No, McCain hasn't laid out his plans clearly either. But he's getting some criticism for it. So will Obama once he's officially the nominee.
It's hilarious to hear all this talk about "change" in a debate between two Senators whose positions are almost identical. It's so funny watching the Obama camp spin Hillary as inexperienced and saying her time as First Lady shouldn't count for "experience" -- yet now when a lack of experience ("change") is apparently a virtue, they take the complete opposite position and portray her as part of the system for years. Can somebody tell me which it is? As for other choices strengthening the ticket at least as much, get real. I have numerous personal connections who would be incredibly enthused about an Obama/Clinton ticket and would work very hard for that, but would likely vote McCain if she's not on it. Yes, that's not logical -- but welcome to this race. Yes, I get it -- Obama has won. But Clinton has energized a sizable portion of this population too, and to act as if another politician could bring just as much to the electoral portion of the ticket is laughable and ridiculously disrespectful to the millions of voters she's energized throughout this primary.
Obama's has been criticized about this for some time, a LOT more than McCain. I may be dreaming, but I want an election where candidates hammer each other on issues like Iraq, healthcare, the Supreme Court & immigration instead of garbage based on fear and misinformation that has nothing to do with the nation's business.
Good luck getting McCain to agree to that... plus,it would set a precedent towards which the GOP would not be favorably disposed.
This is only your opinion and to disagree with it is not "laughable and ridiculously disrespectful to the millions of voters". There is a sizeable number of non-Dem voters (like me) who will run to McCain if Obama chooses Hillary. To ignore the negative effect she could have on Obama's candidacy is indeed "laughable". Like always happens in these cases, Hillary is at her peak and going forward she will decrease and Obama will increase. By convention time, both pro and anti Hillary passion will diminish and calmer heads will prevail. Your viewpoint is valid but there are "millions" who see it 180 degrees differently. More than Democrats will be voting in November. I have numerous connections that consider her radioactive and the antithesis of what Obama stands for. I should also clarify that Obama doesn't have my vote. For me, it just feels good to know that both parties have nominated people I might vote for.
I think we will get that for the most part. The 527's will do their best to slime the opposing candidate, but overall I think we will get some quality debates.
The 527's will do their damage, but they don't have the platform or the visibility that the candidates do. It won't be a perfect campaign, of course, but it should be better than the last few we've had!
Both Obama and Clinton have become much more defined and their positions much more known in these past few months. In states where both have campaigned (Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, etc.), take a look at the Republican/conservative vote. Take a look at the rural vote from non-Democratic areas. You're exactly right -- more than Democrats will be voting in November. And that's the exact reason she makes the most sense to be on the ticket. Sorry, not this time. "Like always" refers to typical races, like Kerry-Edwards in 2004, where the race was decided relatively early on and there wasn't the division, passion or level of interest in the primary race. Clinton has an extremely intense network of supporters, and they're not going anywhere. They're still going to be passionate, and they're a group Obama needs.
I get your reasoning, The Cat. And I appreciate the way you're taking your candidate's impending loss. Very level headed of you. I think it goes without saying I would not be so reasonable if the situation were reversed. But Hillary can't be his VP. I have been thinking more and more lately about whether or not it might be a wise move on his part and, as much as I have grown to disdain Hillary and her approach to politics over this campaign season, I have really tried to consider it. Andrew Sullivan made a very compelling argument for this idea here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3866584.ece There are three reasons it won't work though. In order of importance they are: 1. She undercuts his message of change. I will speak to that below. 2. Bill Clinton. Having a former president, especially a popular one, as second husband (is that the right term?) would be all kinds of awkward. And that's leaving out all the incredible bad blood between these two men. 3. As I've stated several times, there is just too much good video of both Clintons not only bashing Obama but suggesting that McCain would be a palatable, or even preferable, choice. On the "change" thing, with all due respect, you still don't seem to understand what's meant by it and why it's worked. You are correct that they share policy positions up and down the line but policy has very little to do with the change Obama promises. (If it did, it certainly wouldn't work with crossover voters who disagree with his very liberal positions.) It has to do with a new approach to politics. It has to do with turning the page on 40 years of bitter, divisive arguments between the parties that began during Vietnam. It has to do with being a uniter rather than a fighter. Judging by their platforms, there is pretty much zero daylight between Clinton and Obama. Judging by their approach to politics they could hardly be more different.
