Obama: Bloomberg Is "Extraordinary"

Here's the first paragraph from Barack Obama's speech this a.m. in New York:

I want to thank Mayor Bloomberg for his extraordinary leadership. At a time when Washington is divided in old ideological battles, he shows us what can be achieved when we bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions. Not only has he been a remarkable leader for New York –he has established himself as a major voice in our national debate on issues like renewing our economy, educating our children, and seeking energy independence. Mr. Mayor, I share your determination to bring this country together to finally make progress for the American people.

The First Read gang is all a-buzz at the Obama-Needs-A-Jew-On-The-Ticket-Angle, but I think the best way to look at an Obama-Bloomberg ticket is by noticing their complimentary traits. Obama isn't much of an administrator or a details guy by his own admission, while Bloomberg is so concerned about Your Health and Welfare that he studies intently the ins and outs of congestion pricing and trans-fats. He's a prime minister-type -- although he brings an outsider's sense of efficiency to the bureaucracy. Let Obama be the vision guy; Bloomberg could be the brass-tacks administrator.

Comments

What was that "Big State " arguement again:

New PPIC poll in California:

Obama 49 - McCain 40
Clinton 46 - McCain 43

Favorable/unfavorable ratings:
Obama 61-34 (+27)
McCain 49-45 (+4)
Clinton 45-52 (-7)

Posted by Lyn | March 27, 2008 9:56 AM

Brass TACKS not tacts.

Sorry, I just can't help it.

I do

Posted by Margaret | March 27, 2008 9:58 AM

There is no doubt that Bloomberg is an exceptional administrator.

However, I wouldn't doubt Obama's skill at running things. He's done a fabulous job with his campaign; in fact, he's easily run the best campaign of any candidate from a managerial standpoint.

Judging from the campaigns, I would say Obama is an exceptional manager, McCain is kind of incompetent, and Hillary is just plain dysfunctional.

Posted by cm | March 27, 2008 10:01 AM

Vice President? No.
Secretary of the Treasury? Yes.

Posted by Philly Dog | March 27, 2008 10:05 AM

Has Obama actually said he's not much of a "details" guy? Or an administrator for that matter? Seems like extrapolation from the innocuous messy desk answer. I agree with Philly Dog; not VP, but definitely somewhere in the Cabinet.

Posted by Jay | March 27, 2008 10:10 AM

That's brass tacks - if there's one thing Bloomberg won't bring to the ticket, it's tact.

This sort of speculation is really absurd. Bloomberg's principal asset is, well, his assets - but the fact is, Obama hasn't struggled to raise funds, and is positioned to spend McCain into the ground. So long as he does that with small-dollar donations, it's an advantage; if he can be accused of simply leveraging a billionaire's resources by a man who's identified in the public mind with finance reform, it could as easily be a liability. Throw in Bloomberg's various problems - he's a high-living bachelor, he's said all sorts of politically unwise things, - and he's probably more trouble as a running mate than he's worth. Besides which, there's absolutely no indication that he's interested in the Vice Presidency. This is not a man who needs a day job, and he takes a back seat to no one.

What's far, far more interesting (at least to me) is the prospect of Bloomberg assuming a senior cabinet post. Secretary of the Treasury is one obvious plum, although financial policy may be the area where he's furthest apart from Obama. I'm sure that the donor of the Bloomberg School would love HHS, although he doesn't have much direct experience. I could see the man at Commerce, though. And if he doesn't want a cabinet job, he could end up on various blue ribbon panels and commissions.

There's also another way of trading political support, and that's plum jobs for key retainers. Joel Klein as Secretary of Education, for example. He's already held senior administration jobs under Clinton, he's got national credibility, and a demonstrated willingness to take on sacred cows. It would probably make Randi Weingarten's head explode, but the teachers unions have (in an act of incredible, shortsighted stupidity) done everything within their power to antagonize Obama - he owes them nothing, and can blame them for quite a bit. Or how about Thomas Freiden for HHS, or better yet, as director of the FDA?

