Maybe Clinton Should Pick McCain As VP

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 17:22


Clinton yesterday:

Asked on CBS's The Early Show whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said: "That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket."

Clinton today:

In a Cabinet-style setting, surrounded by retired military leaders, Sen. Hillary Clinton said the public should ask whether Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has met the criteria needed to become the nation's commander in chief.

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with."

To imply to Democratic voters "it's OK to vote for me, because I'll pick Obama as VP," and then to turn around and imply that "Obama is not qualified to be President, but John McCain is," is both contradictory, self-defeating, and, shall we say, not entirely forthcoming. Maybe someone should ask Clinton why she would pick a Vice-President who she thinks is not qualified to become President. Or, maybe someone should ask her why she wouldn't pick McCain as her Vice-President, since she thinks he is so well-qualified on national security issues.

Another thing that bothers me about this attack is how it is not based in policy. Why are ideological concerns, such as whether or not you think we should bomb Iran, not considered "qualifications" to be Commander In Chief? Conservatives have rammed a couple of Supreme Court Justices onto the highest court by arguing that it doesn't matter what they decide, it only matters if they are experienced judges. That, of course, is hogwash. Ideological interpretation of the Constitution, and foreign policy judgment, are absolutely part of what makes someone "qualified" to become either a Supreme Court Justice or Commander in Chief. If judgment played no role, then Bush would be far more qualified to be "commander in chief" than any of the candidates running.

Clinton's hawkish foreign policy has always been a reason why I leaned toward other candidates in the nomination campaign. That Obama consistently argues foreign policy judgment on issues like Iraq are main qualifications to become commander in chief is one specific reason why I favor him in the campaign.  
Chris Bowers :: Maybe Clinton Should Pick McCain As VP

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Maybe Clinton Should Pick McCain As VP | 84 comments
Just saying (2.00 / 2)
Why are ideological concerns, such as whether or not you think we should bomb Iran, not considered "qualifications" to be Commander In Chief?

The same reason why you think that the one iraq vote disqualifies clinton to be the president.
? (0.00 / 0)
What reason is that?
[ Parent ]
What reason? (0.00 / 0)
What I was trying to say is that ppl have different priorities, as Chris decides that he cannot support Sen. Clinton because of the iraq vote issue, other ppl may find iran is priority for them. Note that Obama has not voted on the iran issue (I don't care if he says he is against it, if he is then he should vote so).
[ Parent ]
Yeah... Other ppl may find bombing Iran a priority (0.00 / 0)
Those people are called neocons.
[ Parent ]
Well yeah (0.00 / 0)
That's just competing interests, kind of central to a vibrant democratic system, granted those interests each gain awareness and ability to voice their opinion.

On the Iran vote, I can agree that not voting doesn't make one look good, for sure, but I just can't get myself to put that on par with voting to call the IRGC a terrorist organization, walking right into the Bush-Cheney playbook for a war with Iran while still in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ Parent ]
I give it to you (0.00 / 0)
that you choose not to support someone who voted with bush-cheney plan (I am not really happy with Sen.Clinton here either).but coming to the other point, as I always said, not voting against something is the same as voting for it. Not matter what you say afterwards.

Just imagine if all the democrats decided to not vote for increasing minimum wage. Every movement starts with an individual, and Sen. Obama who talks about movement building, should definitely know the value of his vote. Not only this, but he decided to not vote on the moveon thing too (which to her credit, Sen. Clinton did vote supporting moveon). As a president one cannot choose not to vote.

[ Parent ]
Not with ya on that one (0.00 / 0)
I don't say Obama should be relieved of responsibility for not voting, but there's certainly a gulf of difference between not sharing your view on an issue and sharing a view in line with the Decider and his band of winged monkeys.

If all the Democrats hadn't voted on the IRGC = terrorist org resolution, sure it would have passed unanimously in a hypothetical situation such as that.

While it's not the same as out-and-out rejecting the idea, to en masse walk out on the resolution would've been a stronger message for sure than voting for it and it would've shown us that the Democrats at the very least weren't playing along with the administration. Political stunt? Sure, but it would've probably made it possible to have a separate case for foreign policy than Bush/McCain imperialism.

You see, this vote was not about a living wage, it was a vote to basically gin up the gears of war through a somewhat symbolic gesture of impending aggression against Iran. In the face of that, there should be absolutely NO reason for any anti-war progressive to vote for such a resolution. It would be most amenable to vote AGAINST it for sure, but voting FOR the resolution is ghastly and should disqualify Sen. Clinton among progressives against the Iraq war, IMO.

