Obama, your "2010-2012-2016" plan....

by 1950democrat, Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:56 AM EST

According to a profile in the Chicago Tribune, when first elected to the US Senate, Obama and his advisers were thinking ahead. Some called it the "2010-2012-2016" plan: a potential bid for governor or re-election to the Senate in 2010, followed by a bid for the White House as soon as 2012 or, if not, 2016.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/chi-obama_senate_recordjun12,0,10100 06.story

Imagine if at that time (early 2005), Obama had been told that he could jump stright to a VP nomination in 2008. That might have seemed too much to hope for.

So -- isn't that really a prize worth taking now? VP on a unified ticket now, in line for POTUS on a unified ticket in 2016?

Would this be unacceptable to his supporters? Imagine your man with a 16-year bully pulpit worldwide, starting Jan 2007 (well, Nov 2008 really), first as VP then as POTUS.




Tags: Obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 57 Comments :: Post a Comment


bargaining is part of the process. n/t (2.00 / 2)


by shalca on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:09:38 AM EST

Re: (2.00 / 2)

EXTREMELY unacceptable, he is the democratic nominee, he has a great chance to be president, we worked hard for it

and he should give it up? why because HRC supporters can't accept reality?

yeah unacceptable completely.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:28 AM EST

two terms or four terms? (2.00 / 1)

A maybe maybe maybe two terms in the White House is better than an almost sure four terms?


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:16:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: two terms or four terms? (none / 0)

well if Hillary wants she can run in 8 years and sure I will vote for her, otherwise I will vote for whatever democrat is running and yep, hope that that democrat can win for 2 terms,

though its unlikely 1 party rarely holds the white house for 4 terms, so no Obama better get is 1-2 in now while he can


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: two terms or four terms? (none / 0)

Yes.


by Tatan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: two terms or four terms? (none / 0)

Thanks for the diary.   You gave me such a good laugh.  Almost makes me want to give you mojo.  Almost.


by The Distillery on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

He has no chance of becoming President. His political career is done. The demographics don't lie.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:55:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He's too selfish (none / 0)

He's obviously being selfish.  Doesn't he realize that it was Hillary's turn this year?


by KevinT on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:13:30 AM EST

Re: He's too selfish (none / 0)

he never got the memo, in the future if the DNC could just TELL us voters who turn it is so we don't have to waste our time voting, that would be awesome.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

It might be just me, but I think this ship has sailed.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:54 AM EST

Not this ticket. (none / 0)

Sorry why should the black guy start carrying the Clinton Baggage?  Being VP for Clinton did not help Gore, and did not help us in Congress. No reason to let history repeat itself when he is winning.  And Hillary's history would seem to indicate she is going to be more of a disaster than Clinton.   Assuming she can get elected at all which I doubt.  Obama is in the position he is in, after getting pounded from Hillary and Republicans.   Why should we believe that Hillary's high negatives without getting attacked wouldn't go up when she does.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:20:30 AM EST

Re: Obama, your "2010-2012-2016" (none / 0)

Obama is the nominee though. Should Mitt Romney offer McCain the VP spot?
by Cheebs on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:04 AM EST

Re: Obama, your "2010-2012-2016" (none / 0)

I think he's saying "if Hillary Clinton pulls it out".


by Mostly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:26:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

VP now or a fight through August? (none / 0)

Some people seem to think that continuing this fight through the August convention would be undesirable. Suppose Obama accepting VP now or soon were the alternative to such a fight?


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:48:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: VP now or a fight through August? (2.00 / 1)

Blackmail isn't a very appealing argument.


by rfahey22 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:57:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Newsflash!! (none / 0)

1950,

Obama is ahead. It is quite insulting to tell him to take second place when he is AHEAD.

I know it is heartbreaking but Hillary is not going to be the nominee. If you support democratic values you are welcome to support Obama if not, I'm sorry and good luck.


by sweet potato pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:28:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (2.00 / 1)

Jerome, has anyone earned the (legitimate/2209) requisite number of delegates yet?  That's what Obama needs to do before anyone can say that Clinton has "completely lost."

