Obama officials tell The Bourbon Room the process of selecting a Vice President has begun but is in its infancy. It amounts, they say, to little more now than assembling a team to begin the process once Obama secures the nomination.

Obama officials say no one is yet leading up the effort but that party veteran Jim Johnson will be among those consulted. In due course Johnson may assume a more formal role and his early involvement signals he is more likely than not to land the post, should he want it. Johnson, who led the veep search process for John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984, is a natural choice for advice and counsel, Obama advisers say.

“News flash, Jim Johnson may help us look a Vice Presidential Process,” said a one top Obama official. “He’s been around a long time. He’s been doing this since Mondale. There’s nothing official and all of the reporting about this is pretty rudimentary.”

Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat and former Senate Majority leader may also lend a hand in the process. Considering the historic nature of everything related to Obama’s transformation from candidate to nominee, there will be no shortage of volunteers offering advice and counsel. A hallmark of the Obama campaign has been its ability to assemble a smart, effective team, focus them on the task at hand and minimize in-fighting. It would be a startling departure from form if the veep selection process played out any differently.

Right now, all that’s being done is a team is being selected to review open-source research on potential candidates. “Anyone can do that, ” the Obama official said.

True, but there are practical reasons for team Obama to downplay what is unquestionably one of the most important tasks of his general election campaign. Obama advisers don’t want to antagonize Hillary Clinton’s campaign or its legions of supporters with premature talk of hunting for a running mate amid a still-active primary process. This is part of the balancing act Clinton’s continued presence in the race has imposed on Obama and his team, for the sake of party unity, is taking it in stride and trying to strike a pose of respectful patience.

But it can only play that hand for so long. The process of moving toward a running mate must be communicated, if even in the vaguest terms, to signal to supporters and the nation that serious tasks are being dealt with in their natural order — even if it means risking a bit of ruffled feathers in Hillaryland.

Two other notes….

First, much has been made of the Kentucky exit poll result showing 45 percent of voters said John Edward’s endorsement of Obama was “important” to them and that a majority of those supported Obama. This has led some to conclude that Edwards would be a good potential running mate and this exit data suggests he might have sizable pull among working class voters Obama has yet to attract. Obama officials I’ve talked to don’t see it this way. They believe the die was cast in Kentucky before Edwards endorsed and those who said his endorsement mattered were, in many cases, already Obama supporters. Thus, they say, Edwards only reinforced their preference. It’s obvious Obama’s camp didn’t think Edwards would have moved many votes because they didn’t send him to Kentucky. The Obama results in Kentucky were bad and there was no sense sending Edwards there would have changed the result very much — and Edwards may have been reluctant to hit the trail in what was pretty obviously a lost cause. In other words, Edwards’ endorsement mattered, largely, to a self-selected group of Obama supporters and did not, in the view of the Obama campaign, move mountains or even mole hills of votes.

Second, Quinnipiac has three battleground polls out today. In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads John McCain 50 percent to 37 percent while Obama leads McCain 46 percent to 40 percent (1,667 surveyed, 2.4 percent margin of error); in Ohio, Clinton leads McCain 48 percent to 41 percent while McCain leads Obama 44 percent to 40 percent (1,224 surveyed, 2.8 percent margin of error); in Florida, Clinton leads McCain 48 percent to 41 percent, while McCain leads Obama 45 percent to 41 percent (1,419 surveyed, 2.6 percent margin of error).

In the McCain-Obama matchups, 26 percent to 36 percent of Clinton supporters in each battleground state say they will switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee. Of Obama supporters, 10 percent to 18 percent say they would back McCain if Clinton’s the nominee.

What to make of these numbers? Team Clinton says is buttresses their argument she’s the stronger potential nominee. Team Obama, of course, sees it differently. They no longer pay any attention to head-to-heads with Clinton, but head-to-heads with McCain. Here they see a lead in Pennsylvania and within-the-margin-of-error deficits in Florida and Ohio. They believe once Obama becomes the nominee and Democrats stop dividing their loyalties between Clinton and Obama, the Obama numbers against McCain will inevitably rise. They say they are pleased, at this stage, to be so close to McCain in states they lost to Clinton and where they’ve yet to define McCain and court Clinton supporters in earnest.

June will be an excellent month to test this theory. As well as accelerate the process to find Obama’s running mate.

