Obama Rules Out Being VP Candidate?

By Big Tent Democrat

Nah. But first what he said and why it does not mean he will not be a VP candidate. From ABC:

Q: Could you ever see yourself on the same ticket as Senator Clinton?

A: Well, you know, I think itís premature. You wonít see me as a vice presidential candidate -- you know, Iím running for president. . . [W]hat Iím really focused on right now, because all that stuff is premature, is winning this nomination and changing the country. . . .

What is Obama doing here? Pushing back on Hillary Clinton's broad hints that she will pick Obama as her VP. Why is Clinton doing that? To give the impression you can get Obama and still vote for her. That is aimed not only at voters but, and I think much more importantly, also at Super Delegates. Obama needs to push back against this idea as it hurts him in his pursuit of the nomination. This has a danger for Obama though, it might make it seem he cares more about himself than the Democratic Party.

I am fine with what he is doing, but he needs a more ambiguous answer. Suggestion for Obama - "I do not see myself running for VP."

Update [2008-3-8 11:38:20 by Big Tent Democrat]:Media does not bite:

Senator Obama's press pack at first thought he'd ruled out V.P. in an interview with a Billings station that covers Wyoming, then realized he hadn't quite ó "All that stuff is premature."
< Canada Only Got NAFTA Briefing From Obama Advisor | Obama Rejects "Firehouse Primary" In Michigan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I agree with your take on what (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:02:38 AM EST
    he is saying.

    The way it's being reported really could hurt Obama -- it sounds ungracious and petty, like he would never consider being Clinton's VP.  

    I agree with Obama (none / 0) (#91)
    by NaNaBear on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:05:53 AM EST
    Its pre-mature. I wonder why Clinton is mentioning this when the campiagn isn't over and she hasn't won. THis should be the question, not Obama's answer.

    If she does win, what is she and her supporters going to say to the so called cult like maniacs. How is she going to convince the people in states she dissed to vote. They might stay home and say, she doesn't need us, let the big states elect her.  

    I support Obama and dislike being called delusional. I am not alone. Its a turn off and might hurt her if she is the nominated.

    Using the fear of McCain winning want work with the young voters. Am a senior citizen and it doesn't put fear in me.  McCain and Clinton are friends. She dissed Obama a member of her own party to give him thumps up. Soubds like another Leiberman(sp).  

    If she gets the nomination, I hope Obama turns down being her VP.  Bill Clinton is already her VP. Why should he take a back sit to Bill.

    He is young and contrary to what some of you are saying, he has a bright future if he decides to stay in politics.  


    Seems? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    I think he does care more about himself than the Democratic Party.

    Though I'm prepared for him to prove me wrong on this.  In fact, it would make me very happy if he did.

    Their own justification is based on the importance to the Party and the country that they win their election.

    The dangerous part is when people NOT the candidate start to believe it.


    Sounds like a Republican Talking Point to Me (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:52:46 AM EST
    Many Pols are narcissistic. But there are other easier and better paying jobs that these people could take which would feed such narcissism.

    I think this argument that all politicians are more interested in power and position than issues is something that has been foisted on us by the Republicans as a way to minimize the idea that government can play a positive role in our lives.


    Heh (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    You believe what you want. IF you think the truth I just shared with you is a GOP talking point then you are not very aware of these people imo.

    Okey-Dokey (none / 0) (#86)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:51:51 PM EST
    I'm sure you know more politicians than I do.

    Can't image they're more narcissistic than the people in my profession, the entertainment industry.

    But anything is possible.


    And Hillary cares about the Dem party (none / 0) (#58)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    When she says she and McCain are the only ones fit to be commander in chief.  She threw the party under the bus to push her campaign.  

    That's not what she said (none / 0) (#59)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    Really, denial is a wonderful thing (none / 0) (#66)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    She said that she and St. John had "crossed the command-in-chief threshold" and Obama had not.  Please, tell me what she really meant and how that is not throwing the party under the bus if he is the nominee.  

    Obama camp (none / 0) (#69)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    stated that neither Clinton or Obama are ready for that 3 am phone call....

    Can you tell me what the Obama aide meant?