So, does something pass if you don't vote and the other party is all for it? Yes, but when determining a president between these two, I see a significant difference between voting for the Bush/Cheney/McCain playbook and not voting on the issue. I see a more left-leaning foreign policy out of Obama than Clinton and that vote is a major reason why.

[ Parent ]
Lastly and a bit snarkily... (0.00 / 0)
Presidents don't vote, brotha.
[ Parent ]
One vote (4.00 / 5)
One for for which she has never said was a mistake.

Anyway, I don't think it disqualifies her from being President. Can't remember every saying that. However, her refusal to admit it is a mistake makes it very difficult, maybe impossible, for me to support her in a primary.  

[ Parent ]
my point (0.00 / 0)
exactly. You decided to support obama on a singular issue (iraq), eventhough he has a more right leaning healthcare plan than clinton (i am no expert here, but i think paul krugman would agree, link) and a centrist policy (also, as was pointed out earlier by krugman).
his voting record places him, with Senator Clinton, more or less in the center of the Democratic Party, rather than in its progressive wing.
- link

Similarly some other people may choose to make certain singular issues as the center for their decisions.

Now I don't agree that such decisions should be made based on a single issue, but I may not question other's priorities. I choose to support Sen. Clinton, as my priorities are economy and healthcare. Sen. Clinton said that she if she had a chance, she would take back the iraq vote, I don't want an apology/mea culpa from her (which is what you seem to be looking for).

Which brings me back to the point that the reason she is talking about national security, is because it is bound to be a high priority for many americans (may be not the majority), but their issues have to be addressed too.

[ Parent ]
although i think there is a gap in your argument (0.00 / 0)
which is that Clinton won't get to implement her healthcare plan without it being ravaged by the GOP. I can understand why you would think that Clinton's plan is a more strategic place to start for legislation, but i don't understand why anyone would think that we are getting mandates through congress. i just don't see it happening.

Foreign Policy however is largely the unclouded vision of our commander in chief, so i would argue that it is a better test of our candidates than domestic policy initiatives.

[ Parent ]
she did admit it (0.00 / 0)
To be fair, she did finally admit it was a mistake (or at least a vote she would like to have back which amounts to the same thing) at the Ohio debate.
[ Parent ]
She did? (4.00 / 1)
Do you have a quote and / or link?
[ Parent ]
During the ohio debate (0.00 / 0)
Quote
RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you'd like to take back?

Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, obviously, I've said many times that, although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again.

I would certainly, as president, never have taken us to war in Iraq. And I regret deeply that President Bush waged a preemptive war, which I warned against and said I disagreed with.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...

It is clear unless you are looking for "I am sorry, I made a mistake"

[ Parent ]
a video (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Nothing new here (0.00 / 0)
This has been her whole line on Iraq: if I had to do it over again, I wouldn't vote for the war, but I warned George Bush against this war and it's all his fault.

Well, my hunch is that nearly everyone except Senator McCain would vote differently today, knowing what they know now.

She never said it was a mistake, and she has never apologized.  She never admitted she was wrong.

For sincerity on Iraq, look no further than John Edwards:

This makes me miss his presence in the campaign.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but what about her Kyl-Lieberman vote? (4.00 / 1)
Why make the same mistake twice?
[ Parent ]
While you are considering whether or not... (4.00 / 1)
......she apologized or groveled enough over the AUMF you might consider...just consider Progressive Punch's numbers:

.....both candidates 'Chips are Down' Ratings:

Obama: 76.87 ranked 41st

Clinton: 86.90 ranked 27th

The following Senators ranked ahead of Obama:

Webb, Salazar, Feinstein, and, yes, Nelson.

Me?

I'm just a dumb blogger but....

'Pears to me that Senator 'Hope' has been hopin' nobody would pay any attention to his less than stellar record....such as it is....

And it sure looks like he's right.

But...

He's done the impossible for me.

Made me think Hillary is the best choice.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
What has she done to prove herself as CIC, material? (4.00 / 1)
And, please, don't just tell me that Obama hasn't done anything either.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Not a good criterion for determining (0.00 / 0)
your presidential choice.  I understand the appeal of the score, but the fact of the matter is that Ted Kennedy's Chips Are Down score is only 88.41, which is less than Bob Casey.  Is anyone saying Bob Casey is more progressive than Ted Kennedy?

Similarly, Chris Dodd has a Chips Are Down score of 75.17? Is anyone seriously questioning Chris Dodd's progressive credentials?