Bush thanked Giuliani for his support by nominating Bernie Kerik for DHS - it's a classic way of repaying such favors. That's what I'd expect to see in exchange for Bloomberg's public neutrality and tacit support - or, I suppose, even an explicit endorsement.

Posted by FlyOnTneWall | March 27, 2008 10:13 AM

Since the language police are out, it's also "complementary traits," not "complimentary."

Obama needs a Dem on the ticket, imho, not a reformed Republican.

Posted by evie | March 27, 2008 10:46 AM

What about some other Obama cabinet positions? And, would it be wise for Obama to put forth a shadow cabinet during the general election to give the ticket some "experience" that people in the media seem to think he needs?

Secretary of State - Joe Biden
Secretary of Defense - Jim Webb
National Security Advisor - Tony Lake
Attorney General - Greg Craig

Posted by Philly Dog | March 27, 2008 10:58 AM

What about Samantha Power for NSA?

Posted by Tim K | March 27, 2008 11:05 AM

Greg Craig for White House Counsel
Eric Holder for Attorney General

Posted by Nate | March 27, 2008 11:14 AM

Bloomberg would be a great choice for Treasury. Although not a finance guy, his business experience would lend him immediate credibility and be a signal to Wall Street Obama isn't the wild-eyed radical the right will try to paint him as. I doubt Bloomberg would go for Commerce. How many people even know who has that role right now?

Posted by NHCt | March 27, 2008 11:19 AM

So Ambinder decides to internalize the Clinton spin that Obama can't manage the government. On the substance of Bloomberg as a VP like Cheney, forget it. Cheney had an extraordinarily involved role as VP, and there's no reason to think that Obama wouldn't revert the position to its traditional ceremonial role if he wins. Nor is Obama going to take along someone who can't bring along a state or at least put one into play. The most Bloomberg would do is bring along NYC, which Obama would win anyway.

Posted by Helter | March 27, 2008 11:43 AM

I'm a New Yorker and a big fan of Bloomberg. His affection for Obama makes sense to me, because they're both incredibly reasonable people. Not hotheads. Not partisan hacks.

Anyhoo, I'd love to see him at Treasury.

Posted by Ted B. | March 27, 2008 11:46 AM

Look Bloomberg was never interested in running for president. I've researched this a lot.

The national media distorted that. Bloomberg was always kind of running for VP/to start a new party.

Bloomberg is the trump card/the stop gate for if HRC highjacks the party w/a credentials fight.

Bloomberg will finance no so much a run/but the new party.
So that's the only time you would see Obama Bloomberg, or Obama Hagel.

Plus Bloomberg has the goods on HRC and the media spot light to do it.

This is a warning shot, to HRC her last chance to give it up.
I wrote about this on March 3rd.

Otherwise you would see Bloomberg not in the cabinet but more like FED chairman maybe, we need a FED person who didn't work for the banks.

Posted by eh? | March 27, 2008 11:46 AM

Sorry, but Obabma needs a foreign-policy heavy-hitter at veep. Biden, Clark, Richardson, any number of others. Obama-Bloomberg will fail.

Also, Obama already has done much to challenge teacher-union hegemony; Bloomberg would be a bridge too far. Pleaswe read Nat Hentoff on the Bloomberg-Klein school security policies.

Bloomberg's school successes are the biggest lie I've seen come down in a very long time.

Obama should enthusiastically accept Bloomberg's support and then keep him as far from his administration as possible.

Posted by Mike | March 27, 2008 11:47 AM

I think Hillary should start looking past the presidential race. Does she have thoughts of becoming governor of NY? If so, running against Bloomberg with Obama singing his praises will leave that dream in the trash. She's already destroyed any realistic chance of she had of being considered for SCOTUS (which I understand was a desire of hers).