    Despite your ignorning my question (none / 0) (#71)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:27:40 PM EST
    I will actually answer yours.  If you look at the context of the comment what Rice was saying is that none of them have actually had to deal with the 3 a.m. call.  Now the particular line about neither of them being ready was a dumb thing to say, though not nearly as bad as Hillary's pro McCain statements.  (That's right, it is possible to be critical of both sides, wow.)

    One of the problems with Hillary is that her claims to foreign policy experience turn out to be mostly nonsense.

    I look forward to hearing your response to my original question.


    Fuzzyone (none / 0) (#72)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    I know how you love to stalk Clinton supporters and challenge them with the statements you make ... then come off with the "Prove me WRONG attitude".  

    International Experience: Clinton's years in the White House involved many overseas trips and the hosting of dignitaries from around the world. She and daughter Chelsea made an unprecedented tour of Africa in 1997. In the Senate, Clinton has been involved in foreign policy issues through her assignment to the Senate Armed Services Committee and her significant involvement with Homeland Security issues.

    Hello... I don't care... all you are doing is alienating Clinton supporters. If that is your goal... good job.

    But if/when Sen Obama gets the nomination... you have to sweet talk me into support Sen Obamam!!!


    Still no answer re her praise of McCain (none / 0) (#74)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:02:08 PM EST
    and you won't have to sweet talk me into supporting Clinton if she is the nominee.  I will eagerly support the Dem nominee against McCain.  That is exactly why I think her praise of him over Obama is so appalling.  

    I'm not impressed that her world tourism as first lady (when she had no security clearance) prepared her for any 3 a.m. calls.  As the Trib article I link to shows (did you read it?) most of her substantive claims to experience turn out to be false. I'd still prefer to have her or Obama answering that 3 a.m. call than John McCain of 100 years in Iraq and Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran.  My problem is that after herself, McCain seems to be Hillary's second choice.

    As for my attitude, have you not read all the nasty posts about Obama around here.  I'm the voice of reason in comparison.


    You are so (none / 0) (#75)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    funny!!! LMAO! I HAVE read you comments.

    I'm the voice of reason in comparison.

    Look, so you're not impressed with her foreign policy experience.... I am. IT IS AN OPINION.... not FACT. You see I DO NOT AGREE.

    Hello... Again... I do not agree.


    Okay, do you agree that what she said (none / 0) (#76)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:14:44 PM EST
    about McCain was stupid and harmful.  If not do you have a reason why?  Did you understand any of what i said about this issue?

    I do NOT (none / 0) (#77)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    think what she said about McCain is harmful ... it is lite compared to what is going to hit Sen Obama in the GE. I want to know that he can take the heat before he gets the nomination.

    Yes I understand what you are say...but I disagree.

    I beleive that Sen Clinton IS forcing Sen Obama to position himself on ISSUES rather than the Unity and Change message. And his message is losing its appeal. He need to come back with WHY he has the experience... and not that SHE does not have experience. He is not doing it and neither are you.

    He has to change up his message. And he is going to have to convince the base that he IS A DEM.



    By that logic (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    Obama should hit her with some of the smears that she will not doubt face in a GE.  She can certainly say that she is not more experienced that he is without talking about how great McCain is.  She chooses not.  That is a bad choice for a democrat.

    He can't (none / 0) (#82)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:20:20 PM EST

    Obama should hit her with some of the smears that she will not doubt face in a GE.  

    And still look like the "Change candidate".


    That's a practical objection (none / 0) (#87)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    but on principal you think anything Karl Rove would do in the general is fair game in the primary?  No sleezy rumor generated by a 527, no sexist comment, no appeal to fear.  Its all good.  

    Well I guess we just have fundamentally different aspirations for what a democratic primary should look like.  At least I know I will never see you complain about anything anyone associated with the Obama campaign might say.  Its no holds barred.  Great.  And you have no idea how that might not been good for the general election?


    Well, fuzzyone (none / 0) (#88)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:01:56 PM EST
    You 1st statement was:

    "When she says she and McCain are the only ones fit to be commander in chief."  

    You and I both know she did not say the only ones fit... blah blah blah.  Which is probably why you omitted the "only" qualifier in your 2nd attempt.

    "She said that she and St. John had "crossed the command-in-chief threshold" and Obama had not."

    You and I both know she did not say Obama had not.  Do you want to try for a 3rd attempt to actually quote what she did say?


