To Control the Endgame, Obama Should Announce a Date-Certain in June to Name his VP

Obama needs to change the dynamic of the endgame. The current situation he faces is not dissimilar to Iraq, where the absence of a timetable has enabled those politicians to continue to jockey for power positions while the US bleeds.

Right now, it is a waiting game. Everyone is focused on if/when/under-what-circumstances/with-what-terms Hillary Clinton will exit the race for the nomination. So long as this dynamic persists, the Clintons are perceived as capable of bringing Obama to defeat in November, even if they cannot guarantee him victory.

But, if he announces a date-certain in June to name his VP, he immediately flips the dynamic and the power positions of the endgame. In chess terms, he calls "check".

Hillary Clinton is not going to drop out of the race. As she says, why should she? It is not clear (to me, anyhow) just what major policy matter unaddressed by Obama she is persisting to champion, but she ain't droppin' out. If she is in it for personal ambition, she will not drop out. Other than cash that a few post-election Bill Clinton speeches and deals can replenish, she pays no price for continuing. And, she actually receives encouragement by accolades for her "grit".

Neither the superdelegates, nor the superduperdelegates, nor the Obama campaign has erected a "forcefield" so that Hillary has not had to weigh any consequences against continuing the race.

The media has been easily duped and is thus, as it is so often, an unwitting stooge. Learning from "some high-up insider" that Hillary will do this or that in June set journalistic neurons atwitter with the thought of a scoop and "being in the know", suspending pattern analysis in favor of reader titillation.

Did no one notice that there seemed to be a flurry of such "sources" almost at the same time, after the Obama victory in North Carolina and narrow loss in Indiana? Some were leaks. Others were direct op-ed pieces. Did that not seem a bit suspicious?

It did to me. It was the Clintons cleverly telling superdelegates who might cut off their continued quest by declaring for Obama to "cool-it", "don't worry". One extraordinarily bright and influential Clinton supporter told me that he has been asked to "keep his head down".

And, the media bought it. [The same media that also buys the changing goalposts for success in Iraq.]

As I ( "SuperDuperDelegates: How About Some Leadership?" , March 21, 2008) and others, e.g., Arianna ("Stop Yelling at Hillary to Stand Down and Start Yelling at Superdelegates to Stand Up, May 22, 2008) have said, Hillary Clinton herself cannot be expected to drop out of the contest. So long as the contest continues, she has a non-zero chance, however infinitesimal it might be, to get the nomination; once she drops out, however, it is over. In addition her entourage will spin everything they can to convince her to proceed as they have even more to lose than she does...not only major government jobs but the lucrative "after-market" for the access capitalists that Washington DC has become.

A Lou Gehrig moment, "taking one's self out of the line-up for the good of the team" is not what American politics lends itself to doing. It is most certainly not for the Clintons who have also convinced themselves, it seems, that what is good for them defines what is best for the team.

There are two paths for salvation. One is for the superdelegates to decide. But, these are a diverse group of people, spread around the country. Coordinating their decisions is like herding cats.

A corollary that I have promoted is for what I have called the superduperdelegates, like Clinton supporters Schumer and Rendell, to get on a conference call to tell her it is over and that they are moving to Obama if she does not cease-and-desist by a date certain. Set a firm date for withdrawal---hmmm, in what other context has that idea come up before?

But, that would require leadership. With the exception of Howard Dean (on this and other matters such as the 50-state strategy), however, leadership has not exactly been the Democratic Party's strong suit. For example, with a President at a 27% approval rating, with the Iraq War opposed by nearly 2/3 of the American people, the Democratic Senate that was elected to bring the war to a close just voted to fund it for the remainder of Bush's term.

The second path is in Obama's hands. He can create that "forcefield". As matters stand today, Hillary can run all she wants, and there are no consequences for her. But, if reports are true that she might, just might, be interested in the Vice-Presidency, Obama has leverage, and he can apply it subtly.

All Obama need do is announce that he will name his VP by a date-certain in June. June 15th, perhaps, when Hillary had it leaked on her behalf that she would drop out if the superdelegates were with Obama. Or, June 20th, so there would be several days' grace.

For Hillary to be vetted--and, yes, the Obama campaign will have to delve into Bill Clinton's foundation records, and other personal matters that have not been made public, not to mention long discussions between the two of them about how they can work together--she will have to had dropped her bid for President.

Right now, despite Obama's lead, his fate is in her hands. If she fights through the convention, she can damage his chances enormously while self-righteously proclaiming she was fighting for the disenfranchised de jour. So long as she remains in the race with no deadline for withdrawal, she can set the time and the terms of her concession. So long as she continues to assert that white blue-collar voters will not vote for Obama, the more likely the outcome she claims will occur.

But, if Barack Obama states a date-certain by which he will choose a Vice-President, then a minimum of one week earlier is the date by which Hillary withdraws or is not considered for Vice-President.