Share

For those of you Bourbon Room loyalists, you well remember — or may have been trying to forget — my near-rhapsodic take on the Los Angeles debate, the first Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama tilt of the campaign.

No need to rhapsodize tonight. Instead of my thoughts, tonight I will pose a series of questions that may help us decide what mattered most and how the debate did or did not change the arc of this fascinating and historic Democratic pursuit of the presidency.

Note: Some questions I will answer for you. Have no fear, the answers will lead to other questions The Bourbon Room promises not to answer.

Here we go.

1. What does camp Clinton consider THE most important moment of the debate?

The lengthy and “passionate” exchange over universal health care?

No.

The debate over whether or not to impose a five-year moratorium on adjustable rate mortgages, as Clinton proposes and Obama opposes?

No.

The debate over how Clinton would restore “fiscal discipline” by ending Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and ending the Iraq war to invest in new infrastructure and start new “clean green jobs”?

No.

The answer came from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson in the form of an e-mail sent to reporters at 9:57 p.m. EST, mere moments after the debate ended. The full contents of the Wolfson e-mail are reprinted here:

“What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States. Her strength, her experience, her compassion. She’s tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.”

Question: Do you agree and do you see anything relevant at all in the near-instantaneous framing of the “moment” by Sen. Clinton’s campaign?

Question: Does the following e-mail sent to reporters at 10:15 p.m. EST by Bill Burton, national spokesman for Barack Obama’s campaign, carry any weight with you?

“Clinton tonight: You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that’s what this election should be about.”

The Burton e-mail then includes this quote from John Edwards: “What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.” The quote comes from a Democratic candidate debate on Dec. 13, 2007.

UPDATE from the Obama campaign at 11:35 p.m. EST:

Burton sent this e-mail: Yet another line lifted for what was her “best moment.”

Clinton tonight: “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. And I resolved at a very young age that I’d been blessed and that I was called upon by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted. That’s what gets me up in the morning. That’s what motivates me in this campaign.”

President Clinton: “When the history of this campaign is written, they may say, well, Bill Clinton took a lot of hits in this campaign. The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that people in this state and country are taking every day of their lives under this administration (Aug. 14, 2000).

Question: Does this second Obama e-mail on the Clinton “moment” matter to you or suggest anything to you about the degree of concern camp Obama has about the “moment”?

Which leads to a related question. Did you consider Clinton’s line against Obama on the question of lifting lines (or trading them) from/with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick memorable? To jog your memory Clinton said: “That’s not change you can believe in, that’s change you can Xerox.”

Next question. Do you remember Clinton saying more frequently she agreed with Obama or Obama saying more frequently that he agreed with Clinton? Your answer, based on your recollection of the debate is more important than the actual answer (which, to be honest, The Bourbon Room doesn’t have).

The related question is this: Generally, considering the current context of the race and Obama’s 11 straight victories (Obama won the Democrats Abroad primary today), does Clinton agreement with Obama on issues do more for Obama than his agreement with her on issues?

Question: Does it matter to you that in a 2003 questionnaire, Obama said he favored normalizing relations with Cuba (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html), but tonight said he would not normalize relations with Cuba unless it pursues human rights and democratic reforms.

Question: Do you think the gap between Clinton and Obama narrowed or expanded on whether the next president should negotiate directly with U.S. enemies such Cuba, Iran and North Korea?

Question: Can you remember a significant difference that emerged in nearly 10 minutes of debate over how to revive the U.S. economy?

Question: Do you understand the difference between Clinton and Obama on the pursuit of universal health care coverage? Does it strike you as an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin difference or a crucial philosophical divide?

Question: Do you agree or disagree with Obama’s assertion the Iraq troop surge represents a “tactical victory” that is hopelessly ensnared in major “strategic blunder”?

Question: Do you believe Obama’s surge answer, if he’s the Democratic nominee, will be viewed as one of strength in the inevitable Iraq debates with Sen. John McCain?

Question: Which is the logical sequence in a republic as politically complex as ours: change then solutions, or solutions then change?

Question: Did Obama look to you more or less presidential than in the previous 18 debates?

Question: Did you think Clinton faced the hardest debate of this campaign in light of her poor post-Super Tuesday performances and, as such, deserves higher marks for pluck, poise and determination?

Question: Did either Obama or Clinton answer the final “crisis” question and does that matter to you?

The answers are yours. The election is yours, especially in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont on March 4 (remember Texans, early voting is occurring NOW).

Share