Veepstakes
So now the discussion turns from who the nominees will be (McCain and Obama obviously) to who the VPs will be.
McCain has apparently invited two governors and Romney to his ranch in Arizona this weekend. I think he should pick Romney but we’ll see.
Since I don’t plan on voting for McCain (age, temperment, foreign policy, supreme court nominees, fiscal policy, etc are getting in the way), my concern is who Obama will pick.
The NY Post says this morning that pressure is mounting to pair Obama and Hillary. And:
Bill Clinton is among those who want his wife on Obama’s ticket, Time magazine reported yesterday.
The former president "is pushing real hard for this to happen," says a friend, according to the magazine.
I’d be all for that and have suggested as much on this blog recently. I was torn between the two and voted for Hillary in the NY primary. I’ve been gradually swayed by Obama as he’s weathered the storm I was sure to come at him. I think he’s hardened and much tougher for the experience and will make a fine candidate in the fall and a strong President if elected. But I think Hillary is also a great candidate who would make a fine President if anything were to happen to Obama. And the "unity ticket" is certainly appealing from a political perspective. Obama is struggling to win over significant parts of the Democrat voter base and Hillary could really help him.
And now comes John Heilemann with the news that both Obama and McCain have Mike Bloomberg on their short list:
maybe it was inevitable that the veepstakes would yield a circumstance
this bizarre: the presumptive nominees of both parties seriously
mooting the concept of teaming up with the same dude. And not just any
dude, mind you, but the Democrat turned Republican turned Independent,
divorced, Jewish billionaire mayor of our glorious metropolis. The mind
doth fairly reel at the notion—and even more so at the fact that it
might actually make sense for either of them
I suspect John is right (he’s got access to people who know and I don’t), but this makes no sense to me. Bloomberg is the classic entrepreneur. He needs to be in charge. I can’t imagine him ever agreeing to sit around doing nothing for four or eight years.
My money is on McCain/Romney and Obama/Hillary. And that will be a good race, the kind of race America needs this fall.
Comments (Archived):
That would be a trainwreck of epic proportions.There isn’t room in the White House for 2 presidents, much less 3.
He won, she lostAnd the NY Times had a great suggestion for Bill, give him Hillary’s Senateseatfred
That was a FANTASIC suggestion. It made a lot of sense.
“He won, she lost”No offense but that comes across as a rather naive comment. I could see her (and her husband) undercutting him at every opportunity if she was made VP.Personally I believe neither Clinton should be allowed 100 feet from the White House. Their time is done. Its time to move on. She can be Senator for life and throw the other Clinton some pointless position such as head of the UN.
Maybe I am naïve but I think its clear in a President/VP relationship whois calling the shots (at least it was clear until this currentadminstration)fred
Not true – Jefferson and Adams were at odds during Adams Administration. Jefferson had a lot of power as VP tp Adams. At that time the 2nd place winner of the Presidential election became the VP.
president clinton substantially changed the role of the VP and, arguably, President Bush is carrying on the tradition (though since VP Cheney is not seeking further office, he is a lot less public and political than was VP Gore).unlike any other modern presidency, president clinton allowed VP Gore tremendous access and influence and authority (although, it was suggested, he was regualrly upstaged by hillary clinton, causing an emnity that allegedly continues to this day.) previously VPs roles were (as famously said) “worth less than a bucket of warm spit”.it will be interesting to see if the next president carries on the traditionbtw, i’m not positive but i’m pretty sure our modern system of the nominee selecting a running mate is *not* proscribed in the constitution. its just a relatively modern tradition that sidesteps the proscribed process in the electoral college. the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president but does *not* stipulate that the electoral votes be for a “ticket” or for “running mates” or anything like that. crazy and will never happen but the electoral college could vote in as VP the runner up in the election (e.g. McCain and Obama as Pres and VP or vice versa)
I don’t think Obama/Clinton is going to happen. There’s been too much competition and vitriol between both sides. Plus, Obama will likely want to pick someone more symbolic of the way he approaches politics.I’d be extremely happy if he chose Bloomberg, but I’m sure he’s going to end up weighing a lot more in his decision.