You were posting while I was typing. I absolutely agree with what you wrote here. And it's been said by many wise people that the unity Democrats need will be up to the second place finisher way more than the winner. Hillary can't be the nominee for VP for the reasons I listed before, but she will still largely determine whether or not the party is united enough to win in November. I trust that she will make a very compelling argument in favor of Obama to her supporters -- not because she wants to (I think she'd like for him to lose) but because she has to. You are right that the party is deeply divided but that cuts both ways. And both candidates have a lot of reaching out to do to secure their standing with the other half of the party.
Out of curiosity what can Obama do to secure his standing with the other half of the party? He has been against the war since day 1, wants to revisit free trade, is big on alt energy, he is stated a more diplomatic foreign policy...etc. While working-class whites may be favoring Clinton now I think (hopefully) come election time they will pull the lever for Obama. I think it is on Clinton to tell her supporters to support Obama. I was watching an interview with Howard Dean and he was saying it took 3 months for his die hard supporters to embrace Kerry. But eventually they got on board.
I touched on that earlier in this thread -- I find that take on change to be somewhat inconsistent with the positions by a lot of Obama supporters in recent months. When Clinton tried to play the experience card during this campaign, Obama and his camp routinely said she was practically as inexperienced as he was and dismissed her time as First Lady as irrelevant to the political landscape. Now that she's a VP possibility, these same folks label her as part of the "old" approach to politics and part of the former page. If she's as inexperienced as they tried to claim, how could she possibly be a part of the old kind of politics? That's what I don't get, Batman. While I disagree that Obama and Clinton take different approaches to politics, I could respect those who disagree with me if they maintained their positions. But it seems like a lot of people are flip-flopping on the issue of Hillary's "experience" to suit their own bias regarding her.
I agree with you whag. It's more about what Obama needs to avoid doing (calling for her to drop out) than anything he can actually be proactive about -- that is, apart from offering VP, which he will not do. But there are a few things he can do. He can continue to be gracious towards her and her supporters as he was in his speech last night, even going to the length of conceding IN when the results were far from certain. And he will do that. He can offer a generous deal regarding FL and MI, now that they won't change the ultimate results. There are rumors he has reached out to do that too. He could also offer to retire her campaign debt as Tim Russert suggested last night, though I have mixed feelings about that. It would be a positive move toward unity but it would offend me as a donor to learn that I had helped to pay for vicious, dishonest attacks against him. He can ask her what she wants (short of VP) and give it to her. Would she like a cabinet post? Okay. Would she like Senate Majority Leader? Okay. Would she like to lead the fight for universal health care and take equal or even majority credit for its passage? Fine. On the condition that she vigorously campaigns for him.
Experience and old politics are not the same thing. I could run for office tomorrow, having no experience whatsoever, and run an old politics campaign. And when you're being hit on experience day after day by someone who keeps arguing that your career began the day you were elected to the Senate it's only reasonable to apply that same metric to the attacker. I really don't see the flip flop here. And I certainly don't see any situation in which I've been party to taking inconsistent positions. As for your disagreement that they don't take substantially different approaches to politics, I point you (as I have done before) to Bosnia, Chelsea on 9/11, the donors to the Clinton Foundation, Whitewater, impeachment, cattle futures, the Clinton pardons, the Lincoln bedroom and on and on and on. And then I point you to the kitchen sink. Do you honestly think Obama couldn't find some example of an unpleasant "association" in Clinton's storied past while he was taking such a beating on Wright? He chose not to do that. He chose not to hit her on myriad things he could hit her with because it would be clearly hypocritical given his message and would have undercut it considerably -- just as naming her VP would. I've posted more than enough about Clinton's dishonest attacks on Obama on health care (who will he choose to leave out?), abortion rights (the "present" votes that were endorsed and advocated by all IL abortion rights advocacy groups), Iraq (saying she opposed it before he did and Bill saying they'd always opposed it - LOL), etc. There is no corresponding dishonest attack from Obama to Clinton on policy to be found.
Maybe I'm being dense, but what flip-flopping are you talking about? She is not as experienced and seasoned as she claimed. She also practices the destructive/divisive/flame politics that have plagued and hindered this country. Just what is the contradiction?
one has nothing to do with the other. she's polarizing because of her time as first lady, she was unliked and she over stepped her bounds, and she has no experience. how does not having experience contradict polarizing to separate issues. and even if you tried to say she has experience because she is polarizing which is ridiculous in of itself, how's that an argument to make her vp.
Good post. I hadn't even considered how the GOP could use videos and commercials from Hillary's campaign to further impale her credibility if on Obama's ticket. That would be a joke and could get quite ugly. The scorched Earth tactics have basically disqualified her.
