Now, Clinton Camp Tries to Kill Obama With Kindness
When he deputized Warren Christopher to oversee his search for a running mate in the spring of 1992, Bill Clinton recoiled at the suggestion that he might use the process to float names and score political points.
“I think it’s important not to play games with people’s names,” Clinton insisted. “I don’t think that’s a good thing to do.”
Sixteen years later, though, that’s precisely what Bill and Hillary Clinton are doing as they try to damn Barack Obama—the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination—with the faint praise that he’d make a fine candidate for vice president.
“I’ve had people say, ‘Well I wish I could vote for both of you,’” Hillary said in Mississippi late last week. “Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday.”
And Bill said that his wife “has always been open to“ a Clinton-Obama ticket, “because she believes that if you can unite the energy that he’s brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together, she thinks it’d be hard to beat.”
These are anything but spontaneous expressions of magnanimity. The Obama-as-Veep concept has, in the wake of Hillary’s Ohio and Texas victories, emerged as a prime talking point from Hillary (who has now hinted at the possibility at least three times), her husband, and their top surrogates.
On Sunday, Ed Rendell, the chief Clinton backer in Pennsylvania, used a “Meet the Press” appearance to endorse a hypothetical Clinton-Obama ticket, saying that Obama would make a “fine” president but that he’s just “not as ready as Hillary Clinton.”
It was left to Tom Daschle, appearing opposite Rendell, to point out one minor flaw with the Clinton campaign’s match-making scheme: “It’s really a rare occurrence—maybe the first time in history—that the person who’s running No. 2 would offer the person who’s running No. 1 the No. 2 position.”
That’s just the point. Rest assured, if the tables were turned and it was Clinton—and not Obama—leading the Democratic charge, we wouldn’t be hearing a peep from the Clintons about Obama’s desirability as a No. 2. Sure, Hillary might ultimately be pressured by the party’s heavyweights into tapping her rival for the V.P. slot, but she wouldn’t be out there stoking such talk. Recall that Bill, back in ‘92, never gave a serious look to his vanquished rival, Paul Tsongas—even though Tsongas won numerous contests and was still drawing significant support in primaries months after dropping out.
But in 2008, the Clintons are not dealing from that same position of strength. There is now no conceivable scenario under which Hillary will end the primary and caucus season with more pledged delegates than Obama, and the possibility that she might catch him in cumulative popular votes is remote.
That means that Obama, and not Clinton, will hold the two trump cards with the uncommitted superdelegates who will ultimately put one of the candidates over the top. And that, in turn, means that Hillary has to dig ever deeper in search of some kind of game-changing inducement that might prompt those superdelgates to pull the rug out from under Obama.
Talking up her foe as a vice-presidential material is a tactic designed to work on multiple fronts.
First, it seeks to foster the perception that the Democratic race is dead even and that, therefore, both candidates will have equally legitimate claims to the nomination when the superdelegates make their decisions. The reality, of course, is that the race is tight, but that Obama has a clear advantage. By acting like a presumptive nominee and engaging in running-mate speculation, Clinton hopes to keep the press and the general public from writing her off. Ronald Reagan tried a similar trick in 1976 when he feigned confidence and anointed a running mate before the Republican convention—even though a loss to Gerald Ford seemed imminent.
Hinting that Obama would be her V.P. choice also potentially offers reassurance to superdelegates. If Hillary succeeds in the coming months in planting enough doubts about Obama’s general election viability to make them uneasy, superdelegates could theoretically rationalize turning on Obama—the pledged delegate and popular vote winner—if they felt certain that he’d wind up on the ticket anyway.
The tactic is also designed to lower Obama’s stature among voters in the remaining primaries. Even though all available polling evidence shows that Obama is the superior general election candidate, the Clintons—if late-deciding voters in Texas and Ohio are any indication—may be having some success in making Obama seem like a risky fall candidate.
Of course, these same voters still like Obama on a personal level, much more than they like Hillary. Sp do I, is what Clinton is, in effect, saying when she mentions the V.P. scenario, but he just can’t beat John McCain on his own.