    Guess that (none / 0) (#62)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:14:25 PM EST
    Unity talk does not flow down to the supporters.

    What so you think Unity means? Hello fellow Repubs.. we are going to work with you..... compromise with you.... and give the Dems watered down policies.


    Can we? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    Start using shorthand for repeating talking memos? It would be so more efficient. I mean like let's say this mischaracterization is "O-TM-712" for "Obama-Talking Memo-Sequence 712." So instead of typing or cutting and pasting just post the "O-TM-712" in the headline and we'll all get it.

    I agree BTD, (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    but once again he comes off looking just arrogant.

    I mean, four years ago he was a state senator and now the Vice Presidency isn't good enough for him?

    Even HRC hasn't said this--and I DO think she's too good for the VP slot! (the whole training your boss, women having to take a back seat thing, etc.)  

    This was my (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:07:01 AM EST
    impression when reading this one... ABC twisted the meaning.

    I totally agree that Sen Clinton is hinting that she would choose Sen Obmama as her VP. And ABC went with "what ABC meant".

    I support Hillary for the nominee.... but I still do not like the media twisting his words. Looks like he IS losing some of the "media darling" image.

    I think that this is the beginnings of... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:08:59 AM EST
    ...a new push from the Obama camp that will include threats to take their ball and go home....especially if recd diaries at KOS are predictors of this sort of thing. Another way to influence superdelegates and a tragic end to the Dean movement.

    I'm glad that Hillary pushed back and showed them that they don't call all the shots, but unity is dead. I truly believe now that if they don't get Obama they will not vote. Some of them will go Nader and the rest of them will loudly catalog their "nonvoting."

    Sad, just sad.

    They represent a tiny minority (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:11:08 AM EST
    "if recd diaries at KOS are predictors" (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    we are all toast.

    Toast? Almost literally! (none / 0) (#26)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    A poster named Soullite at a Philly blog:

    Make no mistake, those of us who support Obama will burn Denver to the ground before we let Clinton steal the nomination if she doesn't have the lead among pledged delegates.

    Comments Like That Will Be Disastrous For Obama (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    if he wins the nomination. You better believe that the Republicans are on the look out for comments just like that to prove to the public that Obama leads a militant black movement.

    Fourtunately, he is not making them (none / 0) (#57)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    Obama Doesn't Have To Make Them (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST
    for the Republicans to sell that perception to some of the population. Republicans are pros at shaving a little slice of voters here and a little slice there until they win.  That is what they do.

    they will assure the middle class (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:07:53 AM EST
    joe will turn on them and vote republican for another decade. i for one don't appreciate threats about burning down a convention or marching just because your candidate isn't elected. and just what does obama have to say about that type of language. he could end a lot of it by saying that kind of attiude is not acceptable. i don't see it. what i see is a series of dog whistles being used in a cynical, crass manner for his own well being. to heck with the country and democratic party! sure politicans have self interest, no doubt, but the degree i see in obama and many of his supporters is worrying to me and a major turnoff.

    All the while bashing my generation... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:52:11 PM EST
    ...for doing that in 1968.

    Toast. (none / 0) (#29)
    by liminal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    And stale, burnt toast at that.

    We saw such a statement from (none / 0) (#10)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    Al Sharpton recently.  But it's not clear to me that he is so close to the Obama Campaign.

    Happily, I've seen those kinds of threats only from Obama supporters in the blogosphere, which I do not consider representative.  My friends who are Obama supporters are pretty much like me:  they prefer their candidate but would be happy with either.


    And Doug Wilder (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by wasabi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:36:05 AM EST
    "There will be chaos at the convention," Wilder told Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation."

    "If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse."

    It's MY ball.  And I'm taking it home, but first I'm going to make sure that the playground burns down.


    What Obama really meant (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    The statement was yet another Obama Rorschach test.

    Based on how he's run his candidacy and how petulant he is, I'm going to stick with the original meaning that I perceived.  His history to this point is that he runs for himself, not for any Democratic issue, and will throw the Democratic party under the bus if it suits him as an act of revenge.  

    He would likely never accept VP.

    But you do not seriouslybelieve (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    he would refuse to run as the VP candidate do you?

    His political career would be seriously damaged if he did that.


