Obama '12?

While Jason Zengerle wonders what will happen to Barack Obama's supporters if he loses, I'm wondering what happens to Obama himself. Good things, arguably: Given the campaign he's run and the kind of fervor he's generated, I think he's better-positioned for a future run at the Presidency than any failed primary candidate since Ronald Reagan (that name again!) after he lost to Ford 1976.

Think about it this way: If Hillary loses the general election, Obama presumably becomes the media's go-to-Democrat, and thus the face of the party, in a McCain or Romney Administration, and he would be far and away the front-runner, I would imagine, for the nomination in 2012. If Hillary wins, on the other hand, he'll be in a position not unlike John McCain vis-a-vis George W. Bush after 2000, except he'll be younger, more charismatic, and possessed of a much larger and more devoted core of supporters in his own party than McCain has ever enjoyed in the GOP. Which is to say, he'll be able to play the above-the-fray, trans-partisan figure whose support President Hillary needs but can't take for granted - the role McCain played for much of the Bush Administration - without having to do nearly so much of the base-shoring-up spadework McCain's been forced to attempt in his quest to win the '08 nomination. If Hillary's first term is a disaster, one can almost imagine Obama attempting to challenge her for the nomination in 2012; more plausibly, though, if her administration runs for two relatively successful terms, he'll be ideally positioned to run Sarkozy-style in 2016 as the candidate of continuity and change, without any of the baggage that a Vice President Bayh or Webb or Richardson will doubtless pick up over two terms in Clintonland.

All of this assumes that a Clinton-Obama ticket for this fall is out of the question. I tend to think it is, for a variety of reasons; not least among them is the fact that even if Hillary offered him the Veep's slot, Obama might well have a better chance of being President in the long run if he turned it down.

Photo by Flickr user an agent used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

I think you're spot on with this one. Even more so than Reagan, Obama stands to come out of this campaign with truly national stature. Like McCain, Reagan was a bit pigeonholed after '76. He moved from a compelling, quasi-fringe candidate to the Reagan we all know now AFTER he lost to Ford. Obama would walk out of this campaign a major figure across his entire party. If Hillary is the nominee, she needs to do everything in her power to get him on the ticket, because he could seriously undermine her presidency just by his presence as the other choice from '08. Nothing the Clintons do over the next month or so will do any real damage to his reputation. If he plays his cards right, he can practically pick when he wants to president, be it '12 or '16. Can you see anyone in the GOP who can stand against a seasoned Obama?

Posted by NHCt | January 23, 2008 2:39 PM

I agree with every word of this post, I think. So it must be pretty insightful.

Of course, by the 2032 election, Obama will be almost as old as McCain is now, so he does have to be mindful of his time.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 23, 2008 3:00 PM

McCain Comma Obama

As a corollary to the foregoing argument, if Obama were (implausibly) to be offered the vice presidency by McCain on a national fusion ticket, would he be better off accepting ("McCain/Obama") or rejecting with the expectation that he would be in a good position to win on his own in '12 ("McCain, Obama")? And which of "McCain/Obama" or "McCain, Obama" would be better for the country?

Interestingly, frugal Parliamentary candidates in the 18th century would sometimes agree to avoid incurring significant expenses by having the Whig stand unopposed for the first two years of the session and then resign the seat in favor of the Tory for the balance of the session, or vice versa (occasionally determined by the spin of a coin). Imagine if Karl Rove underwent a conversion, woke up tomorrow with a conviction that moderation is essential for the next two decades, and masterminded the election of a sequence of fusion tickets, beginning with McCain/Obama. Which young Republican would then become Obama's Veep? (Bet Hillary would rush for the murky middle shouting "me next! me next! me next! i'm nonpartisan!"

Posted by Ned | January 23, 2008 3:02 PM

You can forget about Obama running as McCain's veep. Lieberman already has that position locked up.

Posted by Ron | January 23, 2008 3:07 PM

I think this is about right, but I find myself wondering if Obama would be better served running for Governor of Illinois in 2010, when his Senate term is up. That way, in 2012 or 2016, he's running as an incumbent governor with executive experience instead of a senator with none, but he'll still be able to claim experience with national issues. Put simply, if he were to do this, experience would be his strength rather than his weakness if he decided to run again.