If voters in the spring primary and caucus states buy into this logic, Hillary would be in position to lay claim to a late burst of momentum as the primary season closes. To superdelegates, she could then sell that momentum as proof that the masses had come around to her and turned on Obama—and that the safest course of action would be to hand her the nomination and Obama a nice consolation prize.
Of course, the early evidence suggests it won’t work at all. The Obama-for-V.P. story made quite a splash last week, but when the votes were counted in Wyoming—a state where the entire Clinton family campaigned heavily—his margin was a healthy-as-ever 23 points.
Clinton's sudden magnanimity towards Obama is a tactic—nothing more. And it says a lot more about her prospects than his.
This is such a specious argument; why would Obama want to serve under her? HE'S the one who is going to need a VP running mate, not her.
Clinton's attempts at securing the top spot are hilarious and have shed new light on her and her husband; hopefully most Democrats will remember. Leave her for the New Yorkers, god bless 'em.
I must confess I cringed a bit when I read the word: Kill. I suppose it's an okay word to use, but it does carry a little baggage--particulary at this point in time.
The very recent Eve Carson murder is so tragic. I'm sure many parents wonder if their college kids are safe. The Virginia Tech murders were last April, and it's not been a good year for college students. I'll switch gears.
All of this rhetoric is smoke and mirrors. I'm sure Hillary Clinton doesn't view Obama worthy of being a dog catcher, let alone her running-mate.
I heard one political pundit say the other day that a Clinton/Obama ticket, or a Obama/Clinton ticket, would be pushing the envelope. It remains to be seen if a black president, or a woman president, is electable. As of yet, we don't know. If this is doable, that would be great.
*******
Hillary will try ANYTHING to get the nomination. It's hard to imagine "what" should would not do. OBAMA is the candidate of the 'people's choice.' He has won the most states --- an issue ignored by many. Our forefathers believed winning small states was as critical to our democracy as was winning large states.'
***
i think what we are witnessing here is that the snake dancer came to town and he is playing his seductive flute - some do dance others do not - but it also appears that in this circus the dancers are the one who get the attention. just do not get too close - so you do not walk out with a bite.
Umm, Clinton won N.Y California Ohio Texas Most likely Penn, umm Florida,
Maybe she has a point Obama really is a bit green.
Umm, Clinton won N.Y California Ohio Texas Most likely Penn, umm Florida,
Maybe she has a point Obama really is a bit green.
The only snake dancing is the Clintons and their Court. Turn the page. We ALL have much REAL WORK to do and faux leaders who manipulate the Process, debates, voters, "Super-Delegates" and anyone/everyone isn't the leadership needed to manage the tasks at hand. David McCullough, a renowned American historian, commented last week he very much "disliked" how the Clintons are characaturing Barack Obama because "ALL of our greatest Presidents had the speaking and visionary abilities" he displays. Turn the page on these GAMES. Americans deserve BETTER.
I can just picture them working together...it ain't gonna work, sorry to say. Hillary runs a tight ship, no one can be above her, and like the other dude said, Obama is just a motivational speaker who happens to be a senator, I wouldn't really expect much should he win. Are these two the best the Democrats have to offer?? Geez.
I predict hillary will be our next president. Obama is a snake charmer.
Obama may be a snake charmer but Hillary is a snake. Only one of them bites and needs to be put down.
Maybe it just me but I can't help but notice it's quite a double standard that America and the media seems willing to perpetuate by continuing to allow Obama to run his negative campaign of "Hillary supported the war" and yet chastise her in the media and on the net for tearing the party apart when she questions his experience and qualifications by supposedly giving fodder to the Republicans if he becomes the nominee, never saying/realizing the same could have been said of Obama with his comments from the start if she is the nominee. It's seems ironic to me that America is concerned about having racism in the election, but are more than willing to turn a blind eye to sexism.
Typo in this article: "Sp do I, is what Clinton is, in effect, saying when she mentions....."