Oh, and by the way, Barack Obama's lifetime score is only 2 points less than Hillary's.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, right. (4.00 / 1)
Progressive Punch rates Russ Feingold below Harry Reid. Russ Feingold!  The ONE SENATOR to vote against the Patriot Act below the guy facilitating telecom immunity.

Click on Feingold and you find his corporate rating is dragging him down. Click again and find his coporate rating is low because of his agriculture rating. He is low on agriculture because three times in 2005 he voted for ethanol subsidies.

What junk.

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, (4.00 / 3)
some individuals find solace in mathematical models which actually tell us little about what is really going on.  But such is life.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners -- Albert Camus

[ Parent ]
National Journal/Progressive Punch (0.00 / 0)
Tomato/Tom-ah-to

2 sets of rankings, neither of which are very helpful.

[ Parent ]
agree (0.00 / 0)
It looks like a lot of people in the left blogs seem to want Sen. Clinton to apologize or something to that effect. They are not satisfied with what she said in Ohio, or before.  
[ Parent ]
what did she admit? (4.00 / 1)
Anyone the POTUS uses military action, he or she is taking is risk.  Even more so if Bush is commander-in-chief.  In the case of Iraq, the gamble turned out terribly, terribly bad.  It has cost us 4,000 American lives, and at least a couple trillion dollars when all things are said and done.

Now: does she regret the vote because things turned out so bad?  Or does she think the vote was a mistake because we never should have let took the gamble in the first place?  I want to here her say that we should never have given Bush the authority to gamble with American lives.  Unless she says that, everything she says is just double-talk.  

[ Parent ]
Your observation on judgment (4.00 / 1)
If judgment played no role, then Bush would be far more qualified to be "commander in chief" than any of the candidates running.

Ought to used by the Obama campaign. Very good, very few words packed with meaning.

[ Parent ]
the reasons behind the vote certainly do (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Would it be McCain/Clinton? (0.00 / 0)
If it were about experience and the "commander-in-chief" mantle were based on experience alone? If Clinton were to the left on Iraq withdrawal (Like say no residual forces, maybe? Rejecting the War on Terror framework?) and made a point of saying that, then she could argue about judgment in her own right and add experience to the argument, but she's relying on experience and now has tied her wagon to John McCain as the anti-Obama duo. I'd love to see Obama win Pennsylvania over both of them at the same time. I think that would go a ways toward "vetting" him, if I may say so myself.
did anyone ask her how? (4.00 / 2)
Or are reporters simply stenographers when it comes to Hillary Clinton?
Obama's foreign policy positions (4.00 / 1)
Obama's foreign policy positions are a big reason I support him. Diplomatic negotiations without preconditions has been the gateway to improving relations with MANY of the United State's adversaries in the past (this includes administrations from BOTH parties). Hillary Clinton (not to mention Bush or McCain) are happy to seal shut that gateway and continue antagonizing our adversaries, further solidifying the opinion of their governments and populaces against us. It's a great strategy if your ultimate goal is war with [insert country name here]. But not a great strategy for actually pursuing the interests of America and the interest of peace.

Those with the most 'experience' in this race happen to be arrogant hawks when it comes to foreign policy. I'd rather choose the candidate whose polices reflect an understanding of America's history in international affairs.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

Ideological twins (4.00 / 1)
There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton is much closer to McCain than Obama in supporting an interventionist foreign policy. Arguably,she might be worse than McCain, because she would feel that she would have to "prove herself" to her hawkish critics.

That is almost certainly the case (0.00 / 0)
Judging by her votes not just on Iraq  but Iran, and the people she has surrounded herself with, I don't think there's any question that Hillary is much more bellicose than Obama, would be much less likely to withdraw our troops from Iraq (even highly unlikely), and more likely to approve further military interventions.  She is a "liberal hawk" and surrounds heself with such people. She is blinded on Israel and thoroughly conventional in underestimating Pakistan as a threat and overestimating Iran.  

But McCain is a little bit crazy, so he would be worse.  BTW I see no evidence that she would be as harsh on McCain as on Obama.  I think that at a very visceral level she thinks Obama is a usurper trying to cheat her out of what is rightfully hers, and deeply resents that he is more popular than she.  I doubt she would pick him as VP (has her eye on Evan Bayh IMO).  But she has utmost respect for McCain and wouldn't want to be seen beating up on a war hero.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
The Clintons egotism (0.00 / 0)
It is difficult to judge who would be more dangerous, Clinton or McCain. Remember the time Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles into a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, killing many innocent employees? I assume Hillary approves of such actions.

