Wannabes for Obama

Via Chris Bowers, some indication that Joe Biden and Bill Richardson will urge their supporters to back Barack Obama in precincts where they're not viable. Why? One bit of speculation I've picked up is that it's Hillary Clinton's close relationship with Richard Holbrooke. The 2004 rumor mill had the competition for John Kerry's Secretary of State gig going to either Biden or Holbrooke, with the jostling getting ugly at points. But Holbrooke's thought to have Clinton locked down. So an Obama win would be Biden's best shot at moving into Foggy Bottom.

Alternatively, Biden may think that his combination of whiteness and experience is just what a Nominee Obama would be looking for in a Vice President, while if one squints at it right would could even see the argument that Richardson has the right combination of non-whiteness (there's some thought that Latinos won't be excited about a black candidate) and experience to be Obama's number two man.

UPDATE: Ambinder says there is no deal which makes speculation about why there's a deal a good deal less interesting.

Comments

Has Richardson given up on the possibility of being Hillary's VP? He seemed to be obviously shilling for in the debates.

Posted by Fox | January 2, 2008 10:57 PM

(there's some thought that Latinos won't be excited about a black candidate)

Could you provide a link/citation for that? Is that based on polls or just some off-the-cuff chatting with other political reporters? It's a pretty provocative statement that I've never heard before.

Posted by Bob | January 2, 2008 10:58 PM

Plus Biden knows Obama won't rock the corporate boat. Senator MNBA needs to get paid.

Posted by austin | January 2, 2008 10:59 PM

I'm not going to jump into trying to read the tea leaves on this one, but it is interesting that Obama got the nod from the two most rightward Dem candidates on economic issues.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | January 2, 2008 11:10 PM

I'm not going to jump into trying to read the tea leaves on this one

Or . . . you will in the very next clause. Lame.

Of course Kucinich officially gave the nod to Obama and he is farther left on economic issues than any candidate by far.

Posted by Brian | January 2, 2008 11:16 PM

I'm not going to jump into trying to read the tea leaves on this one

Or . . . you will in the very next clause. Lame.

Of course Kucinich officially gave the nod to Obama and he is farther left on economic issues than any candidate by far.

Posted by Brian | January 2, 2008 11:19 PM

Of course, if as a result of helping Obama in their nonviable precincts one of them finishes a close fourth behind Clinton at a distant third, then they might even have a shot at the nomination by becoming the new "experience" candidate.

Posted by DTM | January 2, 2008 11:24 PM

As long as there are no international emergencies on Sunday morning between about 8 and noon, Biden should make a great Sec. of State.

Posted by lampwick | January 2, 2008 11:27 PM

I would speculate that any second-tier candidate would base his decision on the following three criteria. (1) Matthew already identified it as which of the candidates has the slots to fill. (2) Who would benefit the most from any maneuvering and therefore be the most grateful? This too would seem to be Obama, since he needs Iowa more than Clinton does. (3) Who is most likely to win the general? Well, that's probably entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Biden would be a strong VP candidate. Richardson would help carry New Mexico, which could be helpful in a close race, but he can't slice n' dice the way Biden can.

Posted by Ryan Scott | January 2, 2008 11:28 PM

Matt, dont fret.

If Obama wins, he should pick Biden for victory.
If McCain wins, he should pick Kay Bailey for victory.

But, none of these will happen.

The Queen, HRC, will win. Thanks to Bill (on Rose), Kerrey, etc. all senior white women in IA know that Obama is a Muslim and is not experienced.

The US press is guilty of high crime and misdemeanor. They have given Clintons a pass. A decade from now, the voters will blame the bloggers, such as from Atlantic Monthly, who did not dissect Clintons in their high-noon thuggery.

How sad? We have free press but we use less of it than Pakistan.

Posted by eorse | January 2, 2008 11:58 PM

Obama-Richardson seems like a dream ticket to me. Richardson has lots of experience to complement Obama's vision and could help the Dems take NM. It may also have the effect of drawing out the most despicable rascist bullshit from the Repubs, souring all but the deep south on the fuckers for a generation. That said, Richardson seems more like a Clinton partisan at the moment.

Biden on the ticket, on the other hand, would give us Delaware and he would make some horrible borderline racist gaffe in October. Besides, it enforces the idea that Obama "needs to wait his time" and needs the counsel of old white men to succeed. He would make a much better Sec. State than VP.

Posted by Ben | January 3, 2008 12:01 AM

Matt, dont fret.

If Obama wins, he should pick Biden for victory.
If McCain wins, he should pick Kay Bailey for victory.

But, none of these will happen.

The Queen, HRC, will win. Thanks to Bill (on Rose), Kerrey, etc. all senior white women in IA know that Obama is a Muslim and is not experienced.

