Obama's VP Pick: An Unconventional Approach

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by smsabatini

How can Barack Obama choose a running mate who will help him win both independents and Hillary supporters, while reassuring his base that he’s still a progressive leader? It may be time to take a closer look at the controversial concept of the voluntary one-term vice president.

The one-term VP is not an especially radical idea, but it does take a little getting used to. Here‘s how it works: Obama starts with a list of potential running mates who balance the ticket in traditional ways. It includes the obvious choices: the retired Admiral now a Pennsylvania Congressman, the white Southern populist, the decorated general, the seasoned foreign policy expert, and so on. But then, in a surprise move, Obama picks someone on the list who wishes to serve only one term as vice president. This candidate doesn’t see the vice presidency as merely a stepping stone to the presidency. Like Obama, he believes in a new kind of politics, and wants to spend the next four years actually serving the nation, rather than grooming himself to be president. To that end, he and Obama agree that under the new administration, the vice president will have a specific--and crucial--area of responsibility. In John Edwards’ case, for example, it would probably be health care and anti-poverty programs. Substitute Nobel laureate Al Gore, and you get a vice president who uses the office to champion alternative energy. Other candidates would have their own strengths. The bottom line is that four years is the limit. Come reelection time, Obama would have to tap someone else to be his VP.

This tack allows Obama to pick whoever he needs to help him win in 2008, while leaving open the real possibility of a female vice president in his second term.

The Republicans would fuss and fume, but Hillary supporters would have reason to be optimistic again, while Obama’s progressive base would no doubt appreciate an unconventional move from their increasingly conventional candidate. Certainly, the political pundits would be ecstatic at the prospect of having four more years to speculate about Obama’s next VP. On the down side, incensed feminists would demand to know what’s wrong with having a female running mate right now, instead of four years from now. But the answer is simple: in 2012, a woman stands a much better chance of being elected. By then, Obama will have established his presidential experience and Commander-in-Chief credentials, and it will be far less risky for him to take on a female running mate. As for the woman, it’s a historical fact that the best way to get elected vice president is to run under an incumbent president. Then, assuming Obama is reelected, we have the actual prospect of a female vice president running for president of the United States in less than a decade.

Can it happen? If Obama is way ahead of McCain at convention time, his campaign will be disinclined to think outside the box, preferring instead to take a more traditional approach. If not, then anything is possible.

Jefferson and Lincoln both had different vice presidents in their first and second terms. Franklin Roosevelt had three. Nowadays, it shouldn’t be impossible to conceive of a voluntary one-term VP. It simply means redefining the office of the vice president, at least temporarily, in order to effect political and social progress. If it works, the Democratic candidate will have helped himself win by, in effect, changing the rules of the game. And if there’s anyone who can do that, it’s Barack Hussein Obama.

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION Technorati Tags:

Hillary ...

If he really wants to win. Looks like he goes from a 1 point lead to a whopping 9 point lead just by picking her for his VP.

Forget about the "voluntary one-term VP" strategy.

Focus on winning.

Sorry

This is based on a single poll by FOX "News". Enough said.

So sorry

Take a look at the Huffington Post article. It's based on several polls over last 3 months by Opinion Dynamics (as well as other polls) that have been consistent.

Have any data to the contrary? No?

Enough said.

I'll say it yet again...

Gen. Wesley Clark, he's the perfect foil for McSame's millitary experience, plus he's intellegent, rational, and really has the experience needed to solve millitary conflicts expediently.

NO TO BOTH OF THE ABOVE!!!

Hillary has too many negatives, and there are too many of us who abhor her, and who are furious with her for her horribly NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN against Barack!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wesley Clark ran a DUMB campaign during the last election cycle, and has ALREADY made a DUMB mistake which cost Barack, when he made a DUMB comment against McBush!!!!!!! We can do better!!!!!!

Too many of "us" ...

... who "abhor her" and are "furious with her"? Apparently not. If that was true, he wouldn't gain 8 points by choosing her.

But you could be right....

Maybe your anger and CDS is worth risking a McCain presidency. How much damage could he do in 4 years?

PROBLEM IS........

i want a VP who does not live on a wedge issue (even the ones that interest me like global warming, stem cell research, health care, etc.) i want a VP who COULD BE PRESIDENT... because 1. he/she might NEED TO 2. someone who challanges the president in private helps the president make better decisions 3. what you are defining i think of as his CABINET i do not favor having HILLARY, just because... lotta baggage... ugly primary... bill is old news i wouldn't mind any minority or gender... that is NOT the issue i WOULD like to see the 8 other candidates appointed to the role of their special talent... John Edwards as AG would suit me fine each has their strength and a smart "president" will use all of them SO WHO TO PICK.... I like BIDEN... good foreign policy history... strong... Kathleen Sebelius... "gender friendly"... good positions on just about everything... RED-STATE appeal with a BLUE-STATE heart

Kathleen Sebelius is a great pick but.......

Could you just imagine what the Hillary supporters would say? They would be FLIPPING angry at the fact that Obama would choose another woman over her! Forget the fact that Kathleen is more progressive than Hillary or that she doesn't have as much baggage. Hillary supports would see it as an insult. It will be interesting to see whom Obama chooses. I would hope that he chooses someone who shares his vision of America. Whoever it is needs to be a "mover and a shaker".

A traditional balance VP would be a "safe" choice?

Since when? The old guys really add nothing but boredom, and Obama is actually starting to get a bit boring already. Obama says he wants a fully contributing partner V.P., and I agree. Such an election should not be about politics but about really changing the nation. If Hillary is the best he can do for a fully contributing partner, then he should choose her. After all we've had 8 years of Dick Cheney, who had no Presidential ambitions. Before then we had Al Gore who DID have Presidential ambitions. Are you agreeing with those who voted for Bush-Cheney? Isn't it more true that a V.P. with no ambitions beyond one term HAS NO MECHANISM FOR ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PEOPLE? That's been true for Cheney. He really doesn't care.