I like Jeb Bush for McCain’s VP slot, or Newt Gingrich.For Obama, he should pick Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick (the ‘just words’ guy). Further, he should suggest that his Illinois senate seat should be ‘given’ to his wife Michelle Obama. Also, he should think about Maxine Waters or Chuck Schumer as Energy Secretary.
Chuck is one of the most powerful senators. No way he’s moving
I was kidding about the Schumer thing http://www.ibdeditorials.co…”Congressional ignorance of basic laws of supply and demand is at once bizarre, breathtaking and frightening. For example, the American Thinker Web site this week took note of a speech delivered by New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer on May 13. In it, he urged the U.S. to force Saudi Arabia to pump a million barrels a day more of oil — which Schumer claimed would slash the price of crude by $25 a barrel.What Schumer didn’t say was that 1 million barrels is exactly the amount of extra oil the U.S. would today be pumping if President Clinton hadn’t vetoed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1995. Despite this, Schumer still opposes drilling in ANWR.”
I wasn’t
Deval Patrick, while a brilliant man, has some problems in MA that I think would come back to hurt him.Also, as much as this hurts to admit, I don’t think America is ready for an all African American ticketI met Deval when he visited my school (he attended my school) after winning his race in MA.
I just think Hillary brings too many negatives and not enough positives. The unity ticket is only appealing to democrats. You win by swinging republicans and independents.Positives:She’ll bring some older womenShe might bring some blue collar whites in Appalachia (although not enough)Negatives:She galvanizes a dispirited GOPShe has little foreign policy experience (despite her claims)She has no military experience.Far more people hate her than love her.Her strengths don’t counter McCains strengths well.Wes Clark is my VP pick. He immediately counters McCain’s military experience. He’s a southerner. He was a strong Clinton supporter.If you want a unity ticket, Chuck Hagel is far more interesting than HRC.
McCain picks Bloomberg as a VP. In 4 years McCain chooses not to run and Bloomberg leads the ticket, and becomes the President. That’s the strategy there.
Romney!? I hope you say that because you think it will seal McCain’s doom. Romney is an ass of the highest order.
I say it because I think that’s what he’s going to do
The Clinton Era is done, thank god. We need a clean start and with the Clintons in the admin that would never happen. They would be out to undermine everything that he would try. It’s their nature, they can’t stop lying.
There is a massive number of people who would never vote for Hillary and a pretty substantial number who would never vote for Obama. The problem is they don’t overlap much. This combination would be a disaster. I think the smart move would be Richardson, but he’s too mainstream for Obama I’m afraid.
So then, you can imagine Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney “agreeing to sit around doing nothing for four or eight years”?I don’t know if he’d ever do it, but Colin Powell would make the ideal VP for McCain.And I have to chuckle at the idea of a Obama/Clinton pairing being a “unity ticket” – if there’s one thing the Bill&Hillary Show would *not* bring to an Obama campaign, and administration, its unity. Any case, its a ridiculious myth that Obama needs Clinton on the ticket – how many Democrats or blue states would go for McCain in her absence? Zero. Obama should make a clean and clear break with the past and with the Clinton circus. There is no shortage of excellent Democrats he can choose as VP…
As you noted above, Bloomberg is not your typical Republican. If he was, then he wouldn’t be on Obama’s short list. Just the same, McCain is not your typical Republican either although the Democrats are saying he is an extension of Bush.McCain has been a Senator since the mid 1980’s. For the past 25 years he’s been called a Maverick, for the past month he’s a Bush clone. By picking Bloomberg, McCain would be acting true to his Maverick persona that he really is.McCain is more of a moderate to liveral Republican in many aspects. But because of his party affiliation, he is stereotyped.For instance, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted Congress to reduce spending just like the Democrats who tout “Pay-as-you-go.” But the reason for his voting against it is never mentioned.McCain was also instrumental in the Judicial compromising in appoint Presidential Judicial nominees. He reached his hand out across the aisle. A Bush clone wouldn’t do that.I think if he picked Bloomberg he would force everyone to acknowledge that he is a Maverick.
Fred, for however little we think of Cheney (and I think he’s a very bad guy) he has redefined the position. Hilary could be useful as team player who leads legislative efforts if she were truly ready to end her career as VP, but she’s not. Obama needs somebody who can genuinely help the administration effect change.I also think he needs someone to round out some experience issues: Here are two names that don’t get discussed as much, but should be considered: Wes Clark and Colin Powell. Both can be trusted to find the right conclusion to the Iraq situation and reestablish our crediblity abroad. Both bring needed military experience to combat McCain’s strengths in these areas. Clark is from Arkansas and is a democrat so he may be more logical, but I think we are getting closer to blurring the lines between parties as we see with the Bloomberg situation.