Yeah, because we all know, only BIG states matter. lol.
that argument is so weak, its astounding people repeat it.
There is no relation between winning a primary and winning that state in the general election.
The southern states gave Bill Clinton the nomination, but he didnt win many of them in 1992.
Just when I think the Clinton campaign can't sink any lower it does. The fact that she's willing to "consider" Obama as her running mate does nothing more to underscore:
a) how pathetic and desperate her campaign is, and
b) how much Obama's poplularity frightens them
how profoundly clintonian of you. lol
Nobody is getting mad at Hillary for criticizing Obama. They are bothered because she made a statement that many feel crossed a line. When Hillary said her and McCain had crossed the threshold to be commander in chief and Obama had not. That is something you dont do to someone in your own party. If she had left it with just herself it would have been stepping on the line, but adding McCain was crossing the line. If she had said she is more prepared than Obama, better qualified than Obama those would have been acceptable.
(Not even going to mention how the argument actually hurts Hillary in the general election. McCain can now ask her what did she base that on? will she try to compare his military service to her what? His kid being a Marine who has gone to Iraq with her daughter earning $250,000 at a hedge fund? LOL)
that is completely different than criticizing Hillary for her Iraq vote, which is her Senate record! A vote that she still refuses to even admit it was for war!
so its not sexism anymore than some favorable things for Hillary is not racism.
please dont say America has turned a blind eye to sexism. Hillary has blatantly used gender in this race. Saying thta women shoudl vote for her because she is a woman. Obama has never used race i that manner. Hillary has recieved no criticism.
will people stop the victimology?
It's almost laughable that Hillary is attempting to ride Obama's coattails, trying to climb aboard his obviously popular bandwagon, pretending to be the wagon master, and then (generously) offering him a comfortable position in the BACK seat. Galling actually.
obama is usama
With each day I wonder how Senator Clinton could stoop lower and sadly I learn of yet another more despicable 'tactic.' Aside from this vp ploy I just saw a very disturbing Clinton web ad exploiting the slime about Obama purportedly not saluting the flag. I can only hope that the more responsible members of the superdelegate group see that this woman should never be allowed to be the democratic nominee. Without Obama as nominee, we will vote for McCain. We may disagree with him but he is a more honest, trustworthy human being.
shm
A negative campaign no matter the type, is crossing the line. At what degree you percieve it and to quibble over it is pointless and doesn't make it less a fact. Both are guilty and only one is being called on it.
shm
Your own statements confirm what I'm saying. You only consider how the statements made by Mrs. Clinton could effect Mr. Obama if he were the nominee, but you fail in thinking of how Hillary would fair against the statements of Mr. Obama's "Hillary voted to go to war" and how that would be spun against her if she is the nominee.
This backhanded complement from the Clintons smacks of
They are saying that he's not good enough to be a popular nominee even though he has the lead in votes, delegates and # of states won. He's not good enough to be CIC because he lacks experience (what amazing experiences did HRC have in running anything bigger than a Senate staff other than this campaign where she is running into ground the double digit lead she had last year?).
Oh he's not good enough to be the president now but he can be as soon as she keels over? Gimme a break!
I thought we lived in a society where people running for office could state what they thought was important and clarify what each thought were differences, and that we as a people encouraged that type of dialogue. Why should Mrs. Clinton not allowed to question what she thinks are differences between the two (and apparently a good number of the population agree with) and yet he can make his "Hillary voted to go to war" comparison till the cows come home. Judgement, experience, hope, and qualifications are things we would want in any President, for people to make a decision, they need to hear both sides of the argument without the interference of the media and the commentary that substitutes the news.
Byron --
What's going on? Was that first post yours or something else? Or did you go off your pills?
The difference between Obama saying "she voted to go to war" and her saying "he doesn't have the experience to lead" is Obama is saying a fact. She is saying an opinion.
If you don't want the interference of the media (your on a media website BTW) and the commentary (our comments and your comments are part of the problem then) then I don't know why you are posting.
Yes, Clinton's "3am attack ad" clarified the differences. She'll use fear to get votes. Just like Bush has done since 9/11.