    I have to go with Teresa here (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MMW on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    Unity seems to be an offer to Republicans not to fellow Democrats. In fact Obama has shown repeatedly that he has little respect for Democrats and doesn't necessarily believe in Democratic party principles.

    This is why I don't understand why anyone would believe him to be a master of words but then play WORM to explain why he didn't mean what he actually said.


    Count on this (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:18:25 AM EST
    Obama will ALWAYS act in his best interests. Turning down the VP slot will NOT be in his best interests.

    Clinton will HAVE to publicize the fact that he turned her down to assuage his voters.

    No, Obama will NOT turn down the VP slot.


    personally i don't want a presidential (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:14:50 AM EST
    candidate or veep candidate either who will use such tactics as threats to burn down the convention and march on washington just because he doesn't get his way.

    i saw this coming when the negative race card was played in s carolina. when obama chose to become the black candidate, he unleashed a lot of this. i don't recall anything like this with jesse jackson's campaign. i enjoyed seeing jackson run and his idea of the rainbow methodology was also quite smart too. i can't say a see of the senior jackson's smarts in his son. don't get me wrong here, the older jackson has said some bone headed things at times like many do, but overall he is much smarter than that.


    Show and example (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:13:03 PM EST
    where he has made such threats.  The empty words of partisans on either side can't be ascribed to the candidates.

    How do you feel about a candidate who said only she or the Republican nominee were fit to be commander in chief.  Now that is something Hillary said.


    obama has played the race card and the (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    gender card when he is crying poor me. his actions have set loose a group of people including ole donna brazille and al sharpton making threats. i haven't seen obama come out against that. he continues to cry poor me exciding his blind followers to even more out of line rhetoric. read what i wrote and read this.

    fuzzyone (none / 0) (#89)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:08:48 PM EST
    She didn't say "only ones fit" to be CiC.

    She said she believes she has "crossed the threshold" to be CiC and ditto for McCain.


    Do you think it's in Obama's (none / 0) (#18)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    interest to offer it to Hillary if it's the other way around?  Does Obama have to make a show of offering it to Hillary, or risk turning off a lot of her voters, notably many women?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:29:51 AM EST
    I am on record that Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama will be the ticket.

    Clinton-Obama is far more plausible (4.00 / 1) (#35)
    by brodie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    both in the campaigning and governing sense, than the reverse which is almost unthinkable.

    It's a more natural fit for the younger and less experienced candidate to take the #2 spot, and Obama would be under serious party pressure to accept to unite the party.

    But Obama as nominee would likely not get the same party pressure to name her as his Veep.  She's already in effect been VP for 8 yrs, a situation well known to party bigwigs, and moreover there would be the added complication of having ex-pres Bill and his opinionated views hanging around a Pres Obama.  A recipe for a PR disaster right there.

    Many HRC supporters would cringe at her being in a subservient position to the much younger Obama and wouldn't want her to take it.  They wouldn't even be overly upset if the VP offer is not made.  

    And BHO would have several other #2 alternatives, including naming another woman if matters of gender representation is considered vital at that point in the process.


    the idea that Obama (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    could slot in another woman in the place of Clinton and get all her voters is just as laughable as saying Clinton could slot in an aa and get all of Obama's voters.  I think you would really tick off Clinton's core supporters, the same supporters who stayed home instead of voting for Gore or Kerry.

    Obama could be given the Cheney-like role (only in a good sense this time) of having more governing responsibilities and less attending of funerals, which would actually give him the experience that he keeps claiming he has (and that we all really know he doesn't)

    For those of you who worry about Bill Clinton stepping on Obama's toes--please.  Give me a break, to quote the Big Dog himself.  Have you seen Bill doing anything but towing the Hillary Clinton line lately?  He knows that he has to blend into the background and he has.  He also trusts his wife to be President of the United States on her own because he respects her and knows she is brilliant enough to do it.  He can advise, but never direct.  I think what Bill will be to a HRC presidency is what is more typically the ceremonial role of the VP, an "ambassador to the world" if you will.  Meanwhile, Obama can be back in DC finding out where the skeletons are buried and building a notebook full of favors that he can call in in 2016.