I'm not incredibly familiar with Illinois politics, but I do think that Rod Blagojevich is going to be stepping down after this term. Who would he have to beat out for that nomination? I know that Lisa Madigan is an up-and-comer there, but I think Obama's approval ratings in his state in the mid-70s, which would probably scare off any other comers.

Posted by Lev | January 23, 2008 3:14 PM

I think he'll have to run a much, much, different kind of campaign in '12 or '16 if he doesn't win this time around. His relative lack of DC experience is, in part, a liability. But it's also a gigantic element of his appeal. I don't dislike him (might vote for him), but I also don't think he (or anyone) can transcendent politics. After another four or eight years in the Senate he'll be like other Senators. He's very talented and will presumably have built up some more legislative achievements, but he'll also be much less credible as someone outside/above politics-as-usual.

Ross writes that Obama will "be able to play the above-the-fray, trans-partisan figure whose support President Hillary needs but can't take for granted." I'm not sure that's the case. McCain was genuinely at odds with his own party over campaign finance reform and his desire for a much more aggressive and troop-intensive strategy in Iraq. On the other hand, Obama's trans-partisan appeal is based on his rhetoric and his personality. As a legislator he's not all that different from Clinton.

As his Senate career continues he'll be increasingly unable to square his messianic rhetoric with his actual legislative record. And if he deliberately tries to set himself apart--after voting mostly like an orthodox Democrat until losing the nomination--it'll look like he's running a selfish perpetual presidential campaign, not like he's standing on principle.

Besides, what constituency would Obama be able to deliver for, or deny to, a President Clinton that she can't win over or crush on her own?

If he's not the nominee and the GOP manages to win the election he'll be in much better shape. He can shrug and point out that Hillary Clinton wasn't offering real change, and pretty much do for the next four years what he's been doing for the past four years.

Posted by JB | January 23, 2008 3:22 PM

Obama and Clinton clearly can't stand each other. That'd be a fun ticket.

Posted by Bill | January 23, 2008 3:37 PM

Great speculations. I tend to think that Hillary is sufficiently pragmatic and Obama sufficiently impatient and ambitious that a VP slot is quite likely. And can you imagine Hillary fighting McCain in states like VA and NC where African Americans may still be smouldering over their race campaign? She'd be doomed there. And when Obama gives his speech at the convention, if he's not the VP, how weird and uncomfortable is that going to be? No, the Clintons may beat Obama in the delegate count, but that's only half the battle; they'll need him, really need to win him over in a substantial way if they want to win the general. They may think they're unstoppable, but they're no longer the core and essence of the party.

Of course, if Obama were to be VP, that would raise a nepotism issue in that the office would pass from one cousin to another...

Posted by lampwick | January 23, 2008 3:53 PM

I'm not saying you only get one shot, but...

The only scenario in which I can see Obama as president if he doesn't win the nomination this year is if he follows Lev's advice and runs for IL governor. Staying in the senate will be the end for him, just like it is for most everyone else.

The longer Obama is in public life, the harder time he will have. At some point he's no longer the vessel to be filled with other's aspirations for him--he'll be the trans-partisan some hope for and some on the left fear, or he'll be the hardened leftist some hope for and some on the right fear. But right now, he's got lots of people thinking he's the most centrist, and lots of people thinking he's the most liberal, and someone will be disappointed.

Posted by Thomas | January 23, 2008 4:02 PM

If McCain or Romney are elected the 2012 campaign will center around which candidate is most definite about getting us out of Iraq (and probably Iran). There is no doubt in my mind that either Republican will leave us stuck in that shithole in essentially the same conditions we're facing now.

Won't that be special?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 23, 2008 4:14 PM

Maybe he'll pull a Howard Dean and get put in a leadership position in the party.

If he does run in '12, I hope he's up against Bobby Jindal. Now that would be a fun race.

Posted by Quietus | January 23, 2008 4:36 PM

Huge differences between Reagan and Obama:

In 1976, Reagan led an ideological movement. He was therefore uniquely able to retain his supporters for future elections. Moreover, Reagan was broadly popular with Republicans in 1976 and would have won the nomination but for the institutional support Gerald Ford enjoyed as President.

