If Obama loses out in the primaries, should he accept a VP spot if asked?

Let's say for example that Hillary or Edwards wins the nomination, beating out Obama in the Democratic Primary race. If Obama is then asked to join the ticket as the VP candidate, should he accept that spot and take his chances that the ticket will win, or should he say no and not have it affect his chances for a future run for President in case the ticket comes up negative?

I think he should say no if he loses out in the primaries and then is asked to be the VP candidate. If the ticket loses out, he could run for President 4 years later. If the ticket wins, he could still run for President, although he'd probably have to wait 8 years.

OTOH, if he says yes, and the ticket wins, then he'd have a good shot at becoming President 8 years after. If he says yes, and the ticket loses, then I think any future chances for him would be diminished, just like I think Edwards's chances are diminished from his previous losing run, IMO.

So, if Obama runs and loses out in the primaries, but get's asked to be the VP candidate of the Democratic winner, should he do it or should he wait?

edited to add: Let's hypothetically say that Obama wants to do what's in his best interests as far as becoming President someday, either now or in the future.

not in a red state like Tenn. Georgia, Arkansas, Florida in fact if Hillary is the nominee she's loosing those states anyway. she's a BAD choice.

It will be hard to hold his race against him if he can boast of eight years' experience looking over a president's shoulder.

:headbang:
rocknation

I think he should accept, as the governor would appoint his replacement.

If the state had a Republic governor, I would say he should not.

With his charisma and intense likability, he definitely wouldn't be a hindrance on the ticket.

I agree with you that he wouldn't be a hindrance on the ticket of course.

What I'm getting at, if Obama wants to be President someday, is he better off NOT to run as a VP candidate before he gets that chance to run as President?

That's up to a lot of debate. Historically, one would say no, as many VPs who run for the big office (Mondale, Gore, Humphrey, Nixon the first time) fail, but at the same time there is precedent of it happening before (Bush Sr., Nixon the second time).

Adams
Jefferson
Van Buren
Tyler
Fillmore
Arthur
Roosevelt
Truman
Nixon
Johnson
Bush

Personally, I find Bayh to be the most attractive candidate. Obama would be great as VP. He would be a wonderful ambassador to the world. Also, 8 years of VP would MORE than give him the national and international experience that he sorely lacks now.


Bayh 08!

and Obama would give the ticket a good boost.

Idaho? Comon.

I did not say Bayh woulld win it, he would bring it
in play, meaning the repubs would be drained of some
RNC cash in Idaho.

Bayh has the ability to swing red states

I think if McLame's smear machine is good enough he could easily defeat Bayh.

Jesse Jackson. He would cause a heavily sedated person
to sit right up and take notice.

Sarcasm aside, the soothing centrist Bayh will be just
the kind of person the MAJORITY of voters will be looking
for after the Bush fiasco.

Jesse Jackson. He would cause a heavily sedated person
to sit right up and take notice.

Sarcasm aside, the soothing centrist Bayh will be just
the kind of person the MAJORITY of voters will be looking
for after the Bush fiasco.

Women HATE HATE HATE him.
He's pretty close to anti-choice.

That right there kind of answers your question. Edwards lost as a VP candidate but you're now hypothetically asking what if HE wins the nomination...

This is my fantasy dream come true ticket.

Bayh has the experience both as governor and as a Senator in foreign relations and national security. Obama has the charm to act as our bridge to other countries but he is not ready to be on the front of the ticket..........he would be after 8 years as VP. Just think about it............16 years Democrats. Oh what we could accomplish!

Plus it would be stepping-stone for him. Everybody wins.

...he should definently take the VP invitation if asked.

IMHO if Gore doesn't run - in my mind he so deserves a do-over - we would be smart to clear the decks and let this sassy Dem have a go. He's got that new car smell.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

His VP running mate was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Obama should take it if it is offered.

Thanks for that!

To think that 12 years later he became President..

It was the only race in which 3 out of the 4 ticketmates became President.

On the Republican side it was Harding/Coolidge. Harding, of course, died in office and was succeeded by Coolidge, who won election in his own right in '24.

And on the Democratic side, FDR won in 1932.

In between 1920 (when he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy during WWI), he got polio, left politics for awhile, then came back and became governor of New York for 4 years before being elected President.

You are hypothesizing that either Hillary or Edwards will win the nomination.

Do you think that Edwards would be one of the frontrunners for the nomination had he not been the VP on a losing ticket already and gotten national exposure?

Do you think Hillary would be one of the frontrunners for the nomination had she not been been the President's wife and gotten national exposure?

Being VP on a ticket, winning or losing, will give him publicity. The only way it will hurt his chances, is if he can't stand up to the scrutiny and isn't impressive (Quayle).

It would be foolish to turn down a VP offer unless he doesn't agree with or like the presidential nominee

candidate. I think he'd be the front runner over Hillary, but I'm just speculating. Don't get me wrong, Edwards isn't my first choice. Obama or Clark would be, and that's why I'm wondering what Obama should do in case he runs in the primaries, loses there, & then gets asked to join the ticket.

edited to add: I think your argument about the publicity makes good sense, although there are many people, including myself, who thought Edwards wasn't nearly as impressive in the general election as he was in the primaries.