    Obama could slot another woman (none / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    because, again, many HRC supporters - myself for instance - would NOT want to see her in that subservient role to a much less experienced Pres Barack.  It would also be a step down inasmuch as she's already effectively held the VP position.  What could be available to her, plausibly, a step up too, would be Majority Leader.

    HRC supporters would not, however, be offended if, should it be deemed important, nominee Obama selects another woman.  Or at least they shouldn't be offended -- HRC's candidacy seen in historic gender terms is as much about seeing a woman breaking the glass ceiling as it is about Hillary herself getting the honors.  If another woman should get at least closer to the top, rather than Hillary, this would be viewed more as a positive overall.  

    As for Bill, it's all a bit of a gamble that he could be as disciplined and as much of a team player as he's been lately on the stump - for his wife -- while maintaining that same message discipline in the strange scenario where his wife is VP to some younger guy.  Quite a potential headache for an Obama admin, I'd suggest.


    Uh...what? (none / 0) (#78)
    by ItsGreg on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    You say Hillary has "already in effect been VP for 8 yrs." Now, I think Hillary would be a grand president (and I think the same about Obama...and will happily vote for either of them in the general election), but being married to the president is not remotely the same as being the vice president.

    That would also suggest that Laura Bush has, in effect, been the VP for the last eight years...and therefore ready to step into the presidency. The same was true of Pat Nixon or Rosalyn Carter or Betty Ford.

    Hillary has a LOT of relevant experience. Being the First Lady, though, doesn't carry much weight.


    Turning her down (none / 0) (#23)
    by MMW on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    assuages his hip netsters. It could also be used to sink her GE chances - the current self fulfilling prophesy (helped along as usual).

    If she loses the GE the narrative will be that he would have won. Guaranteeing him a better shot in 2012. That's his best interest.


    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:29:18 AM EST
    He creates tremendous ill will for himself in the Party and a candidate who will be formidable against him. the actual VP candidate.

    If Clinton loses, Obama still gets to argue that he would have won and is the de facto nominee the day after the 2008 election.


    I HOPE you're right :) (none / 0) (#30)
    by MMW on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:32:38 AM EST
    I think he may (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    I may be very wrong, and this is in no way a personal attack, but I think I see glimpses of a particular kind of ego in Sen Obama. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with ego, and you must have it to think you can be president, but sometimes it can get in the way.

    I have a feeling he has seen himself winning this thing, and may not be able to take 2nd position. It probably wasn't an issue until his advisor convinced him he will win.


    you know I seldom see the best in Obama (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM EST
    but I think he gave the only answer he could.  Only, he said it in his usual Obama way so that ten different people can interpret it eleven different ways (I am assuming BTD is one of the people, and that he'll see both sides)

    No one runs for VP.  He should've just said, "that a bit premature, don't you think?" and then moved on.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    there's no good answer he could give on this question. Even if he said "that's a bit premature" and that's all, it leaves the speculation mill going, and that speculation is itself bad for Obama's campaign. He stated it a little badly, IMO, but with the whole context it seems clear to me what's he's trying to say.

    Really, I think the press should leave the question alone -- it's obvious to most people that the two candidates are still in a fierce campaign for president. But the press will never leave something like this alone, that's like thinking my dog won't eat a biscuit hanging in front of her nose.

    At any rate, IF he winds up going for VP later, nobody but the truly anal are going to care what he supposedly said in March. Politicians deny that they're "running for VP" all the time.


    yup, when obama doesn't have a (none / 0) (#46)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:17:01 AM EST
    telepromter nearby he isn't always that inspiring so to speak. i think there are much better ways he could have responded, but i wouldn't expect him to signal yet he would accept that.

    Points (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:20:30 AM EST
    1.  How many VPs win future presidential elections?  They are typically damaged goods after 8 years.

    2.  Turn down the VP spot? Illinois would still love him.  He could continue as a senator.

    3.  The DNC is behind him, so they might be interested in running him again anyway if he wanted it, particularly if Hillary loses the presidency. You're only damaged goods if the DNC damages you.   If they leave you alone, you're fine. He is the DNC darling.

    4.  Wife said if he loses this time, he won't run again, so why would he care about damaging his chances to be president?

    If he does not take it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    HE creates a formidable opponent for himself.