If the Clintons wish to be players, they will first experience discomfort with that forcefield, and probably send out some bellyaching surrogates, or proclaim "not-so-fast", but the Obama campaign should just remain silent.

Importantly, once Obama announces that he will pick a VP by a date-certain, the opportunity for Clinton to extract some quid-pro-quo will have passed. At that point whatever he does is from a position of strength. Even if he does offer her the Vice-Presidency, doing so from a position of strength enables him to be in control of the details. She can ask, she can bargain, but she cannot dictate terms.

Moreover, if Hillary nonetheless persists, it will be against not just Obama, but against the ticket. The Dems will have adjusted to whoever the other end of the ticket is, and her quixotic campaign will seem even more of an afterthought

Independent of the endgame considerations there are many good reasons for Obama to make his choice by some day in June. It will provide time before the convention for two people, not just one, to campaign across the country. It will provide space for the two to learn how best to complement (and compliment!) one another. It will enable the party and the country to get accustomed to the team.

It is also what any practiced "CEO" would do in analogous situations. The "company" has certain organizational needs, and is being pounded by external forces beyond its control. A practiced leader ensures those needs are met, and determines a strategy to bring those external forces under control. That is leadership. That a single act addresses both issues is a matter of luxurious coincidence.

Changing the dynamic will also display Obama as a tough, thoughtful leader who employed strength with subtlety to achieve his goals.

Obama announces a date-certain in June to name his VP. He gives his staff sufficient time to vet the strong contenders. He makes his choice. They then move on.

And, importantly, they do not look back.

"Check" becomes "-mate".

Comments

[Peachie49]

Here's one Obama supporter who does NOT want to see Hillary Clinton as VP. Obama has to select a nominee that he can trust, that will be a team player and will be a uniting force to the ticket. Hillary Clinton is not that person. She has been rude and disrepectful towards Obama from the first moment that she yelled at him about his relationship with Rezko. Nevermind that she has a personal relationship with othe convicted felons like Norman Hsu. Her lowdown comment in which she said that Obama had "words" while she and McCain had experience. What military experience does she have? She, in effect endorse the opposition party's candidate over her own party. What kind of party loyalty is that? Now, she's sending out calls to knock off the opponent so that she can step in. After all, it has to be done in June. Enough is enough. It's time that the DNC put an end to this nightmare.

[NotMcCain]

Good idea. Hmmm. What would Hillary do?

Whine (with Bill, Wolfson, Carville) that she's got the "popular vote" (miscounting MI and FL and ignoring 4 caucuses) and is being "forced out unfairly"?

Get Ferraro, Taylor Marsh and other surrogates to do media interviews decrying Obama (and the DNC's) "sexism"?

Hint that the DNC (Dean, etc.) was 'bought off' or bullied by Obama? (ROFL. Everyone knows the Clintons are the biggest bullies and revenge-seekers around). Also, why doesn't anyone mention that ICKES signed off on the ruling for MI and FL? Hillary would never have cared if the race was over as it "should" have been, Feb. 5.

Send up more messages that she "deserves" VP and will take the fight to Denver if she doesn't get it?

*******

Bottom line: she's still on Obama's short list. She still needs to be vetted--including 2007 tax returns, hidden earmarks, and library donor list. Think she's going to make any of that available to him?

Plus, her lobbyist connections (including Penn and Bill and $1 million from Colombia) make her unacceptably "corrupted" for an Obama ticket. Will Obama educate the American public about this? Or just let her campaign continue their tantrums, accusations and whining?

[DrDemon]

Good job Paul!

But, maybe the DNC and/or the "S u p e r Delicates" will act as early as this week; especially after Frillary's "Kennedy" comment. That would be a very nice and welcoming gesture on their behalf.

[DRaymond]

Unfortunately naming a VP is generally considered premature unless you are the presumptive nominee. Hillary will spin it as an insult to her campaign if Obama names a veep too early.

Hillary does not have to drop out so much as she has to become irrelevant. Does anybody still care that Ron Paul has not officially ended his candidacy?

Once enough SuperD's have made their choice that FL and MI are irrelevant (and thus seated as a goodwill gesture anyway) Clinton can either officially drop out or not and nobody will care either way.

[NotMcCain]

She's already irrelevant. It's getting her (and Bill and McAuliffe and Wolfson and Carville and.....) to be QUIET and not divisive for two months that's going to be difficult.

[Doofus]

Best way out of this, inevitably, will be to wait for the next time
she proclaims that she will NOT be the VP candidate, THEN
for Obama to immediately insist (in a most unconvincing way)
that she must accept the VP nomination, then hope for the best.

Hopefully, it's not too late for this tactic to work.

[PaulAbrams]

1) The suggestion was NOT to name the VP, but to declare some date in June when he will. Remember, SHE said that it would be finished in June.
2) Reagan named a VP in '76 when he was BEHIND, in an effort to shake loose some votes...and then touted it as "you know my ticket, what's his?" in the endgame.
3) I think you are right, however, that the Clintons will do some version of "not so fast". However, if Barack says in declaring the date that he needs to make that decision, by then, period for the OTHER reasons I mentioned, it will not only be hard to argue with, it will also display to the country a decisive, in-charge, leader who is going to do what he needs to do to be an effective President. THAT will have enduring value.
So, when the inevitable "not so fast" comments are uttered, all the cmpgn does is keep quiet, and goes about its business.