Posted by LFC | March 27, 2008 11:53 AM

I don't think this is for VP. I think Bloomberg wants to be Treasury Sec'y. No offense to Bloomberg, he seems like a nice guy, but he is also reported to have a rather large ego and what better way to get your name out there than to have it on every dollar of paper money printed in the U.S.? Can anyone tell me why the guy who named his company and television network after himself (even Branson never did that) could not want to have his name on America's money? Bloomberg for Treasury Sec'y in an Obama Administration, that's my take anyway.

Posted by Bubba | March 27, 2008 11:56 AM

Brass TACKS.

You know, you are getting paid for this. The least you can do is spell-check.

Posted by Kevin | March 27, 2008 12:13 PM

I'm with Mike - Biden for VP, unless Obama's audacious enough to cross party lines and ask Chuck Hagel (who's my dream Defense Secretary).

Yesterday, the NE Senator appeared on Tom Ashbrook's show - http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080326_a_main.asp

Speaks VERY highly of Obama. "Likes" him and speaks at length on Obama's bipartisanship. Doesn't come close to endorsing McCain (or anybody) and has basically zero to say about HRC. Unlike Bill Clinton, Hagel does say that all three candidates are ready to lead.

Posted by Judy | March 27, 2008 12:19 PM

Another hilarious aspect of this reporting: someone "needs" a Jew on the ticket. Really? Is that why there have been so many Jews on tickets in the past?

Obama may need to calm some in the Jewish community, and may have lost Jewish voters he had little chance of garnering anyway (I think even this supposition is overstated), but to say his "problem" requires a slot on the ticket does not make any logical sense.

Posted by neilrlca | March 27, 2008 12:27 PM

LFC (11:53) touches on the best bet for Bloomberg: Governor of New York. If he could bring some decent administration to Albany, it would be a bigger deal than anything he could reasonably hope to do in the Cabinet.

Posted by wj | March 27, 2008 12:34 PM

I'm with Mike - Biden for VP...

I'd be happy with Biden or Richardson. Richardson might actually be a better V-P, with Biden as Secretary of State.

Maybe Hillary could be named Ambassador to Bosnia. It would give her a chance to refresh her memory.

Posted by LFC | March 27, 2008 12:36 PM

I'm pretty sure it's Brass TAX.

Haven't we had a Vision Guy/Details Guy pairing for the past 7+ years now?

Posted by CTK | March 27, 2008 1:42 PM

I like Bloomberg as VP, but I think Obama needs a governor with executive experience and/or a lady. By this token, I think Richardson or that Kansas gov make sense. Biden would be an ace as secretary or state. Bloomber treasury secretary. Samantha Power as the national security adviser....ok, ok I need to calm down :)

Posted by Roman | March 27, 2008 1:48 PM

I like Bloomberg as VP, but I think Obama needs a governor with executive experience and/or a lady. By this token, I think Richardson or that Kansas gov make sense. Biden would be an ace as secretary or state. Bloomber treasury secretary. Samantha Power as the national security adviser....ok, ok I need to calm down :)

Posted by Roman | March 27, 2008 1:48 PM

I like Bloomberg as VP, but I think Obama needs a governor with executive experience and/or a lady. By this token, I think Richardson or that Kansas gov make sense. Biden would be an ace as secretary or state. Bloomber treasury secretary. Samantha Power as the national security adviser....ok, ok I need to calm down :)

Posted by Roman | March 27, 2008 1:48 PM

Obama's cabinet:

VP: Webb
State: Susan Rice
Treasury: Laura Tyson
Defense: Biden
AG: Edwards
Homeland Security: Jim Hodges
Interior: Bill Bradley
Agriculture: Daschle
Commerce: Penny Pritzker
Labor: Xavier Becerra
HHS: Dean
HUD: Moseley-Braun
Transportation: Federico Pena
Energy: Lugar
VA: Cleland
Education: Bloomberg

Posted by Oracle | March 27, 2008 1:54 PM

Bloomberg is essentially a governor now. New York City is bigger than many states.