    No way does that make sense.


    the dnc won't be behind him (none / 0) (#51)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    very long with that kind of attitude. always leave them smiling! if you leave people with bad memories, you can't count on hero worship down the road.

    the VP slot (none / 0) (#34)
    by wasabi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:38:09 AM EST
    I think he'd take it.  Why on earth would he pass it up?  He'd likely never get another chance if he refused and Clinton didn't win because all his followers sat on their hands or voted for McCain.  That would be unforgivable.

    You're leaving one thing out, BTD. (none / 0) (#53)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:42:29 AM EST
    As far as I know, Obama has categorically ruled out running for President if he does not win the nomination this year. What is the point of being VP then?

    Didn't he also (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    categorically rule out running for president back when he was running for the senate?

    If he becomes VP and runs for president 8 years from now it won't matter in the least what he said about it in 2007 or 2008.


    I don't recall what he said in 2004. (none / 0) (#64)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:17:27 PM EST
    I wish he had kept his word.

    Why would that hurt his career? (none / 0) (#79)
    by ItsGreg on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    If he accepts a VP slot, Obama gets at most another eight years in the political arena...and that would be eight years spent as an understudy. If he fails to get the nomination, I suspect he'd be more influential in creating public policy by remaining in the Senate. The span of his career there would potentially be significantly longer.

    Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see a Clinton-Obama ticket (or even an Obama-Clinton ticket). But I think each of them would be able to exert more sway on policy in the Senate than they would as VP. And I think they're both more interested in shaping policy than in the title of VP.


    The notion (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    that Obama would prefer to build his resume by taking bold steps in the Senate is belied by his actual record in the Senate.

    I don't see it as resume building... (none / 0) (#85)
    by ItsGreg on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    I don't think either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama are in the Senate just to build their resumes. I'm inclined to think they're both there to create policy and pass legislation they think will help folks.

    Having a potentially long term career in the Senate would allow either of them a lot more opportunities to influence the future of the U.S. than a limited tenure as vice president.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    Hillary had a much better response to the question:

    Clinton said "[t]hat may be where this is headed, but of course wAsked on CBS's "The Early Show" whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said "[t]hat may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."


    Obama's wording has already been spun to mean that he would not accept VP. Of course that is clearly not what he said, but it is his fault for not being more 'ambiguous' as BTD says.

    Edit: She Said (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:15:28 AM EST
    Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said "[t]hat may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."



    There was a lot (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Lil on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:22:18 AM EST
    of enthusiasm for a joint ticket. I think Hillary knows this and is trying to send a message to the voters. Smart move on her part. I thought that was smart as soon as I heard it, which was the day after Texas and Ohio, if I remember correctly.  After her big wins she comes right out and implies she'll take Obama along for the ride. Good stuff, I think.

    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    Yes, Obama can look churlish by rulling (none / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:43:03 AM EST
    it out.

    It goes to Clinton's experience again (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    She certainly knows strategy.  She made an offer that they were pretty sure Obama would refuse and in so doing, he appears petulant and arrogant. By hinting at it first, Clinton has placed Obama in an awkward situation.  The blog responses demonstrate that.

    Obama Did Not Refuse Anything (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    But he did leave himself open to spin like this:


    She made an offer that they were pretty sure Obama would refuse and in so doing, he appears petulant and arrogant.

    Or saying (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM EST
    that according to the Constitution, he cannot offer the VP slot to himself.

    Why more ambiguous? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    Have you forgotten that Obama promised in no uncertain terms in 2004 that he would not run for the Presidency in 2008?  Everyone knows this is just rhetoric, no one will care if he swears he won't do it and then does it.

    I'm a diehard Hillary supporter (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by ChrisO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    but I fail to see how anyone should be obligated to run for VP. He has every right to refuse to run. When all is said and done, it is his life. A decision like that is personal as well as political.

    In order for him to take the VP slot, Hillary would have to promise him a significant portfolio, with guarantees of no interference from Bill. Perhaps education, Asian foreign affairs, something substantial other than healthcare or the war.

    There's also no way Obama could run with a female VP other than Hillary. That would be seen as a significant slap in the face to Hillary, and would really turn off a substantial portion of Hillary's base.

    Except (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:26:32 AM EST
    he's not refusing to run as VP. He's campaigning for the P slot at the moment and doesn't want to give the impression that he'd settle for the VP just yet. It looks defeatist. I think BTD's analysis is correct.