But I agree that the Clintons think that they are above the party, and are owed the nomination. Failing that, they would prefer to see the Democratic party go down in flames. After Clinton saying McCain is preferable to Obama because of "experience", I think any offer of the VP role to Obama would be perceived by him as very condescending. I don't see how he could accept it. And if he did, I don't see how his supporters would be placated. They would be disillusioned by yet another instance of "politics as usual".

When the convention starts, I suspect there will be tons of pressure on Obama to do just that.  

[ Parent ]
She is Liebermann all over again - bolstering the Republican (4.00 / 2)
while attacking the Democrat and using Republican frames to boot.

At the last Yearly Kos, I vigorously defended Hillary during an on camera interview with the New York Times. I've done it for years, right up to the start of these elections. From there, I am now at the point that I will not vote for her even if she is the Democratic nominee. I will write in Gore or Obama.

The problem is not Republican v. Democrat. The problem is Reason v. Rove. Progressive v. Centrist. Populist v. Corporatist. And American v. NeoCon. In every way, Hillary is showing herself to be on the other side of every stand that I would side with.

If she can't somehow win the Democratic nomination despite the math being so agianst her, is the "America for Hillary" party in the works?

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

[ Parent ]
Lieberman without the honesty. (4.00 / 1)
I have voted for every Democratic candidate for President since my first election (Hubert Humphrey in 1968) But like you, should Clinton be nominated, I will write in another name.

My decision came with the realization that Clinton is quite willing to destroy the Democratic Party if they do not do what she expects of them. She has already gone quite far in that direction.

I was already very troubled by her corporatist proclivities, but would have still considered her the lesser of two evils vs. McCain. But it is becoming all too clear that she is a NeoCon in the mold of Lieberman and McCain, and that I cannot abide.

She is more clever than either of those however. I feel increasingly that her statements offer little clue as to how she would actually govern, that her words are chosen primarily to elicit support from people who do not suspect that she uses language deceptively. She will say whatever she thinks it is necessary to say in order to achieve power.

[ Parent ]
It's also an extremely tone-deaf argument (4.00 / 1)
The argument is only about national security if we choose to do so. Just because that's the only feasible reason for McCain running doesn't mean we have to address that first.

Given that exit polling has consistently shown the economy, far and wide, to be the top issue on Democratic voters' minds, we should focus on who has the better plan to get us back on track.

McCain has no plan (0.00 / 0)
The Bush Plan, i.e., No Plan, No Clue.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
We should hit him on more than one side at a time. Economy has to be one of the core issues, and the war in Iraq is something we can hit him over the head with as well. If we try to run away from Iraq, I don't think we'll be in strong position once the fusillade of RNC and 527 ads and internet and Faux News propaganda start calling our candidate out on their apparent "lack of patriotism" or some other nonsense.
[ Parent ]
if she likes McCain so much, she should just switch parties and run with him (4.00 / 1)
This kind of talk is why the only veep she has a chance of being is McCain's.
Obama response (0.00 / 0)
Obama's prospective response to this should incorporate a few things:

1) What precisely has Clinton done to cross this magical threshold? Or McCain for that matter? McCain may have proven himself a patriot and has a ton of experience, but his terrible judgment, if anything, speaks against him crossing any threshold.

2) If you're looking to national security experience, judgment matters, combined with things you've worked for. Mention loose nukes and anything else, but ESPECIALLY loose nukes as a commander-in-chief level priority that the Bush administration has dropped the ball on. Furthermore point out that Bush has been taking us backwards in moving toward ridding the world of nuclear weapons, that bipartisan opinion leaders (the Nunn-Perry-Kissinger-Schultz quartet) have come to the conclusion we need a nuke-free world, and Obama-- like John Edwards and others-- is for this. Where's Clinton on this one?

3) The way you prove yourelf to voters, that you're tough and smart on national security, is by being tough and smart on national security, not just saying so and accepting the Bush framing. Ironic that Clinton talks about Obama basing his commander-in-chief laurels on just a speech, when all she has are speeches plus a bad record.

it's our decision not hers (0.00 / 0)
He should just say it's up to the voters to decide who has crossed the threshhold to be commander-in-chief not Senator Clinton.
[ Parent ]
McCain/Clinton 2008: Victory through gut instinct (4.00 / 1)
Ironically, as I was reading through these posts NPR ran a story on today's recommendation from the Army Medical Command in its  mental health survey that soldiers spend as much time at home as on tour.