Your argument is spot on.

so unique and ground breaking it will rock the nation.

I'd like to be sure we pick up a couple of more Senate seats before we sacrifice one for Obama.

That'd be a solid ticket, I guess.

Because if he's not the nominee but is offered the Veep spot, how would he lose out?

He'd get national campaign experience, would become heir apparent if the ticket wins, and if the ticket loses, he gets to keep his Senate seat, which isn't up for reelection until 2010 and can run again in 2012.

But he obviously now thinks he has an excellent chance at being PRESIDENT, so he's not going to say he'd be fine with Vice President unless it comes to that.

I don't know what the rules in Illinois are regarding that. And I'm not sure that being VP for eight years automatically makes one the president afterward, just look at Al Gore...

Obama wants to be President, not VP, and I personally think he would be better off not running as the VP, should he lose in the primaries and should he be asked to take that spot.

...it wasn't automatic, it was stolen away from him...

As for Illinois, we have a Dem governor, Obama would be replaced by another Dem....

It's not up until 2010.

He won't have to give up his Senate seat if he loses since he isn't up for re-election in '08. Also, as a junior Senator, it will take years for him to get the seniority in the Senate to be a major player. So, he doesn't give up much power by becoming VP, and will be the presumptive nominee next time.

looking at his record, I don't see much "there" there.

From a post on the blog Obsidian Wings.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

Check it out.

I'm not in the camp saying he has insufficient experience

I'm just pointing out he already has a job and now that the spotlight is on him, he should accomplish something defining

I'm actually not yet set on Obama. I like him though, and even if I don't back him in the primaries we could do much worse I feel.

No one is going to want to be upstaged by Obama.

He has no business being on a Presidential ticket at this point in time, anyway. He needs alot more time in the Senate, some record of accomplishment in being there as well, and another high-level national-visibility job besides Senator, say a Governorship or a Secretary of something, before he's even worthy of consideration. So far all I've seen is a not-that-great convention speech, and an easygoing, non-inciteful manner, which add up to roughly nothing.

Besides which, as I've said before, what does he even want to be President for this early in his political career? Ego is about all it could be at this stage.

There are more reasons I could think of why it would be wrong for both him and us.

Hillary will hopefully be our 2008 Presidential nominee and I think she'll win the Presidency with room to spare. The country is ready for a woman President, in large measure thanks to Hillary and her strength, and it is certainly right that the first female President be a Democrat. Not just ready, but long overdue.

But I do acknowlege that being a woman is going to be a hurdle in getting past a level of male prejudice in alot of people. Which is why a Hillary ticket doesn't need the added weight of trying to usher the first minority into the Oval Office in the same single gulp.

I could see Obama as the VP to, say Gore or Clark, but I don't think that's right *for him* either. Obama needs to run directly for the top spot when the time is right, not be shifted in sideways from the VP, imo. When he gets the experience and the broad familiarity of the American public, it will be time, and I'll most definately vote for him.

James Buchanan arguably had the greatest amount of experience of any president in history holding political office for something like three decades before being elected president. He was Secretary of State, an Ambassador to Great Britain, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, etc...

FDR also had relatively little experience. Granted he had been Secretary of the Navy, but he was only governor of New York for four years. By most standards his experience was not that extensive.

That he has fresh ideas and leadership outside of political office. He also doesn't have a long track record for the media and republicans to distract with.

wow

I think that if the ticket were Edwards/Obama, that he would be VP for 8 years, and heir apparent.

If it were Clinton/Obama, they would lose, but he would have gained invaluable experience as a candidate.

Bayh - not in a trillion years. nice for the centrist folk, but a lamer personality and vision does not exist.

Let's not forget that Obama has not yet faced any real electoral opposition, and it is unbelievably hard to run for President. He has a lot to do legislatively as well as learning to campaign. We know very little about Obama, other than he is smart and charismatic. He has yet to use that for anything substantial.

I say he takes the veep nod from Edwards or Clinton. One wins, one loses, but in either case he is a wizened candidate afterwards.

I also think that, right now, both would offer it to him.

As a presidential nominee, right now, he would falter under the pressure. Gifted, but green.

I only thought 1 term? Not an incredible amount, yet you consider him to be winning material. I think Edwards and Obama could argue they are experienced.

You need a combination of either elective office experience and/or 'life' experience, as well as experience campaigning.

A presidential primary campaign is an enormously complex endeavor. A general election moreso. Experience really does matter..

Edwards has, right now, 6 Senate years, Obaba has 2.

Edwards has been through a primary season AND a general election.

Obama has been through one election that did not require breaking a sweat over.

For the past two years, Edwards has been working arduously on poverty issues in every state in the country. He has also traveled extensively abroad, as a former VP candidate, meeting with foreign leaders.

Edwards is not the most experienced primary hopeful, but he is more experienced that Obama, in a number of ways.

:nuke:

eom

It's just a question if he gets in. He and maybe Gore are the only ones who can stop the Hilldebeast. But, to answer your hypothetical, he should accept the offer depending on the nominee. Hillary, no; Edwards, yes; Gore, yes; Bayh, yes; Clark, yes.