March 10, 2008
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.
The five stages of grief are as follows:
Denial
Posted by: meljomur | March 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Report this commentAnger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
Hillary, no doubt, believes that with 8 years experience as Vice-President, Obama would be well qualified to run for President in 2016, after she leaves Buckingham Palace.
Posted by: algasema | March 10th, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Report this commentEyes need to turn to whom the Republicans will name as the VP candidate and to how McCain intends to work with a VP.
What caught my attention with the Obama movement in the beginning was the depth of the team that was forming around him. Those who got this movement started put media-genic qualities ahead of more-hard-to-sell proven experience factors. Hillary’s lack of appropriate experience was identified as her weak spot. Yet they chose not to play a stronger suit and matched her woman with a multi-racial prototype. This is sad for a fine and capable man who has far more to offer than an inspiring way with words delivered through a melifluous baritone. Nonetheless, his leadership and experience were not proven.
It is unclear to me who in the US has true leadership and would be willing to risk it in what is most suicidal political process on the planet.
Bill Clinton’s role in this spectacle is one of the most disturbing factors for me. What and who do these people represent? As I have asked repeatedly, does anyone NOT remember how pleased the world was to see their backs in 2000? His own VP and most of the Party’s candidates refused their support during that year’s campaign. They left with millions in legal debts, and today refuse to disclose taxes are what must be millions in revenues (Hillary claims to have lent her own campaign USD5 million.).
Historians have generations of work cut out in assessing the role of media–and those who control it–in what we are witnessing amongst Democrats. I’m not sure whether we should hope the US republic is still in its current state when they write their books. I hope for better.
Meanwhile, AIPAC’s minions are likely sleeping better this week than they were before the last round of primaries. Israel expands its illegal settlements. Poland becomes a 53rd State and a US-funded corner of the US, while less US Federal money is likely spent in Ohio. France is subjected to what has become a months’ long series of media campaigns highlighting its new “Special Israel” relationship under a president who is one day Jewish and next Catholic and the next Scientologist. And the Islam-hating, Oxford dropout Christopher Hitchens is now on Gideon Rachman’s very short recommended-reading list.
Who has brought us this wonderful chapter in Western Civilisation?
Posted by: WCM | March 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Report this commentApologies for an error in the last paragraph re: Poland: it is “a US-funded corner of the EU”.
Posted by: WCM | March 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm | Report this commentMr. Crook,
Your analysis of the politics of Bill is dead-on: co-opting Obama is their best shot. The fact that Hillary has not discussed the VP job for herself is part of the game, but also, part of her denial – because she is NOT winning the race (NB: Even if I prefer her). In case it isn’t clear: everyone over here pointed out the absurdity of Hillary offering Obama the VP slot while he still leads even in the popular vote. You are right to note the implications of any lead change in that vote.
Now, the idea that Obama should announce that Hillary would be unacceptable as a VP is one of the silliest statements I have read in the media. This would be a serious tactical error for Obama – even if, especially if – he has already made that decision. For one thing, he gains nothing by doing that and further antagonizes her base. Silly.
There is a great irony here in Mr. Crooks’ post and the post of WCM: in the U.S. – yes, guys it is a U.S. election – Bill Clinton left office with the highest favorability rating of ANY President since the tracking began. Now, you can lament that. You can pronounce jeremiads against him. But, you must accept it as a BRUTE fact. Perhaps to me the deeper irony is that those same people who lament the application of a brutal pragmatism to the acquisition of power (that is what we have here, so just stop with the “oh my”s) applaud that pragmatism when it led to a budget surplus in the States. President Bill Clinton’s willingness to reject the Democrat’s narrow interest group needs, even temporarily, in order to tighten up fiscally is what we call “triangulation” – you should call it courage. My guess is that you are guilty as Europeans of the very same thing which you accuse the U.S. of under the current regime: a secret desire to “tweak” a sovereign political system to your own liking. Oh well, at least you folks sound cool even if you are out of step with the U.S. news cycle. I might add that this VP debate and the rigidity surrounding it were predicted some time ago in this blog. It is the very picture of the circular firing squad. Hmm.
Posted by: Jay B | March 11th, 2008 at 12:47 am | Report this commentAs an update: Obama rejected the notion of being Clinton’s VP when he said that I am running for President, not Vice President in rally yesterday. He also pointed out how Clinton was in no position to be discussing her VP option seeing as she is in second place, behind in both the popular vote and delegate count.