Reminded of Jim Webb's bill to do just that I googled up an article from The Hill in which McCain said Webb's plan would be "catastrophic."

What does that say about our future commander-in-chief?

What has Clinton done to "cross the threshold"? (0.00 / 0)
Just because GWB didn't bother reading the NIE, doesn't mean that such is now considered a qualification for being Commander in Chief.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
O f course it is.... (0.00 / 0)

.......Obama didn't read it either.

'Security' is the new black everyone looks good in it.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
He wasn't in a position to do so (4.00 / 2)
at least he had the courage and honesty to make the right decision based on his principles and the information available to him.  The same cannot be said of his rival.
[ Parent ]
So, by your calculations (0.00 / 0)
Obama is just as qualified as Clinton.

BTW - no matter what he says, Obama didn't vote on the AUMF either.  I doubt he had the security clearance to see the NIE in 2000/2001, anyway.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Used to be (4.00 / 1)
'Security' was anything and everything anti-black. sigh How times have changed.
[ Parent ]
How will Clinton distinguish herself from McCain (4.00 / 1)
on this issue in the GE?  What will she say?  

At least Obama was politically adept enough to praise a DEAD republican (Reagan) - and even so he got slammed for it.  Clinton builds up the GOP nominee for President and few voices are raised to tell her how politically damaging her comments are to the Democratic chances at the WH in 2008.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Here's what she would say (0.00 / 0)
It's not so hard to figure out.  She'll say she has nearly as much government experience as McCain, albeit of a different sort, but has better policy positions for the country.   And it is quite easy to distinguish her position on Iraq from McCain's - she wants to leave, he wants to stay.  Really, you have seen her at the very least debate the very talented Obama to a draw in the last few months.  Is there any doubt she can make mincemeat out of McCain?
[ Parent ]
Right up until (0.00 / 0)
She gets called a flip flopper, sure I do.
[ Parent ]
She won't (0.00 / 0)
You see, the key to victory for a Democrat is to "take security off the table" in an election and focus voters' minds on domestic issues. You need to neutralize the security question by acting as much like your opponent as possible, then the only daylight between you is on domestic stuff, where Democrats are clearly preferred by the voters. This is a time-honored, clear winner.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

[ Parent ]
I would like to learn more (0.00 / 0)
I haven't been paying much attention in this race, so maybe a Hillary supporter can help me out. What experience has she had that will give her better judgement as president? Particularly on national security issues. And what parallels in experience does she between herself and Mr.McCain?

Thanks.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

How about 8 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee? (0.00 / 0)
For one thing, I would say 8 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee at least learning about military affairs gives her an advantage over Obama on national security affairs.   At the very least her learning curve would be less steep, and that is important if the first thing either of them want to do is start withdrawing forces from Iraq.  I have more confidence that someone who already has the respect and endorsement of flag level officers will make the right decisions and be able to get them executed as commander in chief.
[ Parent ]
is 8 years on SASC make or break? (4.00 / 1)
That's a good experience. Of course, her husband did not have 8 years on the SASC, right? I wonder, wouldn't Obama by now have surrounded himself with very knowledgeable advisers on a pull out strategy? I find it hard to imagine that a smart person running for president (e.g. someone unlike GWB) wouldn't have a good grasp of the complexities of a military draw down. Never the less I can appreciate highlighting that experience, its note worthy and a good point. Thanks.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
What has been accomplished during those 8 years? (0.00 / 0)
An ill-advised, poorly-executed invasion and occupation of Iraq that drained resources and attention from Afghanistan and the international terrorist group that apparently perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

The realization that the US military was something of a paper tiger that was "broken" by going to "war" with two nations that lack anything remotely resembling an actual standing army - let alone an airforce - or even a helicopter.

The realization that, despite the righteous indignation of returning Viet Nam war vets at the shoddy treatment afforded them by the very nation that sent them off to fight - very little has changed in 2008.

Accelerated privitization of the US military

The construction of an extra-judicial tribunal system within the US military to prosecute "enemies of the state" in secret prisons.

Torture within those prisons

This list goes on.

Yep - those last 8 years were very well spent - good thing she was there to reign in the Bush Administration.

Of course, that would probably require reading some of the associated documents....

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Experience dealing with the Palestinian issue (0.00 / 0)
Both visiting the ME and the negotiations at the end of the Clinton presidency that came very close to game-changing.

And although no-one wants to talk about it during an election, the path out of Iraq goes through a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

On military issues, I expect Wes Clark to have a strong say, and he has spent the last year lobbying hard against military action against Iran.