The US press is guilty of high crime and misdemeanor. They have given Clintons a pass. A decade from now, the voters will blame the bloggers, such as from Atlantic Monthly, who did not dissect Clintons in their high-noon thuggery.

How sad? We have free press but we use less of it than Pakistan.

Posted by eorse | January 3, 2008 12:01 AM

Obama-Richardson seems like a dream ticket to me. Richardson has lots of experience to complement Obama's vision and could help the Dems take NM. It may also have the effect of drawing out the most despicable rascist bullshit from the Repubs, souring all but the deep south on the fuckers for a generation. That said, Richardson seems more like a Clinton partisan at the moment.

Biden on the ticket, on the other hand, would give us Delaware and he would make some horrible borderline racist gaffe in October. Besides, it enforces the idea that Obama "needs to wait his time" and needs the counsel of old white men to succeed. He would make a much better Sec. State than VP.

Posted by Ben | January 3, 2008 12:04 AM

I don't know who Biden thinks he's bullshiting when he says he hasn't made any deals but pissed a bunch of money down the toilet if he told his caucus supporters to just sit there and hold out for him and not have a second choice. What possible good would that do him? If I was a Biden partisan I'd be pissed that he didn't make a plan for his troops that didn't involve them making some wierd last stand that accomplishes nothing.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 3, 2008 12:24 AM

xUpdate: Deal done with Richardson.

Posted by vwcat | January 3, 2008 12:45 AM

VWCat: you got a link for that supposed Richardson deal? All I could find with teh googlez was some sketchy-looking gossip on "the iowa independent" site.

Posted by AC Slater | January 3, 2008 1:19 AM

So maybe Biden won't play ball, but getting Richardson and Kucinich on board is quite significant--they both have small but palpable contingents in the state, and Richardson has far more supporters than does Biden.

Of course, let's remember that very few of the candidates have the mind-control powers necessary to make such arrangements stick.

Posted by Lev | January 3, 2008 2:05 AM

Richardson deal:

http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1782
"[Exclusive] Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.
...
Richardson would prefer an Obama victory over Clinton because a Clinton victory could end the campaign before New Hampshire voters even head to the polls. And if Edwards's numbers look weak, Richardson could head to New Hampshire as the best alternative to the top two contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Still, sources caution that plans can always change, and once the doors lock Thursday evening, anything can happen. Whether the Richardson campaign's strategy is implemented on the ground remains an open question, and, because this directive is not expected to be confirmed publicly, it will be difficult to prove."

Posted by seanh | January 3, 2008 2:25 AM

I would urge caution in thinking Obama/Richardson is an unbeatable dream ticket. In 2002 we supposedly had a dream ticket here in Texas. The Sanchez/Kirk/Sharp rainbow coalition of moderates was put together in an effort to raise big money and increase black and Hispanic turnout. In the end not a single Democrat won a statewide race.

Posted by Joe Barton | January 3, 2008 5:54 AM

Obama is both the anti-Clinton and the anti-Edwards, as the Democratic establishment does not look in the least interested in working with Edwards, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 7:43 AM

I think the most interesting fact we are getting here is that the second-tier campaigns think that Obama is the favorite to win, perhaps even further than Iowa... This is true whether they make a public declaration or not; just the mulling of the possibility is an indication of where they think the trend is getting at.

For Richardson especially to come around so far is huge because he spend half of the campaign sucking up to Hillary.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 3, 2008 8:28 AM

For Richardson especially to come around so far is huge because he spend half of the campaign sucking up to Hillary.
Posted by Nick Kaufman

I heard that.

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 8:52 AM

Joe Barton, I wouldn't try to draw too many conclusions from the example of Texas in 2002. For one thing, that was a bad year for Demcorats virtually everywhere, and the lock that the GOP had on Texas wasn't going to change when Bush's approval levels where still in the stratosphere. Furthermore, Tony Sanchez was a truly awful candidate(a Bush Pioneer in 2000)and pretty much a Republican in all but name. Ron Kirk wasn't much better. John Sharp....I think that I remember him. He won an election once, didn't he? In any case I don't remember anybody callling these gentlemen a dream team at the time. I certianly wasn't excited about them, especially after Ron Kirk said that he would have voted for the IWR. Under the circumstances It seemed more like a human sacrifice than a dream team.

Posted by Whitbreadale | January 3, 2008 11:08 AM

If in some kind of concillatory gesture to Hillary- a victorious Obama were to add Wes Clark to the ticket...would 1. Clark accept?, and would that 2. Be a net plus?

I think it would help the ticket in swing States and the South. Biden? Hard to say. He's well-liked within the Beltway, disparate figures such as the Clintons, Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan for instance like him. But, would he help to the extent Clark would? I don't think so. Bill Richardson's heritage in my opinion would hurt the ticket. A black and a Latino? I think that's pushing it, frankly.

Posted by Trevor | January 3, 2008 3:14 PM