In 2008, Obama is running as the fresh face who promises to bring Americans together, yadda, yadda, yadda. His campaign is an idea-free zone. If he is not elected President this year, he'll never be a fresh face again. And if he emerges as the leader of the opposition to a Republican President, he'll have to be in constant verbal combat with the Administration.

That sort of combativeness worked fine for Reagan, whose supporters delighted in his daily radio blasts against President Carter in the late 1970s. But how will it work for someone whose appeal is based on his supposed ability to bring everyone together for some vaguely new kind of politics?

It's now or never for Obama. That's the downside of running a campaign that's long on image and emotion -- and gravely short on policies and ideas.

Posted by Simon | January 23, 2008 4:40 PM

...not least among them is the fact that even if Hillary offered him the Veep's slot, Obama might well have a better chance of being President in the long run if he turned it down.

You think? I rather believe his chances are better if he becomes VP. I realize recent history is a bit of a mixed bag on the question of whether or not being number two helps your chances of one day gaining the White House, but, on balance, I'd say it helps more than it hurts.

Why? Because Obama's fresh-faced, Kennedyesque appeal isn't going to last indefinitely. He'll need to replace it with something more substantial. Moreover, if he doesn't become president this time around, his next best chance is very likely to be 2020 or 2024 -- not 2016, for the simple reason that, if Hillary should go on to serve eight years, the country will likely want to give the Republicans a shot, and 2016 is therefore not likely to be a great year for Democratic presidential aspirants. Now, this is all extremely speculative, of course, and a lot can transpire over the next four or eight (or whatever number of) years. But my point is, serving as VP for a term or two will solidify Obama as the eminence grise of the Democratic party. Not serving in this capacity will mean he runs the risk of being Just Another Middle Aged Senator when he again decides to run.

There's one other risk for Obama in not being HRC's running mate should she prevail: it gives some other Democrat the opportunity to raise his profile and eventually become a quasi heir apparent -- whether or not the Democrats win (but especially if they do). Why give a potential future nomination rival such a head start? Of course, it's entirely possible that a victorious Hillary Clinton won't want Obama as her running mate, but I doubt she'd be able to keep him off the ticket if he wants the slot. There's no chance whatsoever Obama won't arrive in Denver without a lot of delegates, and a tremendous amount of support nationally -- especially among African-American voters (and indeed among Obama-leaning independents vulnerable to the siren call of a McCain or even a Bloomberg candidacy). Hillary will need every vote she can muster.

Personally, it looks to me that Hillary is slowly but inexorably headed to the nomination. As a Democratic-leaning independent, I certainly hope she asks Obama to be her running mate. I suspect it would be a powerful ticket.

Posted by Jasper | January 23, 2008 5:17 PM

You guys at the Atlantic have this fondness for Obama...especially the so-called Andrew Sullivan. So far Obama has no credible legislative agenda he can boast of both at the federal and state legislatures. He needs serious grooming for him to win high federal office. He appears to me to be overly ambitious trying to explore his racial background even if he continues to deny it. The Atlantic can keep dreaming...the american people know better!

Posted by jos lebron | January 23, 2008 5:19 PM

If Hillary wins the primary, I expect that she wins also in November regardless of who the GOP presents. With that thought, Obama should swallow his pride and work closely with Hillary. There is always another day to fight. Hillary has my vote both now and in November. Sorry for you guys at the Atlantic...you will learn to get used to the Clintons' dynasty.

Posted by Samuel Davidson | January 23, 2008 5:32 PM

If Obama loses he needs to finish his term and step OUT of the Senate. He can either go and run for governor of Illinois and create a resume of change and prosperity, especially with the coming economic downturn, or he can go and create a non-profit. He can work locally with urban and rural issues and globally on issues like clean water and HIV prevention and treatment.

He has a lot of people who would fund him: Buffet, the Gates, creating a UNICEF like organization.

I don't know. But whatever he does, I don't think he should do it in the Senate. And I think it is true, he'd come out of this looking really good. He's giving the Clintons a run for their money. Out of nowhere! I think that the fact that he is young and can come back works against him, because people are willing to wait and bet on the devil they know right now and want him to gain experience.

Posted by Rhoda | January 23, 2008 5:46 PM

Wow - the 2012 horse race commentary begins already....can't we get through the current election first?

I'd say stick to movie reviews, but that would imply an appreciation for your...umm...efforts.

Multiple Choice Mitt - Because One Answer is Never Enough!

Posted by Multiple Choice Mitt | January 23, 2008 5:53 PM

Obama would be foolish to hitch himself to the Clintons and all their baggage. Say what you will about his legitimacy as a candidate, the fella isn't stupid.

If HRC wins, who would want to be her VP? Can you imagine doing that job with Hill and Bill as the tag team president? Riggghhhhttt...

If Obama loses the nomination, HRC wins the general, he will not run again. His time will be lost, the Dem party will be in splinters and, again, he would be foolish to try and clean up that mess.

In the above case he might be best served and serve his country best as a Supreme Court Justice. I'd love to hear the constitutional discussions between he and Roberts.

If HRC loses the general, he might well be the only Dem on the horizon that can take the 4 years to put the party together and run again in '12.

Posted by G Davis | January 23, 2008 5:53 PM

From Samuel Davidson:

"Sorry for you guys at the Atlantic...you will learn to get used to the Clintons' dynasty."

You know reading that statement, I just had a thought about Clinton in the general election. I know many Americans are eager to get rid of Bush, but a thought just crossed my mind?

Do you think that in their eagerness to get rid of Bush they will be happy with a story line of Bush-Clinton-Bush-?

Seems like a tag-line any republican nominated would be eager to push - another problem for HRC in the general.

Posted by Jedi | January 23, 2008 5:55 PM

Maybe Chelsea will marry Jorge.

Posted by Quietus | January 23, 2008 8:47 PM

Maybe Chelsea will marry Jorge.

And their child, George Walker William Rodham-Clinton-Bush (known affectionately as Double-Dubya), will reign as America's first Emperor. God help us all.

Posted by JB | January 23, 2008 9:24 PM

Obama gains nothing from supporting a doomed HRC nomination as her VP. Better to go for a governership, build up some solid credentials in government, maybe bring over Illinois for the Presidential race, and generally prepare for 2012, by which time McCain will be a spent force, HRC will be buried in the elephants' graveyard, and the Democrats will be hungry for a candidate who can win, and win big. Let HRC march to a well-deserved whipping, take the lead among the Democrats, and defeat the Republicans handily in 2012.

Posted by sashaqz | January 23, 2008 9:51 PM

A big question becomes if HRC wins the nomination, will African-American voters stay home in November? We Democrats have taken the black vote for granted for too long. HRC has been running against Obama using racial dog whistle politics. It's bad enough when the other side does this, but when your own party does, you basically have nowhere else to go but stay home and punish your party for what they have done. Meanwhile, Obama could use the 2008-2012/16 to take advantage of his experience as a community organizer (in a position inside or outside of government) to act as a bridge between major constituencies within the party (such as African-Americans and Latinos) and between party constituencies and centrists/conservatives (environmentalists and hunters, anti-torture liberals and libertarians, etc.).

Posted by Reality Man | January 24, 2008 4:27 AM

If Obama doesn't win the nomination I'd like to see him not endorse Hillary, simply speak to issues that matter to him, simply ignore her. He should act above the party. Walk away with honor, as Colin Powell did, as Al Gore did.
That will lead to the defeat of the Clintons in November. And his non-presence will always be felt - he is now a major figure in our culture.
If Obama had won, it would have been a truly transformative experience. Hillary in the White House would be a continuation of gridlock and Crony Capitalism, merely Bill Clinton's third term, so it doesn't matter if she loses.
I do think quite a few African-American voters would stay home, and many people who have fallen out of love with the Clintons watching them execute their Southern Strategy.
The French get Carla Bruni and we get a harridan like Hillary. Is there no justice? Doesn't anybody remember what is was like listening to the Wicked Witch of the West, Margaret Thatcher, harangue her people? Yuck.

