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".