Posted by: Nima | March 11th, 2008 at 6:31 am | Report this comment“from a tactical point of view, it affirms the idea that Hillary is winning the race.”
I think that is a matter of opinion. To me, it seems more like a desperate last (or near last) throw of the dice, masquerading as a statesman-like gesture.
Posted by: Michael, UK | March 11th, 2008 at 9:40 am | Report this commentAs a risk manager, there is always a BIG RISK if you are dealing with UNKNOWNS.
BARACK, Mr. Xerox, is an unkown quantity. The guy who self professes that he wants to legalize pot smoking, the guy who said he has ‘good judgment! The VAR for this guy is at least 6 Sigma!!! Just like structured credit (sub prime)- very good packaging (AAA rated) but the underlying fundamentals are nontransparent!
Hope (aka CHANGE) is good! His heart is also good but change can be done not by florid words nor arrogance but humbleness and deference to people that have wisdom and experience!
Nobama for me yes sireee!
Posted by: NORMAN | March 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm | Report this commentIn a game where one is judged the number of points scored not those one wishes they had scored, the Clintons are clearly showing that they are in denial, that they are arrogant and somewhat stupid. Loss after loss do not seem to convince them that the people have rejected them. Inheriting from a senatorial seat in an ultra safe district does not give Hillary Clinton any real proof of political strenghth, a democratic dog could have won there.
Posted by: Jeanot | March 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm | Report this commentThey attempt to co-opt Obama did not fool anyone specially after the barrage of negative comments. What part of Clintons’ speech do we believe? Not ready to be commander-in-chief yesterday and today good to be president? A fairy tale, a muslim, what’s next? Desperate people do desperate things and the Clintons are really desperate now. Don’t be surprised if she joins the republican ticket just so that she can get nominated. Remember her past as a Barry Goldwater (Late Republican Senator from Arizona)girl? It may be time to come home Hillary!
The view in the US about this latest move by Clinton’s campaign is that it is one of desperation. No one’s buying it. Obama has used it to his advantage by asking why she’d want him as a VP if he’s so “inexperienced”. Plus, folks are appalled by the condescension and sense of entitlement she exudes regarding the office - too reminiscent of our current leader. After almost 8 years of Bush/Cheney/Rove machinations, more US citizens than ever (especially youths) are getting wiser to political stunt pilotry and its PR/marketing origins.
Posted by: CPS | March 11th, 2008 at 5:57 pm | Report this commentActually, the 6 sigma point is dead on. The spread on Obama is 45 to 55 but for Clinton is about 50.5 to 49.5 - a narrow win or loss. The electoral math is tricky with both sides trotting out paralogisms every day. Fact 1: Obama in trouble in Ohio and Florida. Fact 2: no preponderant evidence that he will win a state won by Bush in 04; thus, TROUBLE for the prophet. As a trader I know why I prefer her. A side issue MIGHT be however, who stands to bring in the larger Congressional majority for the Dems. Obama probably wins that even if he loses to McCain ! The U.S tends to like an Executive - Congressional Party split. If you ask who will most likely get us into another expensive war? McCain, Obama, Clinton - in that order. This is counterintuitive to the followers of the Chicago Prophet; but, excessive reticence does not sufficiently deter mischief makers - thus, Obama would have to discipline them more through military options. Ironically, Hillary could pull an Iron Lady and scare some folks enough to deter them by her ranting and raving. SNL: Yea, she’s a B;;;;;. Deal with it!
Posted by: Jay B | March 12th, 2008 at 4:52 am | Report this comment[…] coverage at all is the aim. And one thing looks quite interesting to me at the moment; although the general buzz of the news cycle has Hillary Clinton level-pegging or even regaining “momentum”, the […]
Posted by: Crooked Timber » » US election horse race | March 12th, 2008 at 9:58 am | Report this commentHilary, is playing a dangerous game by suggesting that Mr Obama cannot, sit at the front of the presidential bus, but she will be more than happy to prepare a nice comfy seat for him at the back of it as VP. The dynamics of the race are agaisnt Hilary, pleading to the superdelegates in this way smacks of desperation and if those super politicians were to elect Hilary as the presidential nominee, whilst Obama was ahead in the delegate vote and popular vote going into the DNC in denver. The democratic party would surely split, leading to the formation of a third political party in America. Hilary has to win this fairly to save the democratic party.