Posted by fougasseu | January 24, 2008 5:27 AM

I agree with Ross; Obama should stay well clear of the Clintons. They have zero loyalty to anybody but themselves; just ask Al Gore. Obama seems like a shrewd guy to me, and he can't stand Hilary. That combination suggests to me that he will be able to resist the temptation of getting on board with a Clinton ticket.

The downsides and risks are huge; Obama fatally weakens his cross party appeal by joining forces with one of the three most polarising figure in US politics (Bush and Nixon being the other two), there's no guarantee that Hilary will win, by playing second fiddle to her, he diminishes his stature, he'll have virtually no say on what policy direction her White House will take, he'll merely be there to ensure that the black vote doesn't leak, (a distinct possibility after the past few weeks), thus; if the Clinton restoration ends in tears (another distinct possibility), he'll have to carry the can after 4 or 8 years, even though he won't have been responsible.

In sum, if Obama loses, he should run for Governor of Illinois, a populous and fairly diverse state, where he'll pick some valuable experience without being tainted by Senate gridlock and comprimise. (It should go without saying, of course, that he'll be a shoo in in Illinois for almost any position.)

Posted by Tom O'Gorman | January 24, 2008 6:06 AM

A win for Senator Clinton this year means that Senator Obama will need to be aiming at 2016. However, by 2016, the Republican party will probably be irrelevant with less than 40% of the seats in the House and Senate. Since the Democratic Primary Season in 2016 will be the de facto presidential election, Senator would hurt himself if he is the governor of Illinois because his favorite son status may mean that Iowa become unimportant and the presidential election will be decided in New Hampshire.

Posted by superdestroyer | January 24, 2008 8:56 AM

I do have to revise and amend my prior recommmendation that Obama run for IL governor: one thing we should all keep in mind is the fact that IL governors are more likely to go to the big house than to the White House. How Obama would manage the ethical difficulties of Illinois and Chicago machine politics without damaging himself isn't entirely clear.

Posted by Thomas | January 24, 2008 9:29 AM

Ross--

Heard you were on the long list for the NYT column. Speaking as a huge fan of this blog, it's too bad you didn't get it. Apparently they wanted a reliable party hack rather than a serious thinker and writer. Oh well; their loss.

Spot on with Obama; Hillary seems to genuinely detest him as a knavish usurper, so I doubt he'll be on the ticket unless Microtrends Mark says she needs him to win in November. He'd be well-advised not to accept, although the Clinton people would spin him as a party wrecker if Obama declined the offer.

Posted by Madorsky | January 24, 2008 10:02 AM

I think Obama is going to dally publicly with the idea of running as an independent (maybe with Bloomberg?). It was already reported on Keith Olberman last night that, while the Clintons and her advisors would support Obama as the Democratic nominee, Obama indicated that not all his advisors would support HRC. I wouldn't be surprised if he is going to pull a Nader this election -- act as a spoiler for the Democrats because they're not "pure" enough. My view is that if he really is interested in transformative politics and policy, he would stay in the game for the next 10-20 years doing the on-the-ground, hard work of developing loyalties, building ground organizations, etc. etc. -- not the stuff of lofty oratics, just the stuff of regular politics.

Posted by Lisa | January 24, 2008 3:16 PM

If Obama is not the Nominee, I will vote for ABC in the general. The Hill and Bill show must be stopped and we can try again with Barack in 2012.

And I'm not alone.

Posted by Gregor | January 24, 2008 3:34 PM

Obama ought to run as an independent if Hillary gets the nomination. He would actually have a plausible path to win, and even if he didn't, he'd keep Hillary out of the White House.

Posted by Steve | January 24, 2008 3:35 PM

If the Clintons win in '08, they'll be there until 2016. What are the chances of the Clinton's creating such overwhelming Clinton-fatigue in the country after another 8 more years of them? I'd say pretty high. And that fatigue will be taken out on the Democratic party as a whole. The Clintons will assure that the country has a Republican president in 2016. Alas, Obama will never have his chance, and our country will be the worse for it.