Wes Clark? Thanks, I needed the laugh. 🙂
I like the HRC choice a lot more after reading this piece on Obama’s (and Lincoln’s) “team of rivals” approach (via @davewiner).
Mike B should hedge and run as veep on both tickets.What else is he going to do for the next 8 years? Climb mountains? DC is the only thing left to conquer.
Governor of NY
I like Jim Webb although I worry about his temper and about his ability to withstand extremely close scrutiny. I’d like Hillary in the VP slot if she weren’t attached to Bill but him in the white house again makes me queasy.I don’t know why nobody is mentioning Mark Warner but I think he’d be a great VP for Obama.
Putting two first-term senators on the ticket would be disastrous – it would reinforce Obama’s lack of experience. He needs an experienced governor. Richardson anybody?
I disagree! Webb kills the the powerfull ” grizzled war veteran vs. sweet-talking city slicker” dynamics that mcCain has going for him in the middle states.Joe Wilson had an interesting commentary a few months ago, saying that the McCain-Obama dynamics is negative for the Dems: Obama has a lot of respect for mcCain, while McCain has zero respect for Obama. The point he was making was that the country will fall in-line behind the bully and the bruiser.Well, given what happened this past week in the Senate, we now know that McCain is Jim Webb’s b$%^ch!Webb’s negatives are with women, he has had some mysogynics in the past. however, women will have no viable choice: McCain is much worse in the mysogyny department.If the woman factor proves too important for Obama (there are obviously some hard feelings among the feminists), he should consider Sebellius. What a tough woman! she is standing up to big coal in kansas of all places and winning!
Richardson get Obama the latino vote (they largely won’t vote African-American) and foreign policy cred. Edwards gets him the white guy vote. Hillary doesn’t help- she’s not a follower. Her best bet is Senate Majority leader. Then get Al Gore for Secretary of State…then start undoing the horribleness of the last eight years.
Fred – Worth reading the Economist’s take on this, if you haven’t already.http://www.economist.com/wo…
Excellent point. Thx. The cartoon (caricature) says it all. Puts the Func in dysfunction!
I don’t see it. Obama has been running on a campaign that aims to bring “Change” to old Washington politics, and putting Clinton on the ticket would contradict that. I’d be concerned if Clinton is announced as VP, because it tells me that Obama is giving in to the pressures of the DNC (i.e. old Washington politics).It be like an entrepreneur evangelizing angel investing and the death of VC during Series A fund raising announcing that their Series B is being led by Sequoia. Your credibility takes a big hit among “the people”.
Yeah but having sequoia as your VC vastly increases your chances of winning
This is a wonderful retort that stays “in metaphor.” Nice one, Fred.If I read the comment at face value, though, I wonder how true it is. It’s hard to argue with Sequoia’s track record, and Mike M and co. are incredibly well connected. Even so, are connections enough to save a mediocre business? I suspect Sequoia’s success is largely due to hitching their wagons to the right horses rather than to spurring the horses they pick to go faster (to use a different, albeit inferior metaphor).To bring the point back around to the discussion at hand: the poster above mentioned “credibility”, which I think is key to this election. Can Obama maintain the momentum he’s built with new voters if he adds Hillary to his team? I don’t see it.
hillary is old paradigm, and because i think america still needs more chaos before it wakes up, wouldn’t have been surprised to see the machine put her in the white houseobama, old paradigm 1.1, and hard for the machine to ignore, but he hopefully is smart enough to continue with his message of change, and get some new blood2012 is the really important electionand of course you know there is only one party, don’t you? a choice between a and b is not a choice when a = b and you really want clol, enjoy, nice to hear your regular commenters opinions
seriously, why would she even settle for the VP slot?Isn’t she ahead if you count Michigan & Florida?I’ve also heard that she’s gonna go after some of Obama’s delegates to try to get them to switch. Anyone heard anything on that? If she asks some delegates to switch, I’ll bet they will.
