!! Their sections for “Humor” and “Political Analysis” are FANTASTIC!!!!

http://savagepolitics.com

Posted by Elsylee | March 11, 2008 2:30 PM

Off topic...I found recent video of Philly Mayor Nutter commenting on the (non)release of Clinton's tax returns

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/multimedia/16255926.html

It's pretty lame....

Posted by AKBY | March 11, 2008 4:27 PM

I like Obama's lack of impulsivity in his responses. He has invariably waitied for the Clintons to, as they would after first floating a ploy, go on to paint the airwaves with their "genius" attack. Obama has then effectively shut them down at the height of the attacks with scathing but common sense rebuttals like he did in SC, and now again, using the rebuttal to debunk the Veep and experience attacks.

Posted by Chaz | March 12, 2008 10:05 PM

One of the early comments mentioned Obama's "victory" in the Wyoming caucuses--that most unrepresentative and exclusionary of "democratic" processes. My choice for "most significant moment" of the campaign happened there, largely ignored by the media.

In remarks at a town hall meeting in Cheyenne, Obama described his vision of a new politics. In excerpts broadcast on NPR news at 1800 PST 030808 he wanted to be "very clear" that he was answering comments that his promise of change is vague and empty. He intended to say "exactly" how he plans to change American politics if elected: Lobbyists could not participate. The only voice to be heard would be the people's.

Did you miss the thud of that vision landing? It is trivial and impossible. Trivial because it hardly amounts to some glorious new vision of American politics. Impossible because it goes against human nature.

Alexis de Tocqeville (Democracy in America) thought our penchant to be joiners distinguished us from all other peoples. James Madison (The Federalist, No. 10) noted that people formed factions ("special interests") based upon their shared interests. The greatest danger in a democratic republic is that a faction or coalition of factions seizes the government for private ends. The Constitution was designed to stymie factions by its system of checks and balances which still allowed them to compete.

This "exact" change will NOT begin an era of transformational politics. Pace, Mr. Crook, but Obama hasn't been around long enough to understand how the system works. (I guess a Harvard JD is not worth much. ;-).) Pretending he can change what he doesn't understand is presumptuous and doomed to failure, like Cheney's wanting to kill terrorists without troubling to understand them. His trivial "plan" doesn't match the grandiose "rhetoric" of his "eloquent" stump speech. Better to hope for ice cream with your apple pie.

By the way, although it is churlish to mention it, societies that do not let their citizens organize to pursue their interests are generally totalitarian, not democratic. Then there is that little matter of the First Amendment. As I was saying about that Harvard JD . . ..

Posted by Hal | March 13, 2008 3:13 AM

Changing topics a bit, Clive, I am curious about your reaction to the Ferraro flare up. You earlier wrote that you thought the "race" story in South Carolina was made up by the media, focusing in particular on the MLK-LBJ and fairy tale comments. Many of us including me responded that those particular comments might not be racist, but a number of more explicit statements by Clinton surrogates sure seemed to be, as did Bill's Jesse Jackson remark.

To me, the Ferraro statements (or at least the campaign's delayed, hesitant distancing from those statements) like the Jesse Jackson comment are caclulated steps by Clinton to stir up some people's anxieties about a black presidential candidate. I find it profoundly disappointing. What's your take?

Posted by Chunche | March 13, 2008 1:51 PM

The VP nomination on Hillary's ticket would actually be the No. 3 slot, rather than the more customary No. 2, for obvious reasons. Only a loser would take it and I don't think Sen. Obama is a loser.

Posted by DBL | March 13, 2008 3:11 PM

As many of you seemed not to notice, Obama demolished the arrogant gesture -- far more clever than that offered by the former Presidential Adulterer.

Posted by Miande | March 14, 2008 12:03 AM

How about a Clinton-Ferraro ticket?

Posted by Luis A. del Valle | March 14, 2008 12:14 AM