By the way, where is the flood of SDs for BO?  I would have thought dozens would come out in the past 2 days.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:22:05 AM EST

Re: The timing is a bit off (2.00 / 1)

Honestly?  They're coming out a few a day, hoping not to piss you off.


by Mostly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:27:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (2.00 / 1)

This is Hillary's 3rd or 4th since Tuesday:

Congressman Chris Carney (PA) endorses Senator Hillary Clinton
U.S. Rep. Chris Carney announced Thursday that he's backing Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary
Carney reported meeting with Clinton Wednesday, "and let her know Thursday that I am supporting her."
"I have watched this primary process very closely, and as I said I would do, I have weighed the temperament and leadership displayed by Sens. Clinton and Obama during the course of this campaign," Carney said in a statement. "We are extremely fortunate to have two very strong candidates vying to lead our nation. Pennsylvania's 10th (Congressional) District (voters) overwhelmingly chose Sen. Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary and I will respect their decision."
Rebecca Gale, his press secretary, said he was traveling with a congressional delegation to the U.S-Mexico border to evaluate border security and unavailable for comment.
A full story will be available in Friday's print edition of The Daily Review.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (none / 0)

Actually I believe that's her second.

Obama has six since Tuesday.  Like I said, they're going to do this under the radar for as long as they can.


by Mostly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:37:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (2.00 / 1)

That doesn't make sense.  BO is out there doing everything he can to convince everyone that he's the presumptive nominee, and to suppress Clinton's votes in upcoming primaries (e.g., leaking today he'll be announcing on May 20 his "win.").  Announcing a big flood of SDs would certainly help that effort.

I don't buy it.  I think most undeclared SDs are still waiting...The bulk may choose to remain undeclared until at least June.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:47:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (none / 0)

Hi Texas Darlin,

Here's my take on it?

As a Clinton supporter, WHICH would piss you off more?

The ALL move to Obama, and she is forced out before Oregon?

OR, they wait until PR, THEN the move to Obama?

I don't even think Obama wants them all to come over now.

We need as many Senator Clinton supporters back in the fold?

I doubt you will be coming, but some will....


"Well the danger on the rocks is surely past... Still I remain tied to the mast"...Don Fagen, Poet and Piano Player
by WashStateBlue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:50:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (none / 0)

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

It is already down to 6.5. In a few days Obama will be ahead even in super-delegates. The writing is on the wall.


by hania on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:40:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (none / 0)

That would be #3 but she has also lost one, Obama has gained 6. The Clinton superdelegate advantage is now under 10. DNC members and party leaders are the only categories she still leads in.


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:41:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (none / 0)

Drip
Drip
Drip
"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton
by venician on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (none / 0)

If you haven't noticed, the remaining supers aren't that fond of the limelight.


by rfahey22 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:29:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (none / 0)

It's a game of musical chairs. The last SD that is forced to declare wins.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:16:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"This is a race to 2025 delegates." (none / 0)

"This is a race to 2025 delegates."  Hillary Clinton, 2/22/08, on Good Morning America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OsYnegoV 28

Noted without comment.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:07:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Indiana will be the tie-breaker." (none / 0)

"Indiana will be the tie-breaker." - Obama camp, before Hillary WON Indiana.


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:06:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Indiana will be the tie-breaker." (none / 0)

Yep.  Actually, I'm pretty sure that Obama personally said that, just as Hillary personally said North Carolina would be the "game changer", as the country and much of the world will be watching "what North Carolina decides."  

Her prediction there proved more accurate than his.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The timing is a bit off (none / 0)

I read about you in other threads.

5 times?  That is some serious dedication, or at least boredom.


You haven't seen impatient until you've seen a monkey waiting for a donut.
by bjones on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:39 AM EST

Re: Obama (none / 0)

If you asked me in '05, I thought it would've been a good idea.

Unfortunately for this idea, it's not '05. It's May 2008.


by Jaffee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:25:13 AM EST

Nah. (2.00 / 1)

Well I don't think she can win the nomination, and I think she's unlikely to beat McCain even if she does.