Posted by Cindy | January 24, 2008 3:40 PM

If Hillary wins and does poorly as prez, Obama becomes Ted Kennedy 1977 to Jimmy Carter (and hopefully runs a better campaign). If Hillary wins and does well, her veep is likely the frontrunner in 2016.

If Hillary loses and McCain does well as prez, Obama is waiting until 2016. And it's impossible to predict what the scene will be like by then.

Posted by Rusty | January 24, 2008 3:53 PM

Obama has said he won't run again. I know how people tend to not believe politicians when they say this, but I think Obama means it.

He doesnt want to make a career out of running for president. Thats what Hillary has done. And that is the exact opposite of what Obama is all about.

So no. If he loses this time, i really don't think we'll see him run for president again. Regardless of the outcome of the general.

Posted by dissenter | January 24, 2008 3:55 PM

Clinton cannot win without Obama on the ticket. She probably knows this, and Obama probably knows this. That puts Obama in an incredibly powerful position, which is pissing Bill off.

Further, McCain is going to pledge one-term--I can already hear it now--as President. Also, you can forget about Lieberman, McCain is going to put JC Watts or Condi Rice (my guess is Watts because he'd keep Huckabee's crowd happy) on the ticket with him.

So even if Clinton manages to convince Obama of running for VP, which is unlikely, she still can't win because her opponent will say, "Four years and I'm out of here." Obama's strongest supporters will think that eight years is too long to wait for honest leadership, worry about the damage a Clinton Presidency would do to Obama (see Al Gore) and therefore they won't vote for her, reasoning Barack's set up to run in four years anyway...and besides McCain isn't that scary.

The Clintons are destroying the Democratic Party by winning at all costs. There are major burnt bridges with at least four core constituencies, and that list seems to be growing every day. At this rate, I believe the only way Clinton stands a chance of uniting the party, and therefore a chance of winning, against McCain is her own one term pledge with Obama on the ticket with her.

So I agree, Obama '12 either way, even if he loses.

Posted by The Bag of Health And Politics | January 24, 2008 3:59 PM

I agree that there could be a plausible path to winning as an independent this year. If an independent can take 85% of the black vote, get 1 in 3 white voters, and 1 in 5 latino voters, that independent would get around 43% of the vote, which wins a three way race...

Posted by The Bag of Health And Politics | January 24, 2008 4:00 PM

Interesting thoughts both in the article itself and in the reader posts. Thanks.

Obama probably will not be offered the VP slot by Hillary. Even if he were, if I were his advisor I would tell him not to take it, for two reasons:

(1) Bill would continue to bully VP Obama a bit

(2) These are the CLINTONS, people. Think of how much *extra* baggage they're going to pick up while in the White House.

I'd never thought of that idea of Obama running for Governor of Illinois. Brilliant idea. He'd really hone his credentials, could stay above the national fray by focusing on the problems of Illinois, and we all know Americans love to elect state Governors as President. A Governor Obama could be the juggernaut "insider" candidate of 2016, a la Sarkozy as stated above.

Posted by GH | January 24, 2008 4:01 PM

..you will learn to get used to the Clintons' dynasty.

And with language like that, you wonder why so many dems find the current Clintons' campaign distasteful at best and disastrous at worst?

Posted by Joe Lisboa | January 24, 2008 4:03 PM

Just a few thoughts.

Transformable moments don't come along every election cycle so there are only two plausible scenarios that tempt a candidate like Obama back into this swamp. a) Hillary looses and b) Hillary wins and is a Nixonian disaster. Now I think that given McCain's resurgence the first is far more likely.

But unfortunately, Clinton's plan to end the Iraq war call for having roughly 10,000 troops patrol the Iran/Irag border. Since there are elements of the Iranian military smuggling arms and all manner of things across that border - those troops will almost certainly encounter them. Now maybe they'll all just have tea or something but a cynical person would tend to guess that there will be both gun-play and deaths involved. I suspect that a war with Iran will be involved as well. Like I was saying earlier Obama will only run again if Clinton is a Nixionian disaster.

My second thought is simpler ... Only a politician with little to no self-respect and few prospects would agree to be the third wheel Hillary's white house.

Third, at the end of the day it's the "lofty stuff" that changes things. Fear of an Obama victory with Susan Rice and Samantha Power at his side has probably saved lives in Darfur. Or hasn't anyone noticed that the Sudanese are suddenly willing to allow a UN Force in. Which is to say that lofty has already done what all the on the ground campus protests in the world failed to do.

Posted by Dirk | January 24, 2008 4:07 PM

For everybody suggesting he run for Governor of Illinois, think again. That is one of the most corrupt states in the nation, and being Governor fo that state would not fit well with Obama's message. He should stay in the Senate, as I expect he will if he loses...

Posted by The Bag of Health And Politics | January 24, 2008 4:10 PM

If you believe Hillary will withdraw troops from Iraq, I have a big, fat collateralized debt obligation to sell you.

Posted by Gregor | January 24, 2008 4:12 PM

This is really good analysis.

I agree that Obama would not be well served by being VP candidate next to Clinton (and it would be a awfully defensive choice for her to make anyway).

Posted by ikl | January 24, 2008 4:17 PM

It also helps explain why Obama hasn't gone pro-actively negative on the Clintons (as opposed to responding to their attacks and pushing back). Reminding everyone of Clinton sleezy from the 1990s could probably help in a little bit in the primary, but might be hard for some Democrats to forgive and thus harm him in the long run.

Posted by ikl | January 24, 2008 4:20 PM

After the treatment he's getting from the democratic party machine, I would not be surprised to see Obama accept an offer to be Bloomberg's VP on a nonpartisan ticket over an offer to be Clinton's.

Posted by New Yorker | January 24, 2008 4:25 PM

My opinion, if Hillary wins then Obama needs to do what is best for him and his family whatever that may be. Another Democrat as president won't be in the cards for a while after Hill and Bill get through redestroying the White House.

Posted by Strongly liberal-won't vote Hillary | January 24, 2008 4:28 PM

The Rovian heavily partisan approach to governing employed by Clinton in the 90s and by the current president has lead to the implosion of their corresponding parties. This is the risk one should have in mind when thinking of another Clinton presidency.

There is a name for the stubborness of trying the same thing again and again expecting a different result.

Obama is proposing and exciting new governing paradigm which seems to be embraced by a broad political spectrum.

I am sure of one thing. If he looses the nomination this year, the voter turnout in November will go back to the cynical trickle we have witnessed for the past decades. Obama has drawn in the young people like no other politician in recent history. Should he lose, this moment will go down in history as another lost opportunity.

Posted by Felix | January 24, 2008 4:37 PM

Obama would never run with McCain. Thats an insane idea. Can you see Republicans offering a democrat the Presidency in 2012? because by then McCain will be one really old man and Obama perfectly positioned for it.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Posted by james g | January 24, 2008 4:45 PM

Did you all miss this? Michelle Obama has forbidden her husband to run for President again. She said this time or never.

Posted by Sarah | January 24, 2008 4:46 PM

i don't see how Hillary's would-be veep would not have the upper hand in '16 over Obama. Unless it's a sludge like Richardson or Bayh, i guess.

This begs the question...will Hillary get any veep with the least bit of balls/charisma? She doesn't want anyone that could upstage her on the campaign trail, can she? Bill won't allow it, i imagine. So, maybe Obama may have the upper hand in '16 after all.

Posted by dave | January 24, 2008 5:00 PM

I heard that, sarah. I don't balme her. It's taxing on the family.
That, and what i said above are the reasons why i think this is a take it or leave it situation with Barack. Now's the time, folks. Shit or get off the pot. Actually, it's more like...get off the pot or shit.

Posted by dave | January 24, 2008 5:04 PM

I agree with those who doubt that that he'd accept the VP slot for HRC.

He has no reason to accept a VP nomination "for the good of the party." What's Dean and the DNC done for him so far, except look the other way as the Clinton's smear him.

It's fascinating to see his campaign -- he's inspired new donors and volunteers to participate all across the country. TechPresident noted that his campaign has leveraged the 'net to facilitate more spontaneous supporter meetings. Among all of the candidates, he's got the most supporter created viral videos. This is a real phenomenon.