[longislandlol]

Stratigically for him-- should he not wait for McCain to announce VP first--? so that a balanced geopolitical landscape emerges?

[SethBLiNK]

Nice idea, but it wouldn't solve anything.

If you acknowledge that Hillary has power to help or hurt him in November, it will be hard to push her around like this. If she chooses not to accept the terms and keep fighting for the top slot, the supporters who hang in the balance might see her as being more disenfranchised than they already see her now.

A strategy like this would allow her to assume the role of victim, which she might embrace more than that of VP.

[lostonechampion]

If he named Kathleen Sybeilius(sp?), then that shuts up the true feminists. What makes Hillary so special? She was never a governor? She was never an executive of anything, accept her failed campaign. So TRUE feminists would/should rally behind KS and that would render HRC powerless.

Check mate indeed.

[army193]

If I understand Obama is that he will listen to pundits but just to remind you he is winning.

[DennyCrane]

Paul, that would be the absolute worst thing Obama could do right now. He's not the nominee yet and he has to be very respectful of Hillary Clinton or risk offending her supporters, many of whom say they won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee. If he does anything to pressure Hillary to make a decision, it'll reflect badly on him. The only thing he can do now is wait for the superdelegates to grow a spine and end this race.

[DavidNH]

Clinton as VP? ..... no, no,no,no!
Anybody but would be better.

[kellygrrrl]

I'm pretty sure the Hillary VP Ship has Sailed

[lbrillante]

Clinton does not get considered as VP. She has not earned anything... except that she has me convinced that the Clinton's low character, poor judgement, and despicable behavior will make it imporssible for me to vote for any ticket that included her and that I am willing to fight, if necessary for a third party candidate to keep the Clintons out of the white house. NO McCain, NO Hillary. I do not trust the Clintons and I am unwilling to be accountable for what they might do with the power of the office at this time. I am not willing to take that chance after what I have seen of them during this primary. Not even Senator Obama can persuade me otherwise when it comes to this.

[Doofus]

Since the Demo theme this time around has been all about state primaries & such,
leading up to the party convention, it would be quite spectacular (literally) to allow/insist
that the Convention choose the VP candidate (maybe with plenty of behind-the-scenes
wrangling to make the process all the more interesting). It would be quite anti-climactic
(or maybe 'pre-climactic') to know who the VP is to be BEFORE the P is officially chosen.

[justobserve]

Clinton didn't win big and had to cling to a few last states and she won a few by inciting race, gender, fear,... But it doesn't mean her core supporters are still with her. Only the very old support Hillary due to the circumstance they had lived, in a way, just like Wright who detests America for its slavery policy of the past. Educated, young females are leaving her in drove because they don't want someone with Hillary's character to represent them. It is an insult to them really if females are perceived to be untrustworthy, do-anything-to-win. Females want to be portrayed as breaking the glass ceiling by their own ability. If you have to sleep with the boss to get to the top, it's shameful, not to be proud of. Clinton is the symbol of all the bad that females don't want: get to the top by clinging to their husband's position, Clinton even stole his elected positions in the past. She lied so many times that it is a good laugh to hear one analyst saying about her RFK's apology to the Kennedy family as "pain in her face as if she got a punch in the stomach". I say it again: she is a talented actor, the pain is not real unless she acted that way for her own benefits. The longer she stays, the longer voters can see Hillary's real skin color. She can't fool lots of voters now.

[Marrigan]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!! It should be done at the convention, amidst great fan-fare and excitement. The grass-roots people in the party should feel A PART of the decision. If McCain wants to jump the gun and name his VP choice, he'll pay dearly for it. Half of the GOP can't stand him anyhow and they feel as though he's only the nominee by default. Let McCain make a decision in the pressure-pot where he resides, but Obama should remain cool...which is easy for him because he IS so cool!

[Titonwan]

Did you read the freakin' article. The man said there won't be any scenario if Barack let's this crazy duo continue unabated. TIMETABLE.

[heal57]

I believe the last primary is June 3rd. Obama should announce his VP June 4th. The people will prevail. We are not waiting for the superdelegates to go find their spines. Obama is our nominee despite Hillary's chomping at the bits to have him eliminated. End this already. It's over. Barack won, she lost. She has managed to have the blacks furious with her, the white furious with her, even the women have lost it for her, You, Superdelegates, have the power. SHE DOES NOT Do YOU GET IT? Oh, and Ms. Feinstein, Hillary will never b e on Barack's VP ticket considering she sees hispossible elimination [assassination?}. I's over for her. The grown women are taking back this country and we're putting in Senator Obama. Deal with it!