But let's allow that she preforms the quintuple-axl of a combination nomination and then win in the general election - I just prefer that they went their separate ways and pursued their agendas separately.  Besides, a Clinton-style Vice Presidency is a very weak one.  They had poor Al Gore on the tonight-show breaking ashtrays on the Tonight Show to show how you could trim government waste.  They put him in charge of THAT.  Not environmental policy, his baby - even then.  Not healthcare - Hillary got that.

Ashtrays.  Barack Obama is not a performing bear.


by Mostly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:25:28 AM EST

If Hillary (none / 0)

Had won the nomination then of course. That being said, NOTHING that Hillary has done over the last 6 months or so gives me great confidence in assuming that 1) she would win the general or even 2) that she would make an exceptional president.


by highgrade on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:32:18 AM EST

A NEW QUESTION (none / 0)

Suppose Obama decided to accept the VP slot as alternative to continuing the fight, would you be angry with him?


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:17:02 AM EST

Re: A NEW QUESTION (none / 0)

He is not going to accept the VP slot. How many times do people have to tell you that he is ahead? Why on earth would he accept second place when he is in first? You are either delusional or just downright offensive. I'm going with the latter.


by sweet potato pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A NEW QUESTION (none / 0)

Even assuming Obama could be nominated, are you sure he could beat McCain without a unified party? With many of us actively working against him?

Wouldn't a sure VP now then POTUS in 2016 be better than a probable wipeout by McCain now?


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:42:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If Obama loses to McCain (none / 0)

He can run again in 2012 without Hillary nipping as his heels.
Where as Hillary's political career is over, unless the African Americans of NY forgive or forget the "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" comment before the 2012 NY senate race.
My thoughts on McCain: I have no desire to let that idiot fulfill his desire to "Bomb Iran"
by Otaku Saru on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A NEW QUESTION (none / 0)

So let me see if I understand this...Obama is so horrible that you will be working against him.  But he'd be a swell guy to have as Hill's VP.

Huh.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:03:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A NEW QUESTION (none / 0)

I can't believe you are saying, with a straight face, that you'll campaign against him this year unless he takes the veep spot. But even though he's so bad that you will campaign against him now, you'll accept him on the veep ticket now AND you think he's a sure thing in 2016.

This is just a case of you wanting now what you want now, and to hell with what the rest of the voters want.


by Zoey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:14:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A NEW QUESTION (none / 0)

My personal opinion of him will be influenced by whether he withdraws now or continues to damage Hillary, and whether she will still accept him as VP. But my point is his chance with the majority of voters, which will be better as Hillary's former VP than as the McGovern of 2008.


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:04:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You people are laughable. (none / 0)

"Continues to damage Hillary?"
This is Hillary Clinton who came up with the shameless commander-in-chief test. Who came up with the Farakhan crap in the last debate. Get a life.

IT IS OVER.


by hania on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:47:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A NEW QUESTION (none / 0)

Get a grip. This is not a coronation and just because Hillary says so and you say so doesn't mean it is going to happen.  You are offensive.


by sweet potato pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As stupid as this question is (none / 0)

I would rather Obama stay in the senate than be Hillary's whipping boy.
But Obama losing the nomination at this point seems hard to imagine.
The relevant question is; should he take Hillary as his running mate, and I think most people would say no.
My thoughts on McCain: I have no desire to let that idiot fulfill his desire to "Bomb Iran"
by Otaku Saru on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:45:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If creamed by McCain, Obama is dead (none / 0)

Hillary would not take VP I'm sure. For her it would be a step down, and after two terms as VP she might be too old to run for Pres.

For Obama, VP now at age 46 would be a step up, and in 2016 he would be at an appropriate age to run for Pres.

If he is nominated this year and creamed by McCain, his chances would be lost, like Kerry's, Dukakis's, Mondale's, and McGovern's.


