CNN reported: "Even as Hillary Clinton's campaign attacked her rival, Barack Obama, for failing to 'deliver on his promises,' her husband, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that a joint ticket pairing the two would be 'almost unstoppable. I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people 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.'"
ABC News reported the same thing as did MSNBC.
Here is what I find so unpersuasive about this argument:
- The Clinton camp is loosing by almost any measurement and, as a result, what right does it have to suggest that Senator Obama should serve as the VP for Senator Clinton? [This is yet another example of arrogance and the aura of inevitability on display.]
- Senator Obama recently echoed this argument and said: "I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone who’s in first place" (source)
- The Clinton camp has been arguing vehemently that Senator Obama is not experienced enough. Why would Clinton choose someone whom she claims has so limited foreign policy experience?
- On a recent conference call, a reporter asked the Clinton campaign this exact question and received the following response: "We do not believe that Senator Obama has passed the commander in chief test. But there is a long way between now and [the DNC convention in] Denver.” (source) And, what experience as commander-in-chief might Senator Obama get between now and Denver since he is spending an overwhelmingly majority of his time on the campaign trail? It is this type of spin and shallow answer that turns off so many Americans to the political process.
- Bill Clinton was the one who first put forth the argument. Shouldn't this come from Hillary?
No comments:
Post a Comment