I think the strongest appeal though is the the name Bloomberg is nearly synonymous with 'economics'. That is what wins elections, not 'more wars'. Kerry tried to out-soldier the Repubs in 04 and it failed.

Obama cannot out-soldier McCain even with a military guy as VP. But he can out-smart him.

Posted by Chris | March 27, 2008 1:58 PM

Hey Marc,

I had always thought that Obama was a "policy wonk" but he went with the vision thing because that's what sells. I don't mean to sound cynical, I think it's a good strategy.

Do you have a link where he admits that he's not a "details" or an "administrative type?"

Posted by nattyb | March 27, 2008 2:05 PM

The last Jew on the Dem ticket worked out so well :) (Which has nothing to do with his being Jewish, and everything to do with his being a douchebag.)

Posted by Xofis | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

How about Jim Webb - foreign policy/military experience and could connect with white working class males.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2008 2:13 PM

In case people are interested, I live in Ohio. I was formerly registered for one party, but became "unaffiliated" when I moved. At the time of the primary I received several robo-calls from Obama, that were very well done. Nothing from Hillary, McCain, or anyone else.

This indicated to me that Obama knows what he's doing. He's on top of things. If he runs the nation the way he has run his campaign, he will do very well. (I know it's apples and oranges in some ways, but he's proven his ability to manage something very complex and ever-changing.)

Posted by just an anecdote | March 27, 2008 2:16 PM

One of the biggest concerns people have about Obama is whether he's getting a big head. I don't think those concerns will be assuaged if he ads a *even bigger* ego to his ticket.

Posted by mike | March 27, 2008 2:19 PM

If Obama chooses Webb as his VP, I think he will win hands down. He'll have a respectable and credible military man who won't be intimidated by McCain.

Is there any precedent for Obama (or anyone) stating who his VP would be before the primary is over? I can't recall that happening before. I think if he were to announced Webb it would be a tipping point.

Posted by hopeful | March 27, 2008 2:23 PM

Obama will reach across the aisle for his veep pick: Olympia Snowe.

Posted by timmer | March 27, 2008 2:30 PM

nattyb:
Obama hasn't said he is not a details guy, but he has stated in a debate before that he can be a "little disorganized" as his biggest fault.
I think there is way too much sorting out to happen in the next month or so for Obama to be picking VP candidates. Although he may have a shortlist ready.

Posted by Erik | March 27, 2008 2:33 PM

ah here it is, from abcnews political radar blog:

"You know what you can’t do is you can’t put me in charge of some paper. I will lose it and I’ll be like, ‘Did you just give me? Where did that speech go?"' Obama joked, "You don’t want me as the Chief Operating Officer. That’s not my job. I’m not a systems guy. I’m not somebody who would, you know, make sure that, you know, everything’s running on time."

Posted by Erik | March 27, 2008 2:36 PM

Erik @2.33pm

Do you think that was what Marc was referring to in his post?

I remember that debate, and I had thought that was him saying that his desk is cluttered and he's messy.

But I did not understand that to mean he was not a "detailed" oriented "policy" guy. Which is what I think Marc is suggesting?

It is a bit early to be picking veeps and I think a lot of the choices are just manifestations of the horse race.

It's like, this week's manufactured news story is Obama's jewish problem. Answer: Jewish Veep.

Next week it'll be southern men. Answer: Jim Webb, Mark Warner.

Posted by nattyb | March 27, 2008 2:56 PM

I believe you mean their complementary traits.

Posted by James | March 27, 2008 3:03 PM

Marc, you're gonna have to learn your cliches.

It's not "brass-tacts."

It's "brass tacks," no hyphen.

Or maybe you meant to say "brass balls." But then, so far as I'm concerned, the only candidate left with brass balls in this race is Hillary, and IIRC you're an Obama supporter, right?

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | March 27, 2008 3:10 PM

Bloomberg's a guy that makes sense only at first glance. Sure, he might be more of a manager, but he also supports the Iraq War, and is from NY. Being from NY only helps you in about three states, while hurting you in pretty much every other. And being an Iraq War supporter kind of undermines one of Obama's strong points.