Posted by: KWM | March 12th, 2008 at 6:27 pm | Report this commentChina and the US are sitting on economies that could implode in the months ahead. One would not seem mad to auggest that the Fed’s desperate and unprecedented behaviour, which now has the uneasy support of its key BIS partners, may be little more than a grand effort to keep the Titanic from sinking. Simultaneously, there are signs that China’s strategies to manage its reserve problem have been shorted by the Fed’s moves to export its mistakes. By many measures, the US quaking may be the source of a tsunami that will wash up the very low Yangtze. Inflation there may indeed go maddeningly out of control and set off alarming events.
Maybe it is only the location and name of the victim that is wrong in this scenario.
If so, one cannot imagine any of the three candidates as we see them now winning confidence under a serious global economic crisis. McCain would be the only one positioned to claim sufficient confidence should a new military conflict open up, and it would be a fragile and temporal confidence.
The superficial quality of this campaign–now globally watched and harshly judged by most observers–needs to be challenged. From this European side of the Atlantic, few of us really care about whether Florida and Michigan are seated or not. Europe seems to want Obama, but few experienced observers would be prepared to bench their professional reputations on his preparedness, except to prefer it to the mendacious Clintons and the hawk-in-denial McCain.
At the moment, I would like to see Bob Rubin’s “messages sent” box. I fear, however, that he may share Al Gore’s disillusionment with politics, particularly given the boat he is in at 399 Park Avenue.
Posted by: WCM | March 12th, 2008 at 10:05 pm | Report this commentWCM
Posted by: Jay B | March 13th, 2008 at 5:28 am | Report this commentI heartily concur with your post. Disturbingly precise. Yes, wouldn’t you love to see the Rubin “sent” box? Oh well, Ben is trying - right?
How is this for a unique solution to the US election muddle: give all three candidates an essay test on the derivatives market. Specifically, CDOs, CDSs, index hedging, corporate bond spreads with Tbills. Explain why this may or may not matter for the future of the US economy. Then let our very own Clive Crook grade the exam. What da ya think, all or nothing, do or die, NO MULLIGANS!
Jay B–Bearing in mind you’re a professed Clinton supporter, I’m sure you’ll agree that she will unlikely pass your test as easily as the more recently educated Mr Obama, although I failed to note much econometrics or advanced maths in his CV.
McCain unlikely did as much as A-Level maths.
Such a test would be irrelevant.
The policy questions that are relevant would be the extent to which they believe the US is 1) too big to fail; 2) the only true safe haven in the world today; and 3) the global regulator and risk manager.
I have shared emails in the past days on the scenario I allude to here. One Washington wonk replied that the real isssue is the likelihood of a capital investment bubble bursting amongst the Middle East oil producers. When I queried him about a similar crisis for some Asians, it seemed clear that his wall map did not span so far. Further, as has been too often the case, Europe is dismissed as irrelevant but convenient at the moment. He also, in a thoughtful manner, argued that “all of this shows that the US is the ONLY safe haven in this crisis.”
These comments reflect a calculated outlook I have long been aware of. It should alarm. We have seen such thinking before. I would agree that the ME sovereigns are being taken for a ride, and add that they will likely not be held to account by their people. Iran is the one oil producer that has assessed the current environment and marked a different path, and this is why they are a threat to Washington at the moment.
Barack Obama’s economics team early on was forming a very different school of thought. I sense now that they’ve been conscripted by those, like my esteemed friend, who argue that the time for their new thinking has passed. I would like to hear some tough questions posed to the three who want to be the one to participate in future discussions.
George Bush in an interview this week blithley said that the solution to this crisis will be solved when foreigners realise that their dollars are welcome in America. That was no casual comment; it is a part of the Bush & Co game. It should anger so-called Smart Money.
Posted by: WCM | March 13th, 2008 at 8:19 am | Report this commentyour wonk friend is a boob.
Posted by: jay b | March 13th, 2008 at 2:29 pm | Report this commentmy “test” was a lol. of course obama has a shot. crv maths aside - here, a semi-literate can master everything but a quant’s knowledge of derivatives. your’s truly has been quoted as an expert on the back of books published by the FT; and, im no quant.( mastering derivatives by f. taylor ) the issue for my joke was that they should have a clue - but might not.
your wonk’s error is inexplicable. china not a player in treasuries: come again? The US a safe haven as I watch my Euro shorts get crushed again? No dollar for me. It is safe to say; nay necessary to emphatically state that the Euro is at a minimum the co-reserve currency - period. Safe haven, US?! indeed.