McCain-Lieberman. It would finish Joe’s switch-over to the republicans. Although he is holding out for a position in the McCain cabinet.
I don’t see Obama-Clinton for one simple reason. Clinton’s demeanor and force of spirit mucks too much with Obama’s mojo, which is a core part of what has made him the candidate of choice. One gets the sense that 4/8 years of that would slowly drain Obama’s idealism away.Any doubt on this one, IMHO, has been lain to rest with the way she has played chicken with her party’s presidential prospects well after the outcome was clear.Mark
FYI, on HuffPo, ‘Clinton Kennedy Assassination Reference: Raises Bobby’s Death To Explain Why She Stays In Race’http://www.huffingtonpost.c…Hard to envision Obama choosing Hillary as his VP compadre given these types of assertions.
……..history is about to repeat itself.Most people agree that we (country) need serious change at the helm. Earlier this week I saw a “poll” that Obama had a eight point lead over McCain… something didn’t look right. After sitting down with my father and having a philosophical discussion about politics it became very clear. It’s unfortunate but there is lots of discrimination in this country. Being up ONLY 8 points when the country is begging for salvation is of things to come.Remember Tom Bradley the Mayor of Los Angeles when he was running for Governor. He was LEADING in ALL the polls. At the end of the day when people have to vote their heart may have been in the right place but their vote went in a different direction.The ONLY way Obama wins is by having Hillary on the ticket. PERIOD.Read the Bradley Effect:http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
america is that dumb? i never think of skin when i think of obama
I choose to believe we have evolved.
I am sorry I am not a US citizen, but just a Korean observer. But I had to ask…If there is no racial discrimination, there shouldn’t be (racial) affirmative action. So, either you admit that there is racial discrimination and have affirmative action, or if you don’t have it any longer you abolish it. No?Here in Korea, the main issue on the news about the US election is ‘whether the whites will actually vote for the black candidate.’ Right or wrong, that’s the view here. By the way, we have our own politically wrongs.
Your money is on Obama/Hillary AND McCain/Mitt? I will give you 18 to 1 odds that that doesn’t happen. Payable in ShakeShack units (i.e. stand in line for 30 minutes on a nice day and 20 min. on cold/rainy day). If you win, you get up to 9 hours on no lines! On?
Better yet, give me a pair of tickets that has a better chance of happening
Based on Hillary’s bone-headed comments yesterday, I’d say the chance of an Obama-Clinton ticket is about nil.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have an Obama/Clinton ticket. I think both have done amazing things in their career and during this campaign. They are both trailblazers. I’m not sure America is ready for 2 trailblazers at the helm. Would I vote for that ticket if it happened, yes. Would we swing enough of the people who Obama brought over from the Republican side during the primaries, not sure.As much as I would love to see a woman hold such a high position, I think Obama really needs to think hard about this one. Someone mentioned McCain/Powell but I think if there was even a slim chance of an Obama/Powell ticket (despite the obvious potential race issues that people might balk at) it would be very good. Otherwise how about an Obama/Warren Buffet ticket? 🙂
My personal choice for Obama vp is Sam Nunn. Major defense expertise, strong presence in the south, significant experience and frequent bipartison politician cut much more from the Hegel cloth. Hegel would be a great vp choice as well. Both of these guys swing lots of independents and republicans to Obama in the GE. I don’t think hillary helps Obama in the appalachian strip where he fared poorly in the primaries. I think Nunn or Hegel sway more people to the Democrats and probably help the Democrats carry a few significant swing states. Nunn is 70 I think, but McCain is 71 so that will hardly be a “card” that the GOP would play in the GE.
Obama —-> EdwardsIt’s the GQ ticket and it WORKS.AND!McCain —> RomneyIt’s the War/Economics ticket and it will sell.
As a foreigner, I am curious why I don’t see people who support Republican on the tech blogosphere? If I am reading the news correctly, there should be 40-50% who speak for McCain… Where are they?
I am not sure what is in it for Hilary Clinton to be Vice President other than reinforce Barack Obama’s potential win in November. After all, what does a Vice President do after serving one or two terms? When I think about previous Vice Presidents, their political careers are over. Every so often one goes on to win the Presidency, but not very often.I would assume that she has political aspirations for the next 15 to 20 years that would be cut short by a VP role.