Ideas like this (and the so-called "Jewish problem") only show how much NYers dominate the media. Imagine if any other city was the epicenter of American media... Miami? Everyone has a "Cuban problem." Minneapolis? "Scandinavian problem." Mark Penn's expensive ideas aside, no single ethnic group is going to decide this election.

Posted by Howard | March 27, 2008 3:19 PM

It would seem to me that a selection of the eminently worthy Jim Webb as Obama's running mate likely would entail the concomitant loss of a hard-won Democratic senate seat --unless someone with a better grasp of Virginia politics knows better than I.

Posted by Just sayin' | March 27, 2008 3:23 PM

VP- Richardson
State- Biden
Defense- Webb
AG-Edwards
Treasury- Bloomberg
Homeland Security- Fred Smith
Interior- a(n?) Udall

Need some help with ideal spots for Hagel and Waxman.

Posted by BigCliff | March 27, 2008 3:30 PM

VP- Richardson
State- Biden
Defense- Webb
AG-Edwards
Treasury- Bloomberg
Homeland Security- Fred Smith
Interior- a(n?) Udall

Need some help with ideal spots for Hagel and Waxman.

Posted by BigCliff | March 27, 2008 3:31 PM

wj:

Bloomberg's not crazy. The Mayor of NYC is one of the most powerful governmental executives in the country. The only check on his authority is a unicameral legislature with eight-year term limits and little charter authority to force the mayor to do much of anything. It wasn't supposed to work like that - the old Board of Estimate, for all its flaws, actually acted as a check on the mayor. But since 1989, there really hasn't been a balance of powers in NYC.

In Albany, by contrast, most of the power rests with the legislature. That's the bitter lesson that Eliot Spitzer had to learn. (Well, the first lesson...he's since had other, more memorable lessons. But I digress.) The only real lever of power available to the governor is through the control of the various state authorities - and since exercising that control means replacing the board members, it takes time for that lever of power to come under the control of a new governor. Bloomberg's not stupid. He's watched Albany for the past six years, and he knows full well both how profoundly dysfunctional it really is, and how difficult it would be to reform.

Why on earth would a man who could do anything he wants, want to become governor of New York?

Posted by Cynic | March 27, 2008 3:53 PM

Anyone who sincerely believes that the thought of picking Bloomberg as VP will even cross Obama's mind, is a moron.

Posted by James | March 27, 2008 4:17 PM

Forgot the link:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/31/bloomberg/

Posted by James | March 27, 2008 4:19 PM

It would seem to me that a selection of the eminently worthy Jim Webb as Obama's running mate likely would entail the concomitant loss of a hard-won Democratic senate seat --unless someone with a better grasp of Virginia politics knows better than I.

If Obama chose Jim Webb as his running mate and they won the election, I believe the replacement for Virginia's open senate seat would be chosen by Tim Kaine, VA's Democratic governor. I'm not sure Webb would want to be VP, which is kind of a subservient job, but there isn't much downside to choosing him. The most likely Veeps for Obama, IMHO: Gov. Tim Kaine, Gov. Bill Richardson, Gen. Wesley Clark, Gov. Ted Strickland, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Sen. Jim Webb.

Posted by Moonlight | March 27, 2008 4:23 PM

And it's "complementary" not "complimentary."

Posted by anonymous | March 27, 2008 4:31 PM

For more possibilities than you can shake a stick, Barack Obama could even ask Bill Clinton: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 27, 2008 5:29 PM

It would certainly make Lyndon LaRouche cackle with glee. He's been, well, not arguing he doesn't argue,, pronouncing that Obama is just a stalking horse for Bloomberg and the British for quite a while now. The mask is supposed to be torn off in early May, I believe.

I still think he should pick, oh, I don't know, Michael Moore, to serve as the sort of impeachment insurance Cheney has supplied Bush.

Posted by Boring Commenter | March 27, 2008 5:50 PM

Obama needs a VP pick that will reassure Nascar dads that he is not out to take their guns. Bloomberg has really high negatives with that particular demographic. The obvious VP choice in my mind is Jim Webb. I'd like Mark Warner even better, if he weren't otherwise occupied trying to become a Senator from Virginia.

Posted by anonymous | March 27, 2008 6:55 PM

My picks for cabinet members for Barack Obama

President Barack Obama
VP Clair Mccaskill, J Edwards, Richardson
State John Edwards
Ag Daschle
Hs Fred Smith
Defense Webb
Treasury Bloomberg
Interior Bill Bradley
Education
HUD Mosely Braun
HHS
Transportation
Commerce
Labor

This is hard--mix and match
Joe Biden, Jay Rockefella, Kucinich, Dod

Posted by rettayoung | March 27, 2008 7:35 PM

I'm a diehard Democrat. However, a Bloomberg VP spot on the ticket is the tipping point for me.

I will abstain from voting if that is the case. He is not a Democrat.

Posted by pvdl | March 28, 2008 7:21 AM

Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat who switched to Republican when running for mayor simply because he never could have been nominated by the NYC Democratic party machinery. And now he's left the Republican party.

How exactly does this disqualify him as not being Democratic enough?

Posted by phatcat | March 28, 2008 9:52 AM

Plus... not voting only helps John McCain who is definitely not a Democrat.

It drives me crazy when I hear about Dems talking about not voting or even worse, voting for McCain. What are they thinking?! McCain = 4 more years of the Bush administration. That's just unacceptable.

I don't care who Obama's VP is going to be... Vote for Obama!

Posted by Obama 2008 | March 29, 2008 1:24 AM

Obama does't need a Jew on his ticket (Bloomberg), he just needs the Jewish money* and good Press from the Israel-firsters, who dominate the mainstream Media. Easy to do. Make the mandatory pilgrimage to Jerusalem and tell and proclaim that Israel will keep getting billions in U.S. tax dollars to build (steal) whatever they want and keep Apartheid alive.

About 60% of political funds come from Jews -- amazing since Jews are only 2% of the American population.

Have you noticed how Israeli violence against Palestinians surges during election years? Notice how no candidate will criticize Israel. Notice how the Republican and Democratic platforms read like they were written by the same authors in regard to the Middle East.

No matter who gets elected, they are are bought off by the same people.

Posted by Vic Shift | March 31, 2008 11:43 PM

With an ego the size of Obama's can you really see him picking a cabinet of Biden, Daschle, Richardson, Hagel, Gore???? Do you think he wants to be the dumbest person in the room at his own cabinet meetings? We're going to see the Democratic equivalent's of Dan Quayle.

Posted by Kimberly Clark | April 2, 2008 10:58 PM

Vice president: Sam Nunn, Toni Zinni
Interior: Richardson
Agriculture: Daschle
State: Biden
Defense: Hagel
Energy: scherzinger
Education: Jim Hodges
Justice: Kerry
Management and Budget: Napolitano
Trade Repernstative: Sebilus
Drug control: John Edward
Department of veteran Affairs: Patrick Murphy
Treasury: Bloomberg
Transprtation; Kaine
HUD: ?
Chief of Staff: ?
Homeland Security; ?

Posted by Beruk Beruk | April 6, 2008 5:46 PM

Okay, it's V-P time. Senator Kennedy just advised Obama to pick a running mate who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.". I.e., anyone but Hillary. Picking HRC for V-P would be a disaster. To quote Al Gore in '92 - "It's! Time! For them! To go!

Here are some possible tickets:
Obama-Sebelius
Obama-Webb
Obama-Kaine
Obama-McGaskill
Obama-Clark
Obama-Rendell
Obama-Strickland
Obama-Richardson
Obama-Bloomberg

I really like Bloomberg, BTW, but I don't think his ego would allow him to accept.

What does everyone think?

Posted by Organizer | May 9, 2008 1:41 PM