I have heard the Washington water supply is not the best in the world. None of these points align with my outlook/perspective. Rarely has there been an intersection. My concern is with the level of denial amongst some who are supposed to think there.
Obama has some of Wall Street’s best minds on his side, including many who previously supported and even arguably put the Clintons in the White House the first time. Of course, he must take care to speak out, but I think the wolrd needs to know if he is global financial citizen or a US opportunist. John Connally’s famous remark had a reasonable ring to it in 1971; not today.
Admittedly, there is a big question on the table regarding when national interests are global and visa versa. The desperation we are seeing, including today’s comments from Paulsen, do not inspire confidence for the 21st century.
Posted by: WCM | March 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Report this commentNews I just Heard: not to be confused with breaking news.
Posted by: Jay B | March 13th, 2008 at 5:43 pm | Report this commentPelosi definitively nixes Dream ticket either way! She says after Clinton’s remarks about McCain, Either ticket is an “impossibility”.
Now, my assumption has to be she has the umph to make that statement and “knows” something. So,
Clinton now is eyeing Gov in 2010 or
will go to war with Dems. Either way the first volley by the party has been fired by the elders in my view. Hmmmmmmmmmm.
The current campaign is dividing and will fracture the Democratic party for many years to come.
The determination of Howard Dean to disenfranchise the 1.75 million Democrats who voted in the Florida primary for violating party rules will most probably lead to a loss of Florida by the Democrats. All major candidates visited Florida on many occasions to raise money; their national ads ran in Florida; extensive media coverage of the campaign has been readily available in newspapers, on television, and via the internet. To argue the vote was simply a “beauty contest” is to ignore reality; thus, the expected backlash by Florida voters. [I am a Floridian, an independent.]
Analysis of voting patterns easily demonstrates Sen. Obama is favored by the black vote. If he is denied the nomination and blacks to not vote in November, it is unlikely there will be significant black influence on a national level for a generation. [The Democratic party in the Deep South is heavily black; governors, congressmen, and senators are white, and, of course, Republican.] Racisim is alive and well in the US. It is unlikely white men will vote for Sen. Obama when given the opportunity to vote for a white man [McCain]. There is simply no place for them to go.
The non-Cuban Hispanic vote has been mobilized by the racist anti-immigration hysteria fostered by many Republicans and the mass media. Black politicians have not espoused the immigrant cause. It would not be realistic to believe they would support Sen. Obama in November.
Sexism is also alive and well in the US. Comments made about Sen. Clinton would have been unthinkable had they been made about Sen. Obama. She loses the white man vote. [In the debates over the Civil War amendments to the Constitution, the Congress would grant black men the right to vote; expressed was the intent to exclude women from the language guaranteeing equal rights. That is why the Equal Rights Amendment was pushed in the late 20th Century … and failed]. If women do not vote Democratic, and they constitute 57% of Democratic voters, no Democrat can win.
The major financial backers of the Democratic party through its surrogates [”elders” or “barons”] will decide who is the candidate [in their best interests]. As should be obvious from the failure of Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi to articulate the feelings of those voters who swept Republicans from control of the Congress, no substantive change will occur.
It will be interesting to see what efforts are made to rebuild a coalition to recapture the White House after the debacle of 2008.
Posted by: Kenneth Alonso | March 13th, 2008 at 6:51 pm | Report this commentMr Obama did not present himself as the Black candidate. In fact, he was a hard sell to blacks. The Clintons put their sales machine to that task, led by the former president, and did it well.
Hillary seems not to have made much noise about the FL and MI rulings by teh DNC when they were made. She exploited the resulting situation, when otehrs followed the memos from the party, and her calculated game may pay off.
The ugliness has been on the part of the Clintons. America’s contemporary political environment seems to thrive or even need such spectacle. Both the Clinton and the GW Bush Administrations have taken tactics shaped by people like Rove and Carville and rolled them out to support their troubling voew of their place in the world.
Nonetheless, the race is not over and the Democrats do not face a formidable challenger on the Republican ticket. Adding Rice to McCain must be an amusing discussion at the RNC these days.
Posted by: WCM | March 13th, 2008 at 9:57 pm | Report this comment