I don't have much worries about any more foreign adventures.  In case no-one has noticed, the US military is pinned down in Iraq and falling apart.

[ Parent ]
What role did HRC play at Oslo or Camp David? (4.00 / 1)
I'm not familiar with how Hillary was a part of those, can you elaborate?

also, you think an Iraq withdrawal depends on a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians? That would make Mc.McCain right about being their 10,000 years! ;)



Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
You mean like Kerry did? (0.00 / 0)
He was Kerry's first VP choice, after all.  As I recall, plenty of Dems thought that was a great idea at the time.  Actually, having him safely set on the shelf as VP still makes a little bit of sense.
Not true (0.00 / 0)
McCain's folks approached Kerry, not the other way around. And Kerry's choice was ... Edwards. Obviously.

John Kerry: "It doesn't surprise me completely because [McCain's] people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President."

LINK

[ Parent ]
Not what was reported at the time (0.00 / 0)
So is Kerry now denying this story?  This is my memory of thew talk at that time, and I don't remember him denying it at the time.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...

[ Parent ]
Regardless of who started the conversation (0.00 / 0)
Kerry entered into substantial talks with McCain for the VP slot before he offered it to Edwards. Even told McCain he could still be a Republican. I'm not defending that as a strategy. It was a horrible idea, for many reasons. As McCain reportedly told Kerry (not exactly in these words), if Kerry/McCain had been elected and something had happened to Kerry and McCain bacame pres, Kerry's supporters would have been royally screwed.

I'm not sure any of this matters, because the whole question is moot. McCain is not going to be anyones VP.  The point is, there are many differences between Clinton and McCain.  Just because people have roughly the same number of years of experience in public office does not mean they have the same policies. Gees, do we even have to talk about this?

[ Parent ]
What I want to know... (4.00 / 2)
  ...is why Democratic Party elders aren't telling her to put a sock in it regarding her effusive praise of McCain. This is extremely damaging to the Democratic Party, NO MATTER WHO THE NOMINEE IS.

 Isn't there ANYBODY in the Democratic Party who wants to WIN  this fall? Why is everybody so quiet as Hillary Clinton insults our probable nominee and showers praise upon his Republican opponent?

 WHERE THE HELL IS THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP??? HILLARY CLINTON IS TORPEDOING THE ELECTION!!! DOES ANYBODY GIVE A CRAP???

 I am getting extremely close to the point where I can say that I hate Hillary Clinton. She's certainly nudging me closer and closer in that direction every day.

 This primary has brought out her true colors. And they are ugly colors indeed.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

David Shuster vs. McCain` (4.00 / 1)
Shuster: Chelsea is being pimped out.

Clinton response: OUTRAGED!

McCain:  "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

Clinton response: I love you John McCain.

Fighter my ass. I guess against Democrats.

Passing along disgusting Chelsea jokes (0.00 / 0)
Nice of you there.  Who is it exactly that is denigrating Democrats?
[ Parent ]
shoot the messenger (0.00 / 0)
rather than deal with the hypocrisy. good job
[ Parent ]
How is this anything but a betrayal of the party? (4.00 / 1)
Ripping down the likely Dem nominee and in the same sentence boosting the Republican opponent? How is this acceptable?  
crossing the line (4.00 / 1)
I've often defended Senator Clinton in the past (even earlier this week when she made similar (but less clearly destructive) comments), but she's gone too far this time, and her statement lends some credence to the notion (that I've always resisted) that she's willing to take down the party to get what she wants.

Kerry was always on the defensive in 2004 because the Republicans were unwilling to give him his due on ANYTHING, even the blatantly obvious like his status as a decorated war hero. For Clinton to vouch for McCain's CIC credentials as a given is as idiotic as it is self-destructive and short-sighted. The guy's a trigger-happy warmonger rambling on about 100-year wars and singing about bombing Iran, and he's "certainly" crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold?

With this statement, she basically threw away her advantage over Obama on the "who's the real Democrat" question.

Honestly, I am beyond disappointed in these two candidates. After a disastrous run, the country is ready to definitively reject Republicanism, and the two standard-bearers of the Democratic Party, through their rhetoric, are determined not to let it happen.

But going back to the original post .... (0.00 / 0)
why do you assert with such certainty that is it "implied" that Obama is unfit?