    Its not about forcing (none / 0) (#47)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    But honestly it is rapidly looking like either candidate will seriously need the other on the ticket to hold the party together. If you are a party player then I would argue you have an obligation to help the party.

    Also I don't get it, its VP slot. And it should lead to a presidential slot, in 4 or 8 years.


    Here's what his answer should have been (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    "Premature question.  We are both competing to earn the right to serve the American people as their President.  When the time comes for one of us to consider the VP slot, I am confident both Senator Clinton and I will consider it with all the importance it holds for unifying the party after an intense primary campaign and, most importantly, defeating John McCain and the failed Republican agenda."

    But what do I know?

    You should (none / 0) (#48)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    be one of Sen Obama's advisors!! Nice!!

    Hillary denounced C-i-C (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by dem08 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    Obama. I cannot see how she can offer it to him. Her argument would be that she is incapable of getting sick or serving out her term, or her argument would be that Obama had "matured" under her stewardship?

    This is a tragedy now. Things will change by September, but Hillary "crossed the Rubican" on Obama this week with her three separate press conferences where sher declared that only she and McCain are ready for prime time.

    I think we can be certain Hillary will be the nominee. Her VP will be a general, and I think Wesley Clark.

    ON MSNBC (none / 0) (#40)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    Pat is telling Obama campaign to do just what this ABC article did.... Not interested in VP.

    The media!!!! They are obsessed with the Dream Ticket.

    Re-do in Michigan (none / 0) (#41)
    by wasabi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    About 870K republicans voted in their primary.  That was considered a low turnout.  So let's say a low turnout is 25%.  That leaves about 2.6M Republicans who are eligible to vote in the new Democratic re-do.

    primaries are for repubs/dems for (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:39:10 AM EST
    their own candidates. i think it should be for party only! but that's me!

    the single worst thing (none / 0) (#55)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    sen. clinton could do is pick sen. obama as her VP. sorry, there isn't a tractor-trailer big enough to cart his ego around. big, big mistake!

    my suggestion? former gov. mark warner of va.

    he was very popular as a democratic gov., in a historically conservative republican state. he's proven his fiscal competence bona fides, and he might just help pick up some southern states that will almost certainly go red in nov.

    no, sen. obama would make a terrible VP, he's actually started believing his own campaign's PR clippings.

    A big ego (none / 0) (#63)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    on a VP? Horrors!

    Personally, I think Clinton/Obama would be a great ticket.


    I never saw either as vp material (none / 0) (#70)
    by Prabhata on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:07:39 PM EST
    I thought that HRC was being political by appearing open to the idea that Obama could be in the ticket.  I think that she would prefer just about anybody, but Obama.  Having a woman and a black in the ticket is overdoing the change theme.

    I hope HRC wins the nomination and gets a great VP.  Although Wesley Clark would work, I don't see why Clark would take it. He is 64 years old and he'd be too old to run for president in 8 years.

    just smile (none / 0) (#84)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:48:40 PM EST
    Pure honesty is the best. I don't see what's so difficult, why people put calculation into every word. Obama just says what is true. I mean, he weasels on Iraq, yes--only Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel didn't weasel on Iraq--he has to fall back to practiced but untruthful weasel words--but for a thing like this, just answer truthfully.

    Why do you think Obama looks so unperturbed all the time? It's partly because he isn't tied into knots calculating his words.

    Sorry, but Big Tent Democrat's reading it wrong. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Callimaco on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:33:04 PM EST
    It's a complicated construction, but his meaning is pretty clear.

    (1) Obama begins by saying it's premature to talk about a joint ticket.

    (2) But in the very next sentence he makes a quite definitive and direct statement: there will be no Clinton-Obama ticket, he won't be Clinton's VP.

    (3) Then he returns to "all that stuff is premature" bit. But since he's actually ruled out Clinton-Obama in (2), all he's really talking about in (1) and (3)is an Obama-Clinton ticket. Talking about Obama-Clinton, he's actually saying, is premature.

    In short, he put the kibosh on Obama for VP but he left open the possibility of Clinton for VP.

    I understand the interpretation that the "all that stuff is premature" bit refers to the totality of Obama's statement, but I don't think you can square that view with the definitive statement in (2).