My hope is that he'd finish out his term in the Senate, and then leverage his profile/power to oversee a national grassroots movement of organizers and activists. (Perhaps a higher profile Wellstone foundation type thing?) This would be a group of folks pushing for consensus building, transparency and inclusion of outsiders into the process. It'd be a continuation of the energy that his campaign created this year.

Should he have the urge, he could tap into this network to be the backbone of any future presidential runs.

Posted by macarthur31 | January 24, 2008 5:08 PM

What about Bloomberg/Obama? Two independents. Also Obama will bring to Bloomberg African American votes. Then in 4 years nobody will say that he does not have experience.

Posted by Alex | January 24, 2008 5:10 PM

I am voting for Obama in teh Feb. 5 California primary and may even do some after-work volunteering for his campaign in the next couple weeks here. Although I agree the scenarios you describe are likely ones, it's not much consolation to me that he could win in 2012 or 2016 because, for me, it's not about him winning but about what he could bring to this moment in our history.

The need is now. Does the country and the world really have to wait four or eight more years while HRC, the Democratic version of Bush, continues to poison the political atmosphere? Will the world by then have finally settled on the idea that America can never change, and that Democrats are just a slightly softer face to the same policies? I'm afraid that by 2012 or 2016, the world's negative image of America, and our own habit of slash-and-burn politics, will be so entrenched that Obama just wouldn't mean as much any more.

I'm not saying it's now or never for me. But it's definitely now (for now) since we don't know what the future will bring. If Obama doesn't win, I'll view McCain as the next most likely to bring cross-aisle politics to Washington. And if he could somehow persuade Obama to join him as veep/ambassador-to-the-world, there is NO QUESTION he would have my vote.

In the meantime, though, I'll be hoping Obama can pull it out in the primaries.

Posted by theomobius | January 24, 2008 5:17 PM

"..you will learn to get used to the Clintons' dynasty"

NO, I WILL LEARN TO VOTE FOR McCAIN IN NOVEMBER IF THE BORG QUEEN IS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. WHAT IS HER NEXT CAMPAIGN SLOGAN GOING TO BE "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE."

SERIOUSLY, THEY REALLY ARE VILLAINS RIGHT OUT OF CENTRAL CASTING. IN THEIR OWN WAY, THE CLINTONS ARE AS LAUGHABLE AND RIDICULOUS TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEREOTYPES AS GEORGE W. BUSH. BUT NOT AS DUMB OF COURSE.

Posted by Dave Goldman | January 24, 2008 5:49 PM

The way I see it, Obama only runs for governer of Illinois in 2010 if Clinton wins the general this year and he is not the VP nominee (not going to get into the argument over whether that's going to happen...). If she loses, Obama would be the immediate frontrunner for 2012. So, staying in the Senate would be the best thing to do - he would not have to deal with all of the "will you promise to serve out your term" questions when running for governor. And, honestly, two years as governor would probably not add enough to his resume to make it worth it.

If Clinton wins, though, he has a lot to gain by (a) getting out of Washington so he can represent himself in 2016 as an outsider, and (b) getting executive experience. He would then be in a good place to make a run in 2016, unless Clinton's VP is magically popular (which seems unlikely, based on the available candidates).

As for Lisa Madigan, who must be eyeing the governorship herself, she could run for Obama's senate seat. She would be much better in it than Blagojevich would be...

Posted by Charles | January 24, 2008 6:07 PM

I agree with your sentiments. However, if Hillary wins the presidency I could see Obama stay in the Senate until 2010 and then take the baton from Governor Blagojevich in Illinois gaining some executive experience for his presidential resume for his run in 2016. By 2016, he will have had time to make connections in Washington via the Senate and have the pulse of the people by experience as governor. Go Obama!

Posted by C Blackburn | January 24, 2008 8:03 PM

I would be deeply, deeply disappointed if he accepted a Veep offer.

Posted by Steve C | January 25, 2008 12:28 AM

"...even if Hillary offered him the Veep's slot, Obama might well have a better chance of being President in the long run if he turned it down."

If Obama was more of a patriot than an egoist, he would accept nevertheless.

But I suspect that Hillary will pick General Clark.

Posted by eatbees | January 25, 2008 3:46 AM