All that this ad does, literally and explicitly, is suggest that a candidate's potential for leadership in a crisis is a relevant criterion, which the electorate should consider. The ad implies that this criterion is pass/fail, and that there is no substantial room for disagreement that Clinton and McCain would both "pass". [And, by injecting that comparison into the mix now, she arguably preempts McCain's later use of his own service record -- by conceding his fitness to command, she arguably moots his own military experience.] And at the same time, without expressing judgment on Obama, it baits the Obama camp into keeping focus on a subject chosen by Clinton. IMHO, that's not only morally correct, it is tactically admirable.  No?  

Should an Obama partisan argue that reliability in crisis is not pertinent to the sound judgment of the voters?  And if one concedes that the criterion is appropriate, then how do you strip the delegates to the Democratic National Convention of all judgment and discretion, to be mere messengers, partying in Denver?  

As for the question, it implies nothing, but I suspect it's very effective if there's already doubt about the depth of a relatively untested candidate.  

But it IS implied (4.00 / 1)
"...I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,"

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,"

Those are her words. What ad are you talking about? This post was about Senator Clinton's words, where she said that out of the three major candidates left, she and McCain had crossed the national security threshold to be president, and Sen. Obama, well he's another story. Sure she didn't SAY Obama was weak on national security and unqualified to be commander-in-chief, but she came very close to saying it and sure as hell implied it.

As an Obama partisan (mindless gnomes that we are) I do not argue that reliability in crisis is unimportant. What I do ask is why Sen. Clinton, who can't give examples of foreign policy crises she has helped guide America through, is turning to Obama and questioning him on his similar lack of experience. Pot, meet kettle.

Your argument about the superdelegates is a straw man; people like me are not saying the superdelegates can't have judgment and discretion. That's well within the rules and understood. What may happen if the will of the electorate is seen to be bucked because of superdelegates and their "judgment", though, is a large deflating of Democratic enthusiasm and participation. Putting pressure on elected officials within a political party to take their voters into consideration when nominating someone for public office seems to make a lot of sense to me, why doesn't that make sense to you?

[ Parent ]
No. (4.00 / 2)
It's laughable to assert that "by conceding [McCain's] fitness to command, [Clinton] arguably moots [McCain's] own military experience."

Indeed, the concession BOOSTS the importance of McCain's military experience by telling the voters "hey, even some Democrats think McCain's military experience matters" and by similarly allowing the media to draw the same conclusion.

Bottom line: when Clinton "concedes" McCain's fitness to command and attacks Obama's fitness to command, that's an anti-Democrat message.


[ Parent ]
you tried to tell me Obama needn't have experience because (0.00 / 0)
He could surround himself with the cream of the crop when it came to advisers -  are these people an example of the "crop"?

Samantha Power is one of Obama's top foreign policy advisers. Goolsbee is his top economic adviser. Susan Rice is also a senior foreign policy adviser.

You can't buy good judgement no matter how much money you have and if you don't have good judgement you can't recognize the cream of the crop and you end up with a lot of "Brownies".

The people who supported Obama when he ran for State Senate thought they would be his paymasters, -but no.
The anti-war people who helped Obama get elected to the US Senate thought they would be his paymasters, -surprise, surprise.
We are now hearing that the DLC thinks they are going to be his paymasters,  -that sort of leaves you people out.
I wonder who his real paymasters are -surprise, surprise.

Doesn't pass the sniff test (0.00 / 0)
You're trying to say Obama is the DLC candidate?  Or is this another "Obama is a corporatist mole" whispering campaign attempt?

Considering who Hillary has surrounded herself with, and what they've been saying, and just how long she's been part and parcel with the DLC, projecting all of this onto Obama doesn't even pass a basic sanity check.

[ Parent ]
Poisoning the Well (0.00 / 0)
She's trying to make it impossible for Obama to win in November by passing ammunition for McCain to use against him, and hardening her partisans against voting for him.  In the process, she's seriously pissing off the Obama partisans, especially the younger ones who are not as tightly bound to the party.  The dKos thread is over a

She's basically playing chicken with the Supers, telling them "Make me the nominee, or I will burn this party to the ground."

They should call her bluff, now while there is still 8 months to mend fences and her supporters to get over their anger.  It isn't going to get any easier.  If the Supers do not end this, before PA, the Democratic party may very well not survive.  It certainly won't win in November, at any level of the ticket outside the very safest blue districts.

The message to the supers is quite simple: Take your medicine (and boot Hillary), or let the infection spread and destroy the entire party.  She's chosen to set up that hard choice, don't let anyone pretend otherwise.

dKos coments on this passing 900 (0.00 / 0)
Didn't finish my sentence in the first paragraph.  Went to check that thread and got distracted.
[ Parent ]
Got Marshmallows? (0.00 / 0)
"Make me the nominee, or I will burn this party to the ground."


