Two questions for people who like the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket
I have two questions for people who want Hillary as the VP, assuming Obama is the nominee. I've posted these a number of times in various comment threads, but have yet to see a response. (Apologies if I missed a reply.)
First, can we agree that Obama should choose, and should be entirely free to choose, the veep he believes will best help him win against McCain, whether that's Hillary or not?
The reason I ask is that many of the arguments for Obama picking Hillary as a running mate (in sharp contrast to the arguments being made for Sebelius, Webb, etc.) aren't about making a case that she's the best choice. Instead, those arguments are bout the need to appease her supporters (most of whom would vote for Obama anyway, although more reluctantly), or the claim that she's earned the "right of first refusal" by running such a close second, etc. Or worse, scenarios suggesting ways that Hillary might get superdelegates to twist Obama's arm and get him to choose her even if she's not his first choice.
I'm not asking for arguments over whether or not she's the best choice. Just asking whether, as a starting point, we can all agree on how that decision should be made, namely that Obama should pick the running mate he believes will best help him defeat McCain.
And my second question is this: If Hillary is the veep we'll see McCain ads with video of Obama's own running mate saying that McCain is qualified to be commander in chief, and Obama isn't. Normally Democratic candidates don't endorse the GOP opponent, so this sort of thing may not have come up before, but having that endorsement from Obama's own running mate being played over and over and over in TV ads has got to hurt Obama.
What could she say to minimize the damage from this? That he hadn't "crossed that threshold" a few months ago (all he had to show, she said, was a "speech he made in 2002"), but giving a bunch more speeches on the campaign trail has made him ready to be commander-in-chief?
First, can we agree that Obama should choose, and should be entirely free to choose, the veep he believes will best help him win against McCain, whether that's Hillary or not?
The reason I ask is that many of the arguments for Obama picking Hillary as a running mate (in sharp contrast to the arguments being made for Sebelius, Webb, etc.) aren't about making a case that she's the best choice. Instead, those arguments are bout the need to appease her supporters (most of whom would vote for Obama anyway, although more reluctantly), or the claim that she's earned the "right of first refusal" by running such a close second, etc. Or worse, scenarios suggesting ways that Hillary might get superdelegates to twist Obama's arm and get him to choose her even if she's not his first choice.
I'm not asking for arguments over whether or not she's the best choice. Just asking whether, as a starting point, we can all agree on how that decision should be made, namely that Obama should pick the running mate he believes will best help him defeat McCain.
And my second question is this: If Hillary is the veep we'll see McCain ads with video of Obama's own running mate saying that McCain is qualified to be commander in chief, and Obama isn't. Normally Democratic candidates don't endorse the GOP opponent, so this sort of thing may not have come up before, but having that endorsement from Obama's own running mate being played over and over and over in TV ads has got to hurt Obama.
What could she say to minimize the damage from this? That he hadn't "crossed that threshold" a few months ago (all he had to show, she said, was a "speech he made in 2002"), but giving a bunch more speeches on the campaign trail has made him ready to be commander-in-chief?