And Yes I'm sexiest. And racist. I'm only voting for his "white" half.
No, I hate Hillary with all my heart and soul, but I think Obama is a cipher who, once confronted with actual governing, will turn out to be another Spitzer, a la, arrogant, misguided, and overreaching!
This leaves us with only one choice: vote for Flashback McCain in 2008. Pray he doesn't wake up one night thinking he's in the Hanoi Hilton.
Umm, Obama won Illinois, Georgia, Actually won Texas, Most likely North Carolina, and how can you even count Florida when neither person campaigned and the voters knew the votes wouldn't count. Hillary has won 16 contests, Obama has won 26. Since super tuesday she was won 2 states. I wouldn't really call having your lead slashed about 15% in a week a comeback, everyone knew she would win Ohio and yet she barely won by 10%. How does Hillary honestly expect to win an election when over half the population of the united states dislikes her. I mean, I would hold my nose and vote for her in the General Election purely so we don't have 4-8 more years of a republican white house, but I will not devote any of my time or efforts to someone who has repeatedly bashed half the democrats in this country for liking someone who transcends the norm. How about Hillary releases her tax records, her first lady reports, is honest about her foreign policy experience, is honest about whitewater, Norman Hsu and all the other dirty donors she has (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3866786) and stops pandering to the American people telling them simply what they want to hear rather than what the need to hear. If all this happens, maybe I then will be in support of Clinton, but up until then, I will stick with the person who tells the truth about what he/she is doing, doesn't just attempt to represent the middle class, but represents every class, who has actually had to work for where he is gotten to, and has successfully done something other than botch votes in congress.
Mark I
You've already stated you don't want my opinion, in the post about Wyoming. So I'm not sure why you call on me again.
There is someone else posting on these sites under the name Byron and I'm sure their opinion makes it obvious which one is there's and which in mine. It's a double standard to say one candidates opinion is valid and the others is a tactic, when the supporters of Mrs. Clinton obviously feel experience/qualifications are an issue they believe in, and to have the media such as CNN MSNBC etc. say in effect their views about experience/qualifications are a tactic is not a fair statement every time they attach that opinion(not news) to Mrs. Clinton.
I still find it ironic that Mr. Obama is still going on about how he's just followed the rules in the DNC agreement but now starting to talk more about having the people's voice count and yet not mentioning that in the agreement he singed there were two rules that addressed this. Regardless of how anyone feels toward the votes in Fla / MI and the delegates attached to them counting as they stand now or for them to be disregarded, everyone involved needs to abide by the rules which clearly state that each state (FLA and MI) may submit a plan, (the new plan being a redo of the vote) to regain their delegates. These are not new rules put in after the fact, these are the rules signed by both candidates. Follow the rules and have the revote.
Matt K
You've already stated you don't want my opinion, in the post about Wyoming. So I'm not sure why you call on me again.
There is someone else posting on these sites under the name Byron and I'm sure their opinion makes it obvious which one is there's and which in mine. It's a double standard to say one candidates opinion is valid and the others is a tactic, when the supporters of Mrs. Clinton obviously feel experience/qualifications are an issue they believe in, and to have the media such as CNN MSNBC etc. say in effect their views about experience/qualifications are a tactic is not a fair statement every time they attach that opinion(not news) to Mrs. Clinton.
Earlier post refered to Mark l sorry I do sometimes get the folks I'm talking to mixed up. Whole other story, but I figure Matt K knew I meant him.
Matt K
Part of me is wondering if you are serious about your statement "And Yes I'm sexiest. And racist. I'm only voting for his "white" half" but to be honest it is consistent of your claiming in the other post we had where you claimed you were voting for Mr. Obama not because you hate Hillary but you just like Obama more, then stated in another post shortly after that one where you state you do really just hate Hillary/ the Clintons. I must admit you show striking similarities to your candidate that talks out of both sides of his mouth.
I beginning not to like either candidate; really do we want an empty suit, or a facist feminazi??
You be the judge.