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Electability is the only issue (0.00 / 0)
I agree with your assessment.  Electability in November is the only issue left for Obama and Clinton to argue about, and she is doing her best to make Obama appear less electable. He has done the same throughout the campaign, stressing her high negatives and making the argument that only he can bring in the independents and new voters.

You are right that the only thing that can stop this cycle is the supers coming out publicly for Obama soon.  Why won't they?  Are they unconvinced that he can win in November?  What more can he do to convince them?  

[ Parent ]
The McCain Problem (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately Democrats have a long record of speaking of McCain in glowing terms.  For a long time (and maybe even still) he was seen as a rereshing alternative to the likes of Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Mitch McConnell and co.  He could make a positive campaign ad about himself just using quotes about him from prominent Dems.
It's not just one vote (0.00 / 0)
Clinton has consistently positioned herself as a national security hawk.

Her foreign policy advisers are all people who supported the was in Iraq, whereas Obama's all opposed it.

She has been very hawkish on Cuba.

And now she is essentially endorsing McCain on national security.

Obama has said he wants not just to end the Iraq War but to change the mindset that led to the war.

I've never heard anything like that from Clinton.

Obama is the anti-war candidate.

Assuming all you say is true (0.00 / 0)
I won't quibble with your characterization - it is true that Clinton is more of a hawk than Obama.  There is no doubt that Obama's more dovish stance has helped him in the primaries and caucuses so far.  The question is whether it helps him in the general election against McCain. I believe Obama will be the nominee despite all the present turmoil, and voters will have that clear choice between Obama and McCain.  Nothing Clinton says now makes that distinction any starker than McCain and Obama himself would have.

Obama will have to make the case that his foreign policy will make us more safe and will get us out of Iraq with more national integrity than whatever McCain has in mind, and that he has the expertise to execute that policy. That will be the crux of the election in a McCain - Obama matchup.  I beleive that in a Clinton-McCain match-up the economy would be the focus. Up to the Superdelegates to decide what odds they like better.

[ Parent ]
Re: Assuming all you say is true (0.00 / 0)
Obama can articulate an entirely different vision of national security than McCain, much more effectively than Clinton can.  And Obama is in no way precluded from making a strong economic argument against McCain.  The fact is that there's very little difference between Clinton and Obama on economic issues.  There's a big difference between then in terms of how they have positioned themselves re: national security.

I was quite persuaded by Christopher Hayes' argument in the Nation that domestic policy is much more subject to how things get thrashed out with the legislature, whereas foreign policy is set by the president with much less input from the legislature.

I believe that economic populism will have a better chance of prevailing in 2009 if Obama is the candidate in 2008, because I believe he will help elect Democrats across the country.  I am concerned that Clinton could damage the chances of Democrats down ticket.

Without sufficient political power in Congress, it doesn't matter what Clinton or Obama say they are going to do on health care.  I buy Obama's argument that we need to expand our majority in order to make change.

[ Parent ]
I hope you are right (0.00 / 0)
and I agree with your goals.  I tend to be a bit of a risk-averse worrier, perhaps for no reason in this case, but the McCain-Obama match-up was always the only one I did not want to happen.  
Re: I hope you are right (0.00 / 0)
That's funny, because a Clinton-McCain match-up is is always the one I didn't want!  I can see it both ways, but I think that looking to Clinton as the one who can neutralize McCain on national security and thus making domestic policy the centerpiece is a continuation of the Democratic tendency to cede national security to the hawks.

I fear a Clinton-McCain match-up because he can trounce her on national security and ALSO on personality.  However unfair, Clinton has -- what? -- an almost 50% unfavorability rating?  And however unfair, McCain enjoys a much warmer relationship with the press.  I have never understood the argument that we should reject Obama as a candidate BECAUSE he's being given a free ride by the press.  I'm not entirely sure he has, but just assuming this to be true -- why is this a problem?  Wouldn't we WANT our candidate to be loved by the press?  Especially going up against someone like McCain.

I think this is why the idea of Obama as candidate and presidency does give me, and others, a feeling of hope.  Because it would represnt a genuine change in direction on national security.

I'm fully aware, of course, that Obama is no miracle worker or saint and that the Democratic Party is nearly as implicated in the national-security state as the Republicans.  But Clinton, for me, holds no hope of shifting things, whereas Obama does.

[ Parent ]
Maybe Clinton Should Pick McCain As VP | 84 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox