Say It Ain't So, BO!
With McCain getting a bounce from his quick if ill-conceived response to the Russia-Georgie conflict, it is clearer than ever that Obama must pick someone with unquestionable foreign policy credibility. The reality that the military adventurism of Bush-Cheney-McCain has left us weaker than before 9/11 will not dissuade many independent voters from a knee-jerk conviction that we "need to be tough" on all potential adversaries, especially Russia. The older voters whose economic circumstances will attract them to the Democrats - the disillusioned Reagan Dems - remember the Soviet Union well and will still feel more comfortable with breast-beating than with negotiation. To counter that, Obama needs someone who can point out the flaws of McCain's positions with unassailable credibility. That should defintely disqualify Kaine. Biden has the credibility but his primary performance raises serious questions about his vote-getting ability. Bayh may have the intellect, but ... I am falling asleep just thinking about him. Wes Clark and HRC still seem like better choices that the three whose faces are all over the papers this morning.
Advertisement
I was praying for Wesley Clark. If only Obama had not chosen to say he shouldn't have said what he didn't say, if you get my drift.
August 19, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure we need the VP for vote getting ability. History bares out that VPs do not decide the election. We need Biden because he is the best person to challenge McCain's abilities and judgement. And I'm still not clear as to how HRC has more foreign policy experience that Biden or Bayh. I keep hearing and reading about it, but I have seen no evidence.
August 19, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still holding out hope for a Hillary pick. I think she's the best pick to turn this election from a nailbiter to a solid not even close victory. No one else can bring the energy and excitement and policy wonkishness to the ticket that Hillary can.
If it wasn't Hillary, you'd think they would have shut down any mention of the topic to prevent folks from having even the teeniest bit of hope crushed. We'll see soon! If not Hillary, I'm all for Clark or Biden, but would be disappointed with a Bayh or Kaine.
August 19, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, the biggest problem in Obama selecting Hillary is that Obama gets Bill in the deal. I just saw that Bill was lauding McCain as the best Republican on energy. Whether that's true or not isn't the point. The point is it shows Bill intentionally undermining Obama's candidacy. Yes, of course, it was intentional. Does anyone truly believe that Bill "the natural" Clinton didn't realize exactly what he was doing?
August 19, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton said he preferred Obama's as better, but gave credit to McCain for being good for a Republican. Help me out here... how is this intentionally undermining Obama's candidacy? Saying someone is the best Republican on the environment is kind of like saying someone is the best player on a really crappy team. I also thought Obama was praising bipartisan solutions to our energy problems which is why he met with Pickens, one of the GOP financers of the Swiftboating of John Kerry. Seems to me Bill Clinton is staying on message.
August 19, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing wrong with being eternally vigilant. On this one, though, I think the Big Dog wasn't undermining Obama.
Remember that Obama himself has praised McCain more than once on the trail, both during the primary and the general. There's nothing wrong with saying McCain's better than any other Republican on energy - especially when you've stated that Obama > McCain and Dems > GOP on energy in the previous sentence.
August 19, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks,
We're three short months out from the election. Why, oh why, would the most recent Democratic president and husband of this years runner-up find it necessary to say anything positive about the GOP opponent at this time?
Cloaking his praise for McCain by juxtaposing it with praise for Obama only serves to water down distinctions the party is trying to draw with McCain. Can you imagine Bush Sr., or Jr. for that matter, praising Obama's foreign policy? Or, how about Mitt Romney's wife praising Obama's economic plan?
Bill may indeed think exactly what he said about McCain. But surely he realizes that now is not the time to say it. The "big guy" is no oaf, and certainly not a political fool.
August 19, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see much wrong with Bill Clinton's statement - if McCain does have the best record on energy for a Republican, it's a fact and no reason not to acknowledge it. HOWEVER ...... Bill as VP-Spouse is a shadow over the presidency and asking for trouble to boot. To the rest of the world it would look like the Russian arrangement (where you *know* Putin is still the one in power), and that might be the perception in a good part of this country as well. And then there is the desire for the spotlight and proclivity for high-risk behavior. Hasn't John Edwards reminded us of how unsavory and disheartening that can be? -------
------ If it weren't for Bill, I could accept and likely even be enthusiastic about Hillary as VP (something I'm astonished to be saying, but she has truly handled herself very well since the primary and during the last part of the primary) .... But because he would inevitably be right there, I don't see how it could or should be a possibility. Let her have a high-level cabinet or Czar position, anything where the spouse doesn't get semi-official status.
August 19, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think, for a candidate like Obama, someone who is not very exciting in himself (or herself) is a good choice. Someone to play cream cheese to Obama's everything bagel, if you.
August 19, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you know what I mean.
August 19, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink