Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
I've been watching the speculation over Vice President Joe Biden jumping into the presidential sweepstakes and the conventional wisdom seems to boil down to two schools of thought in favor of said run:
1) As Biden sits at the right hand of President Obama, he's more likely and better suited to defend the administration's record, running as a continuum of 2008's "hope"
2) Because he's been a loyal soldier and has a friendship/partnership with the President that transcends politics, Biden can tap into Obama's financial network seamlessly and quick enough to gather the resources necessary to carry out a prolonged campaign against the deep-pocketed Hillary Clinton.
But if those are the best arguments in favor of a third Biden presidential run (he also went for it in 1988 and 2008), might I suggest a more viable alternative?
First Lady Michelle Obama.
My rationale (note to haters: please don't take this seriously):
1) Who better to defend her husband's record than FLOTUS? Vice Presidents who stand by their president's side invariably face a question of political manhood. Mrs. Obama would likely get a free pass from the press.
2) Obama donors might find it easy to say "no" to the vice president were he to dial for dollars. Saying "no" to the First Lady is another matter, especially with another year and a round of lame-duck appointments and White House dinners yet to be decided.
3) The President thinks he'd win a third term if not for that pesky constitutional amendment (at least one poll suggests otherwise). Having his missus run is the next best thing in terms of testing the name-brand, especially with the POTUS hitting the stump in America's swing states,
There's one other reason why a First Lady candidacy intrigues: were she to enter the race, it potentially strike at the heart of Hillary Clinton's political safety net.
Would Democratic women stand by Mrs. Clinton or "lean in" with Mrs. Obama? What of the party's African-American voters, given a choice between the wife of America's "first black president" and the wife of the real McCoy?
Besides, let's try to imagine how the Clinton attack machine, which is already warming up in anticipation of an Uncle Joe candidacy, would go after the First Lady?
• By suggesting that, despite the various causes and use of her office's bully pulpit, she's not ready to hold political office?
• That it's bad practice to gift elections to political spouses (see "Senate race, New York, 2000")?
• That America's had it with political dynasties?
Bottom line: The Clintons have had it pretty good in past presidential contests, with Bill time and again matching up against older, crankier opponents (Jerry Brown and Bush 41 in 1992; Bob Dole in 1996). Novelty though he may seem right now, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is more of the same. The one time Team Clinton faced a younger, vibrant foe (that would be Michelle Obama's husband), things didn't work out all too well.
This is all pie-in-the-sky thinking, mind you. And it comes roughly 10 months since a story making the rounds at the time had the First Lady lighting out to California to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who's up in 2018. And that was only a few months after more groundless buzz that a 2016 Illinois Senate run was a possibility.
Other than continuing her work with military families, Michelle Obama hasn't tipped her hand as to her future plans. But she has alluded to enjoying a post-White House "freedom," which sounds like the opposite of life in office.
Still, it's fun to think what a disruptive force the First Lady could be were she to parachute into the Democratic field.
Or maybe it's already crossed her husband's mind?
Previously:
• 08/25/15: Bush Battles The 'Wimp Factor' (The 2016 Edition)
• 08/18/15: The Five Candidates Best Suited To Reorient The GOP
• 08/06/15: Biden and scared GOPers
• 08/04/15: What 2012's First Big GOP Debate Tells Us About Thursday's Showdown
• 07/29/15: Hillary's Very Brady Problem
• 07/15/15: Bracketing The GOP'S Sweet Sixteen
• 07/10/15: Hillary And The Media: No Mutual Admiration, But Mutually Beneficial?
• 07/08/15: The Sixties . . . In 2016?
• 07/03/15: Four 4th Observations
• 07/02/15: Should Jeb Play A Trump Card?
• 07/01/15: Christie Almighty?
• 06/15/15: Did Hillary Flunk A History Lesson?
• 06/11/15: Thursday Candidates Quiz
• 06/10/15: First Best Second Choice
• 06/08/15: Game of Inches
• 06/03/15: The Power Of Narrative Politics
• 06/01/15: Sorting The Republicans' 2016 Kingdom
• 05/28/15: To Command Without Having Served
• 05/21/15: 2016: Do Looks Matter?
• 05/15/15: John Bolton's Swan Song
Comment by clicking here.
Bill Whalen is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he studies and writes on current events and political trends. In citing Whalen as one of its "top-ten" political reporters, The 1992 Media Guide said of his work: “The New York Times could trade six of its political writers for Whalen and still get a bargain.” During those years, Whalen also appeared frequently on C-SPAN, National Public Radio, and CNBC.
Reprinted from Forbes.com