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:58:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama (none / 0)

will only lose if Hillary supporters defect in mass to McCain. I don't see that happening, and even it did Obama could run again in 2012 on the grounds that former Hillary supporters learned from their mistake of having voted for McCain.
However, Hillary is politically dead. No one is going to forget or forgive the "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" comment, and her place on any ticket or any national campaign would be a disgrace. Hillary made her bed, and now she will have to lie in it.
My thoughts on McCain: I have no desire to let that idiot fulfill his desire to "Bomb Iran"
by Otaku Saru on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:28:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Obama will only lose if Hillary supporters defect in mass to McCain.

I'm glad you admit that possibility. Now, wouldn't it be better for him to have 2 terms of VP then run for Pres in 2016 with our support, in a unified party?


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:14:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If creamed by McCain, Obama is dead (none / 0)

I think Hillary's best chance to win the presidency is winning the presidency this year or 2016 as a sitting vice president if that ticket were to win this year.  I'm a bit of a contrarian on this point.  I don't think she is viable in 2012 if Obama loses considering that Mark Warner figure is lurking around the corner.


by Blazers Edge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:33:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So (none / 0)

Since HRC has almost no chance of winning the President in 2008, and even less of a chance of being selected as VP, then you are basically saying HRC has no chance of ever becoming the President.
That woman is politically dead, so I don't factor her into anything.
My thoughts on McCain: I have no desire to let that idiot fulfill his desire to "Bomb Iran"
by Otaku Saru on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:42:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If creamed by McCain, Obama is dead (none / 0)

Hillary is 60. In 2016 she will be 68. By the time she finished two terms she would be 74. Bill will be due for another quadruple heart bypass around 2020. She may not be able to commit those years at that age. The best time for her to serve is now.

Obama is 46. He will be more electable in future years than now, for many reasons.

For HIllary it really is now or never (well, maybe 2012).


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If creamed by McCain, Obama is dead (none / 0)

Then she should have run a better campaign this time around and won, no?

Just because she might die before getting a chance at the presidency doesn't mean we should feel sorry for her and force Obama to step aside. Which seems to me to be what you're trying to say here.

No, she needs to go through the system just like everyone else has, and convince large swaths of voters and superdelegates that she deserves to be president. I'm sorry that it's late in the game and it looks like she'll come up short, but you can't win them all, can you?


by Jaffee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If creamed by McCain, Obama is dead (none / 0)

It's not that Hillary might die suddenly, it's that people do lose their edge as they get older, as people are pointing out about McCain. This happens to everyone, and it would be very unusual for anyone to have the same energy between 68-74 as they have between 60-68.

Hillary is now at the age where she can give her best service, and Bill is still strong enough to help her serve. By Bill's next by-pass surgery, c. 2020, they will not have so much time and energy to give.

Obama is perceived as too young and will be at a better age in 2016, and more electable if he takes this time to gain some experience, whether as VP or as a governor.

Instead of two 'exciting' candidates giving us four terms in the WH, if we run Obama now, we'd get at most two terms. If we run Hillary now and Obama in 2016, we'd have a good chance at four terms.


by 1950democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:28:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If creamed by McCain, Obama is dead (none / 0)

If we run Obama now, his career is pretty much finished.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A NEW QUESTION (2.00 / 1)

...and a new question to counter your new question:

Suppose a series of meteors hit all the states that voted blue in 2004, wiping out the Democrat's base. And suppose if you live in one of those states, you were vacationing in Kansas. Now, suppose further that the Republicans split into two factions, and decide to renominate, leaving you with the choice of Pat Robertson or Sean Hannity. Supposing all that, who would you vote for?

I only ask because it's slightly more likely than the scenario you provide.


by Jaffee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Barack Obama is our nominee. (2.00 / 1)

It's time for everyone to suck it up and DEAL WITH IT.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:09:09 AM EST

Re: Barack Obama is our nominee. (none / 0)

When the voting is over then we'll deal with it.

The problem is that if Obama's the nominee we have an unelectable candidate.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:57:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

At This Point He Is the Overwhelming... (none / 0)

...favorite to win the nomination.  There would be no point in him agreeing to such an arrangement.


by TooFolkGR on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:33:31 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: