Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A Sincere Questioning of the Possibility of Clinton as VP
This is not meant as a mean-spirited dismissal of Clinton as a potential VP choice for Obama. It's just meant as a demonstration of why such a pairing seems like it would be political suicide for Obama (and Clinton, in this hypothetical scenario) in the general.
Republican Ad #1: Video of Clinton referring to Obama as an out of touch elitist.
Republican Ad #2: Video of Clinton saying "he would not have been my pastor."
Republican Ad #3: Video of Clinton giving her "and the sky will open up" speech. (And this while Obama is trying to run on his theme of hope and change.)
Republican Ad #4: Video of Clinton during the ABC debate attacking Obama for associations with Farrakan via Wright and with Ayers.
Republican Ad #5: Video of Clinton saying Obama is not ready to be Commander in Chief.
I'm sure others can think of additional examples. Am I wrong that this fairly obvious problem by itself has to disqualify Hillary Clinton from the VP slot? Is there a way that this inevitable problem could be dealt with that I'm not imagining?
I'm genuinely curious because I hear people discuss the possibility of Clinton as VP with a straight face and I wonder if I'm missing something.
Comments (11)
Interesting. I have a couple of questions. 1)Why can't the Rep. make those ads even if she is not the VP nominee? and 2) Wouldn't it be easier for Hillary to respond to those ads if she was the VP?
I'm not sure of the answers but these questions immediately popped into my head when I read your post.
May 7, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Points taken. And maybe it does come down to weighing the positives and negatives of that ticket. To play devil's advocate, though:
I think by choosing someone as your VP candidate, you're basically endorsing her opinions and vouching for her credibility. In turn, this gives greater credibility to those damaging statements in the eyes of the voters. It would be harder to suggest that Clinton was wrong because you've basically endorsed her positions and opinions by taking her on the ticket. To some extent, you're going to have to run against your own VP candidate, even if she does do her best to explain away her own criticisms.
Also, you can fairly easily acknowledge the differences between yourself and a supporter and former opponent. But it might be harder to ask voters to rest easy with those differences when you're sharing a ticket and a platform.
May 7, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think an Obama / Clinton ticket is possible and very strong. I'd want to compare her with the other Top 5 V.P. short listers though.
No matter what (even if costs a promise of her becoming Senate majority leader), we need her out in front DEFENDING Barack at all costs. She needs to be just as tenacious defending him from here until November as she was trying to bring him down.
Hillary and John Kerry can team up as the ANTI-Swiftboat Brigade. Get out there with the "Enough is Enough" defense and call bull$hit at every Republican smear.
May 7, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thought of ads like that makes me quite ill. No, I don't think there's any possibility of Clinton as VP.
May 7, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, showing videos of Rev. Wright himself is the way Republicans will go. Hillary's not that exciting as a Republican soundbite, and for Ayers they'll just show him saying he's sorry the Weatherman didn't do more.
May 7, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given Hillary's capacity to blatantly disregard reality and twist her "misstatements" into moments of profound revelation ("It means I'm human, which may come as a surprise to some people"), she is just the person to make (non)sense of all her blather in the gen. She'll simply assert a new reality and proudly move on.
And she really isn't less coherent and rational than McCain, even if she has proven to be just as much of a wacko.
May 7, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gov. Sebilius or Gov. Napolitano - either would fill the "female on the ticket" role in lieu of HRC, appealing to that demographic (I say this as a 58-year-old white female myself), both have executive experience that HRC doesn't bring to the ticket, and neither brings the baggage of what one blogger here called the "craven" HRC campaign. Sebilius has been out campaigning for him a fair amount; I haven't seen much coverage of Napolitano doing so but I could have just missed it.
May 7, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sebelius is daughter of a Governor - a Dynasty, had a privileged upbringing, is married to a Republican and didn't (AFAIK) publicly oppose the AUMF while running for Governor. I imagine she's probably even a millionaire. Will Obama fans swallow this?
May 7, 2008 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with Wade Hussein Blazingame34, who is better in the Democratic Party than Hillary at playing attack dog. The very role of a VP candidate that the Dem's haven't had for the last two elections and they can play up the reconciliation so even the mainstream press can swoon... for a minute or two before they go back to licking McCain's...
That said, I'm not against having someone else if they can play that role, I just don't know who it would be.
May 7, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do want to be clear that I think Clinton would be a very strong VP candidate and campaigner in other circumstances. I do believe this could have been a "dream ticket" as things stood back in February, for instance.
I've thought for a while that Sibelius would be a great choice. I have to say I'm also warming up to the idea of Wesley Clark, too. Clinton surrogate. Foreign policy. Experience without being a "Washington insider" in the typical sense.
May 7, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The danger here is the inconsistencies between running-mates opens the ticket up to flip-flop / liar accusations. If you really think that the presidential nominee has come up short in the CiC test and that his GOP opponent has not, then why on earth would you agree to serve in his administration? You're either "lying now" (when you say he's the most qualified to lead the country), in which case the both of you are trying to defraud the voting public, or you were "lying then," in which case the nominee was a fool to select you and the voters are left with a distasteful choice of putting a liar within a heartbeat of the presidency. I do believe the Republicans would pound the former assertion over the latter, but either construction is potentially damaging. You don't have to announce cabinet appointments (HHS is maybe the best Hillary can hope for) until after the election, when the question is entirely moot.
Bottom line: off the ticket, Hillary's stated opinion of Obama carries weight only with her former support base -- to most Republicans and independents, she'll be a has-been whose springtime pronouncements will carry very little weight. On the ticket, her previous attacks are an albatross, and the support she'll muster is only marginally improved vs. a sincere joint reconciliation effort mounted in the weeks preceding the convention and immediately thereafter.
May 7, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment